HRSG TUBES CLEANING OPTIONS

(Tham) Thamarai P. Chelvan

Sr. Key Expert/ Fired Boiler, HRSG & BOPs/ Siemens O&M Technical Support

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 1
HRSG TUBES BUILD UP
There are basically five primary types of build up
that you can encounter

1. Sulfate Salts Deposits

2. Iron Oxide Deposits (corrosion)
3. Insulation
4. Ammonia Salts
5. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Oil Film Deposits

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 2
SULFUR SALTS DEPOSITS

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 3
IRON OXIDE DEPOSITS (CORROSION)

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 4
INSULATION DEPOSITS

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 5
AMMONIA SALTS DEPOSITS

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 6
POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC
HYDROCARBON (PAH) OIL FILM DEPOSITS

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 7
INDICATORS FOR DECIDING ON
WHEN TO CLEAN
• Visual Inspection
o Visually Inspect to Find the Severity of the Fouling Condition & Type of Foulant

• Back Pressure Readings

o Track historical turbine backpressure
o Periodically check pressure drop across each HRSG module

• Stack Temperature
o Watch for increasing gas temperatures and decreasing heat recovery in the LP
Evaporator and LP Economizer
o Monitor stack temperature using historical data

• Output
o Reduced MW Output
o Reduced HRSG thermal efficiency
o More Particulate up stack…..especially at start-up

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 8
REASONS FOR CLEANING

• To lower fuel input

• To reduce CO2 output
• For safety issues
• For corrosion prevention/ prolong tube life
expectancy
• To prevent pollutants from being discharged from
the stack

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 9
BENEFITS OF CLEANING

• If done properly, the cleaning will pay for itself very quickly
• Generally speaking, for every ½ inch of back pressure that is
decreased your plant should make an extra $100,000 USD over
the course of a year (base load, 7F, triple pressure)
• Be proactive! Not reactive!
• DON’T wait until your tubes are plugged!!
• Once your back pressure starts to go up you will never recover a
certain portion of it (50%)
• In many circumstances it will cost you money to hold off on
cleaning

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 10
OUTDATED CLEANING METHODS
Cleaning Method Techniques Positives Drawbacks
Cleaning may not reach inner tubes.
Potential damage to the insulation in the
High pressure supply to spray the lower part of the furnace. If Insulation & Liner
tube surface with water. Water may dissolve the ammonia Plates are removed, then, this task adds
High Pressure
Containment to be built to collect salts and sulfur salts and could additional cost. Potential creation of sulfuric
Water Wash
water and vacuum trucks to pump allow the iron oxide to be removed. acid on tubes and corrosion and water wet
water out of the containment. foulant caking at inner tubes. Need to run
both the dehumidifier and heaters post
cleaning.

Scaffolding erected to access the Older effective method to remove

Compressed Air entire tube bundle surface, and high debris, prior to better methods were Cleaning may not reach inner tubes. May
Blasting pressure air can be used to remove introduced into the HRSG cleaning compact debris further.
material from the tube fins. industry.

A horn will not require extensive

Horns can be installed with a
downtime to be installed. Results
modified access door at the lower Debris may be severly lodged into fin and
Sonic Air Horns can be monitored during periodic
part of the desired tube bundle might not be removed by sound waves.
inspections before proceeding with
location
full-scale installation.
Increasing transverse tube
Some tube finning can be removed clearance will decrease the gas side
Enlarge Gas Reduces the heat transfer surface area of
to allow access to the inner tubes pressure drop and may decrease
Passages the bundle.
for cleaning. the difficulty of future cleaning
efforts.

Install rapping system on tube

May only be effective when debris is dry and
bundles and vibrate the debris Non-evasive technique which is
Vibration fluid. Once the unit is offline, the debris may
loose. Can rappers be installed prior easy to install and utilize.
become "gummy" and not vibrate loose.
to outage on exterior piping?

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 11
CURRENTLY USED IN THE INDUSTRY
COMMON CLEANING METHODS

1. Traditional CO2 Ice Blasting

2. Explosives “Pressure Wave” Cleaning
3. EPIC™- Extraction Pressure Impulse Cleaner
4. Deep Cleaning by Tube Spreading CO2 Ice
Blasting

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 12
TRADITIONAL CO2 ICE BLASTING
(0 - 10% Back Pressure Reduction)
Technique:
• Dry ice pellets are used to remove the material from the tube fins. Performed at the face of the tube module using
low- or high-pressure air at the line of sight.

