Chapter 13 • Volume 2
Corrosion Fatigue
Introduction
Corrosion fatigue occurs by the
combined actions of cyclic loading
and a corrosive environment. The
primary occurrence is on the water-
side in waterwall and economizer
tubing, usually located adjacent to
attachments or restraints.
Corrosion fatigue in boiler tubes has
been a major source of availability
loss in fossil-fueled power plants for
over ten years. It is one of the last
major boiler tube failure mecha-
nisms to be characterized to the
point that root cause analysis and
solutions to prevent recurrence can
be defined. Although not as com-
mon as in subcritical boilers, the
same damage has also been found
in supercritical boilers.
Volume 2: Water-Touched Tubes 13-1
1. Features of Failure and Typical Locations
Corrosion Fatigue:
Identification Keys
1. Failures are initiated at the
inside surface, at multiple initia-
tion sites, which can be associ-
ated with pits or other surface
discontinuities.
2. Damage at the outside tube
surface can appear as a pin-
hole, a thick-edge crack that is
usually axial but may be cir-
cumferential, or a thick-edge
section “blow-out”. Particular
care must be taken to distin-
guish corrosion fatigue from
outside surface-initiated
mechanical fatigue.
3. Cracks are usually wide, oxide
filled, with irregular profiles and
evidence of discontinuous
growth.
4. Failures are nearly always asso-
ciated with tube attachments or
other locations where significant
constraint stresses develop. A
list of 24 generic failure loca-
tions has been developed.
13-2 Corrosion Fatigue
1.1 Features of failure
Corrosion fatigue failures occur in
water-touched tubes, usually in
waterwall tubing, but also in econo-
mizer tubing under some conditions.
Corrosion fatigue cracks initiate on
the inside surface. Although they are
predominantly located on the cold-
side of the inside surface such dam-
age may also form on the fireside.
General features of corrosion fatigue
cracks are listed in Table 13-1.
A typical failure is shown in Figure
13-1; key features illustrated here
are the initiation at multiple sites on
the inside of the tube, the longitudi-
nal orientation of the cracks and the
association of the failure with an
external tube attachment. Figure
13-2 shows schematically the gen-
eral features of this damage type;
these features are shown in actual
tubes in Figures 13-3 and 13-4. As
shown, cracks initiate from multiple
sites at the inside surface, are ori-
ented axially, can grow through the
wall, and although they may be
associated with pits and other inter-
nal defects, they are not necessarily
associated with weld defects.
Sometimes damage is also seen on
the outside surface.
Corrosion fatigue cracks have been
identified with three types of macro-
scopic appearance: (i) a pinhole
leak, (ii) a thick-edged crack ori-
ented axially (usually) or circumfer-
entially, or (iii) a thick-edge blow-out
or rupture which usually follows the
membrane weld line either on the
hot or cold side.
The pinhole leak on the tube outside
surface is the most commonly
observed form. Figure 13-4 would
be typical of the cross section
through such a defect type. This
damage manifestation can often be
confused with an OD-initiating
mechanical fatigue crack. There are
three means to distinguish the two.
First, the surface-initiated fatigue
crack is generally associated with
a discontinuity or stress riser, such
as the toe of a weld, whereas the
ID-initiated corrosion fatigue crack
would only rarely break through to
the outside surface exactly at the
toe. An exception would be cracks
that linked—one initiated on the
inside surface and the other initiated
on the outside surface.
Second, when grinding the flaw prior
to weld repair, the outside-surface
initiated damage will decrease with
grinding depth into the tube, the
inside-surface initiated damage will
become more widespread. Third,
externally initiated fatigue cracks
tend to show up earlier in the life of
the boiler.
The second damage manifestation,
the thick-edged crack such as
shown in Figure 13-5. This damage
type is generally associated with
attachments, but may be of consid-
erable length and extend beyond
the attachment area.
The third macroscopic manifestation
of damage is the thick-edge blow-
out or rupture and is characterized
by cracking down both sides of the
tube along the weld lines of the
membrane; this causes an entire
section of tube to fail (Figure 13-1).
This third form is rare but has the
potential to cause catastrophic dam-
age and can be a safety problem if it
occurs on the cold side of the tube in
an area with heavy personnel traffic.
Microscopically, corrosion fatigue
cracks are characterized by features
such as multiple, wide, transgranular
cracks with irregular profiles, usually
filled with oxide and showing signs
of discontinuous growth such as
crack arrest marks. Figure 13-6
shows cross sections through corro-
sion fatigue cracks illustrating these
features.
Table 13-1
Common Features of
Corrosion Fatigue Damage
Macro-features
• Initiation from inside (waterside) of tube.
• “Typical” development on “cold” side of
the tube but can be on fireside.
• Cracks usually oriented longitudinally
with respect to tube axis, i.e., normal to
the predominant stress field, which in the
typical case are tensile hoop stresses.
• Cracks can also be circumferential or any
direction that is normal to the major
applied stress.
• Can be initiated from pits or other surface
discontinuities.
• Not OD-initiated.
• Not specifically related to presence of
weld defects.

Micro-features
• Multiple, transgranular cracks.
• Cracks usually wide.
• Cracks usually oxide filled and blunt
tipped.
• Crack profiles usually irregular.
• Signs of discontinuous growth,
re-initiations.

Figure 13-1. An example of corrosion fatigue cracking in SA-210 A1 waterwall tubing.

Note that the main failure is coincident with an attachment welded onto the tube and
that there are multiple longitudinal cracks on the tube inside surface. Source: G.I.
Ogundele, et al.1b

Volume 2: Water-Touched Tubes 13-3

 Protective Fe 3O4 Water/steam
Secondary side
crack
Deposited
particles

Slip band Extensive

activity oxidation
Spherical Deformed
corrosion particles
pits

Onset of
final fracture

Figure 13-2. Schematic showing the general features of corrosion fatigue cracks.
Source: M.D.C. Moles and H.J. Westwood2

Figure 13-4. Throughwall penetration of

a corrosion fatigue crack. Note how the
crack decreases in width towards the
outside surface. Source: H.J. Westwood
and W.K. Lee3

Figure 13-3. Typical multiple corrosion fatigue cracks in a boiler

waterwall tube. Source: D. Sidey, et al.1d

13-4 Corrosion Fatigue

Figure 13-5. Thick-edged failure by corrosion fatigue. Source: D. Sidey, et al.1d

Figure 13-6. Cross-sections of corrosion fatigue cracks showing typical features: oxide coating of the fracture surface, corrosion
within the crack, wide crack mouths and tips, and a transgranular fracture path. Source: S.R. Paterson, et al.10

Volume 2: Water-Touched Tubes 13-5

 Steam
drum
17

Penthouse Furnace
floor gas exit
scallop scallop
plate 1
plate
Buckstay Top
attachments 18 windbox
2 (a) Corner casing
10 (b) Tie-bars Rear wall attachment
10 (c) Stirrups arch Burner
throat Windbox
1 region
Bottom
windbox
casing Burner
attachment elevations

9
Windbox Buckstay
extension elevations
22 Gas flat bar
recirculation
duct Slope
19 region
6
attachment Boiler water Side wall
seal buckstay
3 + 4 connection
21 5
to slope wall 15 24 24

Front wall Side wall Side (a) (b)

S-bends gusset plate wall/slope Division Lower
wall wall division
connection penetration wall tube
of slope ties
Note: Buckstay corner failures occur at Buckstay elevation ( )
other than in Slope region and Burner elevation

Figure 13-7a. Typical locations for tube failures by corrosion fatigue. Locations in tangentially-fired boilers.
Numbers refer to additional description given Table 13-2. Source: D McNabb, et al.1a

1.2 Locations of failure factors: size, mode of operation, fuel

A major effort has gone into identify-
ing the most common initiation sites
for corrosion fatigue. The predomi-
nant locations are near tube attach-
ments: locations where large
stresses develop during transient
operating conditions as thermal
expansion has been constrained by
the attachment. Typical locations
include windbox casing attach-
ments, buckstay attachments, and
scallop bar attachments. In econo-
mizer tubing, failures have been
reported in bends or the heat-
affected zone of welds.
A list of twenty-four susceptible loca-
tions was developed following the
detailed survey of ten operating
units with a history of corrosion
fatigue failures.1a The units were all
subcritical drum units but otherwise
were chosen to reflect a variety of
type, quality of cooling water and
cycle chemistry. Table 13-2 presents
those locations in order of the fre-
quency with which corrosion fatigue
was found for the units surveyed.
These locations are illustrated
schematically in Figures 13-7a and
13-7b for two generic boiler designs
- a tangentially-fired radiant boiler
and a front/rear fired radiant boiler,
respectively. As a general rule, any
failure associated with constraint
(attachment) should be examined
carefully for evidence of a corrosion
fatigue mechanism.
Table 13-2 summarizes the key
aspects of corrosion fatigue at each
location including: a description of
the design, nature of the failures,
and recommended modifications.
Table 13-2 also presents a “stress

13-6 Corrosion Fatigue

 14
Scallop plate penthouse
floor connection

13 20 12
Side wall buckstay Upper
connection to gas off-
baffle wall take
gusset
plates

Gas Gas off-

outlet takes
7
Upper
windbox 8
casing (a) Burner throat region
attachment (b) Burner mount

Windbox
and
burners

Lower
windbox Slope
casing region
attachment

23 Side wall/
slope wall 16 6
Furnace floor connection
connection End of waterwall Division wall
between front membrane region penetration
and rear walls of slope wall

Figure 13-7b. Typical locations for tube failures by corrosion fatigue. Locations in front/rear-fired radiant boil-
ers. Numbers refer to additional description given Table 13-2. Source: D. McNabb, et al.1a

rank” for the location, and possible A common denominator among

modifications that can be used in
corrective strategies; these two top-
ics are discussed in considerably
more detail in sections that follow.
The problem can also arise in econ-
omizer tubing. The general industry
experience has indicated the most
likely failure locations are (i) at
bends, (ii) in welds with the potential
for high residual stresses such as fin
welds, and (iii) at attachments simi-
lar in nature to those outlined above
for waterwalls. Parts of economizer
circuits can form walls of the back
pass.
nearly all of the most common fail-
ure locations is the presence of sig-
nificant thermal gradients, induced
by either (i) high heat flux typical, for
example, of the sites in the combus-
tion zone of the furnace, or (ii) a
variety of other causes such as
where tubing carrying different
media (e.g. steam and water) are
connected.
Failures have also been found at may be verified
locations without significant thermal
gradient. These are generally the
result of: (i) poor boiler water chem-
istry conditions, (ii) an unusual
structural loading, or both.

Volume 2: Water-Touched Tubes 13-7

Table 13-2
Corrosion Fatigue Failure Site List with Descriptions, Stress Ranking, and Potential Modifications
Location
1. Windbox casing
2. Buckstay corners*
3. Boiler ash hopper seal plate
4. Boiler seal heat shield
(slag screen)
5. Side wall gusset plate
6. Division wall penetration
of slope
7. Burner throat/gas off-take
tube ties
8. Burner barrel mounts
9. Windbox extension vertical
seal
10. Buckstay connections to
waterwalls
13-8 Corrosion Fatigue
Stress Rank
for Use in
Description Influence Diagram Applied Modification
a) Continuous scallop plate–primarily corner B No modification derived
tubes affected
b) Filler bars B Replace cast filler bars with plate
formed filler bars
a) Rigid corner scallop plate connected to buckstay B Remove or relieve rigid corner
b) Lug mounted tie-bar connected to tubes at A Same as for case (a)
corner
c) Tangent/membrane wall with filler bar D Remove filler bar
connections
Continuous scallop plate B Change to U-bolt arrangement
a) Continuous scallop plate B Short tangent bar (3-4 tubes),
or a U-bolt arrangement
b) 6-8 tube tangential bar C Same as for case (a)
Triangular plate between redirected tubes A Change to peg membrane
a) Refractory box rigidly connected at the top D Remove rigid connections
and bottom
b) Continuous scallop plate B Use refractory box without rigid
connections
a) Short bars welded between redirected tangent C Replace tube ties with membrane
tubes bar
b) Short bars welded between tubes in tangent B Weld bar on hot side to restore
tube wall neutral bending axis to geometric
axis of tube
Direct connection from burner barrel to waterwall C Use mounting plate between burner
and wall
Increase the number of attachment
lugs
Windbox extension duct welded directly to vertical D Install expansion plate between
flat bar–flat bar is on outside of windbox, but could windbox casing and flat bar, remove
also be on inside flat bar on inside
a) Continuous scallop tie-bar C Use stirrups or lugs on membrane
walls
Tack weld to alternate tubes on
tangent tube wall
b) Continuous tangent bar tack welded to tubes
• membrane wall D Same as for case (a)
• tangent tube wall B Same as for case (a)
Table 13-2
Corrosion Fatigue Failure Site List with Descriptions, Stress Ranking, and Potential Modifications (continued)
Stress Rank
for Use in
Location Description Influence Diagram Applied Modification

