Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Hayde RICHAUD-MINIER and Pascal Grard VALTIMET 27 Avenue du Gnral Leclerc - 92660 Boulogne-Billancourt France Hafida EL-ALAMI and Herv Marchebois Vallourec Research Center Route de Leval - BP 20149, 59620 Aulnoye-Aymeries, FRANCE
ABSTRACT
Thanks to its outstanding resistance to general and localized corrosion attack properties, Titanium has been successfully established as the commonly used material for seawater-cooled heat exchanger tubing, be it for power plants surface condensers, thermal desalination plants heat exchangers or heat exchangers used in the chemical and petrochemical processing industry. In the current material market context in which Titanium price has increased significantly, engineering companies and end-users have shown an increasing interest for more cost-effective alternative solutions using what are called super alloys which are highly alloyed stainless steels showing a far better corrosion resistance than conventional stainless steels. In addition to Titanium, this paper will focus on six different super stainless steel alloys which may be considered alternative solutions to Titanium for seawater-cooled applications: UNS S31254, N08367 and S34565 super austenitic alloys, UNS S44735 and UNS S44660 super-ferritic alloys, and S32750 super-duplex alloy. Taking power plants condensers as an example, the paper reviews both mechanical and corrosion properties for ranking the seven different materials. Both standardized ASTM and electrochemical tests in artificial seawater have been carried out on welded tubes in order to rank the different grade materials according to their pitting and crevice corrosion resistance.
Keywords: titanium, super stainless steel, super austenitic stainless steel, super ferritic stainless steel, super duplex stainless steel, R50400, S44735, S44660, S32750, S31254, N08367, S34565, heat exchanger tubing, welded tubing, condenser tubing, tubing corrosion resistance
INTRODUCTION
Based on titanium immunity to corrosion in marine environments, welded thin-wall titanium tubing have progressively been developed as the best technico-economical solution for seawater service and proved to be the material of choice of those applications. Over the past thirty years, use of titanium tubes has greatly expanded to power plant surface condensers, desalination plants, chemical process and refinery heat exchangers, and auxiliary heat exchangers, with an excellent return of experience indeed. However, given the significant increase in titanium pricing over the past several years, engineering companies and end-users have shown an increasing interest in more cost-effective alternative solutions using highly alloyed stainless steels. These super alloys demonstrate much improved corrosion resistance while maintaining a modest increase in premium pricing when compared to conventional stainless steels. This paper takes the seawater-cooled condenser tubing application as an example to compare titanium with six super alloys alternatives which have been developed on the market: UNS S31254, N08367 and S34565 super austenitic alloys, UNS S44735 and UNS S44660 super-ferritic alloys, and S32750 superduplex alloy. It describes in particular corrosion investigations performed on those alloys used in sea water applications, gathering both electrochemical tests and conventional ASTM tests performed on welded tubes.
Since the year 2000, material prices for Nickel and Molybdenum have been unstable and fluctuating. As a result, the duplex and lean duplex stainless steels including UNS S31803, UNS S32003, UNS S32304 and UNS S32101 have been developed as a cost-effective alternative to traditional standard austenitic stainless steel alloys for use in mild cooling water service. Recently, super-duplex alloys have also been developed in strip form offering additional material options for brackish and seawater service. Table 1. gives the typical chemical requirements of the seven condenser tubing materials this paper focuses on, including R50400 titanium grade 2 material, super-ferritic alloys S44735 and S44660, super-austenitic alloys N08367, S31254 and S34565, and super-duplex alloy S32750. As indicated in the table below, super stainless steels are highly alloyed stainless steels with high Mo, Cr and N contents, which are the key elements to endow with high corrosion resistance properties. Table 1. Typical chemical requirements in % according to ASTM for commonly used stainless condenser alloys
C Mn P S Si max max max max max
1 5-7 2 1 1 1.2 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.8 1 1 1 1 0.8
ASTM
UNS
Cr
Ni
Mo
6-6.5 4-5 6-7 3-4 3.6-4.2 3-5
N
0.18-0.25 0.4-0.6 0.18-0.25 0.04 0.045 0.24-0.32
H
-
O
-
Fe
Rem. Rem. Rem.
