000000000001008083-Deposition in Drum Boiler Surfaces

8/11/2019 000000000001008083-Deposition in Drum Boiler Surfaces

1/46

Deposition on Drum Boiler Tube Surfaces

Technical Repo L

I

C E N

S E D

M A T E

R I

A L

WARNING:Please read the License Agreementon the back cover before removingthe Wrapping Material.

Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available inaccordance with Section 734.3(b)(3) and published in accordance withSection 734.7 of the U.S. Export Administration Regulations. As a result ofthis publication, this report is subject to only copyright protection and doesnot require any license agreement from EPRI. This notice supersedes theexport control restrictions and any proprietary licensed material noticesembedded in the document prior to publication.


2/46


3/46

EPRI Project ManagerB. Dooley

EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA800.313.3774 650.855.2121 [email protected] www.epri.com

Deposition on Drum Boiler TubeSurfaces

1008083

Final Report, November 2004


4/46

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS ANACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCHINSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THEORGANIZATION(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, ORSIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESSFOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON ORINTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUALPROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'SCIRCUMSTANCE; OR

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVEHAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOURSELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD,PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT

Moscow Power Institute (Technical University)

ORDERING INFORMATION

Requests for copies of this report should be directed to EPRI Orders and Conferences, 1355 WillowWay, Suite 278, Concord, CA 94520, (800) 313-3774, press 2 or internally x5379, (925) 609-9169,

(925) 609-1310 (fax).

Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric PowerResearch Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric PowerResearch Institute, Inc.

Copyright 2004 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.


5/46

CITATIONS

This report was prepared by

Moscow Power Institute (Technical University)14 KrasnokazarmennayaMoscow 111250, Russia

Principal InvestigatorsT. PetrovaO. Povarov

AuthorsV. AnanievI. BochkarevaI. GimadeevaD. GrigoryanA. FurunzhievaV. KashinskyV. MakrushinT. Petrova

N. PilshchikovA. PetrovS. PopovD. RepinV. SemenovV. ShchetintsevA. VerkhovskyG. Verkhovsky

This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.

The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:

Deposition on Drum Boiler Tube Surfaces, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2004. 1008083.

iii


6/46


7/46

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

Despite the considerable advances that have been made to improve control of fossil plant cyclechemistry, deposition activitymost notably in boilers and steam turbinesremains an issue ofconcern in many fossil units. In response to this problem, EPRI has initiated experimental andtheoretical research activities to understand the science governing deposition in fossil plantboilers.

Results & Findings

The effect of heat flux on the deposition rate of copper and iron corrosion products onto a carbonsteel boiler tube was studied at three heat fluxes (50, 150, and 300 kW/m 2) and two chemistries,all-volatile treatment (AVT) and oxygenated treatment (OT). Increasing heat flux results in anincreased deposition rate onto the surfaces with both AVT and OT. The deposition rate was lesswith OT than AVT.

Challenges & Objective(s)Deposits formed on heat transfer surfaces of boilers are detrimental because they reduceefficiency and increase heat rate. In boiler waterwall tubing, a building up of waterside solids canbe a prerequisite for a number of underdeposit corrosion boiler tube failure mechanisms. Moreextensive solids accumulation can lead to overheating damage and other tube failures. Depositremoval by chemical cleaning is costly and can negatively impact unit availability. The objectiveof this work was to conduct a study in a high pressure, high temperature deposition rig underrealistic boiler operating conditions.

Applications, Values & UseThe results from the overall EPRI study will define those parameters that can influencedeposition in a fossil boiler. As such, they will lead to better control of the corrosion productinventory throughout a plant. Thus, organizations will ultimately be able to link optimizing thefeedwater and boiler water treatments with boiler deposition.

EPRI PerspectiveA substantial portion of the chemistry-related availability losses in fossil plants involvesdeposition of solids on boiler surfaces. EPRI cycle chemistry guidelines are effective inminimizing deposition, but do so indirectly, by controlling the chemistry to reduce impurityingress and feedwater corrosion product transport to acceptable levels. Continuing problems withdeposition-related availability losses and associated costs in the fossil industry point to the needto focus on the science of deposition to establish better criteria and tools for use by plantoperating personnel. This report, together with a review of the Russian and Soviet literature(EPRI report 1004193) and two other reports on the state-of-knowledge on deposition (1004194and 1004930) are starting to form the basis of a better understanding of the whole deposition


8/46

process. They also will be used to develop a model of boiler deposition, which will include thekey parameters.

ApproachThe project team prepared the deposition rig, which closely simulates the conditions in high

pressure boilers. The team then conducted tests up to heat fluxes of 300 kW/m2

, pressures of2600 psi (18 MPa), and water temperatures of 660 oF (350 oC). They injected various quantities ofiron and copper corrosion product oxides into the test section under two chemistry regimes, AVTand OT. Finally, they collated the deposition rates as a function of heat flux, concentration ofiron and copper, and chemistry treatment.

KeywordsDepositionFossil plant availabilityBoiler tube failuresCycle chemistryFeedwater corrosion products


9/46

EPRI Licensed Material

ABSTRACT

Operational reliability of boiler waterwalls in high heat flux areas is often governed by thegradual deposition of iron oxide and copper deposits. To reduce the deposition rate it is not onlynecessary to control feedwater tube materials corrosion, but also to develop an understanding ofthe deposition process.

