Materials Guideline Update: Preliminary Survey Results
Materials Guideline Update: Preliminary Survey Results
Materials Guideline Update: Preliminary Survey Results
1000453
Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available in accordance
with Section 734.3(b)(3) and published in accordance with Section 734.7 of the U.S. Export
Administration Regulations. As a result of this publication, this report is subject to only
copyright protection and does not require any license agreement from EPRI. This notice
supersedes the export control restrictions and any proprietary licensed material notices
embedded in the document prior to publication.
Materials Guideline Update:
Preliminary Survey Results
1000453
R. Rhudy
EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 [email protected] www.epri.com
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF
WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI).
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY
PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED
RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS
SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS
DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN
THIS DOCUMENT.
M&M Engineering
URS Corporation
This is an EPRI Level 2 report. A Level 2 report is intended as an informal report of continuing research, a
meeting, or a topical study. It is not a final EPRI technical report.
ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to the EPRI Distribution Center, 207 Coggins Drive, P.O. Box
23205, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523, (800) 313-3774.
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright 2000 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
CITATIONS
This document was prepared by
M&M Engineering
4616 Howard Lane, Suite 2500
Austin, Texas 78728-6302
Principal Investigator
P. Ellis
URS Corporation
8501 North Mopac Blvd.
Austin, Texas 78759
Principal Investigator
G. Blythe
iii
EPRI Licensed Material
ABSTRACT
A continuing trend in the U.S. utility industry is to make extensive use of corrosion resistant
alloys in flue gas desulfurization (FGD) service. This trend is illustrated by the materials of
construction used in the FGD retrofits installed to comply with Phase 1 of Title IV of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments. These system designs saw widespread use of C-class nickel-
based alloys in services such as absorber vessel walls, reaction tank agitator shafts and blades,
and absorber outlet ductwork. The Phase 1 systems have been in service for almost six years, and
information is now becoming available as to how those alloys are performing. Some anecdotal
information has surfaced about problems associated with the use of highly corrosion-resistant
alloys in some applications.
This report provides an overview of the current state of the art of FGD materials technology. The
report presents an overview of recent advances in corrosion-resistant alloy technology for wet
FGD systems, including the most recent information for selecting alloys based on FGD liquor
pH and chloride concentration. Also included are an update on organic-based liners and coatings
in FGD service, and a discussion of materials of construction issues for specific FGD equipment
such as slurry pumps and piping.
v
EPRI Licensed Material
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 1-1
References .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1
vii
EPRI Licensed Material
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-2 Alloy Selection Chart for Single-Loop Wet Lime/Limestone FGD Absorbers, Reaction
Tanks, and Recycle Slurry Lines ............................................................................................................... 2-8
Figure 2-3 Alloy Selection Chart for Dual-Loop Web Lime/Limestone FGD Absorbers, Reaction
Tanks, and Recycle Slurry Lines ............................................................................................................... 2-9
Figure 2-4 Alloy Selection Chart for Chlorides in Excess of 100,000 ppm ..................................... 2-10
ix
EPRI Licensed Material
LIST OF TABLES
xi
EPRI Licensed Material
1
INTRODUCTION
Over the past decade, a U.S. utility industry trend towards making extensive use of corrosion
resistant alloys in flue gas desulfurization (FGD) service has continued. This trend is illustrated
by the materials of construction used in the FGD retrofits installed to comply with Phase 1 of
Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Many of these systems were designed to
produce a wallboard-grade gypsum byproduct, which due to FGD system water balance
considerations can lead to high chloride levels in the FGD liquor. These Phase 1 systems saw
widespread use of C-class nickel-based alloys in services such as absorber vessel walls,
reaction tank agitator shafts and blades, and absorber outlet ductwork.
The Phase 1 systems have now been in service for almost six years, and information is now
becoming available as to how those alloys are performing. Some anecdotal information has
surfaced about problems associated with the use of highly corrosion-resistant alloys in some
applications. For example, a number of Phase 1 FGD systems report significant erosion wear of
reaction tank agitator blades constructed of solid C-276 alloy.
This report provides an overview of the current state of the art of FGD materials technology. It is
considered a Level 2 report, which provides an update of ongoing research. A final technical
report will be issued in the year 2001.
Section 2 of this report provides an overview of advances in corrosion-resistant alloy technology,
including the most recent information for selecting alloys based on FGD liquor pH and chloride
concentration. Section 3 provides an update on organic-based liners and coatings in FGD service,
and Section 4 discusses materials of construction issues for FGD equipment such as slurry
pumps and piping.
Where appropriate, information collected in a related EPRI project has been used to support this
overview of FGD materials technology. That project included recent visits to 14 U.S. utility FGD
systems, including 6 that were installed in the 1990s. The results from that ongoing project are
discussed in two EPRI Level 2 reports [1,2].
References
1. FGD Equipment Issues Guideline: Ductwork & Dampers, Pumps, Piping & Valves:
Interim Report, June 2000, EPRI, Palo Alto, 2000. 000000000001000177.