• The pellets are entrained into the high pressure (upto 350 psig) air stream and propelled through a hose to a
specifically engineered nozzle that forces the pellet to go supersonic at speeds up to 1000 feet/ second. The
pellets exit the nozzle, penetrate the debris layer on the surface being cleaned and sublimate to a gaseous vapor.

• At the sublimation phase, the pellets undergo a transformation from a solid to a gas wherein the vapor expands
750 times greater in a gas form than in solid form. This transformation creates a “mushroom” effect that lifts the
debris from the tube surfaces and removes it.

• The expansion of the CO2 vapor also extends the cleaning time and flushes through the tube module to ensure
that the fouling and debris at CO2 touched area are effectively removed.

Positives:

• Good cleaning results can be achieved in locations where the dry ice can reach.

• Cleaning is performed without creating any secondary waste. The CO2 pellets sublimate to a gas and the only
waste to dispose of is the actual debris that is removed from the boiler surfaces.

• The CO2 process is s a dry and inert process that does not promote corrosion.

• The cleaning is performed without damage or erosion of the fin tube or boiler surfaces.

• The CO2 ice blast cleaning removes only the outer scale deposits without creating shock impacts movement to
tube internal scale deposits, and so this method does not require the water washing and steam blowing to clean
the internal scales.

• This is the most proven and accepted cleaning process that most of the HRSG plants use as a common method in
the industry

Drawbacks:

• Only the first or second row of tubes can be cleaned due to tight tube spacing.

• Blasting stream dissipates at the second row of tubes, leaving rest of tubes untouched.

• Air pressure pushes some debris out, but may also push debris deeper into the tube module, creating a blockade
of debris in the middle of the module.

• This method is used by plants on a very tight budget or for tube banks with no greater than 3 or 4 rows.

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 13
 DRY ICE PELLETS

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 14
 CO2 BLASTING COMPARED TO
GRIT MEDIA BLASTING

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 15
 TRADITIONAL CO2 BLASTING
NOZZLE GUN IN ACTION

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 16
CO2 ICEBLAST CLEANING – BEFORE &
AFTER CLEANING OF VARIOUS FOULANTS

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 17
CO2 ICEBLAST CLEANING – BEFORE &
AFTER CLEANING OF VARIOUS FOULANTS

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 18
CO2 ICEBLAST CLEANING – BEFORE &
AFTER CLEANING OF VARIOUS FOULANTS

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 19
EXPLOSIVES “PRESSURE WAVE”
CLEANING (30% Back Pressure Reduction)
Technique:
• Bang & Clean Co. originally from China and then partnered with Swiss co, and then recently few years ago
(some time in 2015 & 2016) GE bought this swiss company and marketing it under GE name.
• Cleaning is performed by a strong sound wave force from an explosives balloon bursting, at various
positions outside the tube modules.
• Explosives are detonated to create a violent shaking of the tubes and the resulting air pressure build up
releases the fouling from the finned tubes.
Positives:
• The pressure wave cleaning is effective in cleaning 3 to 4 tubes in depth direction compared to 2 to 3
tubes depth of cleaning with traditional CO2 ice blast cleaning method. Because the pressure wave cleans
few more tube depths than the traditional CO2 blasting and its force is more, it removes more debris than
the CO2 ice blast cleaning for 8 tubes or less number of tubes deep bundles.
• If plants are unable to plan in advance and require the benefit of a quick job, this option is quick as there is
no scaffolding required. However, max efficiency gains will not be achieved.
Drawbacks:
• Due to the strong sound wave, in addition to removing the outside scales, it removes the tube’s internal
scale deposits also significantly, getting collected at bottom within the tube/bottom headers area.
• During the HRSG re-start, the internal scale loosened debris are carried over to HP and Hot RH bypass
valves, and binding the bypass valves stems and also eroding the steam turbine blades. This issue
creates additional scope of Alkali-boil out and steam blowing operation costing the plant more money and
extend the outage schedule.
• There is no option for the plant to inspect the actual work done as scaffolding is not built.
• The effectiveness of explosion cleaning decreases as it goes deeper into the module with it being
relatively ineffective on or about the 5th tube in.
• There is also no physical tube contact with this technique. Contact is limited to the air pressure that
explosions create. There is no substance like CO2 that enhances the cleaning of the fins by actively
breaking down build up.
• Cleaning is limited to the randomness and best expectations of the explosion. If there is additional build
up in certain areas, the explosives cannot direct additional cleaning to those specific areas.
• As with traditional CO2 blasting, a blockade of debris can form in the middle of module and it creates
inefficiencies for the plant. It leaves burst balloon remnants trapped between the fins at many locations.