Others
Cu: 0.5-1 Cb Cu 0.1 0.75
A 249 S31254 0.02 A 249 S34565 0.03 A 249 N08367 0.03 A 268 S44660 0.03 A 268 S44735 0.03 A 789 S32750 0.03 A 790 R50400 B 338 0.08 (Ti Gr.2)
19.5-20.5 17.5-18.5 23-25 20-22 25-28 28-30 24-26 16-18 23.5-25.5 1-3.5 1 6-8
0.035 0.02
0.03
0.015 0.25
Ti: Rem. Others: 0.3 Each < 0.10 Total < 0.40
Experience in the power generation industry has demonstrated that thermal conductivity is only a small contributor to overall heat transfer. Steam- and water-side film and fouling coefficients have a more
significant influence. Heat transfer performance actually is more closely linked to the corrosion resistance performance of the tubing material. An alloy surface that exhibits low corrosion rates in the heat exchanger environment while remaining relatively clean can provide excellent heat transfer performance over the service life of a heat exchanger. Knowing this, titanium appears therefore as the best alloy regarding heat transfer performance, combining a slightly superior thermal conductivity than super alloys with thin-wall tubing conditions as well as a better corrosion resistance behavior.
Table 4.
ASTM
A 249 A 249 A 249 A 268 A 268 A 789 A 790
UNS
S31254 S34565 N08367 S44660 S44735 S32750
Ultimate Tensile 1 Young Modulus Strength Elongation % 3 GPa ksi x 10 MPa - ksi
675 [98] 795 [115] 690 [100] 585 [85] 515 [75] 800 [116] 35 35 30 20 18 15 200 [29] 190 [28] 195 [28.3] 217 [31.5] 200 [29] 200 [29]
B 338
R50400 Ti GR. 2
275 [40]
345 [50]
20
107 [15.5]
Steam droplet erosion is the second type of erosion damage experienced with condenser tubing immediately adjacent to the turbine exhaust. The problem mainly occurs during winter periods when the condenser cooling water temperature is low, which lowers the condenser back pressure and greatly increases the velocity of wet steam entering the condenser. The condensed water particles (droplets) in the exhaust steam impinging on the condenser tubes eventually removes the metal oxide and metal, and if the condition continues unabated, perforation of the tube eventually takes place. The resistance of this erosion phenomenon is linked to the metal hardness. Higher hardness provides higher erosion resistance. S44660, S44735, S34565 and above all S32750 are therefore particularly resistant to this kind of erosion damage, with a slightly better behavior than S31254, N08367 and Titanium Gr. 2. Thanks to their very high mechanical properties, S44660, S44735, S34565 and above all S32750 are particularly erosion-resistant materials ; in return they are more difficult to mechanically expand and require a greater care during tube-to-tubesheet attachment. The seven alloys under investigation demonstrate excellent resistance to suspended solids (sand) erosion, steam side droplet impingement, cavitation, turbulence and high velocity flow including mechanical damage as a result of flow-assisted corrosion (FAC). Superior mechanical strength associated with these alloys is the principal reason for their excellent resistance to this type of attack.
The PREN is accepted to be a rough tool to estimate the pitting and crevice corrosion resistance of different grades such as conventional austenitic stainless steels (e.g. TP 316L) with highly alloyed stainless steels but quite inaccurate to compare highly alloyed stainless steels together. Still it gives an idea of the corrosion behaviour of the alloys. Table 5. gives the average, minimum and maximum PREN of the six super alloys under investigation, according to the chemical composition range as indicated in ASTM standards. Table 5. PREN (average, minimum and maximum) of super alloys under study
UNS N S31254 S34565 N08367 S44660 S44735 S32750 PREN average 44.1 46.9 43.2 38.1 41.9 42.7 PREN min. 42.2 42.6 42.7 34.9 39.9 37.7 PREN max. 46.0 51.1 49.1 41.2 43.9 47.6
The Critical Pitting Temperature (CPT) and the Critical Crevice Temperature (CCT) are defined in ASTM G48 standard in order to assess the temperature below what a material is not susceptible to pitting and crevice corrosion respectively in ferric chloride solution. The way to assess the temperatures is defined in the following formulas: CPT (C) = (2.5 %Cr) + (7.6 %Mo) + (31.9 %N) - 41.0 CCT (C) = (3.2 %Cr) + (7.6 %Mo) + (10.5 %N) - 81.0 Table 6. and Table 7. give respectively the CPT and CCT of the six super alloys under investigation, according to the chemical composition range as indicated in ASTM standards. Table 6. CPT of super alloys under study, as calculated per ASTM G48 formula
UNS N S31254 S34565 N08367 S44660 S44735 S32750 CPT (C) average 63.4 69.2 67.8 52.5 61.9 60.8 CPT (C) min. 59.1 59.7 60.3 44.3 56.4 49.5 CPT (C) max. 67.6 78.6 75.2 60.7 67.4 72.2
Table 7.