11. Scallop tie-bars Tangent tube waterwalls – most failures at corners D Address source of stress
or associated with abnormally high loads Remove weld from every other tube

12. Miscellaneous waterwall a) Sootblower penetrations D Replace with peg membrane

penetration gusset plates* b) Burner throat and gas off-takes C

13. Miscellaneous filler bar a) Windbox strut attachment D Replace solid filler bars with formed
attachments* b) Side wall buckstay/baffle wall connection D plate filler bars
c) Slope wall support I-beam at side wall B

14. Penthouse floor attachments Continuous scallop plate No modification determined

a) problems most common in corners D
b) more serious if connecting tubes carrying B
different media

15. Side wall/slope wall seal a) Scallop bar D Replace with refractory box
b) Rod welded between tubes B

16. End of membrane More serious adjacent to redirected tube A Cut back membrane

17. Furnace gas exit scallop plate Continuous scallop plate C Move scallop plate further from
• adjacent to redirected tubes redirected tubes and cover with
refractory

18. Rear waterwall arch Continuous scallop bar D Cut scallop bar at intervals to make
• adjacent to separation of hanger tubes discontinuous

19. Side wall buckstay connection a) Tangent bar tack welded to tubes C Replace with scallop bar
to slope wall Evaluate necessity of attachment
b) Scallop bar tack welded on alternate sides of bar D Same as for case (a)

20. Side wall buckstay connection Flat bar connection to baffle wall seal welded with C No modification derived
to baffle wall filler bars at side wall
• lowest connection affected

21. Lower front/rear waterwall Immediately downstream of mud drums, with B Remove scallop bars and replace
S-bends locating scallop bars between tubes affected bends

22. Gas recirculation duct scallop Continuous scallop bar D No modification derived
plate attachment

23. Furnace floor connection Direct connection between nose tubes in opposite C Replace solid filler bars with formed
between nose tubes walls plate filler bars
• filler bars used No other modification derived
• natural gas-fired boiler only

24. Division wall tube ties* First set of tube ties above slope wall D No modification derived

*Listed stress rank applies to locations within the combustion or radiant sections of the boiler.
Source: D. McNabb, et al.1a

Volume 2: Water-Touched Tubes 13-9

2. Mechanism of Failure
Corrosion Fatigue: Mechanism
1. Corrosion fatigue is caused by
the synergistic effects of stress
and environment. This leads to
a breakdown of the protective
magnetite on a tube surface by
both mechanical (stress) and
chemical (environment) means.
2. Corrosion fatigue is a discontin-
uous process with cracks
initiating and growing during
transient periods such as
starts and stops, and full load
operation.
3. Transient operations result in
cyclic strains driven by temper-
ature differences between
attachments and the tube.
During peak strain range peri-
ods reinitiation or initial crack-
ing of the protective oxide will
occur. Full load operation can
result in a corrosive environ-
ment which allows crack
growth.
4. Both initiation and propagation
of the corrosion fatigue are
influenced by the interactions
of: operating factors, chemical
factors, and strain factors. A
probabilistic approach, termed
the Influence Diagram, has
been developed to assess the
impact of these three factors on
the accumulation of corrosion
fatigue damage.
13-10 Corrosion Fatigue
2.1 Introduction
Corrosion fatigue is one of a number
of failure mechanisms that consist of
synergistic effects of stress and
environment. Among the boiler tube
failure mechanisms, other combina-
tions have variously been termed
stress corrosion cracking and
stress-assisted pitting. In many
ways the distinction among various
stress/environment-driven failure
mechanisms is artificial, character-
ized by whether the stress or the
environmental aspect seems to be
predominant. The end result in any
case is the accumulation of damage
through the interaction of the two
basic contributors.
A significant effort has gone into
characterizing corrosion fatigue
damage, differentiating it from dam-
age caused by other mechanisms,
and to targeting solutions specific to
corrosion fatigue. The balance of
this section reviews the following
aspects of corrosion fatigue in boiler
tubes: (2.2) breakdown of mag-
netite, (2.3) overview of mechanistic
models, (2.4) analysis of trends in
the field experience, (2.5) stress
effects on initiation and propagation
including both field measurements
and finite element analysis, and
(2.6) environmental effects including
laboratory and field results.
2.2 Breakdown of magnetite
during corrosion fatigue
The use of carbon steel for boiler
tubes in the high temperature and
high pressure boiler environment
depends on the formation of the
protective layer of magnetite (Fe3O4)
on the waterside of the tube.2-4
Corrosion fatigue presents perhaps
the clearest example of the prob-
lems that develop once that film is
damaged.
In general, the magnetite layer can
be damaged either by chemical
means (corrosion) or by mechanical
means (strain), or by the synergistic
effect of the two5. Destabilization
primarily by chemical means usually
occurs at pre-existing active sites,
resembles pitting and has some-
times been termed stress-assisted
pitting. When the film is destabilized
primarily by strain, corrosion paths
are produced, leading to an array of
cracks and is generally termed cor-
rosion fatigue in boiler tubes.
Rupture of the protective oxide film
leads to more rapid damage by cor-
rosion fatigue because (i) additional
base metal is exposed to corrosion
damage and (ii) the rupture, which
is a crack or crack-like, acts as a
stress concentrator.
The critical strain to fracture mag-
netite at high temperatures is gener-
ally reported to be between 0.01
and 0.1% strain.1b, 6-8 That there is a
lower bound or critical level of strain
that is required to fracture the pro-
tective oxide film and begin the cor-
rosion fatigue damage process is
supported by the German field
experience and from modeling stud-
ies of oxide. In the former instance,
the German design standard TRD
301 requires that the strain level in
oxide be kept below a certain limit,
about 0.1% strain, during operation
to avoid rupturing the magnetite
scale. The lower level of damage
from corrosion fatigue in those boil-
ers seems to confirm the effective-
ness of this limit.
Modeling and analysis of oxide pro-
vides another indication of the effect
of strain level on the appearance of
corrosion fatigue damage. Damage
is often manifested as a surprisingly
regular array of cracks, see Figure d
13-3, for example. Grosskreutz and b
McNeil9 proposed an explanation for w
this phenomenon while analyzing
layers of Al2O3. They suggested that
regularly spaced cracks would form
in a layer under strain, that the sepa- Stress in
Ds ( d2 )
ration between cracks would be a s¦
film (s)
function of the strain level, and that
the separation would decrease until
some minimum was reached. x
o
The stress relaxation model that they
proposed is illustrated in Figure 13-8.
The cracking process will result in Figure 13-8. Schematic representation of the development of a
stress relaxation, with the highest regular array of evenly-spaced cracks caused by corrosion fatigue.
relaxation located immediately adja- (sf) is fracture stress; (Ds(x)) is a measure of stress relaxation.
cent to the crack formed. Therefore, Source: A.G. Crouch and R.B. Dooley4
the maximum remaining (unrelaxed)
stress will be centered between
cracks. With an increasing strain
applied to the coating or oxide layer, Potential (V SHE)
the next crack will then form at the
center between the existing cracks 0.2
assuming a layer with uniform 200°C
properties.
275°C
This model was used to explain the
0
observation of cracks in silica coat-
ings for 9 Cr 1 Mo in experimental
work by Crouch and Dooley4; their
experimental results were used by
Hay and Meadowcroft11 to improve -0.2
upon the original model. The same
model appears to apply to the initia-
250°C
tion of corrosion fatigue cracks and
explains nicely the regular array of -0.4 150°C
parallel cracks on the inner surface.
In addition to the geometry of crack-
ing, the type of oxide that will form
depends on the electrochemical Potentials at 275°C
-0.6
potential of the material, which is in Oxygen Potential
turn controlled by the oxygen con- (ppb) (VSHE)
tent of the water, see Figure 13-9,
5 -0.780
and by the pH. A potential-pH map,
also known as a Pourbaix diagram, -0.8 320 -0.190
is used to identify the stable oxide 1000 -0.090
species for selected conditions.

-1.0
1 5 10 100 1000 10,000
Oxygen Concentration (ppb)

Figure 13-9. Electrochemical potential of carbon steel in water as a function of dis-

solved oxygen content. Source: P.M. Scott and W.H. Bamford12

Volume 2: Water-Touched Tubes 13-11

Figure 13-10 shows a Pourbaix dia-
gram for iron in high temperature Potential (Volt vs. SHE)
water. Plotted on this figure are 2.5
results of laboratory tests using arti-
No corrosion fatigue
ficially high levels of dissolved oxy- 2.0 Corrosion Fatigue
9
gen from a program described
below; corrosion fatigue most readily Fe 3+
1.5
occurs outside the region of mag- 21
netite stability. Once the film is 4
breached, damage accumulates 1.0 Fe42-
Fe(OH) 2+
until the surface is repassivated,
thus repairing the film. 0.5 Fe2+ +
28
Fe(OH) 2
Dissolved salt contaminants such as
chlorides and sulfates are of con- 0 30
cern as they can affect the morphol- Fe2O3
ogy, formation rate, thickness, and -0.5 26
17
23
strength of the surface oxide. As will
13 Fe3O4 29
be described in more detail below, -1.0 27
the contribution to corrosion fatigue Fe HFeO2-
damage in laboratory tests on boiler -1.5 24
tube materials was not as significant
for these environmental variables as -2.0
for either pH or dissolved oxygen -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
levels. pH (e) @ 250°C

2.3 Mechanistic models of cor-

Figure 13-10. Pourbaix diagram showing the stable oxide film as
rosion fatigue a function of electrochemical potential and pH. Stability of a pro-
A review was undertaken of the cur- tective Fe3O4 scale is believed to be related to the severity of
rent thinking on alternative mechanis- corrosion fatigue. Source: C.M. Chen, et al.13
tic models that attempt to predict
from fundamentals the process that
leads to corrosion fatigue damage.1b
A brief description of four such
mechanistic models is included here:
film rupture/stabilization, mechani- Material Active crack tip strain
cal/chemical dissolution, hydrogen assisted dissolution
embrittlement, and/or strain-induced
corrosion cracking. Migra
tion o
f
• Film rupture/stabilization. There are towar vacancies
d c ra c
several variations of this model k tip
which ascribes accelerated crack Corrosive solution
growth to the rupturing of protec- Vacancies
tive films and subsequent re-oxida- Dissolution of metal
tion or corrosion when the bare atoms creates
metal is exposed to the environ- vacancies
ment.5, 14-17 A variation of this
model explains the onset of corro- Atoms
sion fatigue or stress corrosion
cracking as being controlled by
Highly strained region
crack tip effects that can be
explained by the superposition of Vacancies migrate
toward strained region
an environmental effect and a
strain effect.18 Coalescence causes
crack to grow
• Mechanically-assisted chemical
dissolution. Figure 13-11 illus-
trates the basics of this model.
Figure 13-11. Schematic of the mechanical/chemical dissolution model with the
Vacancies, caused by dissolution
feature of the possibility of corrosion-generated surface vacancies migrating to the
of the metal surface in a corrosive crack tip.

13-12 Corrosion Fatigue

 environment are driven by a
stress field and accumulate at the Localized corrosion reactions
crack tip; such coalescence (e.g. 3Fe + 4H2O - > Fe3O4 + 4H2)
results in incremental crack Hydrogen generation and
growth.19 absorption into crack tip
Material
• Hydrogen assisted (or embrittle-
ment) cracking. Hydrogen is pro-
duced by reaction of carbon steel Oxide
bare scale or
with water. Absorption of free surfac
e
hydrogen into the tube metal at
the crack tip has been suggested Oxide free
Corrosive solution crack tip
by a number of researchers as
being at the root of corrosion
fatigue and stress corrosion wa l l
s
cracking mechanisms.20-23 A a ck
s i v e cr
schematic of the process is Pas Highly
shown in Figure 13-12. strained
region
• Strain-induced corrosion crack-
ing. Similar to the film rupture Hydrogen migration
into hightly strained
model, this concept involves the region ahead of
local disruption of protective crack tip
oxide.6, 22, 24 Destabilization of the
oxide can occur by the environ-
ment (dissolved oxygen content,
Figure 13-12. Schematic of the hydrogen embrittlement model showing how
conductivity and temperature of hydrogen is generated at an active crack tip and then absorbed into the material.
the water), mechanical means
(strain rate and strain level), or by
material characteristics (such as
sulfur content).24
Tube Failures
2.4 General trends in corro- 140
Individual boilers
sion fatigue failures: result of
120 Range
the analysis of field results.
A number of factors have an influ- 100 Cycling Boilers
ence on the incidence of corrosion
fatigue in boiler tubes: boiler water 80
and feedwater quality, chemical
cleaning, tube replacement, boiler 60
modifications, and operating mode. Peaking Boilers
General observations from field 40
studies include:
1. Unit operation can have a signifi- 20
cant effect on the incidence of
corrosion fatigue as shown in 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Figures 13-13 and 13-14. Peaking
units have a large number of Total Starts
starts and relatively few operating
hours; cycling units are those that
tend to load follow and have rela- Figure 13-13. Total boiler starts versus tube failures by corrosion fatigue.
tively few starts and a larger num- Source: D. McNabb, et al.1a
ber of operating hours.