This study was conducted on a deposition rig, which closely simulates the conditions in a highpressure drum boiler. Tests were conducted up to heat fluxes of 300kW/m 2, pressures of 2600psi (18 MPa) and water temperature of 660 oF (350 oC). Varying quantities of iron and copperoxides were injected into the test section under two chemistry regimes: all-volatile treatment andoxygenated treatment.

vii


10/46


11/46


CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1-1

2 DESCRIPTION OF TEST RIG AND TEST PROCEDURES ..................................................2-1

2.1 Test Rig...........................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Test Procedures..............................................................................................................2-4

2.3 Monitoring the Thermo-Mechanical and Chemical Parameters During the Tests...........2-5

2.2.1 Monitoring the Thermo-Mechanical Parameters .....................................................2-5

2.2.1 Chemistry Monitoring of Working Fluid ....................................................................2-5

2.4 Analysis of the Test Specimens ......................................................................................2-8

3 TEST RESULTS.....................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Effect of Heat Flux on the Deposition Rate of Iron Corrosion Products With AVT..........3-1

3.2 Effect of Copper Corrosion Products on the Deposition Rate With AVT.........................3-3

3.3 Effect of Heat Flux on the Deposition Rate of Iron Corrosion Products With OT............3-6

3.4 Effect of Copper Corrosion Products on the Deposition Rate With OT...........................3-8

4 DISCUSSION OF TEST DATA ..............................................................................................4-1

4.1 Effect of Chemistry on the Deposition Rate of Iron Corrosion Products on CarbonSteel Surface.........................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Effect of Copper on the Deposition Rate of Iron Corrosion Products ..............................4-1

5 CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................5-1

6 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................6-1

ix


12/46


13/46


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1 Test Rig Diagram......................................................................................................2-2

Figure 2-2 Deaeration Tank Unit................................................................................................2-3

Figure 2-3 Test Section Drawing (a) and Diagram (b) ...............................................................2-4

Figure 2-4 Sampling System Diagram .......................................................................................2-7

Figure 3-1 Effect of Heat Flux on Deposition (Total) of Iron Corrosion Products WithAVT. Iron was injected as Fe 3O4. ......................................................................................3-3

Figure 3-2 Effect of Heat Flux on Deposition (Loose) of Iron Corrosion Products With

AVT. Iron was injected as Fe 3O4. ......................................................................................3-3 Figure 3-3 Deposits of Iron and Copper Corrosion Products at Heat Flux of 50 and 300

kW/m 2 With AVT. Iron was Injected as Fe 3O 4 and Copper as Cu 2O..................................3-5

Figure 3-4 Deposits of Corrosion Products With and Without Copper at Heat Flux of 50and 300 kW/m 2 With AVT...................................................................................................3-5

Figure 3-5 Effect of Heat Flux on Deposition (Total) of Iron Corrosion Products With OT.Iron Injected as FeOOH. ....................................................................................................3-7

Figure 3-6 Effect of Heat Flux on Deposition (Loose) of Iron Corrosion Products WithOT. Iron Injected as FeOOH. ............................................................................................3-8

Figure 3-7 Deposits of Iron and Copper Corrosion Products at Heat Fluxes of 50 and300 kW/m 2 With OT .........................................................................................................3-10

Figure 3-8 Deposits of Corrosion Products With and Without Copper at Heat Fluxes of50 and 300 kW/m 2 With OT..............................................................................................3-10

Figure 4-1 Effect of Chemistry on the Deposition Rate (Loose) of Iron CorrosionProducts .............................................................................................................................4-2

Figure 4-2 Effect of Chemistry on the Deposition Rate (Total) of Iron Corrosion Products .......4-2

xi


14/46


15/46


LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 Sampling Locations and Monitored Parameters........................................................2-6

Table 2-2 Basic Technical Parameters of On-Line Chemistry Analyzers [16, 17] .....................2-6

Table 3-1 Thermal Operational Parameters of Test Rig With AVT Tests ..................................3-1

Table 3-2 Deposits of Iron Corrosion Products at Different Heat Flux With AVT (AverageData), Fe=5-10 ppb. Iron was injected as Fe 3O 4. ..............................................................3-2

Table 3-3 Deposits of Iron Corrosion Products at Different Heat Flux With AVT (AverageData), Fe ~ 40 ppb. Iron Was injected as Fe 3O 4................................................................3-2

Table 3-4 Deposits of Iron and Copper Corrosion Products at Heat Flux of 50 and 300kW/m 2 With AVT (Average Data). Iron was injected as Fe 3O4 and Copper as Cu 2O.........3-4

Table 3-5 Amount of Copper Corrosion Products in Total Deposits With AVT..........................3-4

Table 3-6 Thermal Operational Parameters of Test Rig With OT Tests ....................................3-6

Table 3-7 Deposits of Iron Corrosion Products at Different Heat Flux With OT (AverageData), Fe = 5-10 ppb. The iron was injected as FeOOH...................................................3-7

Table 3-8 Deposits of Iron Corrosion Products at Different Heat Flux With OT (AverageData), Fe = 40 ppb. Iron Injected as FeOOH. ...................................................................3-7

Table 3-9 Deposits of Iron and Copper Corrosion Products at Heat Fluxes of 50 and 300kW/m 2 With OT (Average Data). Iron Injected as FeOOH and Copper as CuO................3-9

Table 3-10 Amount of Copper Corrosion Products in Total Deposits With OT..........................3-9 Table 4-1 Deposition Rate of Iron Corrosion Products in the Presence of Copper....................4-3

xiii


16/46


17/46


1 INTRODUCTION

Efficiency and reliability of operation of power generating equipment at power plants in manyrespects depend on the purity of the working fluid, i.e. water and steam. That is why theconcentration of impurities in water and steam should be in agreement with the guidelines [1-3].Deviation from the guidelines such as an excess in concentrations of certain impurities (chloride,sulfate, iron and copper corrosion products, etc.) could result in an increased rate of corrosionand deposition in the water-steam cycle of the plant.

Modern power plants use high purity water for boiler makeup, and thus the feedwater contains

corrosion products of the construction materials, namely, iron and copper. Analysis of thedeposits formed on the waterwalls of a drum boiler shows that the predominant portion ofdeposits (80-85%) consists of iron corrosion products.

At present there is extensive literature that shows the effect of different factors on the depositionof iron corrosion products on the drum boiler tubes [4-10]. The basic factors are: heat flux,concentration of corrosion products, temperature, and surface charge. Since most power plantswith drum boilers use a phosphate treatment with the addition of ammonia into the feedwatertrain, the majority of the field data relate to this particular chemistry.

There has been an increasing trend in recent years to use oxygenated treatment (OT) on drumboilers [11-14]. Data on the effect of OT on deposition of iron corrosion products on boiler tubesare available only for once-through boilers. This is true for both field and laboratory studies.

Review of the literature makes it almost impossible to estimate the effect of chemistry treatmentand concentration of iron corrosion products in water on the deposition on boiler tubes withdifferent heat flux. As well as iron corrosion products, the corrosion products of copper-basedalloys (copper and zinc) can also be present in boiler water. The effect of copper on depositionof iron corrosion products is not known.