CCT of super alloys under study, as calculated per ASTM G48 formula
UNS N S31254 S34565 N08367 S44660 CCT (C) average 32.8 35.5 30.9 30.6 CCT (C) min. 28.9 27.2 30.5 21.8 CCT (C) max. 36.6 43.3 45.2 39.4
S44735 S32750
41.7 32.3
36.0 21.1
47.4 43.6
Attention is to be paid to the minimum values PREN, CPT and CCT can reach due to the tolerances of the different chemical components of the six super alloys under investigation; due to the alloying elements increasing cost, steelmakers generally tend to minimize their content. The empirical values of PREN, CPT, and CCT are typically accepted benchmarks within industry and are employed as tools to estimate the pitting and crevice corrosion resistance of conventional stainless steel grades. Unfortunately, these calculated values are not sufficiently accurate to legitimately compare the members of the same family of highly alloyed stainless. Corrosion investigations performed on super stainless alloys welded tubing used in seawater applications require both electrochemical and conventional ASTM tests to get a clearer picture of the materials performance.
Corrosion Resistance Tests On Welded Condenser Tubing In order to have more reliable data in terms of corrosion resistance than just data coming from raw materials themselves to compare different alloys for condenser tubing use, we have performed corrosion tests on welded tubing made of the different super stainless steel alloys which chemical analysis are indicated in Table 8. Tested samples are 500 mm long. Table 8.
UNS S31254 S34565 N08367 S44660 S44735 S32750 0.5 0.8
Chemical compositions of welded tubing super stainless steel alloys under test
Cr 19.9 24.4 20.5 27 29.3 25.4 Ni 18.1 17.6 24.0 1.7 0.81 7.2 Mo 6.06 4.49 6.2 3.6 3.8 3.9 N 0.205 0.469 0.21 0.024 0.032 0.299 Cu: 0.44 Ti: 0.19 Cb: 0.35 Ti: 0.17 Cb: 0.38 Cu: 0.14 Ti: 0.005 Co: 0.07 Others Cu: 0.67 PREN 43.2 46.7 44.3 38.9 41.8 43.1
OD WT Mn C max P max S max Si max (mm) (mm) max 0.5 1 0.6 0.013 0.022 0.022 0.028 0.018 0.014 0.54 5.58 0.71 0.36 0.27 0.82 0.018 0.001 0.019 0.001 0.42 0.32
0.023 0.0003 0.38 0.031 <0.005 0.51 0.026 0.0003 0.35 0.018 0.001 0.22
In the present paper, different techniques are implemented to rank highly alloyed stainless steels according to their corrosion resistance. First the electrochemical behaviour of stainless steels is recorded in chloride containing solution, within a wide range of electrochemical potentials, by potentiodynamic curves. Then comparative pitting corrosion resistance is measured using ASTM G48 method E. And finally ASTM G48 method F is performed to compare crevice corrosion resistance of the different highly alloyed stainless steels. Electrochemical investigations: In this part highly alloyed stainless steels resistance to general corrosion is evaluated. This evaluation is done through the analysis of their electrochemical behaviour using polarisation curves. The polarisation curves have been recorded using a GAMRY potentiostat PCI4/300 (DC105 software), which allows the measurement of the current developed on the sample as a function of the time and the applied potential. The electrochemical cell is a conventional three electrodes cell, involving the metal surface to be analysed, a platinum counter electrode, and a Saturated Calomel Electrode (SCE) as a
reference. All experiments are carried out at 50C. Thes samples are cleaned with acetone, with demineralised water, and dried. The solutions used are reconstituted sea water (pH 8.1) and NaCl 100 g/L (pH 6.0), de-aerated with N2. The corresponding curves are represented on Figure 1. Each curve represents the evolution of the current density (j) developed on the steel surface as a function of the applied potential (E). The current density is directly related to the nature and the rate of the electrochemical reactions which occur at the interface between the stainless steel surface and the aggressive solution. Figure 1. shows that the different curves obtained are characteristic of metals that form a passive film at their surface. They present a stable passive state which are more or less similar in the applied conditions: no development of localized corrosion, S31254 steel excepted in 100 g/L NaCl solution. R50400 curve is significantly different from the super stainless steels: current densities developed on R50400 are lower than on the super stainless steels for a given potential, which shows the best global resistance of R50400 to the development of corrosion processes.
