Prioritization of issues improves HRSG reliability, performance

Posted on September 4, 2013 by Team CCJ

That some F-class HRSGs designed for base-load service and installed during the boom are facing extraordinary maintenance projects after 10 to 15 years of cycling, fast starts, and spin cooling should not surprise, Amy Sieben, PE, principal, ALS Consulting LLC, told the more than 120 attendees at the Combined Cycle Users Groups (CCUG) 2013 Annual Conference in Phoenix this morning. Phyllis Gassert, chairperson for the opening session on Strategic and Financial Planning, a member of the CCUGs steering committee and plant engineer at Dynegy Power LLCs Ontelaunee Energy Center agreed, citing her facilitys experience with failed pressure Gassert Sieben parts as well as its positive experience in using an acoustic monitoring system to warn of tube leaks before they result in catastrophic failures. Sieben, who represents Chanute Manufacturing Co, has seen more than her share of damage to HRSGs caused by poor operating practices, leaking attemperator valves, poor water chemistry, etc. Recently, she mentioned to the editors, Chanute supplied 24 harps to replace the entire HP evaporator section in a G-Class HRSG. Sieben said many combined-cycle plants are in dire need of a long-term HRSG maintenance plan. In addition to unforeseen issues causing forced outages and gobbling up unbudgeted maintenance dollars, she finds many plant staffs are so overwhelmed by condition-assessment initiatives for high-energy piping (HEP), flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC), and P91 components that they suffer analysis paralysisa condition conducive to reactive maintenance. Critical to moving forward, Sieben said, is prioritization of HRSG issues according to their unique characteristics and unit operating history. The end result is a weighted-risk matrix incorporating such factors as safety, access, cost, loss exposure, etc. First step is information gathering, a task that should not be underestimated in terms of the time involvedespecially if your facility is

one of many that has had more than one owner over the years, and the current plant manager, operations manager, maintenance manager, or plant engineer has not been onsite since commercial start. Heres a list of the information she recommended that you compile: Historical operating profileincluding starts (hot/warm/cold), hours, trips (full load/part load), spin cooling. This information is required for estimating remaining fatigue life should that be necessary. Planned operating profile going forward. Be sure to consider external factorsincluding the shutdown of nearby coal-fired and nuclear units, fuel prices, new generating facilities powered by intermittent renewables, grid requirements (such as ancillary services), etc. Issues currently causing outagessuch as tube leaksand operational work-arounds. Failure historyof pressure parts, in particular (Fig 1). Important to enter details in an official record, after validation. Examples: Have tube failures occurred in a specific area of the HRSG? Have any root cause analyses (RCAs) been conducted? Metallurgical analyses? Gather all the data available, making note of missing information perhaps field weld reports on P91 components. History of inspection findings. Are superheater and reheater tubes bent out of position? Is the position/bow changing or growing? Maintenance history. Have pressure parts been replaced? Are seals problematic? Are baffles in the correct position? How quickly do finned-tube surfaces foul? How often are tube surfaces cleaned? What is the typical performance gain after tube cleaning? Cycle chemistry. Important to know how this has changed over the years. Was AVT(R) ever used? Phosphate? Operator training. Is there an active re-certification program for operators?

1. Develop an official record of pressure part failures

2. Test catalyst regularly for reactivity and be sure seals are in place to prevent gas bypass

3. Poor sealing at roof joints can allow rainwater attack of pressure parts below

4. Check drain pipes for corrosion and thinning; replace as necessary, sooner rather than later

Identifying the issues. Sieben said that answers to the following questions are important for identifying areas of concern that should be addressed in the strategic plan. This is not a comprehensive list for all plants, she added, but a specific (fictional) plant example: FAC. There has been evidence of tube- and header-wall thinning in the LP evaporator and feedwater heater. Has a risk analysis been done? Are areas being monitored for progressive thinning? Is the situation well defined/under control? HEP. There has been cracking and significant fatigue-life expenditure in piping downstream of desuperheaters. Is a program in place to evaluate the condition of all HEP?

 IP economizers. There have been multiple tube-to-header leaks. Does the plant continue to operate until water inventory can no longer be maintained? Has a proper RCA been conducted? Liner and ductwork. There is insulation in the catalyst and finned surfaces. Are hot spots, possibly even cracking, in evidence on the exterior casing in the area of the inlet and/or firing ducts? Catalyst. Has the catalyst been tested? Replacement of SCR catalyst is based on reactivity, which should be trended to allow proper planning and budgeting. Catalyst in bubble-period HRSGs is rapidly approaching end of effective life (Fig 2). Penetration seals. They dont last forever. Visually check for leaking rainwater from the roof onto pressure parts, and resultant corrosion (Fig 3). Inspect bottom penetration seals for leaking hot gas and overheating of casing, conduit and wiring at the front end of the unit. Drain-line corrosion. There have been leaks in the HRSG which have flooded the lower penetration seals. The pipes look terribly swollen and corroded. Clean and check the extent of drain-pipe thinning at penetrations and outside the casing for the first 10-15 ft (and further as needed) near the back end of the HRSG. If metal thinning is in evidence, consider replacement before a leak requires an outage (Fig 4). These pipes are located upstream of isolation valves so leaks may take a unit offline. Outage schedule. All plants should have one. Develop an outage maintenance schedule based on starts or operating hours that is specific to the HRSGincluding frequency and budget costs. Enter this information in your enterprise system for tracking work-order generation. Intent here is to cover all items that are outage-related, not capital projects. Ranking the issues. Final step is to develop a one-page matrix to prioritize, communicate, and track the problems identified. It allows a common understanding at the plant and the corporate levels of the issues, their priority, and the responsible parties. The elements used to rate the strategic issues are the following: Access. Is the area accessible for maintenance/monitoring? Online versus offline? Is a lift, scaffold, or crane requiredor not? Is insulation removal requiredor not? Cost/benefit. What are the budgeted costs for repair and replacement? Is the budgeted cost supported by a quote? Will this be a capital project or maintenance? Is a cost/benefit analysis required?

Important to identify the expected cost as a firm-price proposal, budget proposal, or guesstimate. Safety. Is there a potential for energy release in an area open to personnel? Evaluation should result in a no, possible, or yes. Reliability. Does a failure of this part have the potential to cause an outage? Yes or no. Performance. Does the issue affect HRSG performance? Yes or no. The completed matrix (table) ranks as high issues that should be evaluated at the earliest possible date, medium recommends planning and scheduling an evaluation, low suggests oversight and evaluation as time allows. Issues identified in the matrix are priorities for the plant within the next outage cycle.

In sum, the one page issues matrix is intended to capture and focus the plant teams discussions and decisions on the important issues affecting HRSG long-term reliability and safety. The issues and their rankings are determined at the plant level. The matrix establishes a framework for specific evaluations and program implementation (FAC and HEP, for example), which provide input for capital and expense budgeting. It is not intended to take the place of an enterprise system but to provide input to it.

Benefits of the comprehensive long-term maintenance plan include the following: Higher degree of safety. Improved reliability (over the alternative of reactive maintenance). Reduced insurance premiums (possible). Increased ownership. Improved documentation and communication. Implementation of best practices. More effective planning and budgeting. Cost savings attributed to planning for replacement parts versus emergency procurement.