Therefore, the overall aims of this current work are:

1. To study the effect of heat flux on the deposition rate of iron corrosion products on thesurface of drum boiler tubes.

2. To study the effect of iron concentration in boiler water on the deposition rate of ironcorrosion products on the surface of drum boiler tubes.

3. To study the effect of water chemistry treatments on the deposition rate of iron corrosionproducts on the surface of drum boiler tubes.

4. To study the effect of the presence of copper on the deposition rate of iron corrosion productson the surface of drum boiler tubes with different chemistry treatments.

1-1


18/46


19/46


2 DESCRIPTION OF TEST RIG AND TEST PROCEDURES

2.1 Test Rig

The test rig shown in Figure 2-1 was used to study the effect of heat flux, water chemistry, andcomposition of impurities on the deposition onto tubes. The test rig consists of: the system forwater treatment; the pumps; the heat exchangers to heat the water up to the set temperature; thetest section; the system for addition of chemicals into the test rig cycle; and the sampling system.

All the parts of the test rig, excluding the test section, were manufactured from stainless steel.The test rig can simulate the processes that take place in the water and steam cycle of fossilpower plants with both drum and once-through boilers. It is designed for operation at pressureand temperature up to 25 MPa (3600 psi) and 500 oC (932 oF), respectively.

The system for water treatment consists of heat exchanger 1 and deaeration tank 2 (seeFigure 2-2), as well as an ion-exchange plant. The steam condensate supplied from the MEIPower Plant was used as the working fluid.

Steam condenses in the heat exchanger 1 and enters the deaeration tank 2 with a capacity ofabout 70 1. The water level in the tank is controlled with the level gauge 3. The tank can serveas an atmospheric deaerator, if necessary. In this case, the steam supply from the MEI PowerPlant is provided to the bottom section of the tank. The air-steam mixture is discharged into theatmosphere via vent 6. The system arrangement provides a supply of steam condensate from theMEI Power Plant to the ion-exchange columns 19 and 20 (Figure 2-1). After the columns thedemineralized water is supplied to the deaeration tank 1. Two groups of ion-exchange columnsare installed: each group consists of two cation exchangers, 19, and one mixed-bed exchanger,20, located in series. This arrangement provides water with a conductivity less than 0.15 S/cmand pH of 6.8 7.1.

2-1


20/46


Description of Test Rig and Test Procedures

Figure 2-1Test Rig Diagram

1 Deaeration Tank; 2 Deaeration Tank Cooler; 2 Cooler; 2 Sampling Cooler; 3 Drain; 4 Pumps; 5 Receiver; 6 Nitrogen Tank; 7, 7 Throttle Valves; 8 HeatExchanger; 9 Heaters; 10 Makeup Water Sampling Point; 11 Dosing Vessels; 12 Metering Pump; 13 Electric Heater of Test Section; 14 Test Section; 15 Flow Meter; 16 Deaeration Tank Outlet Sampling Point; 17 Test Section Inlet Sampling Point; 18 TestSection Outlet Sampling Point; 19 Cation Exchangers; 20 Mixed Bed Columns

From the bottom section of the deaeration tank water enters the cooler 2, where it is cooledbelow 60 oC (140 oF), as required for operation of the pumps. The water then enters the positivedisplacement pumps, 4, with a stainless steel flowpath. All in all, four pumps with maximumpressure up to 250 kg/cm 2 each and total flowrate of 400 kg/h (880 lb/h) are installed.

After the pumps, the water enters the receiver 5 designed to control surge pressure in the cycledue to the operation of the positive displacement pumps. The receiver consists of eleven vesselswith capacity of 0.5 1 each. Each vessel is connected via a valve to a nitrogen tank 6. After thereceiver, water enters the heat exchanger 8 via throttle valves, where it is heated by the waterleaving the test section up to a temperature close to the steam saturation temperature at the set

parameters. Then the water passes through three electric heaters 9 located in series and entersthe test section 14.

The test section (Figure 2-3, a) is a vertical tube of 150 mm (6 in.) in height, with outer and innerdiameters of 11.8 mm (0.5 in.) and 9.8 mm (3.9 in.), respectively. It is manufactured fromcarbon steel. The diagram of the test section is shown in Figure 2-3, b. Two Chromel-Alumelthermocouples 5 and 6 of 0.5 mm in diameter for wall temperature measurement are located atthe bottom and the top of the test section. The lead wires 11 from the transformer 2 are attachedto the test section for generation of heat flux.

2-2


21/46



Figure 2-2Deaeration Tank Unit

1 Heat Exchanger; 2 Deaeration Tank; 3 Level Gauge; 4 Manometer; 5 Cooler;6 Vent

On leaving the test section, the water enters the heat exchanger 8, where it is cooled and heats thewater entering the test rig. Then the water passes through the coolers 2a and expands.

During the tests, the chemicals are added into the water at the test section inlet. For this purpose,a special system was manufactured. It consists of a metering pump 12 and vessels 11 filled withchemicals (iron and brass corrosion products, oxygen, and reducing agent).

One vessel with 5 1 capacity is used for production of a concentrated solution of corrosionproducts. This vessel is filled with degreased chips of carbon steel or a brass/carbon steelmixture. Two other vessels with 10 1 capacity contain diluted solutions of iron and coppercorrosion products; they are connected to the metering pump that injects the solution into thecycle.

2-3


22/46



Figure 2-3Test Section Drawing (a) and Diagram (b)

1 Test Section; 2 Electrical Transformer; 3, 4 Thermocouples for Water TemperatureMeasurement at the Test Section Inlet; 5, 6 Thermocouples for Wall TemperatureMeasurement at the Test Section Inlet and Outlet; 7, 8 Thermocouples for Water TemperatureMeasurement at the Test Section Outlet; 9 Manometer; 10 Ammeter; 11 Lead Wires

2.2 Test Procedures

All the tests on the effect of heat flux and concentration of iron and copper corrosion products onthe deposition rate onto the tube surface were performed at a pressure of 18 MPa (2600 psi) andwater temperature in the test section of about 350 oC (660 oF); the linear water velocity inside thespecimen was about 0.3 m/s (1 ft/s).