1.E-02
S44735 N08367
S44660 S32750
1.E-04
j (A/cm)
1.E-05
1.E-06
1.E-07
1.E-08 -1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
E (mV/SCE)
1.E-02
(a)
S44735 N08367
S44660 S32750
1.E-04
j (A/cm)
1.E-05
1.E-06
1.E-07
1.E-08 -1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
E (mV/SCE)
(b)
Figure 1.
Polarisation curves of highly alloyed stainless steels compared to Ti Gr2, at 50C, in reconstituted seawater (a) and in NaCl 100 g/L (b).
Different parameters have been determined to compare the alloys: the current density developed at the corrosion potential, jcorr, and the corresponding polarisation resistance, Rp. Figure 2. shows that the polarisation resistance Rp is inversely proportional to the corrosion current density jcorr: the higher Rp the lower jcorr, the lower the corrosion rate at the corrosion potential Ecorr. This evolution enables the determination of alloys ranking according to their resistance to global corrosion at the corrosion potential. The sequence of an increasing resistance is as follows: in seawater: S34565 S44660 ~ N08367 S32750 < S44735 << R50400, in 100 g/L NaCl: S34565 N08367 S31254 ~ S32750 < S44660 < S44735 << R50400
As expected, R50400 presents the highest resistance to the development of corrosion processes at Ecorr. Titanium Gr. 2 offers an unmatched corrosion resistance, significantly beyond the super stainless family. From the results it can also be said that super-ferritic stainless steels S44735 and S44660 show a better resistance to general corrosion than the super duplex and super-austenitic alloys, as they present higher Rp and lower jcorr. Super-dupex S32750 is slightly better than the austenitic steels. To evaluate the influence of chemical composition on the resistance of corrosion processes at the corrosion potential, the values of stainless steels polarisation resistance have been represented as a function of the PREN, on Figure 3. It shows that within super austenitic and super duplex stainless steels the modification of chemical composition does not induce significant differences in the behaviour of the corresponding steels, at the corrosion potential in the applied conditions. The lower PREN values of super ferritic stainless steels do not lead to lower corrosion resistance at Ecorr. The difference in microstructure between super ferritic and super austenitic stainless steels seems to lead to an enhancement of the corrosion resistance in favour of super ferritic stainless steels. Within super ferritic group the chemical composition seems to have a significant effect, as it gives to S44735 (higher PREN ferritic steel) better resistance than S44660.
1.E-05
50C seawater
S34565 S44660 1.E-06 S32750 S31254 N0836
j corr (A/cm)
1.E-07 R50400
Rp (ohm cm)
(a)
1.E-05
j corr (A/cm)
1.E-06
S32750
S44735
1.E-07
R50400
1.E+04
1.E+05
1.E+06
1.E+07
Rp (ohm cm)
(b)
Figure 2. Evolution of the corrosion current density jcorr as a function of the polarisation resistance Rp, for the different tested alloys, at 50C, in seawater (a) and in 100 g/L NaCl (b).
Rp (ohm cm)
4.E+04 S44660 3.E+04 super austenitic 2.E+04 SS31254 1.E+04 S34565 0.E+00 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 N08367 super duplex S32750
PREN
Figure 3.
Evolution of polarisation resistance Rp, for the different tested alloys, at 50C, in 100 g/L NaCl as a function of PREN.