Volume 2: Water-Touched Tubes 13-13

2. Chemical cleans by hydrochloric
acid were shown to aggravate
corrosion fatigue as illustrated in Tube Failures
Figure 13-15. For example, boiler 140
1 shows a step function increase Range
120 Peaking Boilers Individual boilers
in the number of tube failures by
corrosion fatigue directly follow-
ing hydrochloric acid cleans. No 100
such dramatic increase in corro-
sion fatigue failures was found 80
after cleans done with EDTA or Cycling Boilers
citric acid. Two competing effects 60
are in progress: crack tip blunting
caused by acid cleaning may 40
slow propagation of modest sized
cracks, but in the case of pre- 20
existing severe damage may lead
to through-wall failure in a much 0
shorter period. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Operating Hours (thousands)
3. Boilers that have had problems
maintaining boiler water and
feedwater limits generally experi-
Figure 13-14. Operating hours versus tube failures by corrosion fatigue.
ence more boiler tube failures by
Source: D. McNabb, et al.1a
corrosion fatigue. Units that have
experienced extensive corrosion
fatigue have had indications that
large swings in pH may have
occurred in the boiler. Such indi- Tube Failures
cators include: hydrogen dam- 140
age, or caustic gouging, or, for HCL clean
those units using congruent Boiler 8 EDTA or citric
phosphate boiler water treatment, 120 acid clean
evidence of phosphate hideout.
Particularly important are pH 100
depressions during shutdown Boiler 1
and startup where pH drops to 80
less than 8 such as caused (i) in
phosphate treatment units when
there is a phosphate hideout 60
return, or (ii) in AVT units caused
by CO2 ingress and slippage 40
through the condensate polish-
ers. It is interesting that corrosion Boiler 7
fatigue occurs much less fre- 20
quently in caustic-treated boilers;
these units do not usually experi- 10
ence a pH depression during 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
shutdown or early startup. Operating Hours (thousands)
Hideout and hideout return analy-
sis of sulfate can be very informa-
tive for boilers on AVT. Up to 1500 Figure 13-15. Operating hours versus corrosion fatigue tube failures illustrating the
ppb of sulfate has been observed effects of different chemical cleaning solutions. Source: D. McNabb, et al.1a
during the overnight shutdown of
boilers.25

13-14 Corrosion Fatigue

4. Boiler layup conditions were also
suspected to aggravate damage
by corrosion fatigue, particularly if
the pH was depressed and dis-
solved oxygen levels were not
controlled.
2.5 Stress effects on initiation
and propagation of corrosion
fatigue cracks
Corrosion Fatigue: Summary of
Key Stress Factors
1. Local stresses and water
chemistry are considered to be
the two major factors that pro-
mote corrosion fatigue.
2. A methodology is not yet fully
established that can (i) predict
stress levels at locations sus-
ceptible to corrosion fatigue,
(ii) predict the rate at which
damage will accumulate, or
(iii) confirm, a priori the degree
to which a proposed attach-
ment modification will result in
lower tube stresses.
3. However, guidelines for the
application of finite element
analysis and field confirmation
have been developed and con-
firmed in field testing. These
should guide utilities in the
careful use of such techniques.
As noted above, the state of stress
is a primary consideration in the
analysis of corrosion fatigue.
Predicting where corrosion fatigue
will occur, predicting how quickly
damage will accumulate, and pre-
dicting the effectiveness of pro-
posed modifications to mitigate a
high stress condition will all ulti-
mately require a knowledge of how
to measure or analyze the relevant
state of stress. This section reviews
recent work toward that goal.
Sources of loads acting on tubes
include (i) boiler pressure, (ii) ther-
mal gradient through the tube (heat
flux), (iii) constraint during thermal
loads on boiler
tubes
expansion, and (iv) weight of the
attachment (for some locations).
Field tests have identified two major
sources of cyclic strain: strains
resulting from the pressure and tem-
perature ramp during boiler starts,
and strains from subcooling in nat-
ural circulation boilers.
An idealized view of the levels of
strain that would be expected dur-
ing various load changes are shown
in Figure 13-16. The results of strain
gauge tests performed on three dif-
ferent types of units confirmed that
cold starts resulted in the highest
measured tube strains; warm starts,
hot starts, and load changes, both
sliding pressure and constant pres-
sure, resulted in lesser levels. The
typical trends for a cold start are
shown in Figure 13-17. The peak
strain occurs at the point when the
boiler reaches full operating pres-
sure. This peak strain corresponds
to the maximum thermal gradient
through the tube as shown by the
difference between the tube temper-
ature and the attachment tempera-
ture shown in the top part of Figure
13-17. Hoop strains then decline to
steady state levels as the thermal
gradient decreases.
The strains measured in units were
lower than expected and lower than
those which were thought, from lab-
Peak
Strain
»
(me)
Cold Steady Sliding
start state pressure
load change
»
Time
Figure 13-16. Schematic of an idealized strain cycle for a cold start, sliding pressure
load change and shutdown. Source: D. Sidey, et al.1c
oratory investigations, to be needed
to develop corrosion fatigue dam-
age. Refinements to the measure-
ment process have been made and
subsequently applied to other units
and have resulted in measured
strain levels on the order of 0.2 to
0.3%, more consistent with that
needed for the accumulation of cor-
rosion fatigue damage.
The second largest level of strains
developed as a result of subcooling
during warm starts. Subcooling
occurs in natural circulation boilers
when there is a top to bottom tem-
perature stratification during “bot-
tled” cool down periods. The magni-
tude of the subcooling effect first
increases, peaks at about 50 hours
after shutdown for most natural cir-
culation units, then starts to decline
as temperatures over the height of
the boiler start to equalize. The
largest thermal transient in the sub-
sequent start was observed in the
lower furnace. It is believed that
strains resulting from subcooling
may not be an important contributor
to corrosion fatigue in boiler tubes
although a more important factor in
thicker walled components. The
strains associated with subcooling
occur early in the start of a unit
when boiler pressure and heat
fluxes are low, and thus overall tube
stresses are low.
Steady state
»
Partial sliding
pressure
shutdown
Shutdown
Zero pressure
shutdown
Volume 2: Water-Touched Tubes 13-15
Guidelines for utility application of
stress analysis in attacking corrosion 500
fatigue problems are presented in Hoop strain (me)
Section 6 below on long-term 400
actions to deal with corrosion fatigue
damage. 300 Tube
temperature (°C)
Attachment temperature (°C)
200
2.6 Environment effects on the
initiation and propagation of 100 Axial strain (me)
corrosion fatigue cracks
0

Corrosion Fatigue: Summary of -100

Key Environment Factors
500
1. There is a clear effect of envi- Unit load (MW)
ronmental parameters on the 400
Coal fires
Feedwater flow (kg/s)
severity of corrosion fatigue ini- 300 Roll turbine
tiation and propagation. The Lost coal fires Unit
effects are independent of the 200 synchronization
Purge Coal fires
basic treatment chosen, for 100 Oil Drum pressure (MPa X 10)
fires
example AVT compared to 0
congruent phosphate treat-
ment. 80
CBD O2
10.8
(ppb) CBD phosphate (ppm x 10)
2. Most obvious effects are for pH
excursions and the presence of 60 10.2
high levels of dissolved oxy- CBD - pH
gen. 40 9.8 pH
3. pH is particularly important as CBD cation
low pH excursions, such as 20
conductivity(mS/cm)
9.4
associated with phosphate
hideout, can occur concur-
rently with high strain in sus- 0 9.0
ceptible tubes. 22 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (hours)

There is no comprehensive model
that can predict the effect of various
environmental factors on the rate of
initiation and propagation of corro-
sion fatigue cracks in the boiler envi-
ronment. A number of past experi-
mental programs have been con-
cerned with isolating the effect of
one or more major parameters such
as dissolved oxygen, pH and cation
conductivity. A broad outline of
those studies and some of the impli-
cations are presented in the first part
of this section (2.6.1)
There have also been a few field
studies that have tried to correlate
the results of the laboratory investi-
gations with field measurements of
similar factors, and with the inci-
Figure 13-17. Strain, temperature and cycle chemistry information collected on the
cold start of a 500 MW unit. (CBD) is continuous blowdown. Source: D. Sidey, et al.1d
dence or extent of corrosion fatigue A knowledge of cycle chemistry par-
damage. Unfortunately there has not ticularly during starts and transients
been good correlation between what is essential. For example, at one unit
was thought to be important in the the major parameters (dissolved
laboratory and what was measured oxygen, pH and cation conductivity)
in the field. In the broad outline in were well maintained throughout
section 2.6.2 is a summary of what transients. This was the result of
is presently known, what is thought specific operating procedures which
to be correct and is undergoing con- allowed up to 1 ppm free hydroxide
firmation, and what is presently to counteract a phosphate hideout
unknown. The discussion here is lim- problem. Prior to making that
ited to specific knowledge about change in procedure, pH would
boiler tube materials, the boiler envi- drop to around 7 during shutdown
ronment and stress levels, and and remain around that level until
actual field investigations in working restart.26 Similar hideout was
boilers. observed during load changes as

13-16 Corrosion Fatigue

 well. This hideout phenomenon has
Cycles to Initiation been well documented27, 28 and has
important implications for units on
104
congruent phosphate control. See
additional discussion on this topic in
Chapter 3, Volume 1.
103 In the final part of this section (2.6.3)
a brief note clarifies the use of oxy-
genated feedwater treatment, and
how its use in drum boilers can be
102 consistent with the observation that
increased levels of dissolved oxy-
gen have increased the propensity
for corrosion fatigue damage in lab-
10 Air Data (274°C) oratory tests.
Clean AVT water at 274°C
2.6.1 Laboratory results. The follow-
Contaminated AVT water at 274°C ing results have been obtained from
laboratory studies1b; it is important
1 to note that there have been some
10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 1 10
differences from those obtained in
Frequency (Hz)
field tests:
1. The number of cycles to crack
initiation by corrosion fatigue are
Figure 13-18. Effect of cycle chemistry and frequency on the lower in simulated boiler water,
initiation of corrosion fatigue cracking.
either high-quality or contami-
Source: G.I. Ogundele, et al.1b
nated, than in air. Figure 13-18
shows this result. The number of
cycles to initiation is markedly
influenced by the presence of
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) ppb contaminants (lower curve).
104 However, there is very little differ-
LOG (N) = 3.3883 - 0.5256 LOG (DO) ence in these results between the
R = -0.9842 normal base chemistries for AVT
Phosphate test data and phosphate.
AVT test data
103 2. Figure 13-18 also indicates that
the frequency of strain reversal is
important for initiation. Lower fre-
quencies increase the corrosion
102 fatigue initiation potential.
Frequency effects are also evi-
dent for propagation rates.
Higher frequency tests in labora-
10 tory experiments are not thought
to allow the full effects of the cor-
rosion aspect of the damage
mechanism to influence the crack
1 growth. Long periods at lower
10 102 103 104 strains between cycles allow full
Cycles to Initiation, N influence of corrosion effects.
3. Dissolved oxygen was shown to
have a strong influence on cycles
Figure 13-19. Effect of oxygen on corrosion fatigue initiation at to initiate corrosion fatigue as
274°C (525°F) and a frequency of 0.0005 Hz.
illustrated in Figure 13-19.
Source: G.I. Ogundele, et al.1b