2. FGD Equipment Issues Guideline: Reagent Preparation Equipment, Agitators, Rotary
Atomizers: Interim Report, December 2000, EPRI, Palo Alto, 2000. 000000000001000573.
1-1
EPRI Licensed Material
2
ADVANCES IN ALLOY TECHNOLOGY
The first generation (1970's) FGD construction was characterized by a general underestimation
of the corrosive severity of the FGD process environment. This led to the inclusion of design
features such as direct-bypass reheat outlet ducts that were discovered to create extraordinarily
corrosive environments. Much of the first generation construction relied heavily upon carbon
steel lined with rubber or reinforced organic resin coatings. Since the mid-1970's there has been
a steady trend in the utility FGD industry toward the use of corrosion resistant alloys to
withstand the hostile FGD environment. The corrosion resistant alloys used in FGD systems and
discussed in this report are listed in Table 2-1. These alloys fall into four broad categories.
By far the largest group contains the austenitic stainless steels and nickel-base alloys. All of the
alloys in this group have 100% austenitic (face-centered cubic) microstructures and contain a
minimum of 12% chromium and 8% nickel. Most contain molybdenum, and all but a few
contain iron. The division between austenitic stainless steels and nickel-base alloys is vague and
controversial, to the extent that the American Metallurgical Society expects to reclassify as
stainless steels a number of alloys currently classified as nickel-based. All of these alloys have
the same basic microstructure and all derive their corrosion resistance from their chromium,
molybdenum, and nitrogen contents. They are in fact a homogenous series with no clear
functional division between the stainless steels and the nickel-base alloys. In this report, the
entire group is designated as Cr-Ni Austenitic Alloys.
Table 2-1 also shows three alloys designated as Cr-Ni Duplex Stainless Steels. Like the
austenitic stainless steels, these alloys all contain a minimum of 12% chromium by definition,
and the actual chromium contents range from 22 to 25% (nominal). These alloys all contain
between 4 and 8% nickel, which is not sufficient to produce a stable austenitic microstructure at
room temperature. As a result, the microstructure consists of a mixture of ferrite (body-centered
cubic) and austenite (face-centered cubic). This mixed or duplex microstructure enhances both
the strength and corrosion resistance of the duplex stainless steels.
The use of titanium in FGD applications is limited, and the only grade used is Titanium Grade 2.
Strictly speaking, this is a pure metal, not an alloy.
Cobalt-based alloys have limited use in FGD applications for wear-resistant components, the
most common example being Stellite 6 castings for slurry spray nozzles.
All of the alloys used in FGD technology were developed to combat corrosion problems in other
industries. Thus, alloy developments in the FGD industry are actually technology transfers from
other industries.
2-1
Table 2-1. Alloy Designations and Classifications
Alloy Common Unified Numbering Current Unified Numbering Common Vernacular
a
Name System Designation System Classification Classification Designation In This Report
316L S31603 Austenitic Stainless Steel Austenitic Stainless Steel
316LN S31653 Austenitic Stainless Steel Austenitic Stainless Steel
317 S31703 Austenitic Stainless Steel Austenitic Stainless Steel
317LN S31753 Austenitic Stainless Steel Austenitic Stainless Steel
317LM S31725 Austenitic Stainless Steel 4Mo Austenitic Stainless Steel
317LMN S31726 Austenitic Stainless Steel 4Mo Austenitic Stainless Steel
904L N08904 Nickel-base Alloy 4Mo Austenitic Stainless Steel
Alloy 33 R20033 Chromium-base Alloy
Alloy G N06007 Nickel-base Alloy 6Mo Nickel-base Alloy
1925hMo N08926 Nickel-base Alloy 6Mo Superaustenitic Stainless Steel
AL-6XN N08367 Nickel-base Alloy 6Mo Superaustenitic Stainless Steel Ni-Cr Austenitic Alloys
2-2
254 SMO S31254 Austenitic Stainless Steel 6Mo Superaustenitic Stainless Steel
Alloy 31 N08031 Nickel-base Alloy 6Mo Superaustenitic Stainless Steel
EPRI Licensed Material
a
AL-6XN is a registered trademark of Allegheney Ludlum, Inc.
254SMOand 654 SMO are registered trademarks of Avesta Sheffield AB
C-22, C2000 and Ultimet are registered trademarks of Haynes International, Inc.
Zeron100 is a trademark of Weir Materials and Foundries
2-3
EPRI Licensed Material
EPRI Licensed Material
During the 1980's the major thrust of alloy development (migration) in the FGD industry was the
introduction of alloys with ever-increasing resistance to the most extreme of FGD environments,
reheated outlet ducts and hypersaline systems (operating at greater than 50,000 ppm1 chloride).
During the 1990's, the major trend has been the introduction of less costly alloys for service in
20,000 to 60,000 ppm chloride service.