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 20
RECENT EXAMPLE OF PRESSURE WAVE
CLEANING PROJECT SCHEDULE OF CLEANING TUBES

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 21
RECENT EXAMPLE - AFTER PRESSURE WAVE CLEANING OF
AMMONIA BI-SULFATE DEPOSIT TUBES CONDITION.
ABOUT 30% DEPOSITS STILL REMAINING ON TUBES.

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 22
RECENT EXAMPLE - AFTER PRESSURE WAVE CLEANING DEBRIS
SHOWING RUST SCALES & AMMONIA BI-SULFATE DRY SALTS
DEBRIS FOUND ON THE “V” GUIDE PLATES.

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 23
RECENT EXAMPLE - PRESSURE WAVE CLEANING REMOVES HEAVY
RUST DEBRIS. HOWEVER, LIGHTER WEIGHT INSULATION & BURST
BALLOON REMNANTS FOUND TRAPPED BETWEEN THE FINS AT MANY LOCATIONS.

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 24
EPIC™- EXTRACTION PRESSURE
IMPULSE CLEANER
• This utilizes the same system as the on-line
impulse cleaning system from Power Plus.
• This is brand new technique used for the
off-line outage period HRSG tubes cleaning
& used only at one plant in Central Florida,
USA. So, more experience needs to be
obtained to learn the effectiveness of this
process for off-line HRSG tubes cleaning.
• Since this utilizes shock pressure wave,
the same negative feature of dislodging
internal scales of the tubes is valid similar
to the GE’s pressure wave cleaning
method.
• For on-line HRSG cleaning it is more
effective as the debris are driven off from
the flue gas as they were travelling and not
allowed to accumulate on the tubes/fins.

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 25
DEEP CLEANING BY TUBE
SPREADING CO2 ICE BLASTING (50 - 70% Back Pressure Reductio
Technique:

• This step-by-step option uses high density C02, ultra-high pressure air, and patented tools that
are engineered specifically for the module configuration, type of HRSG and type of fouling.
• Equipment is strategically placed from both sides of the module to create access lanes inside
the module so targeted CO2 blasting can be performed to all sides of the fouled tubes.
• Cleaning is effective up to 24 tube rows deep and a two (2) tube overlap in the middle of the
module is used to ensure that the deepest areas are cleaned effectively.
• Stubborn deposits are seen visually and cleaned repeatedly with specific techniques to remove
fouling. For very stubborn deposits, a special non-toxic HRSG Cleaning Solution may also be
applied directly on the fouling to break down the deposit before cleaning occurs.
• Front blowing wands followed by 180° wands are used to clean the boiler tubes.
Positives:
• Good cleaning results can be achieved in in deeper bundles tube banks.
• This process is manually performed inside the HRSG so cleaning is thorough, detailed, and
precise. This allows for visual inspection, including a borescope visual of the center of the
module, to ensure cleanliness.
• Deep Cleaning offers the highest level of cleaning because every surface of every tube is seen,
physically touched, and aggressively cleaned throughout the entire module.
• There is no risk of build up inside of the modules with this visual and uniquely designed
process.
• Plants that use this method want to experience the maximum amount of results from the
cleaning process and experience the highest financial gains.
• Plant inspections can take place throughout the work flow and the highest measurable results
are realized by the plant.
Drawbacks:
• This method will take more time & cost than the other two methods due to more surface is being
cleaned.

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 26
TUBE SHEET & HEADER SPACER IN BUNDLE #6
BUMPER ARRANGEMENT. BOTTOM HEADERS & TUBES

Adjacent
Headers/Tubes Tube
Sheet almost
Touching Each
Other. Not much
Gap for 1" Pipe
Penetration.

Bumper
Between
Headers

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 27
TUBE SHEET & HEADER SPACER BUMPER
ARRANGEMENT. TYPICAL TOP HEADERS & TUBES

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 28
TOP ADJACENT TYPICAL TUBE
SHEETS – NOT MUCH OF A GAP BETWEEN THEM

Adjacent Headers/Tubes Tube Sheet

almost Touching Each Other. Not
much Gap for 1" Pipe Penetration.