Volume 2: Water-Touched Tubes 13-17

4. pH level was also shown to have
a strong effect. A series of speci-
mens was tested in solutions with
a constant levels of 5 ppb dis-
solved oxygen and with varying
phosphates to simulate acidic
phosphate hideout return. The
number of cycles to initiation was
reduced to about 1/3 at both
204°C (400°F) and 274°C (525°F)
when the pH level was approxi-
mately 6 as compared to the base
condition of pH 9. Figure 13-20
illustrates this important result.
5. The presence of chlorides and
sulfate had less noticeable
effects, with the effect of chlorides
up to 3000 ppb the most signifi-
cant in reducing cycles to initia-
tion.
2.6.2 Implications of laboratory tests
to operating boilers and comparison
to field results. What are the impli-
cations of laboratory test results,
particularly for dissolved oxygen lev-
els and pH on the potential for cor-
rosion fatigue in boilers? The effect
of oxygen levels are reviewed first.
It is clear that in the laboratory envi-
ronment an increase in dissolved
oxygen levels from 5 to 1000 ppb
will significantly decrease the num-
ber of cycles to initiate corrosion
fatigue cracks (Figure 13-19). There
is also no doubt that during a shut-
down period the oxygen level in
boiler water can reach high, per-
haps saturation, levels; but upon first
firing and circulation of the boiler
water the dissolved oxygen levels
decrease once the deaerator and
drum start to separate oxygen. As a
result, the experience from field test-
ing has indicated that oxygen at
high levels (> 20 ppb) does not gen-
erally occur at the same time as the
peak in applied strain level (Figure
3-17); peak strains occur well after
the time when oxygen levels have
approached a low level. It is impor-
tant to know the time dependency of
the elevated oxygen levels on
startup and especially important to
monitor the oxygen levels in the
downcomer as compared to the
boiler drum.
13-18 Corrosion Fatigue
Cycles to Initiate Cracks
1200
400°F (204°C)
1000
525°F (274°C)
800
600
400
200
0
4 6 8 10
pH @ 25°C
Figure 13-20. The influence of pH on cycles to initiate corrosion fatigue cracks in
deaerated boiler water (< 5 ppb oxygen). The pH was controlled with phosphate solu-
tions of different Na:PO4 molar ratios. Source: R.B. Dooley and L.D. Paul32
This situation is contrasted with that conditions in three units that had his-
for pH depressions on shutdown/ torical problems with corrosion
startup. Such depressions can be fatigue-induced tube failures.1c At
caused by phosphate hideout the time of testing, as shown in the
return, leakage from condensers, or table, boiler water chemistry for
ingress of carbon dioxide. In these units A and B was generally well
cases, particularly the first, the pH within acceptable values when tube
level does not return to the normal strains were highest during both
range until the unit pressure has cold starts and during warm starts.
risen considerably and/or phosphate What then was at the root of the
or caustic has been added to the problem with corrosion fatigue?
unit. Thus, the pH of the boiler water Subsequent investigation indicated
can be depressed during the period that each unit had been subject to
of peak strain at locations suscepti- considerable past problems with
ble to corrosion fatigue. A pH level phosphate hideout and concurrent
of 8 and below is not unusual in possibility of low pH excursions
these cases as shown in Figure 16- when operating with congruent
7. As indicated in Figure 13-20, this phosphate treatment. As a result,
can reduce the number of cycles to both units had changed to equilib-
initiate or re-initiate corrosion fatigue rium phosphate treatment before the
cracks. field tests and had not been experi-
encing hideout, hideout return, or
Note that care is required to judge the low pH excursions which result.
field test results. Table 13-3 shows
chemistry, strains and temperatures
measured for a variety of operating
Table 13-3
Field Test Results
Temperature
Temperature Rate of Hoop Axial
Range Change Strain Strain Dissolved Cation
(Tube OD) (Tube OD) DeH DeA Oxygen conductivity
Operation/Boiler DT (˚C) (˚C/hr) (µe) (µe) pH (ppb) (µS/cm)

Cold Start

Unit A 170 70 280 -700 8.6 - 9.5 > 1,000 to < 1 2 - 10

Unit B 145 120 500 50 10.0 - 9.5 > 1,000 to < 5 20 - 40

Unit C1 260 250 150 — 8.5 - 7.2 > 1,000 to < 1 1 - 11

Unit C2 (trip) 160 1,750 2,000 — 8.5 - 7.2 > 1,000 to < 1 1 - 11

Warm Start

Unit A1 60 50 200 -500 9.2 - 9.4 <2 3-7

Unit A2 45 700 170 -500 9.2 - 9.4 <2 3-7

Unit B 125 110 400 -100 9.2 - 9.4 <2 10 - 30

Hot Start

Unit A1 40 80 100 -175 9.1 - 9.3 <5 2-6

Unit A2 50 350 100 -250 9.1 - 9.3 <5 2-6

Unit B 50 70 220 -100 9.1 - 9.8 <5 5 - 40

Load Changing

Unit A 40 75 115 -125 9.1 - 9.3 <5 2-6

Unit B — — 50 50 9.2 - 9.6 <5 10 - 25

Unit C1 50 90 80 — 8-9 <1 3.2 - 2.8

Unit C3 30 1,500 -700 — 8-9 <1 3.2 - 2.8

Notes:
1Pressure/temperature ramp event
2Subcooling correction event.
3Unidentified temperature excursion

Source: D. Sidey, et al.1c

Volume 2: Water-Touched Tubes 13-19

These results imply that cracks may
only initiate, reinitiate and/or grow
when environmental conditions are
conducive. Inactive cracks are
found in field studies, indicating that
the process is not continuous but
consists of a series of re-initia-
tions.1d Laboratory tests are seldom
able to duplicate this feature of field
cracking because of the time con-
straints inherent in any test program.
This discontinuous nature of the cor-
rosion fatigue process also makes
life assessment a very difficult task.
2.6.3 Oxygenated water chemistry
and effect on corrosion fatigue. The
operation of supercritical and once-
through units on oxygenated treat-
ment has been fairly widespread.
Today however, the operation of
13-20 Corrosion Fatigue
drum units on oxygenated feedwater
is also being implemented as the
benefits are expected to be similar
to those for once-through units. The
level of oxygen entering the econo-
mizer inlet has to be carefully con-
trolled to ensure that elevated oxy-
gen levels do not occur in the boiler
tubes. As indicated in the last sec-
tion, once the boiler starts to steam
then the oxygen level in the water-
walls is controlled by the recircula-
tion ratio (the ratio of oxygen at the
economizer inlet to that in the down-
comer) which is typically between 6
at low load and 4 at full load. A sam-
ple point for oxygen in the down-
comer rather than in the drum is
thus needed to control the oxygen
levels.
For drum units, utilities should add
oxygen only when the unit is steam-
ing, operating above a certain mini-
mum load, when the feedwater
cation conductivity is less than 0.15
mS/cm, and when the boiler water
(downcomer) cation conductivity is
less than 1.5 mS/cm. Some utilities
add oxygen no more than once a
week. Whatever procedure is
adopted for control, the oxygen level
should be targeted to keep the oxy-
gen level in waterwall tubes at
around 5-10 ppb. Oxygen at this
concentration should have minimal
influence on the initiation of corro-
sion fatigue cracks (see Figure 13-
19). Guidelines for oxygenated treat-
ment for fossil plants have been pro-
duced.29
3. Possible Root Causes and Actions to Confirm
Corrosion Fatigue: Root Causes
1. Corrosion fatigue is caused by
a combination of cyclic
stresses/strains and environ-
mental effects. Analysis of root
causes will consist of identify-
ing excessive sources of these
contributors.
2. An “influence diagram” can
help judge the relative contri-
bution of the various root
cause influences to an identi-
fied problem with corrosion
fatigue and to judge the effi-
cacy of proposed solutions.
3. The influence diagram should
be considered as a predictive
tool to anticipate the potential
for corrosion fatigue, even in
new units.
Applicable
3.1 Introduction
Corrosion fatigue is caused by the
interaction of stresses and environ-
ment. The effects are synergistic
and, as of yet, no closed form model
or analytical tool can predict corro-
sion fatigue initiation and propaga-
tion from first principles. A method
that is based on an influence dia-
gram has been developed and
allows decisions to be made about
the relative contribution of various
root cause influences. It also pro-
vides a tool to evaluate possible
approaches to prevent the recur-
rence of corrosion fatigue; the
method is discussed at the end of
this section.
The discussion of root causes is
divided into excessive stresses
(3.2), environment (3.3), and opera-
tional history of the boiler (3.4), as
each can contribute to the problem
of corrosion fatigue. Table 13-4 sum-
marizes the potential root causes,
actions to confirm, and immediate
and long-term actions to be taken.
3.2 Influence of excessive
stresses/strains
3.2.1 Restraint stresses at attach-
ments. Primary failure locations are
in tubes near attachments; many
successful solutions to the problem
have been effected by lowering the
stresses associated with the restraint
at these attachments. Stress analy-
sis and confirmation with field mea-
surements should be used in any
redesign situation, particularly as
some redesigns to combat corrosion
fatigue by “lowering” local stresses
have actually accumulated damage
more quickly than the original
design. It should also be noted that
weld reinforcement at an existing
attachment in an attempt to improve
the weld profile and eliminate fatigue
caused by thermal restraint has
resulted in tube failures due to cor-
rosion fatigue within two years. No
corrosion fatigue cracking was
experienced with identical boilers
where the weld profile was improved
by grinding.
Actions to confirm the influence of
excessive stresses/strains include:
(a). Compare locations of damage
to those compiled in Figures 13-
7a/b and in Table 13-2. Note partic-
ularly those locations with high
stress ranks, i.e., where field survey
experience indicates attachment
details are likely to have the highest
stress levels.
(b). Use Figures 13-7a/b and Table
13-2 as an inspection guide to
locate other highly susceptible loca-
tions before damage is detected via
tube failure.
(c). Selectively sample tubes to see
if cracking has initiated.
(d). Field test with thermocouples
and/or strain gauges to confirm the
levels of strain developed at sus-
pect attachments during operation,
including hot, warm and cold starts.
(e). Perform finite element stress
analysis for the suspect detail to
confirm field results and/or predict
future behavior. See the guidelines
for stress analysis and field testing
in Section 6 on long-term actions.
3.2.2 Subcooling in natural circula-
tion boilers. High strains have
occurred during subcooling (stratifi-
cation of cooling water along the
length of the waterwall) during shut-
down and restart in natural circula-
tion boilers.
Actions to confirm:
(f). Review operating records.
(g). Install thermocouples at the top
and bottom of the boiler and monitor
the ÆT as a function of shutdown
length.
(h). Strain gauge to confirm exis-
tence and seriousness of the prob-
lem.
Volume 2: Water-Touched Tubes 13-21
Table 13-4
Major Root Cause Influences, Confirmation and Corrective Actions
Major Root Cause
Influences
3.2 Influence of Excessive
Stresses/Strains
3.2.1 Restraint stresses
at attachments
3.2.2 Subcooling (cooling
water stratification)
in natural circulation
boilers
3.3 Influence of
Environmental Factors
3.3.1 Poor water chemistry
13-22 Corrosion Fatigue
Actions to Confirm
(a). Compare damaged locations to those
typical of corrosion fatigue. See Figures
13-7a/b and Table 13-2.
(b). Inspection of susceptible locations
before tube failures occur.
(c). Selectively sample to identify damage
accumulation.
(d). Thermocouple and/or strain gauge test-
ing to confirm high strain
locations.
(e). Finite element stress analysis to
predict high strain locations.
(f). Review operating records.
(g). Thermocouple top and bottom of
boiler to monitor DT as function of
shutdown time.
(h). Strain gauge to confirm.
(i). Review water chemistry logs and prac-
tices, with particular emphasis on pH
reductions during shutdown and early
startup; if review indicates a problem
then implement a monitoring program.
See discussion of minimum levels of
instrumentation in Chapter 3, Volume 1.
(j). Calculate Environmental Parameter for
use in Influence Diagram from informa-
tion gathered above Section 3.5.2 and
Table 13-5; this will help determine the
contribution of environment to the
corrosion fatigue problem.
(k). Selectively sample tubes from at-risk
areas for evidence of pitting or corro-
sion fatigue damage
Immediate Actions
and Solutions
• Apply Influence Diagram
(Section 3.5) as a tool to
identify proper short-
and long-term solutions.
• Replace damaged tubes.
• Do not pad weld.
• Determine the extent of
damage.
• Confirm damage
mechanism is corrosion
fatigue.
• Same as above.
• Same as above, particu-
larly initiating the appli-
cation of the Influence
Diagram to characterize
the contribution of the
environment.
Long-Term Actions and
Prevention of Repeat Failures
• See guidance in Section 6.2.
• Most effective measures have been
modification of attachments to lower
stresses.
• Install off-line boiler circulation pumps
to reduce level of subcooling.
• Clean up overall cycle and confront
specific chemistry problems such as
condenser leaks, impurity ingress,
lack of appropriate procedures, lack
of appropriate monitoring devices, etc.
• Apply appropriate guideline procedures
for specific chemistry, monitoring,
and instrumentation. See overview of
recommended practices in Chapter 3,
Volume 1.
Table 13-4
Major Root Cause Influences, Confirmation and Corrective Actions (continued)
Possible Root Cause Immediate Actions Long-Term Actions and
Influences Actions to Confirm and Solutions Prevention of Repeat Failures

3.3.2 Overly aggressive (l). Review chemical cleaning procedures, • Same as above, plus • Optimize chemical cleaning procedures
or improper chemical and correlate chemical cleaning with • Revise chemical clean- and frequency. See overview in
cleaning corrosion fatigue failures. ing procedures, as Chapter 4, Volume 1.
(m). Selective sampling of at-risk tubes. required.