From these results it can be said that the super-ferritic stainless steels S44735 (in both solutions) and S44660 (in 100 g/L NaCl) show a better resistance to general corrosion than the super-austenitic alloys, the super-duplex S32750 being slightly better than the austenitic steels. Titanium Gr. 2 offers an unmatched corrosion resistance in both solutions, significantly beyond the super stainless family. Pitting resistance: In this part highly alloyed stainless steels resistance to pitting corrosion is evaluated. This evaluation is done through ASTM G48 E corrosion tests. These tests allow the determination of the temperature at which pits are initiated on the metal, by exposing 50 mm length tubes in a solution containing 6% FeCl3 acidified by 1% HCl (pH around 0.6) at a constant temperature during a standard test period of 24 h. Before exposed to the aggressive solution, the specimens are cleaned in acetone, in demineralised water, and dried. As indicated by the standard just one specimen is placed in one test container.
The results are presented in terms of critical pitting temperature CPT of the welded zone and of the base metal, for the different steels (Figure 4. ). It can be noticed that method C could also be applied to estimate the pitting corrosion resistance. The only difference between method E and method C is the test period respectively 24 h and 72 h. As 24 h is enough to detect pitting on the stainless steels under investigation, and as method E presents better repeatability standard deviation than method C (results of interlaboratories tests described in ASTM G48), method E seems to be the most appropriate test to conduct a comparative evaluation of pitting resistance of stainless steels. ASTM G48 test allows the determination of the temperature at which pits are developed on the metal. Usually, this temperature, also called Critical Pitting Temperature or CPT, corresponds to the minimum temperature at which a pit can be seen. However, this criterion does not take into account the severity of the damage generated. This is why we have decided to define an additional parameter which is considered more appropriate to characterize the reliability of condenser tubing alloys in terms of corrosion resistance: the temperature of critical damage formation. This parameter corresponds to the minimum temperature at which a pit has sufficiently developed to induce a hole in the tube. Then the damage (pit or crevice) will be considered as initiating if its depth is between 25 m and 50 m. It will be considered as a critical damage if its depth is over 50 m. This critical value of 50 m has been chosen according to the wall thicknesses of the tested tubes, which are from 0.5 mm to 1.0 mm: the damage is considered as critical if it overpasses 5% of the tube thickness. In this approach, we have in particular focused when possible on the tubing internal surface which is the one in contact with the cooling water and therefore the surface where corrosion may be prone to develop first in the case of condenser tubing. For tests carried out to only characterize the internal surface of the tubes, the external surface was protected by a varnish. Pitting resistance of external surface of tubes: the results are presented in terms of Critical Pitting Temperature CPT of the welded zone and of the base metal, for the different alloys (Figure 4. ). Table 9. indicates the maximum pit depth measured on the tested alloys at specific temperatures. Based on the lowest CPT, i.e. the minimum temperature at which a pit of at least 25 m depth is observed, Table 9. and Figure 4. show that the sequence of increasing resistance to the initiation of pitting, on the welded tubes, is as follows: S32750 < S44660 < S44735 << R50400 The ranking is the same as the one achieved when using electrochemical techniques and looking at the resistance to corrosion in high content chloride solution at the corrosion potential. This suggests that the initiation of pits is closely linked to the corrosion rate at the corrosion potential. In other words, pits seem to be preferentially formed on alloys surfaces which present a high dissolution rate at the corrosion potential.
90 85 80 75 base metal weld > 85C
CPT (C)
Figure 4.
Critical Pitting Temperature (CPT) values for the welded tube, according to ASTM G48 Method E corrosion test
Table 9.
Values of pit maximal depth of welded tubing super stainless steel alloys tested at different temperatures
T (C) 70 75 80 65 70 60 65 85 tube thickness (mm) 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.6 pit max. depth (m) no pit 25 180 no pit 700 no pit 150 no pit pit max. depth (% thickness) 0 4 26 0 100 0 19 0
Table 10. and Figure 5. show the resulls when looking at the critical damage temperature, which is the temperature at which a critical damage is developed on the tube surface (damage depth over 5% of its thickness). The rankling of the alloys under test in welded tubing condition is as follows: S32750 < S44660 < S44735 << R50400 This ranking is more or less related to the propagation of pits. As expected, it shows that R50400 presents the best resistance to pitting, as no pitting is observed for the tested temperatures. Super duplex S32750 first pits appear at 65C, and the propagation of these pits lead to a critical damage (depth: 19% of the tube thickness) at 65C. For super ferritic S44660, at 70C first pits appear and they are critical for the tube integrity as they immediately form holes. For super ferritic S44735 first pits appear at 75C, but critical damage is formed at 80C (depth: 26% of the tube thickness).
