GE Power & Water

Water & Process Technologies

Metallurgy Services
9669 Grogans Mill Road
The Woodlands, Texas 77380
281-367-6201
281-363-7794 Fax

METALLURGICAL LAB REPORT

Representative:

Robert Stewart

Plant:
Location:
Unit:
Report No.:
Date:

Petrojam Ltd.
Kingston. Jamaica
B1C, 150 psig
2014-0030
March 13, 2014

BACKGROUND
Two tube sections from the B1C Boiler at the subject account were submitted for failure
analysis. When the tubing was removed on January 13, 2014, the time in service was five
years.

RESULTS
Figure 1 is a photograph showing the submitted tubing. The samples were not labeled
and, for the purposes of this report, were arbitrarily identified as Tubes A and B. Tube A
exhibited perforation (Figures 2 and 3). The external surface of Tube B was covered with
tan and gray deposit, no failure was observed (Figure 4).

The tubes were split lengthwise to facilitate examination of the internal surface. The
internal surface were covered with light-gray, white and brown deposit (Figures 5 and 6).

Test sections were removed from both tubes to determine the deposit weight density
(DWD) values. Micrometer measurements taken before and after the deposit removal
step were used to measure the deposit thickness (Figures 7 and 8). The following results
were obtained:

Page 2 of 13
Maximum Deposit
2

DWD (g/ft )

Thickness (in.)

Tube A

33

0.006

Tube B

41

0.007

Scanning electron microscope-energy dispersive x-ray analysis (SEM-EDXA) was used

to determine the elemental composition of the external and internal deposit in the
submitted tubes. The semi-quantitative results (Table 1) indicate the external deposits
were composed of mostly iron, calcium and sulfur species. Minor amounts of vanadium,
sodium, chlorine, and silicon were also detected.

The presence of sulfur, chlorine,

sodium, and vanadium are known to cause fireside corrosion via molten salt corrosion.
The internal deposit on the waterside (Table 2) consists primarily of iron, calcium, and
sulfur compounds. Minor amount of sodium, magnesium, chlorine, vanadium, and silicon
were also detected, along with trace amounts of other constituents.
.
The external and internal surfaces were mechanically cleaned to facilitate examination of
the underlying metal. There was evidence of corrosion pitting on the internal surface after
cleaning (Figures 911). The maximum internal surface pit depth measured in Tubes A
and B was 0.014 inches and 0.018 respectively. Figures 13 and 14 showed the external
surface of Tubes A and B after mechanical cleaning, which exhibited general/fireside
corrosion.

At the failure edge of Tube A, the wall thickness was measured to be 0.003 inches, which
represents an approximate 95% loss of metal thickness as compared to the tube nominal
thickness of 0.055 inches. The combined wall loss of Tube B due to external surface
corrosion and internal pitting was 0.030 inches, or 57%, when compared to the maximum
thickness of 0.070 inches.

Transverse sections were cut out from selected areas of the tubes and prepared for
metallographic inspection. Figures 1519 show the microstructure along the internal and

Page 3 of 13
external surface of the tubing, which exhibited general corrosion/corrosion pitting. The
internal pitting appeared consistent with dissolved oxygen corrosion in the tubing. The
mid-wall microstructures of the tubing consisted of ferrite/pearlite, normal for carbon
steel boiler tubing in the as-manufactured condition. No overheating was observed in the
tubing.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The failure of Tube A was caused by combination fireside corrosion (over 95%
loss of wall thickness estimated in the failed region), and general internal
corrosion pitting within the thinned area.

2. Tube B also exhibited combined wall loss due to external surface corrosion and
internal corrosion pitting (57% wall loss, when compared to the maximum wall
thickness).
3. The maximum internal pitting was 0.014 inches and 0.018 inches respectively in
Tubes A and B. The pitting was likely caused by dissolved oxygen corrosion.
4. The composition of the fireside deposit in the thinned regions was varied, with
some vanadium, sulfur-compounds, and trace chloride salts noted to be present.
Vanadium, sulfur, sodium, and chlorides can combine to produce aggressive
molten salts, to flux protective iron oxide scales on the tube fireside surfaces,
resulting in accelerated metal loss.
5. Microstructural analysis indicated that no overheating occurred in the tubing.