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 29
TUBE SHEETS DESIGN HAVING GAPS
FOR TUBES TO MOVE WITHIN THE SLOTS

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 30
FEA 3D MODEL – TOP HEADER AREA ARRANGEMENT

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 31
FEA 3D MODEL – BOTTOM HEADER AREA ARRANGEMENT

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 32
DEEP CLEANING – WAND & TUBE
SPREADER INSERTION ARRANGEMENT

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 33
GO TO TUBE SPREADING VIDEO
DEEP CLEANING – MAX WIDTH (1.5”)
TUBE SPREADER INSERTION ARRANGEMENT

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 35
BEFORE CLEANING WITH 1.5” WIDE
TUBE SPREADER INSERTED ALREADY

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 36
AFTER CO2 CLEANING WITH TRADITIONAL
NOZZLE GUN- WITH 1.5” WIDE TUBE SPREADER INSERTED

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 37
AFTER CO2 CLEANING WITH DEEP CLEANING
NOZZLE GUN - WITH 1.5” WIDE TUBE SPREADER INSERTED

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 38
TUBE SPREADER WIDTH AND WAND NOZZLE
SIZE OF A NEW SUPPLIER

• Gap between Adjacent Tubes Fins at TMB/TSM = 1/2

inch.
• Cleaning nozzles size = 3/8 inch.
• Tube spreading wedges width = 5/8 inch.
• The above sizes enables the new supplier to get the
deeper penetration that is required without creating
stress to the Tubes either at straight insertion or at
45° Angle Insertion.

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 39
HRSG FINNED TUBE CLEANING
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS (FEA)

Background
• The design of the HRSG Tube Bundles are manufactured in order to allow hot exhaust gases to
flow past the fins/tubes in order to heat internal liquid before entering the HRSG boilers. At
different points in the life of these bundles, cleaning is required to remove built up soot, Sulfur
Salts, PAH deposits, and other debris from impeding the flow path of the exhaust gas over the
fins. In order to adequately clean the flow paths, tube spreading for CO2 pellets is desired in
order to penetrate deeply into the bundles.
Goals of FEA
o Model finned tube bundle #6 from module arrangement.
o Create FEA for section of bundles to review stress on welded
header pipe and fins.
o Simulate a tube spreader insertion onto bundles to see interaction
and stress points thoughout design.
o Define minimum insertion distance from bundle supports for safe
stress ratios.
o Define maximum spreader design size at minimum insertion
distance from support for safe stress ratios.

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 40
FEA DESIGN INPUTS & 3D MODEL BUILT WITH THEM
Material
• Pipe Header- 8” Sch. 40, SA-106 Gr. B
• PreHeat Tubes - ASME SA-178 A
• PreHeat Fins – Carbon Steel (Assumed A36)

Pressure and Temperature

During cleaning, the system will
be ambient, and pressure
assumed to be negligible due to
system shut off.

Tube Arrangement

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 41
FEA 3D MODEL – TOP HEADER AREA ARRANGEMENT

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 42
FEA 3D MODEL – BOTTOM HEADER AREA ARRANGEMENT

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 43
FEA 3D MODEL – BOTTOM HEADER – SIDE & END VIEWS

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 44
FEA 3D MODEL – BOTTOM HEADER – TUBE
TO HEADER WITH FINS & TUBE SHEET SUPPORT DETAILS

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 45
FEA 3D MODEL – BOTTOM HEADER –
3 BRANCH HEADER DESIGN
After initial modeling of the layout, the design needed to be simplified in order to
run in Ansys R19.2 due to density of meshing and size/quantity of parts.
Therefore, only a small section was analyzed, 9 branch tubes with fins extruding
along them. The 9 branches extend 50mm past the supports. At that location
different displacements are added to simulate a spreader beam insertion.

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 46
FEA 3D MODEL – BOTTOM HEADER –
4 BRANCH HEADER DESIGN

Similarl to 3 Branch Header, the 4-branch header was simplified for analysis.

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 47
FEA 3D MODEL – FEA CONSTRAINTS AND
INPUTS FOR 3 HEADER AND 4 HEADER DESIGN
• A scaled deflection of
0.0134in (2in from support
face) is used at the green
highlighted faces with a 90°
angle relative to the
spreader face to simulate
the 1.5in wide spreader tool
insertion at 2 Ft from
support face. This number
was derived by placing a
0.75in displacement 2 Ft
along the tube with an
anchor to see the deflection
along the member.
• The displacment was then
modified at this location to
simulate different distances
from the support face to see
stress depending on the
spreader insertion distance.

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 48
FEA 3D MODEL – STRESS SINGULARITIES

While doing an FEA, stress singularities do occur due to different factors and limitations
of the programs. Some areas of the fins see these anomalies and are higher in the
model than will be seen in actual application. The mesh sizing affects this, but we know
that in reality these loads will be spread out rather than being concentrated. Therefore,
when reviewing these results this must be taken into consideration.