However, one of the most significant developments for the FGD plant designer has been the
development of quantitative alloy selection guidelines based on alloy composition and the
chloride concentration and pH of the FGD process.
1
In this report, ppm chloride means milligrams of chloride per kilogram of solution. While it is common to
equate ppm chloride to milligrams chloride per liter, this can result in significant errors when the total dissolved
solids exceed 14,000 mg/L total dissolved solids.
2-4
EPRI Licensed Material
As of March 2000, there was no universally accepted standard definition of PREN, and at least
12 different versions were presented in the Corrosion/2000 proceedings alone. The two most
commonly cited versions are:
(2a) PREN = Cr + 3.3Mo + 16N
and
Each of the dozen correlations presented during Corrosion/2000 was tested against a database of
ASTM G48 CCT data paired to specific alloy compositions of 83 stainless steels and nickel-base
alloys containing a minimum of 12%Cr [5]. The best correlation was given by:
(3) PREN = Cr + 3.3(Mo + W + Nb) + 16N
For materials selection purposes, Equation 3 has two shortcomings. First, it does not define
whether the alloying element concentrations should be the grade minimums, nominals, or some
other point within the allowed variation for each element, and second, it does not address the
difference in chloride resistance due to alloy microstructure.
These shortcomings are overcome with the introduction of the Chloride Resistance Factor. For
austenitic stainless steels,
(4) CRFAUS = Austenitic chloride resistance factor
= Crmin + 3.3(Momin + Wmin + Nbmin)
From the work of Kovach and Redmond [6], it can be shown that
(5) CRFDUP = Duplex chloride resistance factor
= 1.2[Crmin + 3.3(Momin + Wmin + Nbmin)] 16N3.1
In 1998, Ellis published an algorithm with a correlation coefficient of 0.98 that accurately
reflected the actual performance of austenitic and duplex stainless steels, as well as that of the C-
class alloys in FGD service between pH 5.5 and 6.5. In accord with the foundational work by
Hoxie and Schillmoller, this algorithm was used with an assigned a slope of 0.30 for the
relationship between pH and chloride limit to reproduce Shillmoller-Hoxie diagrams for
Austenitic Cr-Ni alloys [7]. The algorithm was subsequently enhanced with a correlation
between the pH coefficient and the Chloride Resistance Factor so that it accurately reflects trends
of pH sensitivity vs alloy composition published by the Nickel Development Institute.
Figure 2-1 compares the generated Schillmoller-Hoxie pH-Chloride diagram with the
comparable diagram adjusted for the effect of alloy composition on pH sensitivity. Both
diagrams agree well with industry experience at pHs near 5.5, but the Schillmoller-Hoxie
version severely underestimates the performance of alloys like C-276 under more acidic
conditions.
2-5
EPRI Licensed Material
Tier 1 Alloys
The Tier 1 alloys have CRF values of 22 28 and include Type 316L and 317L, plus a recent
introduction to the FGD industry, Type 316LN. Type 316LN contains a controlled addition of
nitrogen, which improves chloride resistance slightly. The addition of nitrogen to austenitic
stainless steels is very inexpensive, and there is a general industry trend to upgrade traditional
grades by nitrogen addition. It is possible, but unlikely, that Type 316LN could displace Type
316L in mill production, making Type 316L obsolete.
2-6
C-276 C-276 625
625
100,000 100,000
1925hMo 1925hMo
G G
904L
904L
10,000 10,000
825
825
20
20
316L
Chloride (mg/kg)
Chloride (mg/kg)
1,000 1,000
2-7
316L
EPRI Licensed Material
100 100
2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7
pH pH
Figure 2-1. Comparison of Schillmoller-Hoxie pH-Chloride Diagrams and pH-Chloride Diagrams Generated Using
the FGD Material Selection Algorithm.
316L
316LN
317L
317LN
317LM
317LMN
904L
33
G/255
1925hMo
AL-6XN
254 SMO/2705
Zeron 100
31
625
654 SMO
C-22/622
C-276
59/C-2000
686
100,000
Severe Localized
Corrosion Likely
Severe Localized
2-8
Corrosion Unlikely
Chlorides (mg/kg)
1,000
EPRI Licensed Material
100
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Figure 2-2. Alloy Selection Chart for Single-Loop Wet Lime/Limestone
CRF FGD Absorbers, Reaction Tanks, and Recycle
Slurry Lines.
See text for definition of CRF. Italicized alloy designations represent recent or under-utilized alloy entries to the
FGD Arena.
Source: M&M Engineering
316L
316LN
317L
317LN
317LM
317LMN
904L
33
G/255
1925hMo
6XN
254 SMO/2705
Zeron 100
31
625
654 SMO
C-22/622
C-276
59/C-2000
686
100,000
Severe Localized
Corrosion Likely
10,000
Upper Loop, Conservative
Upper Loop, Very Conservative
Lower Loop, Conservative
Lower Loop, Very Conservative
2-9
1,000
Severe Localized
Corrosion Unlikely
EPRI Licensed Material
100
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
CRF
Figure 2-3. Alloy Selection Chart for Dual-Loop Wet Lime/Limestone FGD Absorbers, Reaction Tanks, and Recycle
Slurry Lines.