The tests were performed as follows. Water was pumped from the tank via the receiver and theheaters, where it was heated to 350 oC, to the test section inlet. Then the water returned to thetank or was discharged.

During the tests with elevated levels of iron and copper corrosion products, the corrosion productsolution was added to the cycle at the inlet of the test section.

During the tests with oxygenated treatment, the oxygen level was controlled by the waterbubbling rate in the deaeration tank. During the tests with reducing treatment, the reducing agentwas added to the water where the solutions containing iron (or iron plus copper) corrosionproducts were prepared. These were then injected into the water before the test section.

2-4


23/46



The tests were performed at three different values of heat flux: 50, 150, and 300 kW/m 2. Duringeach test, the heat flux at the test section was kept constant. The duration of most of the testswas around 120 hours.

2.3 Monitoring the Thermo-Mechanical and Chemical Parameters Duringthe Tests

2.2.1 Monitoring the Thermo-Mechanical Parameters

The following basic thermo-mechanical parameters were monitored during the test rig operation:pressure, temperature, and water flowrate through the test section. Pressure is measured withfour manometers installed on the pressure side of the pumps, at the inlet of the heaters, and at theinlet/outlet of the test section (Figure 2-1). The accuracy of pressure measurement is 0.1 MPa(14 psi). Water temperature was measured at the inlet-outlet of the test section, and at the outletof the cooler and throttle valves. Also the measurement of wall temperature along the height of

the test section was performed. Measurement of water and wall temperature was performed withthermocouples: two thermocouples (3 and 4) were installed at the water inlet to the test section;two thermocouples (7 and 8) were installed at the water outlet from the test section, and twothermocouples (5 and 6) were welded to the outer wall of the test section. All the thermocoupleswere calibrated originally. Temperature was monitored with a digital ammeter connected to thethermocouples via a multi-channel switch. The accuracy of temperature measurement was 0.8 oC.Water flowrate through the test section was monitored with an electromagnetic flowmeter (theaccuracy grade is 0.3) [15].

Heat flux is one of the basic parameters measured during the tests. It was mentioned above thatfor generation of heat flux, the lead wires 11 from the transformer 2 were attached to the testsection. For heat flux determination, current and voltage were measured. Current was measuredwith the ammeter (accuracy grade of 0.2), and voltage with the voltmeter (accuracy grade of0.01).

Heat flux is calculated from the following equation:

q = U .I/S in Equation 1-1

where: q is the heat flux through the test section, W/m 2; U is the voltage at the test section, V; I isthe electric current, A; and S in is the area of internal surface of the test section, m

2.

2.2.1 Chemistry Monitoring of Working Fluid

During the tests, the purity of the working fluid around the cycle was monitored in the followinglocations: deaeration tank outlet 1, test section inlet 17, test section outlet 18, and makeup water10 (Figure 2-1).

2-5


24/46



The sampling locations and monitored parameters are listed in Table 2-1.

Conductivity, pH, and dissolved oxygen concentration were measured with Martek Mark XVIIIon-line chemistry analyzers. Sodium concentration was determined with an Orion 11811 EL on-line sodium analyzer [16, 17]. The basic technical parameters of these analyzers are given inTable 2-2.

Table 2-1Sampling Locations and Monitored Parameters

Sampling Location Monitored Parameters Monitoring Interval

Specific conductivity ContinuousMakeup water

pH Continuous

Specific and cation conductivity Continuous

H Continuous

Dissolved Oxygen ContinuousDeaeration tank outlet

Sodium Continuous

Dissolved Oxygen Continuous

pH Continuous

Redox potential (ORP) Continuous

Iron Grab (once per hour)

Test section inlet

Copper Grab (once per hour)

Redox potential (ORP) ContinuousIron Grab (once per hour)Test section outlet

Copper Grab (once per hour)

Table 2-2Basic Technical Parameters of On-Line Chemistry Analyzers [16, 17]

Parameter Instrument Measurement range Accuracy

Conductivity Martek Mark XVIII0-2 S/ m

0-20 S/ m

0.05 S /

0.05 S /

Dissolved oxygen Martek Mark XVIII0-20 ppb

0-200 ppb1.0% fsd at temperature of calibration

Martek Mark XVIII 2-12 0.05

Sodium Orion 11811 EL 0.01-1000 ppb 2.5% or 0.01 ppb

2-6


25/46



In addition to these instruments, the Mark-301T on-line oxygen analyzer was used for thedetermination of oxygen concentration at low water flowrate [18]. Comparison of measurementof the oxygen concentration over the range 200-400 ppb with two on-line instruments MartekMark XVIII and Mark-301T showed that the difference in the readings did not exceed 3-5% ofthe measured value.

Redox potential (ORP) was measured by the MARK-901 pH-millivoltmeter [19]. Platinum isused as the measuring electrode. It was treated and calibrated according to special procedures[20]. The same instrument has been used for measurement of pH at the test section inlet. This isbecause the Martek Mark XVIII pH-meter needs at least 2.7 1/h of sample flowrate for stableoperation, and the pH-millivoltmeter could work at significantly lower flowrates. The differencein the readings of these two instruments over the pH range of 7.0-9.5 and at the flowrates typicalfor the Mark XVIII pH-meter did not exceed 0.05 pH units.

Concentrations of iron and copper were determined with AAS-3 spectrophotometer withaccuracy of 2 ppb.

The system for recording and processing of the signals coming from the on-line analyzers isshown in Figure 2-4.

Figure 2-4Sampling System Diagram

2-7


26/46



2.4 Analysis of the Test Specimens

After each test the specimen was removed and dried in a desiccator. Then it was cut along thelength and surface analysis was performed for total and loose deposits. The analysis was

performed by the weighing. Prior to the analysis for deposits, the specimen was weighed, afterthat any loose deposits were removed with a brush, and finally the specimen was weighed onceagain. The difference in specimen weight before and after this treatment gave the weight of theloose deposits.

After removal of the loose deposits the specimen was washed in Trilon B solution (concentrationof 15 g/l) and dried. Then the specimen was weighed and the difference in the specimen weightbefore removing the loose deposits and after the treatment with Trilon B gives the weight of totaldeposits. The weighing was performed with an Adventurer electronic balance (accuracy of0.0001 g) [21].