90 85 80 75
T (C)
critical damage
> 85C
Figure 5.
Temperature of critical damage due to pitting corrosion of the welded tube, according to ASTM G48 Method E corrosion test
The evolution of the weight loss associated to each test is represented on Figure 7. Weight losses are representative of the metal quantity which is dissolved during the test. Then Figure 7. also gives an idea of the severity of the damages generated on the tubes. It can be observed that when the weight loss exceeds around 10 mg/m the damage generated at the tube is critical for the tube integrity. The corresponding ranking is in line with the previous ranking related to the propagation of pits and the depth of critical damage.
1000
100
mass loss (g/m)
Figure 6.
Weight losses due to pitting corrosion of the welded tube, as a function of temperature of tests according to ASTM G48 E corrosion test
Internal pitting resistance of tubes: Internal pitting resistance is analysed following ASTM G48 method E. Internal surface of tubes have been exposed to the solution test. The results are presented in terms of Critical Pitting Temperature CPT of the welded zone and of the base metal, for the different alloys (Figure 7. ). It has to be underlined that the seam weld corrosion resistance is as good as the parent metals one; the seam weld of welded tubing is not a weak point in terms of corrosion resistance. Based on the lowest CPT, i.e. the minimum temperature at which a pit of at least 25 m depth is observed, Table 10. and Figure 8. show that the sequence of increasing resistance to the initiation of pitting, on the welded tubes, is as follows: S44660 < S44735 < S32750 < R50400 CPT values show that internal surfaces of tubes are slightly more resistant to the initiation of pits than the external surfaces, for super ferritic stainless steels. This effect is much more pronounced for super duplex S32750, as its CPT is translated over 85C. This is most probably linked to the laser weld seam of this tube as S32750 alloy was the only one of the alloys under test which has been welded using the laser technology whereas all other tubes have been TIG welded. S44725 CPT is still higher than S44660 one. Table 10. Values of pit maximal depth of internal surfaces of welded tubing super stainless steel alloys tested at different temperatures
T (C) 70 75 80 75 80 85 85 tube thickness (mm) 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 pit max. depth (m) no pit 70 700 no pit 350 no pit no pit pit max. depth (% thickness) 0 10 100 0 50 0 0
90 85 80 75
CPT (C)
> 85C
Figure 7.
Critical Pitting Temperature (CPT) values for internal surfaces of the welded tube, according to ASTM G48 Method E corrosion test
Based on the temperature at which a critical pitting is developed on the internal tube surface (damage depth over 5% of its thickness), to take into account the severity of the damage generated on the tube, Figure 8. shows that the sequence of increasing resistance to the development of pits, on the welded tubes, is the following: S44660 < S44735 < S32750 << R50400 No pitting is observed on S32750 and R50400 for the tested temperatures.
90 85 80 75 70
T (C)
Figure 8.
Temperature of critical damage due to pitting corrosion on the internal surface of the welded tube, according to ASTM G48 Method E corrosion test
The results for the tubing internal surface are similar to those achieved for the external surface, except the exceptional behaviour of the S32750 material tubing which was the only welded tube with a laser seam weld, whereas all other tubing have been TIG-welded.
Crevice corrosion resistance: The aim of the present part is to evaluate the resistance of different highly alloyed stainless steels to crevice corrosion. This evaluation is assessed thanks to corrosion tests according to ASTM G48 F standard, on the external surfaces of the tubes for practical testing reasons. ASTM G48 method F is used to determine the Critical Crevice Temperature CCT at which crevice corrosion is generated at the surface of tubes. The steels analysed are: super ferritic S44735 and S44660, super austenitic N08367 and S34565, and super duplex S32750, with respect to R50400. The solution is composed of FeCl3 6% acidified by 1% HCl. The pH is around 0.6.