Michael Adeosun
Metallurgical Engineer

Page 4 of 13

Tube A OD
White
(wt %)

Tube A OD
Brown
(wt %)

Tube B OD
Top
(wt %)

Tube B OD
Bottom
(wt %)

93.4

38.7

41.5

96.4

Calcium

27.1

26.2

Sodium

3.1

1.1

0.5

Vanadium

3.0

2.9

Sulfur

2.6

26.3

26.2

Silicon

2.4

0.9

Chlorine

0.6

Chromium

0.5

Aluminum

0.4

1.4

1.8

0.4

Element
Iron

2.8

Data is normalized with carbon and oxygen excluded

TABLE 1. SEMI-QUANTITATIVE ELEMENTAL SEM-EDXA OF THE

TUBES EXTERNAL SURFACE DEPOSIT

Page 5 of 13

Tube A ID
White
(wt %)

Tube A ID
Brown
(wt %)

Tube B ID
Brown
(wt %)

Tube B ID
Gray
(wt %)

Calcium

31.7

9.2

0.7

0.5

Iron

30.0

80.1

94.5

93.1

Sulfur

27.9

3.2

0.8

Vanadium

3.4

3.8

Silicon

2.3

1.9

3.2

4.5

Nickel

1.9

Aluminum

1.6

1.3

0.1

0.5

Chromium

0.7

Sodium

0.5

0.6

Magnesium

0.3

0.6

0.5

Element

Data is normalized with carbon and oxygen excluded.

TABLE 2. SEMI-QUANTITATIVE ELEMENTAL SEM-EDXA OF THE

TUBES INTERNAL SURFACE DEPOSIT

Page 6 of 13

GE Power & Water

Water & Process Technologies
Tube A

Tube B
Figure 1. Photograph showing the
submitted tube samples as-received for
evaluation.

Figure 2. Photograph showing the

external surface of Tube A, at the failure.

Figure 3. Photograph showing a cross

section of Tube A, at the failure (arrow).

Page 7 of 13

GE Power & Water

Water & Process Technologies

Figure 4. Photograph showing the

external surface of Tube B.

Figure 5. Photograph showing the

internal surface of Tube A at the failure
(arrow).

Figure 6. Photograph showing the

internal surface of Tube B.

Page 8 of 13

GE Power & Water

Water & Process Technologies

Figure 7. Photograph of the internal

surface of DWD test section, Tube A.

Figure 8. Photograph of the internal

surface of DWD test section, Tube B.

Figure 9. Photograph of the internal

surface of DWD test section, Tube A,
after mechanical cleaning.

Page 9 of 13

GE Power & Water

Water & Process Technologies

Figure 10. Photograph of the internal

surface of DWD test section, Tube B,
after mechanical cleaning.

Figure 11. Photograph showing the

external surface of Tube B, after
mechanical cleaning.

Figure 12. Photograph showing the

internal surface of Tube B, after
cleaning.

Page 10 of 13

GE Power & Water

Water & Process Technologies

Figure 13. Photograph showing the

external surface of Tube A, at the failure
(arrow), after cleaning

Figure 14.. Photograph showing the

external surface of Tube B, after
mechanical cleaning.

Figure 15. Photomicrograph showing the

steel microstructure at the failure edge of
Tube A. Nital Etch. 50x.

Page 11 of 13

GE Power & Water

Water & Process Technologies

Figure 16. Photomicrograph showing the

external and internal surfaces of Tube A,
adjacent to the failure. Nital Etch. 100x.

Figure 17. Photomicrograph showing

the mid-wall steel microstructure of
Tube A. Nital Etch. 500x.

Figure 18. Photomicrograph showing the

internal surface steel microstructure
observed on Tube B. Nital Etch. 50x.

Page 12 of 13

GE Power & Water

Water & Process Technologies

Figure 19. Photomicrograph showing the

mid-wall steel microstructure of Tube B.
Nital Etch, 500x.

Page 13 of 13

Notes