For the determination of the composition of iron and copper corrosion products in water at thetest section inlet, the water passes through an ultrafilter with porosity of 0.45 nm, and theaccumulated matter is monitored with an X-ray diffractometer.

2-8


27/46


3 TEST RESULTS

3.1 Effect of Heat Flux on the Deposition Rate of Iron Corrosion ProductsWith AVT

As previously mentioned, all the tests on the deposition rate of iron corrosion products wereperformed at a pressure 18 MPa (2600 psi) and water temperature about 350 oC (660 oF). Thebasic thermal operational parameters of the test rig for each run are given in Table 3-1.Condensate is supplied from the MEI Power Plant, which uses AVT chemistry for feedwater and

phosphate chemistry in the boiler water. The purity of the water that entered the test rig was thefollowing: pH ~ 9.2; specific conductivity (SC) 3.7-6.1 S/cm; cation conductivity (CC) 0.20-0.42 S/cm; Na 2.1-6.3 ppb; DO 10-20 ppb.

It should be noted in Tables 3-2 and 3-3, that the ORP is slightly positive indicating that thechemistry is AVT(O) as expected because no reducing agent was added to the water in the testloop.

Table 3-1Thermal Operational Parameters of Test Rig With AVT Tests

Run No. q, kW/m 2 G, l/h V, m 2 /s t 1wall , o t 2

wall , o t inwater , o t out

water , o

1 54.6 73 0.279 - 335.9 326.4 329.12 150.4 59 0.217 349.4 354.2 324.3 328.0

3 * 291.5 61 0.225 352.7 355.1 319.4 328.7

4 48.1 69 0.254 327.0 331.5 327.9 328.7

5 48.5 64 0.236 340.2 - 324.7 328.2

6 159.9 73 0.269 332.0 333.6 323.3 328.2

7 50.2 74 0.273 329.2 335.6 325.2 328.8

7 ** 296.9 73 0.269 349.7 351.8 315.3 328.5

8 149.5 75 0.276 322.4 340.2 314.5 328.8

9 ** 302.6 74 0.273 350.7 353.7 308.7 328.5

10 51.1 72 0.265 334.0 336.1 325.7 328.723 50.3 72 0.265 329.2 332.3 325.1 328.0

24 300.0 82 0.303 347.8 350.7 314.2 326.4

25 50.8 80 0.295 326.4 333.7 324.4 327.5

26 ** 298.2 76 0.280 339.8 349.9 318.1 329.3

27 294.5 74 0.273 340.1 349.2 316.8 327.5

28 298.5 76 0.280 338.6 348.9 315.8 327.0

Notes: * indicates depressurization of specimen; ** rupture of specimen wall.

3-1


28/46


Test Results

Table 3-2Deposits of Iron Corrosion Products at Different Heat Flux With AVT (Average Data), Fe=5-10 ppb. Iron was injected as Fe 3O 4.

Water Purity at the Test Section InletDeposition

Rate10 -2 mg/(cm 2h)Run

No.

Time

h

q

kW/m2

DO,ppb

scS/cm

ccS/cm

Nappb

Feppb

ORPmV

Fe atthe

Outletppb Loose Total

1 121 54.6


29/46


Test Results

3.2 Effect of Copper Corrosion Products on the Deposition Rate With AVT

Study of the effect of copper on the deposition rate of iron corrosion products was one of thetasks of the current work. This study was performed at two values of heat flux: 50 and 300kW/m 2. During these tests, in addition to iron corrosion products, copper corrosion productswere injected into the test section inlet at concentrations between 8.8-15.3 ppb. In this series oftests the iron was injected as Fe 3O4 and the copper as Cu 2O. Test results (Table 3-4 and Figure 3-3) indicate that in this case the deposition rate also increased with heat flux. The presence ofcopper corrosion products in water increased the total amount of deposits as compared to the testcase without copper corrosion products (Figure 3-4). The percentage of deposits of coppercorrosion products found in the total deposit is given in Table 3-5.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Heat flux, kW/m 2

D e p o s

i t i o n r a

t e , m

g / ( c m

2 * h ) * 1 0 -

2

Fe = 5-10 ppb

Fe = 40 ppb

Figure 3-1Effect of Heat Flux on Deposition (Total) of Iron Corrosion Products With AVT. Iron wasinjected as Fe 3O 4.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Heat flux, kW/m 2

D e p o s

i t i o n r a

t e ,

m g

/ ( c m

2 * h ) * 1 0 -

2

Fe = 5-10 ppb

Fe = 40 ppb

Figure 3-2Effect of Heat Flux on Deposition (Loose) of Iron Corrosion Products With AVT. Iron wasinjected as Fe 3O 4.

3-3


30/46


Test Results

These data indicate that the copper percentage in the total deposits is almost independent of ironconcentration in water, but does depend on heat flux. For example, an increase in heat flux from50 to 300 kW/m 2 increased the copper percentage from 8.2 to 50%.

Table 3-4Deposits of Iron and Copper Corrosion Products at Heat Flux of 50 and 300 kW/m 2 WithAVT (Average Data). Iron was injected as Fe 3O 4 and Copper as Cu 2O.

Water purity at the test section inlet

DepositionRate10 -2

mg/(cm 2h)RunNo.

Timeh

qkW/m 2

DOppb

ScS/cm

CcS/cm

Nappb

Feppb

Cuppb

ORPmV

Fe atthe

Outletppb

Cu atthe

Outletppb

Loose Total

23 120 50.3


31/46


Test Results

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Heat flux, kW/m 2

D e p o s

i t i o n r a

t e ,

m g

/ ( c m

2 * h ) * 1 0 -

2

50 300

1 2 3 4 5 6

Fe = 5-10 ppb, Cu = 8.8 ppb: 1 loose deposits, 2 total depositsFe = 40 ppb, Cu = 15.3 ppb: 3 loose deposits, 4 total deposits

Fe = 5-10 ppb, Cu = 14.2 ppb: 5 loose deposits, 6 total deposits

Figure 3-3Deposits of Iron and Copper Corrosion Products at Heat Flux of 50 and 300 kW/m 2 WithAVT. Iron was Injected as Fe 3O 4 and Copper as Cu 2O.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Heat flux, kW/m 2

