TETRA HRSG Tube Failure Statistics White Paper

White Paper on Technical Issues
Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) Tube Failures

Introduction
Tetra Engineering Group, Inc. (TETRA) has assisted the owners of natural gas-fired combined cycle
plants with effective remedies to HRSG thermal performance and integrity issues since 1993. Over
that time, TETRA inspected hundreds of HRSGs of all types and sizes from nearly every HRSG
manufacturer and performed numerous failure analyses on HRSG components.
Heat Recovery Steam Generators
Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) tubes are the interface where useful energy from the waste
heat contained in gas turbine exhaust is used to generate steam. HRSGs have undergone substantial
changes in design over the past 20 years as the technology matured, starting from small single-
pressure units driven by aeroderivative gas turbines to today’s large triple-pressure units with reheat
running steam pressures in the high-subcritical region [1], not to mention the various once-through
designs. Besides fundamental design differences, modern HRSGs are also subject to a wider range of
duty in power applications. Baseload operation was normal for earlier HRSGs, but today’s deregulated
electric power market imposes that many new large HRSGs cycle or operate in flexible duty.
The relatively simple design and less severe operating conditions than in radiant boilers running with
coal or oil create a more benign environment for the HRSG heat exchanger tubes. Nonetheless, failures
do happen, and of particular concern are tube failures, which are not uncommon. Modern demands
on HRSGs has effectively driven them to see many of the tube failures that occurred on radiant boilers,
with some differences.
When TETRA published the Tube Failure Diagnostic Guide in 2004, the authors anticipated the higher
pressures and temperatures that emerging HRSG designs would impose on tubes. The result would be
greater risk of high temperature damage due to creep, corrosion fatigue and damage due to stresses
that result from differential thermal expansion. TETRA’s observations over the last 15 years have
largely confirmed that prediction.
Tube Failure Statistics
Tube failures occur in all heat exchanger modules, from the cold-end economizers to the hot-end
superheaters and reheaters, but the most prevalent types of damage mechanism in each area will be
different. The nature of service (base load or cycling), fuel type and water quality will also influence
the frequency of occurrence for a given damage mechanism. Mechanisms include: Creep, Fatigue,
Creep-Fatigue, Underdeposit Attack, Flow-Accelerated Corrosion (FAC), Mechanical Erosion, Stress-
Corrosion Cracking (SCC), Overheating and Mechanical (Tensile) Overload.
So Which Failure Modes Are Most Common?
Very few comprehensive statistics have been published on failure locations and damage mechanism
in modern HRSGs. To gain insight into frequency and types of failures, Tetra Engineering has compiled
statistics from internal company projects on tube failure locations in HRSGs from 86 different sites in
North/South America, Europe, Middle East and Asia. The data covers roughly 8 years of TETRA projects
and is summarized in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Although it is not an exhaustive accounting of all projects
in the period, it does provide a useful indication of the frequency of occurrence of failures by HRSG
location and by mechanism. Superheater and Reheater tubes are the most prominent tube types in
our assessments, accounting for close to 50% of all the failures. That’s probably influenced by the fact
that these tube failures are the biggest ‘surprises’. With steam tubes making up nearly half of the
numbers, its no wonder that creep and fatigue (separately and combined) are the two most common
failure mechanisms, representing 40% of all failures. Corrosion in its various forms (such as cold-end
corrosion or under-deposit attack) represent 23% of the failures. Flow-Accelerated Corrosion was the
cause of failure in only 8% of the failures investigated (although failures sometimes continue to happen
after the cause and solution has been identified).
White Paper on Technical Issues – HRSG Tube Failures
Failure Locations
SuperHeater
5% 14%
Reheater 24%
HP Economizer
LP Economizer 8%
HP Evaporator 12%
LP Evaporator 24%
PreHeater 8%
Other Tubes 5%
Figure 1: Failure locations
Tube Failure Statistics

Creep
5% 10%
Fatigue
14%
Corrosion
8% 23%
Fabrication
Defect 10%
Tensile Overload
10% 23%
FAC
Other
Creep-Fatigue
Figure 2: Tube Failure mechanisms
Conclusion
A sizeable sampling of the tube failure mechanisms and locations identified in projects performed by
TETRA over recent years shows that hot-end components are the biggest problem area, with nearly
half the failures investigated occurring in these tube locations. This is consistent with the observed
failure mechanisms where creep, creep-fatigue and fatigue account for close to 40% of the failures.
The occurrence of fatigue failures is most common in components subject to high thermal stresses and
movements, i.e. such as the superheater and reheater tubes. The relatively low frequency of FAC
failures is somewhat surprising given the amount of attention it receives. Unless a HRSG design is at
fault, Tetra’s clients don’t often see repeat failures of FAC, because the remedies are generally well-
understood.
White Paper on Technical Issues – HRSG Tube Failures
Bibliography
[1] D. Moelling, P. Jackson et F. Anderson, HRSG Tube Failure Diagnostic Guide - 2nd edition, Tetra
Engineering Group Inc, 2004.

TETRA HRSG Tube Failure Statistics White Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TETRA HRSG Tube Failure Statistics White Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TETRA HRSG Tube Failure Statistics White Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

White Paper on Technical Issues

Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) Tube Failures

Figure 1: Failure locations

Tube Failure Statistics

Figure 2: Tube Failure mechanisms

You might also like