3.3.3 Improper boiler (n). See actions in items (i),(j) above. • Same as above, plus • Optimize shutdown, lay-up procedures.
shutdown and/or • Optimize shutdown, lay- • See overview in Chapter 4, Volume 1.
lay-up procedures up procedures.

3.4 Influence of Historical

Unit Operation

3.4.1 Operating procedures (o). Review operating records to determine • Apply Influence Diagram • See guidance in Section 6.2.
that have produced operating hours and boiler starts. as a tool to identify • Reduction of stresses or improvement
high stresses (p). Plot failure history against unit operat- proper short- and in environmental parameter are possible
ing conditions. See Figures 13-13 long-term solutions. actions.
and 13-14. • Replace damaged tubes.
• Do not pad weld.
• Determine the extent of
damage.
• Confirm damage
mechanism is corrosion
fatigue.

3.3 Influence of environmental
factors
3.3.1 Poor water chemistry. A vari-
ety of excursions, including low pH,
high levels of dissolved oxygen, and
cycle chemistry contaminants, can
influence both propagation and initi-
ation of corrosion fatigue. Poor water
chemistry will accelerate the corro-
sion attack in existing cracks or
breaks in the protective oxide; pit-
ting caused by poor shutdown
chemistry can provide a preferential
initiation site for starting corrosion
fatigue cracks.
Actions to confirm:
(i). A two-pronged approach is
required. The first part will be a
review of the chemistry records and
logs. Particular emphasis should be
given to reductions in pH during the
shutdown and early startup periods.
For phosphate-treated units, the key
question will be whether phosphate
hideout occurs, which will result in
phosphate return with concurrent pH
reductions during shutdown or load
reductions. For AVT units, depres-
sions in pH during shutdown and
early start up can result from conta-
minant ingress, slippage from the
condensate polisher, or carbon diox-
ide ingress. For both chemical treat-
ments, the pH depressions can
remain during the early startup
period.
(j). Using information gathered
above, evaluate the severity of the
environmental contribution to the
corrosion fatigue problem by calcu-
lating the “environmental parameter”
for the influence diagram. This
process is discussed in more detail
in Section 3.5.2.
If the review indicates a problem,
then a monitoring effort should be
undertaken. The primary aim of such
a program would be to confirm any
pH reduction. It should also address
the possibility that dissolved oxygen
in the boiler tube, as monitored at
the downcomer, is high during shut-
down, and more importantly,
remains high (³ 20 ppb) well into the
startup period (past pressure rais-
ing).
(k). Selectively sample tubes from
high stress areas, or other at-risk
locations, to determine whether pit-
ting has begun, or whether there is
evidence of more advanced dam-
age such as developing corrosion
fatigue cracks.

Volume 2: Water-Touched Tubes 13-23

3.3.2 Overly aggressive or improper
chemical cleaning. Aggressive
chemical cleaning can promote initi-
ation and propagation of corrosion
fatigue damage.
Actions to confirm:
(l). Review chemical cleaning pro-
cedures and plot out corrosion
fatigue failure history against past
chemical cleaning events as shown
in Figure 13-15.
(m). Selectively sample for evi-
dence of initiating or propagating
corrosion fatigue cracks.
3.3.3 Improper boiler shutdown
and/or lay-up procedures.
Oxygenated stagnant water is a key
ingredient for pitting and the forma-
tion of corrosion fatigue initiation
centers. Proper shutdown and/or
layup procedures are vital. These
involve the adequate use of N2H4 or
alternatives, or ensuring nitrogen
blanketing.
Actions to confirm:
(n). Ensure that excessive oxygen
levels are not present into the
startup period, see items (i, j) above
for specific actions required.
3.4 Influence of unit operation
3.4.1 Operating procedures that
have produced high stress levels,
particularly during load changes.
Field experience indicates that the
highest cyclic strains are developed
in tubes during load changes, par-
ticularly cold starts. Increased
cycling of the unit, choice of ramp-
ing rates, and other operating
choices can adversely affect a mar-
ginal location. Peaking boilers with a
large number of starts and few
operating hours display a distinctly
different failure trend than base load
or load-following boilers. The influ-
ence diagram incorporates this con-
sideration through a combination of
the number of operating hours (H)
13-24 Corrosion Fatigue
and total boiler starts (Ns) into one
parameter termed the equivalent
operating hours (EOH):
EOH = (H/1000) +
(NS/(H/1000)) (13-1)
Actions to confirm:
(o). Review operating logs to deter-
mine operating hours and boiler
starts.
(p) Plot failure history by corrosion
fatigue, if any, against unit operating
conditions to observe patterns like
in Figures 13-13 and 13-14.
3.5 The influence diagram and
its use to confirm root cause
influences.
Figure 13-21 illustrates the influence
diagram approach to analysis of
corrosion fatigue susceptibility or
failures. The approach integrates
the three basic influences on failure
of boiler tubes by corrosion fatigue:
stresses, environment and unit oper-
ating history.
3.5.1 Stress rank. The influence of
stresses enters the diagram through
the choice of a stress rank for a
given location and condition. Four
stress ranks have been proposed,
labeled A through D in order of
decreasing stress. Each of the 24
susceptible locations was assigned
a generic stress rank to be used as
the default stress rank, Table 13-2.
The location-specific stress ranks
were determined from time-to-failure
history for each of the 24 sites, infor-
mation on detailed site design, and
a qualitative estimate of the major
loads present.
Where additional information, such
as field measurements or stress
analysis, about a particular location
is available, it is used to fine-tune
the judgment about stress rank. For
sites not listed, a first cut is to iden-
tify a listed site that is of similar
design and then fine-tune the
assessment through additional
analysis or measurement.
A primary aim of the stress ranking
process was to allow priorities to be
set among various locations; the
stress rank chosen is the ordinate on
the influence diagram, Figure 13-21.
3.5.2 Environmental parameter.
The effect of environment on corro-
sion fatigue propensity is also evalu-
ated by a four level ranking scheme:
E1, E2, E3, and E4, where E1 is
good cycle chemistry and E4 is
poorest. The ranking is chosen by
answering the questions presented
in Table 13-5. A weighting process
provides a means to indicate the
larger influences on corrosion
fatigue.
Environmental influences of interest
include: (i) pH and dissolved oxygen
levels as obtained either by direct
measurements or indirectly, such as
indicated by hideout problems, (ii)
chemical cleans, and (iii) boiler shut-
down and layup procedures.
Completing the questionnaire will
allow an environmental factor to be
entered into the influence diagram.
A detailed example of how this form
is completed from unit information is
provided in the case study that fol-
lows later in this section.
3.5.3 Unit operation. The effect of
unit starts and operating hours is
entered into the influence diagram
through the calculation outlined in
equation 13-1.
3.5.4 Using the influence diagram.
When the appropriate stress rank
and equivalent operating hours
have been calculated, a location on
the influence diagram can be deter-
mined. A point to the left of the
appropriate environment line indi-
cates a low risk of failure by corro-
sion fatigue; to the right indicates a
high risk of failure. It can be seen
how an increasingly higher stress,
given a particular environmental
state, will lead to a greater risk of
failure. Similarly, for two units of iden-
tical design and operating history,
the unit with a better environment
including cycle chemistry practices
will have a significantly lower risk of
corrosion fatigue failures.
Table 13-5
Form to Evaluate Environmental Parameter (E)
Response Total
Value Item Score Score

Phosphate boiler water alkalinity control

3 Does the boiler experience phosphate hideout No Irregularly Regularly

or phosphate carryover to the reheater? 3 6 9

Excursions

3 How many hydrogen damage or caustic gouging events None One More than one
resulting in tube failures have occurred over the life 3 6 9
of the boiler?

Typical on-line chemical operations

1 (1a) Boiler water pH at blowdown 9.0 - 9.6 8.0 - 10.0 < 8, > 10
1 2 3

1 (1b) Cation conductivity (µS/cm) <6 6 - 30 > 30

(minus phosphate correction 4.1 x ppm PO4) 1 2 3

1 (2) Feedwater at the economizer inlet, <5 < 20 > 20

dissolved oxygen (ppb) 1 2 3

Typical start-up chemical operating ranges

(measured at the point of reaching target (or full) pressure)

2 (1a) Boiler water pH at blowdown 9.0 - 9.6 8.0 - 10.0 < 8, > 10
2 4 6

2 (1b) Cation conductivity (µS/cm) <6 6 - 30 > 30

(minus phosphate correction 4.1 x ppm PO4) 2 4 6

2 (2) Feedwater at the economizer inlet, < 50 < 200 > 200
dissolved oxygen (ppb) 2 4 6

Chemical cleans

1 How many chemical cleans using a hydrochloric None One More than one
acid solution has the boiler been exposed to? 1 2 3

Boiler shutdown/lay-up procedures

2 What actions are taken for shutdown corrosion protection: Actions Actions No action
(a) N2 cap on drum and treat water if boiler not drained. (a) to (d) (a) and (b)
(b) Refill drained boiler with chemically treated water to 2 4 6
control pH and oxygen
(c) Ensure dry storage if drained.
(d) Monitor and adjust pH and oxygen in boiler water
during wet lay-up.

Total Value: __________ (total for questions answered) Total Score: _______
Environment Parameter: = E1, for Total Score/Total Value = 1.0 to 1.5; = E2, for Total Score/Total Value = 1.5 to 2.0; = E3, for Total Score/Total Value = 2.0 to 2.5
= E4, for Total Score/Total Value = 2.5 to 3.0
Source: D. Sidey, et al.1d

Volume 2: Water-Touched Tubes 13-25

The influence diagram has been
found to be particularly useful as a Stress Rank (S)
means to rank locations for further High (A)
analysis and to provide a quick Stress
screening method before consider-
ing approaches to prevent recur-
rence of the problem.
(B)
The version of the influence diagram
that is presented in Figure 13-21,
and in the case study is one based
on a 15% probability of failure (85% Low High
risk risk
survivability). This probabilistic mea- (C)
sure was determined by analysis of Environment
field data. A plot of field failure data parameter (E)
versus a boiler tube corrosion
E4 E3 E2 E1
fatigue index (a combination of the Low
environmental parameter, stress rank Stress (D)
and equivalent operating hours) was 0 30 60 90 120 150
fitted to a Weibull cumulative distrib- Equivalent Operating Hours (EOH)
ution function to calculate an influ-
ence diagram that incorporated a
probability of failure.1d Influence Figure 13-21. Influence map for corrosion fatigue in waterwall tubes (based on a 15%
maps can be derived for 5%, 25% probability of failure). Source: D. Sidey, et al.1d
and 50%, etc. probabilities of failure.

4. Determining the Extent of Damage

Selective tube sampling and various
NDE methods (including UT and RT)
have been tried for determining the
extent of corrosion fatigue damage.
The NDE methods suffer from draw-
backs associated with access to the
susceptible locations and interfer-
ence from attachments, membranes,
etc. Another drawback is that gener-
ally only advanced damage can be
detected. In a limited number of
cases where inside access was pos-
sible, the inner surfaces of tubes
have been examined by videoprobe.
Most often tube removal and sam-
pling from suspect locations is the
primary means to assess the extent
of damage.
It is vital that once corrosion fatigue
has been confirmed, primarily by
metallurgical analysis, that the
extent of damage and correspond-
ing locations be carefully deter-
mined. The will help focus long-term
steps such as the redesign and
modification of attachments for key
locations.