D e p o s i

t i o n r a

t e ,

m g

/ ( c m

2 * h ) * 1 0 -

2

1 12 3 4 2 3 4

50 300

loose deposits, Fe = 5-10 ppb: 1 without Cu, 2 with Cu;total deposits, Fe = 5-10 ppb: 3 without Cu, 4 with Cu

Figure 3-4

Deposits of Corrosion Products With and Without Copper at Heat Flux of 50 and 300 kW/m2

With AVT

3-5


32/46


Test Results

3.3 Effect of Heat Flux on the Deposition Rate of Iron Corrosion ProductsWith OT

For the tests with OT, the MEI Power Plant steam condensate was treated with the test rig ion-

exchange plant. The required oxygen concentration and pH value were controlled by the ratio ofthe water flow entering the pumps from the ion exchangers and from the deaeration tank. Aswith AVT, the tests were performed at heat fluxes of 50, 150, and 300 kW/m 2 and twoconcentrations of iron corrosion products at the test section inlet. In this series of tests the ironwas injected as FeOOH. The basic thermal operational parameters during these tests are given inTable 3-6, and the results are provided in Tables 3-7 and 3-8, and Figures 3-5 and 3-6.

It should be noted that the ORP is oxidizing in Tables 3-7 and 3-8 as a result of the high oxygenlevels.

Table 3-6Thermal Operational Parameters of Test Rig With OT Tests

Run No. q, kW/m 2 G, l/h V, m 2 /s t 1wall , o t 2

wall , o t inwater , o t out

water , o

11 151.8 70 0.258 333.6 346.5 322.4 327.9

12 303.5 80 0.295 339.5 349.8 318.4 327.8

13 310.4 63 0.232 349.5 353.4 314.1 326.8

14 303.4 61 0.225 346.0 349.0 316.4 327.6

15 148.8 62 0.228 333.1 345.9 324.1 328.5

16 * 151.2 74 0.273 339.6 350.2 324.2 328.7

17 49.6 72 0.265 326.4 329.3 329.0 331.7

18 50.0 71 0.261 328.3 332.0 327.4 329.6

19 49.3 70 0.258 326.5 332.7 326.9 328.9

20 50.0 70 0.258 326.5 327.1 324.1 327.7

21 300.0 66 0.242 333.2 350.0 316.9 326.6

22 275.7 69 0.254 338.7 348.2 315.9 326.4

29 156.0 71 0.261 337.8 349.2 323.9 328.1

Note: * water purity varied

3-6


33/46


Test Results

Table 3-7Deposits of Iron Corrosion Products at Different Heat Flux With OT (Average Data), Fe = 5-10 ppb. The iron was injected as FeOOH.

Water purity at the test section inlet Deposition Rate,10 -2 mg/(cm 2h)

RunNo.

Timeh

qkW/m 2

DOppb

scS/cm

ccS/cm

Nappb

Feppb

ORPmV

Fe at theOutlet,

ppbLoose Total

17 118 49.6 312 8.3 2.40 0.50 2.8 5.6 275 4.5 0.22 0.3711 121 151.8 232 8.2 2.40 0.40 2.9 9.5 230 6.0 0.51 0.7315 121 148.8 287 7.8 2.50 0.20 3.3 10.0 260 8.5 0.25 0.4112 90 303.5 352 8.1 2.60 - 1.2 8.0 280


34/46


Test Results

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Heat flux, kW/m 2

D e p o s

i t i o n r a

t e ,

m g

/ ( c m

2 * h ) * 1 0 -

2

Fe = 5-10 ppb

Fe = 40 ppb

Fe = 40 ppb (poor water purity)

Figure 3-6Effect of Heat Flux on Deposition (Loose) of Iron Corrosion Products With OT. IronInjected as FeOOH.

The data presented in Tables 3-7 and 3-8 and shown in Figure 3-5 and 3-6 indicate that thedeposition rate of total and loose deposits on specimen surfaces increased with an increase inheat flux from 50 to 300 kW/m 2. Increasing concentrations of iron corrosion products alsoresulted in an increase of deposition rate at constant heat flux value. The pattern of thisdependence with heat flux was almost the same for both ~ 10 ppb and ~ 40 ppb of iron corrosionproducts.

3.4 Effect of Copper Corrosion Products on the Deposition Rate With OT

This study was performed at two values of heat flux: 50 and 300 kW/m 2. As with AVT, coppercorrosion products were injected into the water. But here the copper was injected as CuO. Withthe simultaneous presence of iron and copper corrosion products in the water, the total amount ofdeposits on the specimen surface increased with heat flux and concentration of iron corrosionproducts (Tables 3-9 and 3-10, Figures 3-7 and 3-8).

These data indicate that the percentage of copper in the deposits is almost independent of heatflux, but does depend on iron concentration in water at the test section inlet. For example, at iron

concentration in water of ~ 40 ppb it was several times higher than at 5-10 ppb.

3-8


35/46


Test Results

Table 3-9Deposits of Iron and Copper Corrosion Products at Heat Fluxes of 50 and 300 kW/m 2 WithOT (Average Data). Iron Injected as FeOOH and Copper as CuO.

Water Purity at the Test Section Inlet Deposition Rate 10 -2 mg/(cm 2h)

RunNo.

Timeh

qkW/m 2

DO,ppb sc, /cm cc,S/cm Na,ppb Fe,ppb Cu,ppb ORP,mV

Fe atthe

Outletppb

Cu atthe

Outletppb Loose Total

19 49.3 296 8.1 1.50 0.20 2.0 36.6 16.4 220 34.8 16.0 0.25 0.4920 50.0 316 8.4 2.50 0.20 4.5 9.0 16.1 245 7.8 15.0 0.13 0.3321 300.0 272 7.9 2.40 0.31 6.8 7.9 12.0 235


36/46


Test Results

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Heat flux, kW/m2

D e p o s

i t i o n r a

t e ,

m g

/ ( c m

2 * h ) * 1 0 -

2

1

5

2 3 4

6 7 8

50 300

Fe = 5-10 ppb, Cu = 16 ppb: 1 loose deposits, 2 total depositsFe = 40 ppb, Cu = 16 ppb: 3 loose deposits, 4 total depositsFe = 5-10 ppb, Cu = 12 ppb: 5 loose deposits, 6 total depositsFe = 40 ppb, Cu = 8.4 ppb: 7 loose deposits, 8 total deposits