See text for definition of CRF. Italicized alloy designations represent recent or under-utilized alloy entries to the
FGD Arena.
Source: M&M Engineering
654 SMO
C22/622
C-276
59/C2000
686
175,000
Chlorides (mg/kg)
2-10
125,000
EPRI Licensed Material
100,000
50 55 60 65 70 75
CRF
Figure 2-4. Alloy Selection Chart for Chlorides in Excess of 100,000 ppm.
See text for definition of CRF. Italicized alloy designations represent recent or under-utilized alloy entries to the FGD
Arena.
Source: M&M Engineering
EPRI Licensed Material
2-11
EPRI Licensed Material
The primary application of these alloys has been in FGD system outlet ducts, particularly those
having direct-bypass reheat. During the 1980s and 1990s hundreds of thousands of square feet
of C-Class alloys were wallpapered into FGD outlet ducts and stacks2. NACE-International
issued a Recommended Practice (RP0292) for The Installation Of Thin Metallic Wallpaper
Lining In Air Pollution Control And Other Process Equipment in 1992 with renewal in 1998.
This recommended practice recognized that the greatest single challenge to a successful
wallpaper lining installation is the necessity for 100% leak-tight integrity of hundreds to
thousands of linear feet of seal welds.
Extreme difficulty in obtaining reliable leak-tight welds has been a recurrent problem with
wallpaper applications. The consequences of weld failure are particularly serious when the seal
welds are submerged. For example, the geometry of the direct-bypass mixing zone of the outlet
duct at Indianapolis Power and Lights Petersburg Number 4 FGD system allowed the
accumulation of several hundred gallons of acid condensate to pool on the floor of the outlet
duct. When corrosion perforated a thin spot in one of the seal welds, the highly corrosive
condensate flooded the gap between the C-22 wallpaper and the carbon steel shell of the outlet
duct. The condensate then leaked onto the roof of the gas inlet duct, which was located directly
below the outlet duct, and corroded holes in that duct as well [8].
The difficulties of obtaining 100% reliable seal welds spurred interest in duct construction using
C-class alloys hot-roll bonded or explosion bonded3 to carbon steel to reduce alloy cost while
eliminating the seal weld and leakage problems associated with wallpapering.
NACE-International issued a recommended practice, RP0199-99, Installation Of Stainless
Chromium-Nickel Steel And Nickel-Alloy Roll-Bonded And Explosion Bonded Clad Plate In Air
Pollution Control Equipment, in 1999.
Most clad plate installations have consisted of 62 mils (1.6 mm) of C-class alloy bonded to 188
mils (4.8mm) of carbon steel to make a total thickness of 0.25 inch (6.4 mm). Thicker carbon
steel is used as required for structural support.
These constructions have eliminated the seal-weld problem affecting alloy wallpapering, but may
ultimately give less than the desired life due to uniform corrosion of at least some of the C-class
alloys. While these C-class alloys show remarkable resistance to pitting and crevice corrosion
under direct-bypass reheat conditions, Alloy C-22 and C-276 have exhibited significant
uniform corrosion in the wet-dry mixing zones of direct bypass reheated outlet ducts. For
example, wallpaper linings of Alloy C-22 and C-276 on the vertical wall of the direct bypass
zone of the Petersburg Number 4 FGD system exhibited uniform corrosion rates of 4.5 0.7
mil/yr (0.11 0.02 mm/y) and 4.1 0.7 mil/yr (0.10 0.02 mm/y) respectively. The rates were
2
When wall-papering with alloy liners, thin sheets, typically 62 mils (1.6 mm) thick, are cut to fit, then skip-
welded to the metal substrate. Subsequent sheets overlap the first sheets laid down and are seal welded to the
overlapped alloy sheets and skip-welded to the substrate. The process is repeated until the substrate is entirely
covered and all exposed welds are continuous seal welds.
3
In hot-roll bonding, a corrosion resistant alloy plate is fused to a carbon steel backing plate as the two plates pass
through the hot rolling mill. In explosion bonding, the pressure that produces the fusion between the two plates is
supplied by the detonation of an explosive. Once bonded by either method, the clad slab is then rolled to the final
desired thickness. From an engineering standpoint, the bond of the corrosion-resistant alloy to the carbon steel is
continuous.
2-12
EPRI Licensed Material
not statistically different. The average corrosion rate of Alloy C-22 in an acid puddle on the
duct floor was 10.1 0.5 mil/yr (0.26 0.01 mm/y). Approximately 50% of the thickness of the
wallpaper lining on the floor had corroded away in just under 3 years [8]. Despite the 20%
reduction in thickness on the walls and 50% reduction in thickness on the floor, the severity of
the corrosion was not apparent because it was uniform. Most inspections of wallpaper linings
are strictly for pitting, and significant uniform corrosion may go undetected.