Based on the lowest CCT, minimum temperature at which a crevice of at least 25 m depth is observed, Table 11. and Figure 9. show that the sequence of increasing resistance to the initiation of crevice, on the welded tubes, is as follows: N08367 < S34565 = S32750 = S44735 < S44660 << R50400 Super austenitic stainless steel N08367 is slightly less resistant to crevice initiation than super austenitic S34565 and than super duplex and super ferritic steels. Super ferritic S44660 has a better resistance to crevice initiation than super ferritic S44735. R50400 always presents the best resistance to crevice initiation. It has here again to be noticed that the seam weld displays the same corrosion resistance as the parent metal. Table 11. Values of crevice maximal depth of internal surfaces of welded tubing super stainless steel alloys tested at different temperatures
tube thickness (mm) 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 crevice max. depth (m) crevice max. depth (% thickness) no crevice 0 30 4 65 9 no crevice 0 100 14 no crevice 0 40 5 100 13 no crevice 0 40 4 100 10 no crevice 0 30 5 60 10 no crevice 0
steel S44735 S44735 S44735 S44660 S44660 S32750 S32750 S32750 S34565 S34565 S34565 N08367 N08367 N08367 R50400
T (C) 30 35 40 40 45 30 35 40 30 35 40 25 30 35 85
70 65 60 55 50
CCT (C)
Figure 9.
Critical Crevice Temperatures (CCT) values for the external surface of the welded tube, according to ASTM G48 Method F corrosion test
Based on the temperature at which a critical damage is developed on tube surface (crevice depth over 5% of its thickness), to take into account the severity of the damage generated on the tube, Figure 10.
shows that the sequence of increasing resistance to the development of crevice, on the welded tubes, is as follows: N08367 <= S34565 = S32750 = S44735 <= S44660 << R50400
70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 N08367 S34565 S32750 S44735 S44660 R50400 critical damage > 85C
Figure 10. Temperature of critical damage due to crevice embrittlement on the external surface of the welded tube, according to ASTM G48 Method F corrosion test
ASTM G48 tests confirm the electrochemical test results, with the high corrosion resistance of super stainless alloys, in particular super-ferritic S44735 and S44660 and super-duplex S32750 alloys, but the superiority of titanium grade 2 material over the super stainless family.
T (C)
CONCLUSION
Depending on the quality of the circulating water, many tube material options can be selected for the steam surface condenser. Despite claims that certain super stainless alloys are the same as titanium, this paper again documents titanium tubing for condenser and heat exchanger service as the uncontested, superior technical solution. Titanium, as it is recognized since a long time ago by the corrosion specialists as the premium and the safest solution, demonstrates general corrosion immunity in sea and brackish water. Titanium also has better heat transfer performance than the stainless family, has very good erosion and excellent corrosion resistances, and has an installation track record approaching 40 years of operation without one reported corrosion event. In addition, titanium can be utilized in very thin-wall gauges (down to 0.4mm/0.016) enabling savings in both first cost and weight. Following decades of power generation and desalination service, its superiority is incontestable and its flawless corrosion-free record intact. Employing a variety of corrosion measurement techniques for evaluating welded stainless steel tubing including electrochemical assessment and ASTM standardized investigations, the paper also presented significant data in support of the use of super stainless tubing in sea water service. However, a careful analysis of the water chemistry, of the operating conditions and the maintenance program has to be done in order to make the most appropriate alloys selection. In order to complete all the laboratory corrosion tests performed on super stainless steels and get as close as possible of the operating conditions of condenser tubing in service, additional tests in natural seawater with fit-for-purpose conditions and addition of chlorine for example have been launched. Admittedly, the family of super alloy stainless steels is not as corrosion resistant as titanium and therefore can be less reliable in terms of lifetime costing. However, when utilized properly and employing regular maintenance programs, super alloys can provide a positive return on the investment. TM3 Consider the excellent experience of bright annealed, ValBrite welded tubing made from UNS S44735 strip. A successful 15 to 25 year European installation experience has proven this super alloy
3
tubing, produced in a protected environment during the heat treating process, can demonstrate a high degree of operational success.
References
1
Titanium and Super Stainless Steel Welded Tubing Solutions For Seawater Cooled Heat Exchangers, by Hayde Richaud-Minier, Pascal Grard and Herv Marchebois, Stainless Steel World 2007 Conference