Figure 3-7Deposits of Iron and Copper Corrosion Products at Heat Fluxes of 50 and 300 kW/m 2 With OT

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Heat flux, kW/m 2

D e p o s i

t i o n r a

t e ,

m g

/ ( c m

2 * h ) * 1 0 -

2

1 12 3 4 2 3 4

50 300

loose deposits, Fe = 5-10 ppb: 1 without Cu, 2 with Cu;total deposits, Fe = 5-10 ppb: 3 without Cu, 4 with Cu

Figure 3-8Deposits of Corrosion Products With and Without Copper at Heat Fluxes of 50 and 300kW/m 2 With OT

3-10


37/46


38/46


Discussion of Test Data

50

3005-10

400.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

D e p o s

i t i o n r a

t e ,

m g / ( c m

2 * h ) * 1 0 - 2

H e a t f l u x , k W / m2 F e

, p p b

AVT

OT

OT

AVT

Figure 4-1Effect of Chemistry on the Deposition Rate (Loose) of Iron Corrosion Products

50

3005-10

400.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

D e p o s

i t i o n r a

t e ,

m g / ( c m

2 * h ) * 1 0 - 2

H e a t f l u x , k W / m2 F e

, p p b

AVT

OT

OT

AVT

Figure 4-2Effect of Chemistry on the Deposition Rate (Total) of Iron Corrosion Products

4-2


39/46


Discussion of Test Data

Table 4-1Deposition Rate of Iron Corrosion Products in the Presence of Copper

Deposition Rate of Iron CorrosionProductsmg/(cm 2h)

q, W/m 2 Chemistry Concentration ofIron in Water, ppb

Concentration ofCopper in Water

ppb

Without Cu With Cu50.3 AVT 5-10 8.8 0.50 0.7850.0 AVT ~40 15.3 1.40 1.35

300.0 AVT 5-10 14.2 2.70 1.6050.0 OT 5-10 16.1 0.35 0.2950.0 OT ~40 16.4 0.45 0.44

300.0 OT 5-10 12.0 1.80 1.98275 OT 40 8.4 1.60 2.30

Again the basic reason for these different deposition rates is due to the different forms of coppercorrosion products with these two chemistries. Study of the composition of the corrosionproducts in the water at the test section inlet showed that with AVT the copper waspredominantly as Cu 2O with a small amount of non-identified spinel-type substance, but with OT

the copper was mainly as CuO It is now known that the solubility of Cu 2O is similar to that ofCuO at boiler operating temperatures [24]. It is interesting that with AVT the percentage ofcopper in the total deposit drastically increases with heat flux.

4-3


40/46


41/46


5 CONCLUSIONS

1. The effect of heat flux on the deposition rate onto a carbon steel tube surface was studied atthree heat flux values (50, 150, and 300 kW.m 2) and two chemistries (AVT and OT).

2. Increasing heat flux resulted in increased deposition rates on the carbon steel surface withboth AVT and OT chemistries.

3. The deposition rate with OT was less than that with AVT.

4. The presence of copper corrosion products had very little effect on the deposition rate of ironcorrosion products.

5-1


42/46


43/46


6 REFERENCES

1. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: All Volatile Treatment. 1004187, EPRI, PaloAlto, CA, 2002.

2. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: Oxygenated Treatment. 1004925, EPRI, PaloAlto, CA, 2004.

3. Guidelines for Operation of Power Plants and Electric Networks. ORGRES/Energoservice,Moscow, Russia, 1996.

4. Yu. V. Zenkevich and V.E. Sekrertar, Formation of Iron Oxide Deposits in Supercritical

Steam Generator Tubes, Teploenergetika , No. 11, pp. 66-69 (1976).5. V.P. Glebov, P.A. Antikain, V.M. Zusman, A.P. Mamet, E.P. Kurilenko, and V.A. Taratuta,

Kinetics of Formation of Inner Iron Oxide Deposits in Boiler Tubes Located in HighThermal Stress Zones, Elektricheskie Stantsii . No. 8, pp. 19-23 (1975).

6. N.A. Mankina and B.L. Koktov, On the Mechanism of Iron Oxide Scaling,Teploenergetika . No. 9, pp. 15-17 (1973).

7. M.I. Reznikov, V.L. Menshikova, I.F. Kobyako, V.P. Brusakov, N.N. Devianin, and V.L.Balakin, Effect of Inner Iron Oxide Deposits on Temperature Condition of Operation ofRadiant Tubes of Supercritical Steam Generator, Teploenergetika . No. 11, pp. 51-55(1975).

8. L.I. Belyakov, L. Yu. Krasyakova, and A.F. Belokonova, Magnetite Deposits in Waterwallsof TGMP-114 Boiler and Experience of their Removal, Teploenergetika . No. 2, pp. 49-53(1974).

9. G.M. Kaluzhskaya, R.A. Meyer, and M.A. Gotovsky, Thermal Resistance of Inner TubeDeposits with Boiling, Teploenergetika . No. 7, pp. 55-58 (1984).

10. N.A. Mankina, Scaling in Steam Boilers with Multiple Circulation, Teploenergetika . No.12, pp. 45-51 (1964).

11. F. McCarthy, J.E. Bane and G. OConnor, Oxygenated Treatment in a 300 MW Drum TypeBoiler, PowerPlant Chemistry . Vol. 1, No. 6, pp. 17-21 (1999).

12. D. Addison, K. Hopkins, and B. White, Oxygenated Treatment at Huntly Power StationUnit 2: Preliminary Results from Steady State and 2-Shifting Operation, PowerPlantChemistry . Vol. 4, No. 8, pp. 449-457 (2002).

13. D. McInnes, J. Cabrera, and D. Ryan, Tarong Energys Experience with Unit Cycle CopperTransport and Deposition, PowerPlant Chemistry . Vol. 3, No. 11, pp. 651-655 (2001).

14. I. Dedekind, D. Aspden, K.J. Galt, and D. Dalgetty, Oxygenated Feedwater Treatment at theWorlds Largest Fossil Power Plant Beward of Pitfalls, PowerPlant Chemistry . Vol. 3,No. 11, pp. 651-655 (2001).

