The effect of water vapor on the oxidation behavior of 9%Cr steels in simulated combustion gases

Effect of Water Vapor on High-Temperature Corrosion under Conditions Mimicking Biomass Firing

“…(b) Enhanced growth of the oxide scale due to faster transport of H + /OH -in the scale [31,35]. (c) Assisting the internal oxidation of Cr and as a result aiding the outward growth of Fe-rich oxide [31,33].…”

“…Effects of H2O vapour on high temperature corrosion of materials have been widely investigated in the absence of deposits (relevant to steamside oxidation of superheater tubes) [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]. Generally the corrosion results in an outward growing magnetite layer and an inward growing Fe-Cr spinel phase.…”

Oxidation Behavior of ODS Fe?Cr Alloys

“…The linear mass loss was 2.2 × 10 −4 mg/cm 2 h at 800 • C and 7.6 × 10 −4 mg/cm 2 h at 900 • C. The addition of water vapor can result in accelerated attack of stainless steels such as type 347. [26][27][28][29][30][31][32] These results suggests that further testing will be required if these alloys are expected to experience exposure to watercontaining environments in service, even at lower temperatures. Increased pressures and higher flow rates would exacerbate the detrimental effect of water vapor.…”

“…The objective of these experiments was to examine the long-term, high-temperature (700-1100 • C) oxidation behavior of these experimental ODS Fe-Cr alloys and to determine their maximum-use temperature and susceptibility to water vapor. [26][27][28][29][30][31][32] The initial testing focused on oxidation in air and in air with 10 vol.% water vapor to obtain baseline reaction rates to compare to more relevant environments such as steam for fossil energy and high pressure helium for fusion energy applications.…”

High‐Temperature Oxidation—Testing and Evaluation

“…Other long and complex methods of surface analysis, such as AES, SIMS, XPS, ion scattering spectroscopy (ISS), Rutherford backscattering (RBS), nuclear reaction analysis (NRA), ion-induced X-ray emission (IIXA), and ESCA, are difficult for field use. Several authors have reviewed these methods [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. Tables 74.1-74.4 compare the techniques, and Figure 74.1 shows the relative sizes of areas analyzed using these techniques.…”