The newer C-class alloys, Alloy 59, Alloy C-2000, and Alloy 686, are even more highly
alloyed than C-22 and C-276. Their chloride resistance is greater in laboratory tests and is
projected to be greater in FGD service as well. Their higher chromium contents, compared to
C-276, may enhance their resistance to uniform corrosion in acid condensate as well, and Haynes
International, the developer in Alloy C-2000, note that this alloy contains a small addition of
copper, specifically to enhance resistance to uniform corrosion by concentrated acid condensates.
The effects of these alloying additions on uniform corrosion of C-class alloys in FGD outlet duct
service have not been demonstrated at this time.
A number of newer systems designed to operate at high dissolved chloride levels in their recycle
slurry have installed solid C-276 alloy impellers. Many of these are Phase 1 FGD retrofits
approaching six years of operation. While the C-class alloys are among the most resistant to
chloride attack, these alloys do not have corresponding erosion resistance. These alloys owe
their corrosion resistance to a nanometer-thick chromia-rich passivation film. If the abrasive
action of the slurry is sufficient to scour away the passivation film, the continuously exposed
fresh alloy surface can erode quickly. Several FGD systems with solid C-276 agitator impellers
reported the need to weld-repair eroded blades on a regular basis (e.g., as often as every four
months) [9].
Cobalt-Based Alloys
Traditionally, cobalt-based alloys are used for very high temperature application (not relevant to
FGD materials selection) and for wear or erosion resistance. The cobalt-based alloy most
familiar to the utility FGD industry is Stellite #64 used for slurry nozzles. Despite its
considerable chromium resistance, Stellite #6 is less resistant to localized corrosion by
chlorides than Type 316L. In Stellite #6, most of the chromium is in the form of chromium
carbides. These very hard particles in the alloy matrix provide the wear resistance, but the
chromium carbides do not contribute to chloride resistance. The Chloride Resistance Factor
discussed above does not apply to cobalt-based alloys. Stellite #6 is available as strip for
overlays, castings such as nozzles, and as weld overlay.
One cobalt-based alloy, Ultimet, has both the high wear resistance characteristic of cobalt
alloys as well as the demonstrated ability to resist the highly aggressive acid condensate
discussed above that corroded adjacent Alloy C-22 alloy at an estimated rate of 11 mpy (0.28
mm/y) [8].
Ultimet, though available as wrought sheet, is far too costly to use in applications where a nickel-
based alloy would suffice. However, Ultimet is also available as weld overlay. In this guise,
Ultimet might provide a solution to the agitator wear problem discussed in the previous section.
4
Stellite #6 is a registered trademark of Deloro Stellite Company, Inc.
2-13
EPRI Licensed Material
Titanium
There do not appear to have been any significant developments in the use of titanium in FGD
applications within the last decade.
References
1. H.T. Michels and E.C. Hoxie, "How to Rate Alloys for SO2 Scrubbers," Chemical
Engineering, June 5, 1978, p 161ff.
2. C.M. Schillmoller and G. Khlert, "Aspects of Alloy Selection for Flue Gas
Desulfurization Scrubber Systems," ACHEMA 82, Frankfort am Main, 9 June 1982.
3. C.M. Schillmoller and M.B. Rockel, "Duplex Stainless Steels for the Chemical, Petroleum,
and Process Industries," NACE Northeast Region Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, September
1983.
4. G. Sorell and C.M. Schillmoller. "High Performance Alloy Applications for Waste
Incineration Air Pollution Control Equipment," Paper 19, Proceedings of the Sixth
International Seminar: Solving Corrosion Problems in Air Pollution Control Equipment,
Louisville, KY, 17-19 October 1990.
5. Ellis, P. Paper in Preparation.
6. Kovach, C. and Redmond, J., 1993, Correlation Between the Critical Crevice
Temperature, PRE-Number, And Long-term Crevice Corrosion Data for Stainless Steels,
paper 267, Corrosion/93, NACE-International, Houston, TX.
7. Ellis, P. Quantitative Tool For FGD Alloy Selection Based On pH And Chloride,
Corrosion/98, San Diego, CA, March 1998.
8. Conover, M., and Ellis, P., Causes of FGD Construction Materials Failures, Vol 3:
January 1987-May 1993, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, September
1994.
9. FGD Equipment Issues Guidelines: Ductwork & Dampers, Pumps, Piping and Valves:
Interim Report, June 2000, EPRI, Palo Alto, 2000. 000000000001000177.