6-1


44/46


References

15. RM-5 Electromagnetic Counter/Flowmeter. Operational Manual. TBN Energoservice,Moscow, Russia, 2001.

16. Mark XVIII Ultrapure Water Quality Monitoring System Operation Manual. MartekInstruments Inc., Raleigh, NC, 1993.

17. Low Level Sodium Monitor. Model 1811 EL. Instruction Manual. Orion Research, Boston,MA, 1993.

18. MARK-301T Dissolved Oxygen Analyzer. Operation Manual. NPP Vzor, NizhnyNovgorod, Russia, 1999.

19. MARK-901 pH-Millivoltmeter. Operation Manual. NPP Vzor, Nizhny Novgorod, Russia,2002.

20. T.I. Petrova et al , Measurement of Oxidation Potential of Aqueous Solutions, Trudy MEI .Vol. 238, pp. 26-32 (1975).

21. Adventurer Analytical Balance. Operation Manual. Ohaus Corp., Pine Brook, NJ, 2002.

22. I.I. Chudnovskaya, The Structure and Phase Composition of Inner Deposits in LowerRadiant Section Tubes, Teploenergetika . No. 11, pp. 68-70 (1979).

23. G.V. Vasilenko, Regularities of Deposition of Iron Compounds in Supercritical SteamGenerators with Different Water Chemistries, Teploenergetika . No. 3, pp. 43-47 (1978).

24. Behaviour of Aqueous Electrolytes in Steam Cycles: The final report on the solubility andvolatility of Copper (I) and Copper (II) oxides. EPRI. Palo Alto, CA. 1011075. September2004.

6-2


45/46


46/46

2004 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved. Electric Power ResearchInstitute 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

Program: 1008083

Boiler and Turbine Steam and Cycle Chemistry

SINGLE USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND THE ELECTRIC POWERRESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY BEFORE REMOVING THEWRAPPING MATERIAL.

BY OPENING THIS SEALED PACKAGE YOU ARE AGREEING TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.IF YOU DONOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, PROMPTLY RETURN THE UNOPENED PACKAGE TO EPRAND THE PURCHASE PRICE WILL BE REFUNDED.

1. GRANT OF LICENSEEPRI grants you the nonexclusive and nontransferable right during the term of this agreement to use this packageonly 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 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 own benefit or the benefit of any partyother than your company.This shrink-wrap license agreement is subordinate to the terms of the Master Utility License Agreement betweenmost U.S. EPRI member utilities and EPRI. Any EPRI member utility that does not have a Master Utility LicenseAgreement may get one on request.

2. COPYRIGHTThis package, including the information contained in it,is either licensed to EPRI or owned by EPRI and is protected byUnited States and international copyright laws.You may not,without the prior written 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.

3. RESTRICTIONSYou may not rent, lease, license, disclose or give this package to any person or organization,or use the informationcontained in this package, for the benefit of any third party or for any purpose other than as specified above unlesssuch use is with the prior written permission of EPRI.You agree to take all reasonable steps to prevent unauthorizeddisclosure 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.

4.TERM A ND TERMINATIONThis license and this agreement are effective until terminated.You may terminate them at any time by destroying thispackage. EPRI has the right to terminate the license and this agreement immediately if you fail to comply with anyterm 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 LIABILITIESNEITHER EPRI,ANY MEMBER OF EPRI,ANY COSPONSOR, NOR ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ACTINGON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITHRESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEMDISCLOSED IN THIS PACKAGE, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULARPURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELYOWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTYS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS PACKAGEIS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USERS CIRCUMSTANCE; OR

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDINANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISOF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THISPACKAGE OR ANY INFORMATION,APPARATUS, METHOD,PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED INTHIS PACKAGE.

6. EXPORTThe laws and regulations of the United States restrict the export and re-export of any portion of this package, andyou agree not to export or re-export this package or any related technical data in any form without the appropri-ate United States a nd foreign government approvals.

7. CHOICE OF LAWThis agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California as applied to transactions taking place entire-ly in California between California residents.

8. INTEGRATIONYou have read and understand this agreement, and acknowledge that it is the final, complete and exclusive agreementbetween you and EPRI concerning its subject matter, superseding any prior related understanding or agreement.Nowaiver, variation or different terms of this agreement will be enforceable against EPRI unless EPRI gives its prior writ-ten consent, signed by an officer of EPRI.

About EPRI

EPRI creates science and technology solutions forthe global energy and energy services industry.U.S. electric utilities established the Electric PowerResearch Institute in 1973 as a nonprofit researchconsortium for the benefit of utility members, theircustomers, and society. Now known simply as EPRI,the company provides a wide range of innovativeproducts and services to more than 1000 energy-related organizations in 40 countries. EPRIsmultidisciplinary team of scientists and engineersdraws on a worldwide network of technical andbusiness expertise to help solve todays toughestenergy and environmental problems.

Export Control RestrictionsAccess to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is grantedwith the specific understanding and requirement thatresponsibility for ensuring full compliance with all applicableU.S. and foreign export laws and regulations is being under-taken by you and your company.This includes an obligationto ensure that any individual receiving access hereunder whois not a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident is permittedaccess under applicable U.S. and foreign export laws andregulations. In the event you are uncertain whether you oryour company may lawfully obtain access to this EPRIIntellectual Property, you acknowledge that it is yourobligation to consult with your companys legal counsel todetermine whether this access is lawful. Although EPRI maymake available on a case by case basis an informal assessmentof the applicable U.S. export classification for specific EPRIIntellectual Property, you and your company acknowledgethat this assessment is solely for informational purposes andnot for reliance purposes. You and your companyacknowledge that it is still the obligation of you and yourcompany to make your own assessment of the applicableU.S. export classification and ensure compliance accordingly.You and your company understand and acknowledge yourobligations to make a prompt report to EPRI and theappropriate authorities regarding any access to or use of EPRI Intellectual Property hereunder that may be in violationof applicable U.S. or foreign export laws or regulations.

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sabari-gireaswaran
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times

000000000001008083-Deposition in Drum Boiler Surfaces

Documents