13-26 Corrosion Fatigue

5. Background to Repairs, Immediate Solutions and Actions
Corrosion Fatigue: Immediate
Solutions and Actions
1. Implement the influence dia-
gram approach to identify the
most important root cause influ-
ence (stress level, environment
or operation).
2. Remove and replace the
affected tube section.
3. Determine the extent of dam-
age, including a confirmation of
the failure mechanism.
4. Begin a long-term strategy to
deal with root causes of corro-
sion fatigue in each affected
location.
In the past, in an effort to get units
on-line quickly, minor corrosion
fatigue damage, such as pinhole
and axial cracks, was repaired by
pad welds either with or without
grinding. Because corrosion fatigue
cracks manifest multiple, branched
initiation sites, it is difficult to ensure
that all damage has been removed
and as a consequence, this repair
strategy has often resulted in repeat
failures at the same location. Figure
13-22 shows an example of this
problem. Therefore, it is strongly rec-
ommended that repairs be effected
by replacement of the damaged
tube sections.
However, if tube replacement is per-
formed without understanding and
dealing with the underlying causes,
repeat failures will occur eventually.
The use of the influence diagram
early in the process will be of great
value in defining the appropriate Figure 13-22. Pad weld repair showing
directions to take over the short and renewed corrosion fatigue crack growth.
long term. For example, a direct Source: D. Sidey, et al.1d
cycle chemistry cause may be indi-
cated after application of the influ-
ence diagram, if so, then the appro-
priate steps should be undertaken
to optimize cycle chemistry.
Volume 2: Water-Touched Tubes 13-27
6. Background to Long-Term Actions and Prevention of Repeat
Failures
Corrosion Fatigue: Long-Term
Actions
1. An understanding of what is
causing corrosion fatigue must
be obtained before the proper
long-term actions can be
developed; the influence dia-
gram should be used as a tool
to gain this understanding.
2. The influence diagram can also
be used to anticipate future
potential problems with corro-
sion fatigue, even in new units.
The consequences of decisions
about operations, environment,
or to a lesser extent stresses
can thus be evaluated.
3. Any solution must have a
means to determine its effec-
tiveness; an example might be
before and after strain mea-
sures if attachment redesign is
used.
4. Solutions will consist of (i)
improving cycle chemistry, (ii)
lowering strains, primarily by
redesign and modification of
attachments, or (iii) both. Each
may have effects throughout
the boiler.
5. The most effective long-term
approaches have been
achieved by modifying attach-
ment designs. However,
improper modifications have
intensified the problem.
13-28 Corrosion Fatigue
6.1 Options for long-term
solutions
The key to corrosion fatigue preven-
tion is a coherent long term strategy
that begins with understanding what
is driving the corrosion fatigue. In
the past, costly mistakes have been
made when solutions were applied
without such understanding. Simply
designing a “more flexible” attach-
ment and assuming that it will,
through “lower” stresses, solve the
problem has been shown to be a
costly wrong assumption. Any solu-
tion that is applied must have a
means of testing its benefits. Thus, if
the solution is to lower strains
through attachment modification,
measurement of actual strains
before and after is recommended.
Note that the approach chosen will
be site-specific; there is no global
approach to corrosion fatigue pre-
vention.
Possible long-term actions are
drawn from a range of hardware
modifications, operating changes,
cycle chemistry controls, chemical
cleaning procedures, and lay-
up/shutdown procedures as follows:
• Redesign tube attachments to
eliminate or reduce restraint. Most
successful modifications increase
the amount of flexibility at the
connection and thus reduce the
total applied stress.
• Correct causes of low pH water
chemistry, such as condenser
leaks, or other impurity ingress,
by adopting the latest phos-
phate30 and AVT31 guidelines;
control cycle chemistry levels.
• Optimize boiler shutdown and lay-
up procedures to avoid out-of-
service corrosion.
• Chemically clean to remove
deposits; be cognizant that the
use of hydrochloric acid cleans,
where there is advanced corro-
sion fatigue damage, may lead to
a spike in the number of failures
observed.
• Install off-line boiler circulation
pumps to reduce level of sub-
cooling in the waterwalls, which
will reduce the stress level
caused by thermal transients on
startup. Such modifications have
been successful in reducing the
amount of subcooling but it is still
unknown whether they have also
reduced the amount of corrosion
fatigue.
• Place restrictions on amount of
cycling operation. This is not nor-
mally a feasible option although
the effect of increased cycling in
future operations can be seen
from its effects on the influence
diagram.
Because of the number of potential
locations that might be considered
for modification of attachments, i.e.,
sites with similar attachment
designs, it is important that the
extent of corrosion fatigue damage
be clearly determined before
embarking on an extensive program
of attachment redesign and modifi-
cation.

6.2 Guidelines for the use of
stress analysis and field mea-
surements
A combination of stress analysis,
using finite element methods, and
field confirmation using strain
gauges, is useful for determining the
contribution of strain to a location
experiencing corrosion fatigue. It will
also be helpful to (i) determine
whether proposed modifications will
lower the applied strains, and (ii)
confirm that, after modification, the
local condition did improve. Utilities
seeking to apply these methods
should do so with a full understand-
ing of the benefits to be gained and
the costs to execute such detailed
evaluations.
6.2.1 Overall guidance
1. An analytical and experimental
determination of applicable
stresses is only one part of the
overall approach to corrosion
fatigue. It is important to under-
stand how it fits into that ap-
proach and what the limitations of
the stress analysis methods are.
2. A consistent and fully predictive
finite element stress analysis
method is desirable as it would
provide a way to assess potential
design changes prior to their
introduction and to predict their
efficacy.
3. Modeling of a waterwall tube with
attachment requires careful con-
sideration of actual field loading,
geometry, and local constraint;
simplification of model, boundary
conditions and/or symmetry
choices can compromise the
results.
FEA guide lines
4. Any analysis of stresses via finite Iteration may be required to refine
element methods should be sup- boundary conditions and symme-
ported by a field test program. try assumptions until agreement
Field testing alone may be is obtained.
enough. 2. A 3-D model should be formu-
lated to accommodate the triaxial
6.2.2 Evaluation of the subject
stress state. Mesh size and num-
boiler. Analysis of the boiler should
ber of elements should be such
precede any analytical program and
as to allow convergence in a 2D
include identifying critical locations,
thermal analysis: apply a thermal
identifying the major anticipated
load to one side of the model and
loads, and reviewing tube failure
add elements until there is no
history. This evaluation should result
change in the thermal distribution.
in a prioritized list of sites for evalua-
A maximum aspect ratio of 7:1 for
tion. Tables 13-2 and Figures 13-
elements has been recom-
7a/b provide a starting point for
mended.
identifying those locations which
have generally been a concern. 3. Detail of attachment is important.
It was found, for example, that
6.2.3 Field testing. Field testing the assumption of a point attach-
is required to confirm major loads, ment for tack welds was not
help define applicable boundary appropriate.
conditions for the stress analysis,
4. When it is necessary to consider
and relate operating changes to
structural loads, an orthogonal
load and cycle chemistry changes.
plate extension to a local model
Instrumentation for a test program
was recommended; however, a
might include temperature and
global model was not considered
strain instrumentation, heat flux
cost-effective.
meters, cycle chemistry analyzers,
and data acquisition equipment. 5. The cost of the analysis is related
to the complexity of the model,
6.2.4 Finite element analysis. which will cause tradeoffs to be
Evaluation of model choice, degree made.
of detail, boundary and symmetry
6. A sensitivity analysis is necessary
conditions are critical; simplifying
to identify major applied loads at
assumptions must be made with
a given location.
care and confirmed. The following
key aspects are important1c: 7. Results should be presented in a
form (polar coordinates, a nodal
1. Boundary and symmetry condi-
map, etc.) that allow for the iden-
tions must be formulated from a
tification of high stress locations.
detailed evaluation of field test
A deformation map was also
results to include all critical field
deemed to be useful.
conditions and loads.
Subsequently, boundary and
symmetry conditions must be ver-
ified. Measured and calculated
strains should be compared.
Volume 2: Water-Touched Tubes 13-29
7. Case study
Corrosion Fatigue
Case Study I: Application of Influence Diagram
This case study illustrates how the
influence diagram approach might
be used to determine locations with
a potential for corrosion fatigue prob-
lems and how the evaluation of
stress rank and environmental para-
meter might influence that analysis.
Unit Background: The unit is rated at
163 MW. The boiler is a subcritical,
drum-type unit with natural circulation
and reheat. It is fired on lignite. The
boiler has 68,000 firing hours and 728
starts. Although the boiler has experi-
enced serious sootblower erosion
problems, there have been no report
of BTF by corrosion fatigue to date.
Stress Rank Evaluation: The first
step in the evaluation process is to
identify sites where the magnitude of
the stress might be sufficient to
cause a corrosion fatigue concern. A
detailed inspection of unit was con-
ducted; as a result a boiler ash hop-
per seal plate attachment was
selected for further evaluation. Figure
13-23 shows detail of the location. A
stress rank of “B” was assigned by
noting that this location was similar
to that of location #3 in Figure 13-7
and Table 13-2.
Environmental Parameter: A review
of the unit chemistry history allowed
a calculation of the environmental
parameter as detailed in Table 13-6.
The following information served as
the basis:
Phosphate Boiler Water Alkalinity
Control: Until about mid-1984 the
unit used congruent phosphate treat-
ment. A review of the level of phos-
phate consumption indicates that the
boiler had a severe hideout problem,
which would be a factor of “9” on the
form. However, the unit switched to
equilibrium phosphate treatment in
late 1984 and has not had a hideout
problem since that time. Therefore
the form shows “3” for this entry.
Excursions: The boiler had experi-
enced no excursions causing hydro-
gen damage (low pH events). Score
“3” on the form.
13-30 Corrosion Fatigue
Typical On-Line Chemical Operating
Ranges: Typical on-line ranges for
critical chemistry parameters (post-
1984) are:
• Boiler water pH: 9.1-9.8. Score “1”
on the form.
• Boiler water cation conductivity:
< 12 mS/cm minus a phosphate
correction gives about 8mS/cm.
Score “2” on the form.
• Feedwater dissolved oxygen:
< 5 ppb. Score “1” on the form.
The cation conductivity required for
the form is corrected to typical phos-
phate concentrations. Unit records
indicated a normal phosphate level of
1 ppm, for a correction of 4.1 mS/cm.
Note also that the unit has an all fer-
rous feedwater system; that is, there
are no copper alloy materials in the
condensate or feedwater systems.
Typical Start-Up Chemical Operating
Ranges: Selection of proper ranges
for start is complicated by variations
in chemistry and stress over the start-
up period. For the evaluation, typical
ranges at the point of attaining full or
target steam drum pressures are
used. Defining these ranges will
require data from several starts of
each type (cold, warm and hot). The
subject boiler had these ranges:
• Boiler water pH: 9.1-9.8. Score “2”
on the form.
• Boiler water cation conductivity, 20
mS/cm - correction of 4 mS/cm = 16
mS/cm. Score “4” on the form.
• Feedwater dissolved oxygen < 50
ppb. Score “2” on the form.
Chemical Cleans: There had been no
chemical cleans since commission-
ing. Score “1” on the form.
Boiler Shutdown/Lay-Up Procedures:
On shutdown a nitrogen blanket is
introduced once the boiler reaches
atmospheric levels. If the boiler is
drained and refilled, the water is
treated during the refilling process.
The boiler is fired and pressurized to
approximately 3 MPa to purge any
air in the steam and water circuits.
Score “4”, for actions “a” and “b” on
the form.
The assessed environmental para-
meter is the total score “23”, divided
by the value of the questions
answered “18” or E = 1.3 in this
case. As shown in the form, the
result falls in the range of E1 (good).
Equivalent Operating Hours: For
68,000 firing hours, (H) and 728 total
boiler starts (Ns) the equivalent
operating hours are derived from the
equation:
EOH = (H/1000) + (Ns/(H/1000))
= 78.7
Results: The corrosion fatigue
regime for this situation can now be
determined by plotting the results on
the influence map. This is shown in
Figure 13-24. Under the assigned
conditions, the location is at high
risk for damage due to corrosion
fatigue because the point falls to the
right of the E1 line. There have been
no failures yet. It is possible that the
actual stress at the location is
slightly less than the typical “B”
location. However, there should be
sufficient concern to conduct selec-
tive tube sampling for corrosion
fatigue at this location, despite the
fact that no failures have been
observed yet.
It is also easy to see how, given a
currently marginal situation, a slight
deterioration in the operating prac-
tices for cycle chemistry control
could push the situation into consid-
erably more severe problems. It is
interesting to note that the earlier
operation with congruent phosphate
treatment and a severe hideout
problem would have been charac-
terized by a calculated environmen-
tal parameter of E2; almost certainly
a severe corrosion fatigue problem
would have resulted.
 Scalloped Seal
Plate Attachment
Membrane
Tube