2-14
EPRI Licensed Material
Designation
Numbering
Common
Relative Cost of
System
Unified
Name
-inch Plate Relative Erected
CRF (6.4mm) Cost
S31603 316L 22.60 1.00 1.00
S31653 316LN* 24.20 1.00 1.00
S31703 317L 27.90 1.40.1 1.20.1
S31753 317LN* 29.50 1.40.1 1.20.1
S31725 317LM 31.20 obsolete obsolete
S31726 317LMN* 31.80 1.60.1 1.50.1
N08904 904L 32.20 2.20.2 1.50.1
R20033 33* 38.25 1.40.2 1.20.1
S32550 255* 39.10 2.50.3 1.60.1
N06007 G 39.20 obsolete obsolete
N08925 1925hMo 40.40 2.80.3 1.30.1
N08367 AL-6XN 41.20 2.80.3 1.70.1
S31254 254 SMO 42.18 2.80.3 1.70.1
S39275 2705* 42.19 2.50.3 1.70.1
N08932 UR SB8 42.23 2.80.3 1.60.1
S39276 Zeron 100* 44.90 2.50.3 1.60.1
N08031 31* 48.20 3.90.1 2.20.1
N06625 625 50.02 4.50.5 2.40.1
S32654 654 SMO* 54.30 3.90.1 2.20.1
N06022 622 64.13 4.50.5 2.40.1
N10276 C-276 67.45 4.50.5 2.40.1
N06059 59* 71.50 4.50.5 2.40.1
N06200 C-2000* 71.50 4.50.5 2.40.1
N06686 686* 71.95 4.50.5 2.40.1
62-mil (1.57 mm)C-class wallpaper on new carbon steel 2.30.2 1.90.1
62-mill (1.57mm) C-class alloy bonded to
3.20.2 1.50.1
188-mil (4.8 mm) carbon steel
2-15
EPRI Licensed Material
3
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN ORGANIC FGD
MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION
Linings and Coatings on Steel Absorber and Duct Shells
Introduction
FGD construction in the 1970s relied heavily on sheet elastomeric and reinforced thermoset
resin linings applied to carbon steel. The materials used fall into the following broad categories:
Reinforced Thermoset Resins;
Vinylesters;
Novolac epoxies;
Bisphenol-A-epoxies; and
Bisphenol-A-fumarate polyesters.
Each can be reinforced with mica (not recommended for FGD applications), glass flake, or
chopped glass fiber for strength. The resins may also be filled (mixed) with silicon carbide grit,
alumina grit, or alumina spheres for abrasion resistance.
The following products are normally applied by spraying or trowelling, and were widely applied
in absorbers, reaction tanks, and outlet ducts.
Sheet Elastomeric Linings;
Compounded5 natural rubber;
Compounded chlorobutyl-natural rubber blends;
Compounded neoprene; and
Fluoropolymer sheet.
Compounded natural rubber with a hardness of approximately 40A (Shore) was the elastomeric
lining of choice during the 1970s, when abrasion resistance was perceived as the life-
determining property of the lining.
By the early-1980s, compounded chlorobutyl (actually a blend of natural rubber and chlorobutyl
polymers containing 15-20% natural rubber) with a hardness of approximately 60A (Shore) had
become the industry standard [1].
Use of neoprene has been limited almost exclusively to situations where building codes required
that the lining not support combustion.
5
Compounded or compounding are rubber-making terms that denote a mixture of polymer, carbon black, curing
agents, fillers, plasticizers, etc., that produce the desired properties in the cured product.
3-1
EPRI Licensed Material
6
When two solutions having different ionic strengths (i.e., different concentrations of dissolved ions) are separated
by a semipermeable membrane, water molecules will diffuse through the membrane from the less concentrated
solution into the more concentrated solution until the ionic strengths are equal.
7
The osmotic pressure is the pressure that must be applied to the more concentrated solution to halt the diffusion of
water through the semipermeable membrane.
3-2
EPRI Licensed Material
approximately 8 years upstream of the mist eliminators and 6 years downstream of the mist
eliminators [2]
8
Neither the mention of a particular vendor nor product is to be construed as an endorsement or to imply that the
vendor or product cited is superior to comparable alternatives.
9
Plasite 4005 was subsequently reformulated to replace asbestos reinforcing fibers with a non-hazardous inert
reinforcing material. The reformulated product is designated as Plasite 4300.
3-3
EPRI Licensed Material
Rubber-Lined Steel (RLS) And Rubber-Lined Rubber Covered Steel (RCLS) Pipe
While there has been a steady trend away from the use of rubber linings in absorbers and outlet
ducts, the popularity of rubber lined steel (RLS) pipe for external recycle piping, and of rubber-
lined, rubber-covered steel (RCLS) for slurry spray headers does not appear to have decreased
significantly. Piping within the absorber does not experience a significant through-wall thermal
gradient, so there is no cold wall effect to cause moisture permeation through he lining or coating
in the first place. The rubber-lined pipe external to the absorbers does experience thermal
gradients comparable to linings within the absorber, but the lining is also exposed to operating
pressures of 2-3 atmospheres. This is sufficient to counterbalance the osmotic pressure of
moisture at the rubber-substrate interface, suppressing blister formation inside the pipe. The
result is that RLS recycle piping and RCRLS slurry piping can give many more years of service
than the same elastomeric lining applied to the vessel wall [10].