Scallop
bar

Windbox Fillet
casing weld

CL furnace

O.D.front or rear
wall tubes
Mud drum

Top of ash hopper

Seal
Slag screen: stainless plates
steel type 430 woven
wire space cloth Water Water
level trough

Figure 13-23. Schematic of the boiler ash hopper seal plate attachment.
Source: D. Sidey, et al.1d

Stress Rank (S)

High (A)
Stress

(B)

Low High
risk risk
(C)

Environment
parameter (E)
E4 E3 E2 E1
Low
Stress (D)
0 30 60 79 90 120 150
Equivalent Operating Hours (EOH)

Figure 13-24. The case study results are plotted onto the influence map to determine
the appropriate corrosion fatigue susceptibility. Source: D. Sidey, et al.1d

Volume 2: Water-Touched Tubes 13-31

Table 13-6
Completed Form for Case Study to Evaluate Environmental Parameter (E)
Response Total
Value Item Score Score

Phosphate boiler water alkalinity control

3 Does the boiler experience phosphate hideout or phosphate No Irregularly Regularly

carryover to the reheater? 3 6 9 3

Excursions

3 How many hydrogen damage or caustic gouging events resulting None One More than one
in tube failures have occurred over the life of the boiler? 3 6 9 3

Typical on-line chemical operations

1 (1a) Boiler water pH at blowdown 9.0 - 9.6 8.0 - 10.0 < 8, > 10
1 2 3 1

1 (1b) Cation conductivity (µS/cm) ²6 6 - 30 > 30

(minus phosphate correction 4.1 x ppm PO4) 1 2 3 2

1 (2) Feedwater at the economizer inlet, dissolved ²5 ² 20 > 20

oxygen (ppb) 1 2 3 1

Typical start-up chemical operating ranges

(measured at the point of reaching target (or full) pressure)

2 (1a) Boiler water pH at blowdown 9.0 - 9.6 8.0 - 10.0 < 8, > 10
2 4 6 2

2 (1b) Cation conductivity (µS/cm) ²6 6 - 30 > 30

(minus phosphate correction 4.1 x ppm PO4) 2 4 6 4

2 (2) Feedwater at the economizer inlet, dissolved oxygen (ppb) ² 50 ² 200 > 200
2 4 6 2

Chemical cleans

1 How many chemical cleans using a hydrochloric acid solution None One More than one
has the boiler been exposed to? 1 2 3 1

Boiler shutdown/lay-up procedures

2 What actions are taken for shutdown corrosion protection: Actions Actions No action
(a) N2 cap on drum and treat water if boiler not drained. (a) to (d) (a) and (b)
(b) Refill drained boiler with chemically treated water to 2 4 6 4
control pH and oxygen
(c) Ensure dry storage if drained.
(d) Monitor and adjust pH and oxygen in boiler water
during wet lay-up.

Total Value: ____18

_____ (total for questions answered) Total Score: ____23
_____

Environment Parameter: = E1, for Total Score/Total Value = 1.0 to 1.5

= E2, for Total Score/Total Value = 1.5 to 2.0
= E3, for Total Score/Total Value = 2.0 to 2.5
= E4, for Total Score/Total Value = 2.5 to 3.0

13-32 Corrosion Fatigue

8. References
1Patterson,
R.W., et al., Corrosion Fatigue Boiler Tube
Failures in Waterwalls and Economizers, Research
Project 1890-5, Final Report TR-100455, Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
a. McNabb, D., D. Sidey, R.W. Patterson, J. Fishburn,
and A. Banweg, Volume 1: Field Survey Results, April,
1992.
b. Ogundele, G.I., E.T.C. Ho, D. Sidey, R.W. Patterson,
L.D. Paul, M.T. Miglin, and A. Banweg, Volume 2:
Laboratory Corrosion Studies, July, 1992.
c. Sidey, D., D. McNabb, J. Stodola, R.W. Patterson, R.
Ganta, B. Barishpolski, J. Fishburn, D. Peterson, D.K.
Johnson, and A. Banweg, Volume 3: Field Testing and
Stress Analysis, January, 1993.
d. Sidey, D., D.D. McNabb, R.W. Patterson, J. Fishburn,
A. Banweg, and R.B. Dooley, Volume 4: Summary
Report and Guidelines for Corrosion Fatigue
Evaluation, December, 1993.
2Moles, M.D.C. and H.J. Westwood, “Corrosion Fatigue
Tube Failures in Fossil-Fueled Boilers”, Proceedings
International Conference on Materials to Supply the
Energy Demand, Harrison, B.C. Canada, American
Society for Metals, 1980, pp. 515-537.
3Westwood, H.J. and W.K. Lee, “Corrosion Fatigue
Cracking in Fossil-fueled Boilers”, Journal of Materials
Engineering, Vol. 9, 1987, pp. 163-173.
4Crouch, A.G. and R.B. Dooley, “The Mechanical
Integrity and Protective Performance of Silica Coatings”,
Corrosion Science, Volume 16, 1976, pp. 341-347.
5Magnin, T., “An Approach to the Mechanisms of
Corrosion Fatigue Damage”, Memoires et Etudes
Scientifiques Revue de Metallurgie, LS7857/7Feb90/js,
November, 1983.
6Hickling, J. and D. Blind, “Strain-Induced Corrosion
Cracking of Low-Alloy Steels in LWR Systems - Case
Histories and Identification of Conditions Leading to
Susceptibility”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 91,
1986, pp. 305-330.
7Ward, G., B.S. Hockenhull, and P. Hancock, “The Effect
of Cyclic Stressing on the Oxidation of a Low Carbon
Steel”, Metallurgical Transactions, Vol. 5., June, 1974.
8Hurst, R.C., M. Davies, and P. Hancock, “The
Determination of Fracture Strains of Growing Surface
Oxides on Mild Steel at High Temperatures”, Oxidation of
Metals, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1975, p 161.
9Grosskreutz, J.C. and M.B. McNeil, Journal of Applied
Physics, Vol. 40, 1969, pp. 355.
10Paterson, S.R., T.A. Kuntz, R.S. Moser, and H.
Vaillancourt, Boiler Tube Failure Metallurgical Guide,
Volume 1: Technical Report, Volume 2: Appendices,
Research Project 1890-09, Final Report TR-102433,
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, October,
1993.
11Hay,
K.A. and D.B. Meadowcroft, “Kinetics of Oxide
Growth Through Cracks in Coatings on 9% Cr Steels”,
Corrosion Science, Volume 16, 1976, pp. 349-354.
12Scott,
P.M. and W.H. Bamford, “The Development and
Use of Electrochemical Potential Monitoring in
Environment Assisted Cracking Tests in High
Temperature, High Pressure , Aqueous Environments” in
W.H. Cullen, ed., Proceedings of the Second
International Atomic Energy Agency Specialists’ Meeting
on Subcritical Crack Growth, NUREG/CP-0067, Vol. 1,
1986, pp. 51-67.
13Chen. C.M., K. Aral, and G.J. Theus, Computer-
Calculated Potential-pH Diagrams to 300°C, Volume 2:
Handbook of Diagrams, Research Project 1167-2, Final
Report NP-3137, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo
Alto, CA, June, 1983.
14Parkins,R.N., “Stress Corrosion Spectrum”, British
Corrosion Journal, vol. 7, January, 1972.
15Ford,F.P., “Relationship Between Mechanics of
Environmental Cracking and Design Criteria”, ICM3, Vol.
2, Cambridge, England, August, 1979.
16Ford,F.P. and P.W. Emigh, “The Prediction of the
Maximum Corrosion Fatigue Crack Propagation Rate in
the Low Alloy Steel De-Oxygenated Water System at
288°C”, Corrosion Science, Vol. 25, No. 8/9, 1985, pp.
673-692.
17Ford, F.P. and P. Combrade, “Electrochemical Reaction
Rates on Bare Surfaces and Their Use in a Crack
Prediction Model for the Low Alloy Steel/Water System”,
Proceedings of the 2nd IAEA Specialists’ Meeting on
Subcritical Crack Growth, Sendai, Japan, May 15-17,
1985.
18Parkins,R.N., “Environment Sensitive Fracture and Its
Prevention”, British Corrosion Journal, Vol. 14, 1979, pp.
5-14.
19Galvele,J.R., “A Stress Corrosion Cracking Mechanism
Based on Surface Mobility”, Corrosion Science, Vol. 27,
No. 1, 1987, pp. 1-33.
20Pugh, E.N., J.A.S. Green, and A.J. Sedricks, “Current
Understanding of Stress Corrosion Cracking
Phenomena”, RIAS Technical Report 69-3, Research
Institute for Advanced Studies, Martin Marietta
Corporation, Baltimore Maryland, March, 1969.
Volume 2: Water-Touched Tubes 13-33
21Scully,
J.C., “The Theory of Stress Corrosion Cracking”,
The Theory of Stress Corrosion Cracking in Alloys, NATO
Science Affairs Division, September, 1972.
22Hickling,J., “Strain Induced Corrosion Cracking:
Relationships to Stress Corrosion Cracking/Corrosion
Fatigue and Importance for Nuclear Plant Service Life”,
Proceedings 3rd IAEA Specialists’ Meeting on Subcritical
Crack Growth, NUREG/CP-0112, ANL-90/22, Vol. II,
Moscow, May 14-17, 1990.
23Newman,
R.C. and R.P.M. Procter, “Stress Corrosion
Cracking: 1965-1990”, British Corrosion Journal, Vol. 25,
No. 4, 1990, pp. 259-269.
24Kussmaul, K. and B. Iskluth, “Environmentally Assisted
Crack Growth in a Low Alloy Boiler Steel in High
Temperature Water Containing Oxygen”, Nuclear
Engineering and Design, Vol. 119, Elsevier Science
Publishers, B.V., North Holland, 1990, pp. 415-430.
25Personal Communication from T. Healy, (ESB Ireland) to
R.B. Dooley, February, 1995.
26Sidey,D., et al., “Lambton TGS Unit 4, Investigation
Into Lower Waterwall Header and Steam Drum
Cracking”, Ontario Hydro Internal Report CTS-31020-5,
August, 1983.
27Stodola, J., “Review of Boiler Water Alkalinity Control”,
International Water Conference, 47th Annual Meeting,
held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, October 27-29, 1986.
13-34 Corrosion Fatigue
28Layton, K.F., “Water Side Corrosion in the Waterwall
Tubes of Hunter Unit 3”, in Dooley, B and D. Broske,
eds., Boiler Tube Failures in Fossil Power Plants:
Conference Proceedings, Conference held in Atlanta,
Georgia, November 10-12, 1987, CS-5500-SR, Electric
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, 1988, pp. 2-271
through 2-286.
29Bursik,A., R. B. Dooley, and B. Larkin, Guidelines for
Oxygenated Treatment for Fossil Plants, Research
Project 1403-45, Final Report TR-102285, Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, December, 1994.
30Dooley, R.B., A. Aschoff, and F. Pocock, Cycle
Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: Phosphate
Treatment for Drum Units, Final Report TR-103655,
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA,
December, 1994.
31Dooley, R.B., A. Aschoff, and F. Pocock, Cycle
Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: All-Volatile
Treatment for Drum Units, TR-105041, Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, to be published 1996.
32Dooley, R.B. and L.D. Paul, “Phosphate Chemistry and
Corrosion Fatigue”, International Water Conference,
Pittsburgh, PA, October, 1995, IWC-95-17.
ACTIONS for Corrosion Fatigue
Two paths for the BTF team to
take in the investigation of corro-
sion fatigue begin here. The goal
of these actions is to see if fur-
ther investigation of corrosion
fatigue is warranted or whether
another BTF mechanism should
be investigated.
➠ Follow Action 1a: If a BTF has
occurred and corrosion fatigue
is the likely mechanism.
➠ Follow Action 1b: If a precursor
has occurred in the unit that
could lead to future BTF by
corrosion fatigue.
Action 1a: If a BTF has oc-
curred and corrosion fatigue is
the likely mechanism.
➠ Determine whether the failure has
occurred in a location that is typi-
cal of corrosion fatigue
➠Review Figures 13-7a and b for
typical boiler regions.
➠Review Table 13-2 for suscepti-
ble locations.
➠Determine whether failure loca-
tions are near tube attachments
or other locations where con-
straint during transient opera-
tions is likely.
➠ Confirm that the macroscopic
appearance of the failure
includes such features as:
• Cracking that has initiated on
the inside surface of the tube,
typically at multiple locations
(Figure 13-3).
• Association of the failure with
an external attachment (Figure
13-1).
• A pin-hole leak (Figure 13-4), a
thick-edged crack (Figure 13-5)
oriented either axially or circum-
ferentially, or a thick-edged
blowout or rupture (Figure 13-1).
➠ If the BTF seems to be consistent
with these features of failure, go
to Action 2 for further steps to
confirm the mechanism.
➠ If the BTF does not seem to have
features like those listed, return to
the screening Table for water-
touched tubing (Table 12-1) to
pick a more likely candidate.
Action 1b: If a precursor has
occurred in the unit that could
lead to future BTF by corrosion
fatigue.
➠ Determine whether one of more
of the following precursors has
been found or is likely to have
occurred in the unit:
• Evidence of cracking found dur-
ing routine inspections, particu-
larly at susceptible locations. See
Table 13-2, Figures 13-7 a and b.
• Evidence of corrosion fatigue
damage found in similar units.
• Evidence that one or more of the
risk factors from the influence dia-
gram: environment ranking, stress
ranking or equivalent operating
hours, may lead to a concern.
See case study in main text.
• Evaluation of unit cycle chemistry
indicates an environmental rank-
ing of E3 or E4. See the case
study and Table 13-5. Such a
warning might be triggered by
one or more of the following:
• A persistent problem with phos-
phate hideout and return.
• One or more tube failures by
either hydrogen damage or
caustic gouging.
• Cycle chemistry operating
ranges for pH, cation conduc-
tivity, or dissolved oxygen,
either during normal operation
or upon startup, that are consis-
tently outside the recom-
mended ranges.
• More than one chemical clean
by hydrochloric acid.
• Boiler shutdown and layup pro-
cedures which have not
included such steps as nitrogen
capping, chemical treatment for
pH and oxygen control during
the lay-up and on re-start,
and/or dry storage during
drained periods.
• Unit has been subjected to
numerous starts or has accumu-
lated a large number of “equiva-
lent operating hours”. This should
be considered in conjunction with
location stress rank and environ-
mental factors - see main text.
➠ These precursors can be root
cause influences of corrosion
fatigue. If one or more has
occurred, go to Action 3 which
outlines the steps to confirm the
influence of each.
Volume 2: Water-Touched Tubes 13-35
Action 2: Determine (confirm) that the mechanism is corrosion
fatigue.