3-4
EPRI Licensed Material
Several investigations of failure of RLS FGD slurry piping demonstrated the critical importance
of proper and adequate curing of the rubber once the lining was installed. RLS and RCLS pipe is
normally cured in autoclaves using 15-30 psi (1-2 bar) steam. This procedure results in the
optimal cure of the rubber lining. Failures have resulted from inadequate curing of the flanges of
large diameter pipe when the sections were too large to autoclave. The ends of the pipe were
blinded off with plywood and atmospheric steam was injected to cure the rubber. Small spacers
were inserted between the plywood and gasket face allowing steam to flow across the gasket
face. While the cure time was adequate for the rubber lining in the pipe, it was not adequate for
the flange faces [11].
References
1. Ellis, P, and Cassidy, P., Specification Guidelines for Flue Gas Desulfurization Rubber,
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, November 1987.
2. Conover, M., and Ellis, P., Causes of FGD Construction Materials Failures, Vol 3:
January 1987-May 1993, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, September
1994.Lining Retards Chemical Attack in Flue Gas System, Power, June 1991.
3. Information provided by Eldon Dille, Sargent and Lundy, March 2000.
4. Information provided by Cled Owen, Trowelon, October 2000.
5. Chimney Liner Still Performs After 10 Years of Coal-Fired Power Plant Service,
SAR, ULTRABUILD, Duromar EAC and Duromar EAC-FE are registered trademarks of the Duromar
10
Corporation.
3-5
EPRI Licensed Material
3-6
EPRI Licensed Material
4
MISCELLANEOUS MATERIALS AND COMPONENTS
Slurry Pumps
Polyurethane Liners
Both the original equipment pump manufacturers and third-party after-market vendors have been
supplying polyurethane casing linings and polyurethane covered impellers as alternative to
natural rubber. Townley Manufacturing Company11 is such a third party vendor, one that
provides replacement parts for utility FGD service. Townley and others can provide urethane
liners that some utilities have found to provide longer service than natural rubber liners.
Depending on the manufacturer and model of pump, these can be either bolt-in or bonded liners.
Not all of the utilities using urethane casing and impeller liners have experienced improved
performance over natural rubber, though. One utility reported that, on average, urethane-lined
impellers were lasting about the same period of time as rubber-lined impellers [2]. Furthermore,
they observed that the natural rubber lining tended to wear away gradually, while the urethane
tended to fail by having large pieces break away. The latter is undesirable because the larger
pieces can plug openings in slurry nozzles. This utility is converting to high chrome impellers,
with a mixture of natural rubber and urethane casing liners [1].
11
Neither the mention of a particular vendor nor product is to be construed as an endorsement or to imply that the
vendor or product cited is superior to comparable alternatives.
4-1
EPRI Licensed Material
4-2
EPRI Licensed Material
Piping
EHDPE Piping
The single significant recent materials development in the area of FGD piping has been the
introduction of extra-high density polyethylene (EHDPE) pipe. The pipe is typically used for
small diameter (4 to 6-inch (10-15 cm)) applications such as limestone feed, scrubber blowdown,
or thickener underflow.
One utility has been using EHDPE pipe in 24- and 36-inch (61- and 91-cm) diameters for recycle
slurry feed and return piping for seven years without apparent difficulties. This utility also
wanted to install 42-inch (107 cm) EHDPE pipe but 36-inch (91 cm) is the largest commercially
available diameter rated for the temperature-pressure of FGD slurry piping [1]. The limitation
arises because the strength of UHMWPE decreases rapidly with rising temperature. Thirty-six
inch (91 cm) diameter EHDPE pipe for slurry recycle duty requires a wall thickness of 4.8 inches
(12 cm) due to this effect. The required wall thickness for 42-inch (107 cm) EHDPE would be
5.6 inches (14 cm)( in the 4 to 6 inch (10-15 cm) diameter range, the required wall thickness is
0.5 to 0.67 inch (1.3-1.7 cm)) [3].
Despite the large wall thicknesses compared to most other materials, EHDPE is comparatively
inexpensive, inert to FGD process chemicals, and highly abrasion resistant. The material is also
very light, having a density less than water.
FRP Piping
Fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) pipe for FGD slurry applications is a multilayer laminate of
bisphenol-A fumarate or bisphenol-A Novalac resing and reinforcing glass strands (fiber glass).
FRP for FGD service has an inner gell coat composed of resin without reinforcing fibers, as
well as a similar exterior exterior gell coat. These layers protect the glass fiber laminate from
degradation by the FGD slurry. A sure sign of the approaching end of the useful life of FRP pipe
is the appearance of fiber bloom, a fuzzy surface appearance due to protrusion of delaminated
glass fiber stubble from the surface of the pipe.