A failure has occurred which the
BTF team has tentatively identi-
fied as being caused by corro-
sion fatigue (Action 1a). Action 2
should clearly identify corrosion
fatigue as the primary mecha-
nism or point to another cause.
The actions listed will be exe-
cuted by removing representative
tube sample(s), followed by
visual examination and detailed
metallographic analysis. One of
the primary aims is to establish
that damage is not OD-initiated
fatigue.
➠ Confirm that damage location is
consistent with corrosion fatigue.
Is damage associated with a
susceptible location? See
Figures 13-7a/b and Table 13-2.
➠ Determine location of damage
initiation. Is damage initiated
from the inside (waterside) of
the tube?
➠ Evaluate nature of cracking. Is
there evidence of multiple initia-
tion sites, with wide cracks, of a
transgranular nature?
May still be corrosion fatigue, con-
tinue through flowchart; however,
review for indications of mechani-
cal fatigue, see distinctions dis-
cussed in main text, Section 1.1.
If OD-initiated, mechanism is more
likely to be mechanically-induced
fatigue. Review main text Section
1.1 for distinctions.
If damage is of a more ‘gouging”
nature check to see if an underde-
posit corrosion mechanism (hydro-
gen damage, caustic gouging or
acid phosphate corrosion) is active.

Probably mechanism is corrosion

fatigue. Confirming characteristics
are:
• Cracks filled with oxide and
blunt tipped.
• Crack profiles usually irregular.
• Signs of discontinuous growth,
re-initiation.

➠ Go to Action 3: Root Cause

Determination

References to other sources of infor-

mation:
• Main text (this chapter) provides
the background to the mecha-
nism and development of corro-
sion fatigue.
• Summary of the steps and meth-
ods of metallurgical investigation
of boiler tube failures can be
found in Chapter 6, Volume 1.
• Some care is required to distin-
guish between ID-initiated corro-
sion fatigue and OD-initiated
fatigue. Key differences are dis-
cussed in the main text, Section
1.1, and in Chapter 7, Volume 1.

13-36 Corrosion Fatigue

Action 3: Determine root cause of corrosion fatigue
A BTF failure has occurred and
the mechanism has been con-
firmed as corrosion fatigue
(Action 2) or a precursor
occurred (Action 1b). The goal of
this Action 3 is for the BTF Team
to review the potential root
causes of corrosion fatigue, iden-
tify probable ones, and take
those actions that are needed to
confirm which are operative in
the unit. This step must be taken
so that the proper actions can be
taken to prevent future BTF from
occurring by this mechanism.
Execute, in parallel, Action 4 to
determine the extent of damage.
➠ Review list of major root cause influences in first column, below.
➠ Take indicated actions to confirm the applicability of that influence in unit.
Major Root Cause Influences
3.2 Influence of Excessive Stresses/Strains
3.2.1 Restraint stresses at attachments
3.2.2 Subcooling (cooling water stratification) in
natural circulation boilers
3.3 Influence of Environmental Factors
3.3.1 Poor water chemistry
3.3.2 Overly aggressive or improper chemical
cleaning
➠ Actions to Confirm
➠ a). Compare damaged locations to those
typical of corrosion fatigue. See Figures
13-7 a/b and Table 13-2.
➠ b). Inspect susceptible locations before
tube failures occur.
➠ c). Selectively sample to identify damage
accumulation.
➠ d). Thermocouple and/or strain gauge
testing to confirm high strain locations.
➠ e). Finite element stress analysis to
predict high strain locations.
➠ f). Review operating records.
➠ g). Thermocouple top and bottom of
boiler to monitor ÆT as function of shut-
down time.
➠ h). Strain gauge to confirm.
➠ i). Review water chemistry logs and prac-
tices, with particular emphasis on pH
reductions during shutdown and early
startup; if review indicates a problem then
implement a monitoring program. See dis-
cussion of minimum levels of instrumenta-
tion in Chapter 3, Volume 1.
➠ j). Calculate Environmental Parameter for
use in Influence Diagram from information
gathered above; this will help determine
the contribution of environment to the cor-
rosion fatigue problem.
➠ k). Selectively sample tubes from at-risk
areas for evidence of pitting or corrosion
fatigue damage.
➠ l). Review chemical cleaning procedures
and correlate chemical cleaning with cor-
rosion fatigue failures. See Chapter 4,
Volume 1 for additional information about
chemical cleaning.
➠ m). Selectively sample at-risk tubes.
Volume 2: Water-Touched Tubes 13-37
Action 3: Determine root cause of corrosion fatigue (continued)

Major Root Cause Influences ➠ Actions to Confirm

3.3.3 Improper boiler shutdown and/or ➠ (n). See actions in items (i, j) above.
lay-up procedures

3.4 Influence of Historical Unit Operation

3.4.1 Operating procedures that have pro-
duced high stresses
➠ (o). Review operating records to deter-
mine operating hours and boiler starts.
➠ (p). Plot failure history against unit oper-
ating conditions. See Figures 13-13 and
13-14.

Action 4: Determine the extent of damage or affected areas

In parallel with Action 3 (root

cause analysis), the BTF Team
should determine the extent of
damage. Evaluation will be
based on detecting obvious
signs of cracking.
➠Identify all locations to be examined. Refer to Section
1.2 of main text, Figures 13-7 a/b, and Table 13-2 for
typical locations. Missed locations are sites for future
failures. Corrosion fatigue is very unlikely to have
occurred in only one area.

➠Perform visual examination to detect obvious signs of

cracking.

➠Perform UT/RT/videoprobe survey, as possible, to

measure extent of cracking. A review of NDE methods
is provided in Chapter 9, Volume 1.

➠Perform tube sampling to confirm results of NDE

inspection and to determine the degree of damage.

➠Use results interactively with Action 3.

➠Go to Action 5: Implement Repairs, Immediate

Solutions and Actions.

13-38 Corrosion Fatigue

Action 5: Implement repairs, immediate solutions and actions
➠Implement repairs or replacement
The most important immediate
actions for the BTF team are
to:(i) start the application of the
influence diagram method to
determine the probable effec-
tiveness of longer-term solutions,
(ii) repair or replace damaged
tubes, (iii) implement available
short-term changes to operation
or chemical cleaning where they
are at the root of the existing
➠ Apply the influence diagram.
problem.
of affected tubes as identified
from the NDE Survey (Action 4).
➠See Chapter 11, Volume 1 for
summary of applicable tube
repair techniques.
➠Develop a plan to replace
affected tubing on the basis of
the root causes and probable
choice of long-term solution.
The use of the influence diagram
approach will help pinpoint which
root cause must be addressed to
prevent repeat failures by corro-
sion fatigue. This is primarily a
long-term action, but an immedi-
ate action that can be imple-
mented during any repair or
replacement activities is to
ensure that the necessary plant
information is gathered. See the
case study for an example of the
process.
➠Implement the appropriate
guidelines, controls and monitor-
ing if the root cause is poor cycle
chemistry. See main text this sec-
tion and background material in
Chapter 3, Volume 1.
➠Institute modified procedures to
correct overly aggressive chemi-
cal cleaning. See Chapter 4,
Volume 1 for an overview of the
recommended practices.
➠If improper unit shutdown or
layup procedures underlie the
problem, modify procedures.
See Chapter 4, Volume 1 for an
overview of the recommended
practices.
References to other sources of
detailed information:
• Main text and Table 13-4 provide
additional detail on repairs, imme-
diate solutions and actions and
their relation to the underlying root
causes.
Volume 2: Water-Touched Tubes 13-39
Action 6: Implement long-term actions to prevent repeat failures
The correction of the underlying
problem(s) and the prevention of
repeat failures are priorities for
the BTF team. The proper
choice of long-term actions will
be based on clear identification
of the underlying root cause(s),
guided by the influence dia-
gram. The most effective long-
term solution has been lowering
the applied stresses by modify-
ing attachment designs; how-
ever, improper modifications
have intensified the problem.
13-40 Corrosion Fatigue
Major Root Cause Influences
Influence of Excessive Stresses
Restraint stresses at attachments
Subcooling (cooling water stratification) in
natural circulation boilers
Influence of Environmental Factors
Poor water chemistry
Overly aggressive or improper chemical
cleaning
Improper boiler shutdown and/or lay-up
procedures
Influence of Historical Unit Operation
Operating procedures that have produced high
stresses
➠ Long-Term Actions
➠ See guidance in main text for this mecha-
nism, Section 6.2.
➠ Most effective measures have been modifi-
cation of attachments to lower stresses.
➠ Install off-line boiler circulation pumps to
reduce level of subcooling.
➠ Clean up overall cycle and confront specific
chemistry problems such as condenser
leaks, impurity ingress, lack of appropriate
procedures, lack of appropriate monitoring
devices, etc.
➠ Apply appropriate guideline procedures for
specific chemistry, monitoring, and instrumen-
tation. See the overview of recommended prac-
tices in Chapter 3, Volume 1.
➠ Optimize chemical cleaning procedures and
frequency. See Chapter 4, Volume 1.
➠ Optimize shutdown, lay-up procedures. See
Chapter 4, Volume 1.
➠ See guidance in main text for this
mechanism, Section 6.2, and references
provided there.
➠ Reduction of stresses or improvement in
environmental parameter are possible actions.
Action 7: Determine possible ramifications/ancillary problems
The final step for the BTF team is
to review the possible ramifica-
tions to other cycle components
implied by the presence of corro-
sion fatigue or its precursors.
Corrosion Fatigue Alert for Other Cycle
Aspect Components
Problems with boiler • Potential for boiler tube
water or feedwater damage by other mech
chemistry control. anisms such as acid phos-
phate corrosion, if underly-
ing problem is phosphate
hideout, or hydrogen dam-
age such as via condenser
leakage.
• Potential for carryover
in steam to reheater.
Excessive or overly Potential for boiler tube
aggressive chemical damage by other mecha-
cleans. nisms
Inadequate or improper Potential for boiler tube
shutdown procedures. damage by other mecha-
nisms such as pitting.
Volume 2: Water-Touched Tubes
➠ Actions
➠Implement stricter cycle chemistry
control program, instrumentation. See
Chapter 3, Volume 1 for an overview of
the issues.
➠Alert to potential problems
throughout cycle.
➠Apply guidelines for chemical
cleaning as summarized in Chapter 4,
Volume 1.
➠Modify shutdown procedures.
13-41
13-42 Corrosion Fatigue