While there have not been any major product developments in FRP piping technology for FGD
applications during the 1990s, it has become apparent that some of the straight-run FRP piping
is nearing the end of its service life after approximately 12 years of operation, as indicated by
signs of erosion and exposure of the reinforcing glass matt.
Where the affected surfaces are accessable, it may be possible to extend the life of the pipe by
resurfacing, a fairly common practice in the maintenance of large FRP structures like tanks and
stack linings. The damaged surface is abraded, chemically cleaned, and a new layer, or layers of
gell coat are applied. In some cases, the topcoat is impregnated with silicon carbide grit to
increase abrasion resistance [4].
References
1. FGD Equipment Issues Guidelines: Ductwork and Dampers, Pumps, Piping and
Valves: Interim Report, June 2000, EPRI, Palo Alto, 2000. 000000000001000177.
4-3
EPRI Licensed Material
2. Conover, M., and Ellis, P., Causes of FGD Construction Materials Failures, Vol 3:
January 1987-May 1993, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, September
1994.
3. Ellis, P.F., Selection Considerations For FGD Slurry Piping, Corrosion/2000, Orlando,
FL, March 2000.
4. Information provided by Ershings and Duromar, October 2000.
4-4
SINGLE USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
About EPRI
THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND THE ELECTRIC POWER
RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY REMOVING THE
EPRI creates science and technology WRAPPING MATERIAL.
solutions for the global energy and BY OPENING THIS SEALED PACKAGE YOU ARE AGREEING TO THE TERMS OF THIS
AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, PROMPTLY
energy services industry. U.S. electric RETURN THE UNOPENED PACKAGE TO EPRI AND THE PURCHASE PRICE WILL BE
REFUNDED.
utilities established the Electric Power
1. GRANT OF LICENSE
Research Institute in 1973 as a nonprofit EPRI grants you the nonexclusive and nontransferable right during the term of this agreement to use this
research consortium for the benefit of package only for your own benefit and the benefit of your organization. This means that the following may
use this package: (I) your company (at any site owned or operated by your company); (II) its subsidiaries or
utility members, their customers, and other related entities; and (III) a consultant to your company or related entities, if the consultant has entered
into a contract agreeing not to disclose the package outside of its organization or to use the package for its
society. Now known simply as EPRI, the own benefit or the benefit of any party other than your company.
company provides a wide range of This shrink-wrap license agreement is subordinate to the terms of the Master Utility License Agreement
between most U.S. EPRI member utilities and EPRI. Any EPRI member utility that does not have a Master
innovative products and services to more Utility License Agreement may get one on request.
than 1000 energy-related organizations 2. COPYRIGHT
This package, including the information contained in it, is either licensed to EPRI or owned by EPRI and is
in 40 countries. EPRIs multidisciplinary protected by United States and international copyright laws. You may not, without the prior written
team of scientists and engineers draws permission of EPRI, reproduce, translate or modify this package, in any form, in whole or in part, or prepare
any derivative work based on this package.
on a worldwide network of technical and 3. RESTRICTIONS
business expertise to help solve todays You may not rent, lease, license, disclose or give this package to any person or organization, or use the
information contained in this package, for the benefit of any third party or for any purpose other than as
toughest energy and environmental specified above unless such use is with the prior written permission of EPRI. You agree to take all
problems. reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure or use of this package. Except as specified above, this
agreement does not grant you any right to patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trade names, trademarks or
any other intellectual property, rights or licenses in respect of this package.
EPRI. Electrify the World 4. TERM AND TERMINATION
This license and this agreement are effective until terminated. You may terminate them at any time by
destroying this package. EPRI has the right to terminate the license and this agreement immediately if you
fail to comply with any term or condition of this agreement. Upon any termination you may destroy this
package, but all obligations of nondisclosure will remain in effect.
5. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, NOR ANY PERSON OR
ORGANIZATION ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)
WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS OR
SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS PACKAGE, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTYS INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS PACKAGE IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USERS
CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER
(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE
HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR
SELECTION OR USE OF THIS PACKAGE OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD,
PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS PACKAGE.
6. EXPORT
The laws and regulations of the United States restrict the export and re-export of any portion of this package,
and you agree not to export or re-export this package or any related technical data in any form without the
appropriate United States and foreign government approvals.
2000 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),
7. CHOICE OF LAW
Inc. All rights reserved. Electric Power Research
Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of This agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California as applied to transactions taking place
entirely in California between California residents.
the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. EPRI.
ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the 8. INTEGRATION
Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. You have read and understand this agreement, and acknowledge that it is the final, complete and exclusive
agreement between you and EPRI concerning its subject matter, superseding any prior related
understanding or agreement. No waiver, variation or different terms of this agreement will be enforceable
Printed on recycled paper in the United States
against EPRI unless EPRI gives its prior written consent, signed by an officer of EPRI.
of America
1000453
EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 [email protected] www.epri.com