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 49
FEA 3D MODEL – EXPLANATION OF ANALYSIS
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

The results shown in the subsequent slides are for a worst-case scenario which is
technically acceptable regarding allowable stress in the header to tube weld and the
fins.

• Spreader width analyzed = 1.5”

• Normal Spreader width = 0.625”

• Height from support where the spreader was inserted and analyzed = 2’-0”
• Normal height from support where spreader is inserted = 4’-0”

When a thinner spreader is utilized less than 1.5” the stress will be reduced.

When a distance from the support where the spreader is inserted is increased more
than 2’-0” the stress will be reduced throughout the design.

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 50
 FEA 3D MODEL RESULTS - 3 BRANCH HEADER

• The Stresses on the welds are very low

and well under the allowable for the WPS
defined. Highest stress point can be
seen at the corner of the middle tube runs
weld, 3,914.2psi at that point.

• Allowable weld stress with a safety factor

~4.5 for the E70S-2 tensile strength, is
15ksi. In order to determine the stress
ratios over the entire length of the weld
the forces and moments were determined
at the weld location and calculations
done. The ratio for that tube which sees
the highest stress (highest between both
sized headers) is 0.21 (see weld calcs at
end of presentation).

• The stresses on each tube are Fairly low

as well. The yield strength of the material
is 26ksi and the maximum stress due to
deflection is ~11,746psi. This stress is in
the areas where the fins attach to the tube
at the lateral support location.

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 51
 FEA 3D MODEL RESULTS - 3 BRANCH HEADER
• The highest stresses can be seen in
the fins. This is due to the thin material
and the contact with the support steel
(assumed A36).

• The stresses in the fins can be seen to

peak at ~50,814psi due to contact with
the support. But also due to meshing
size there are some stress singularities
at corners which can be ignored.

• Although this is over the yield strength

of the material (36ksi), it is still under
the tensile strength (58ksi).

• Since these stresses seen on the fins

is only during cleaning and for not long
periods of time and the thin fin reflexes
back to its original shape after the
compression with the side bracket was
removed with the removal of the tube
spreader, the fin stresses are
acceptable and have a stress ratio of
~0.87 compared to the Tensile strength.

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 52
FEA 3D MODEL RESULTS - 4 BRANCH HEADER
• The Stresses on the welds are
very low and well under the
allowable for the WPS defined.
Highest stress point can be
seen at the corner of one of the
middle tube runs weld, 2,908psi
at that point.
• Weld calculations were done
for the highest weld stress
which was seen on the 3-
branch header design.
Therefore, qualifying these
welds also.
• The stresses on each tube are
Fairly low as well. Due to the
low yield strength of the
material (26ksi) the maximum
stress is ~9,873psi. This stress
is in the areas where the welds
for the fins attach to the tube.

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 53
 FEA 3D MODEL RESULTS - 4 BRANCH HEADER
• The highest stresses can be
seen in the fins similar to the
3-branch header design.
Stress is ~57,223psi at its
peak. But also due to meshing
size there are some stress
singularities at corners which
can be ignored.
• Since these stresses seen on
the fins is only during cleaning
and for not long periods of
time and the thin fin reflexes
back to its original shape after
the compression with the side
bracket was removed with the
removal of the tube spreader,
the fin stresses are acceptable,
even though they are
extremely close with a stress
ratio of ~0.98 compared to the
Tensile strength.
Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 54
FEA 3D MODEL RESULTS – TUBE SPREADER
LOCATION & SIZE LIMITATIONS TO AVOID STRESSES
• It was found that the minimum distance
from support steel shall be 2 Ft (to
bottom or top of tube spreader
depending on location along tube run)
Minimum distance from support with a 1.5 inch wide Tube Spreader
steel Wedge. Reducing the distance from
support to Wedge insertion starts to
impose too much stress onto the fins
and pushes the stress ratio over an
acceptable amount against the yield
strength.

• The maximum tube spreader width shall

Maximum tube spreader width be 1.5 inch wide. Any larger, the fins will
start to overstress at the 2 ft distance
and start to interact with the other tube
runs (and fins) to a point where binding
will occur and stresses will increase on
the fins.
Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 55
FEA 3D MODEL RESULTS – ALLOWABLE
STRESS REDUCTION DUE TO AGE

Since the unit in question is 15 years old the degradation factor is 0.91.

Applying this factor to our results for the header to tube welds provides the
following results:

• 3-Branch Header - 3,914 psi / (26,000 psi * 0.91) = 16% of the allowable used

• 4-Branch Header – 2,908 psi / (26,000 psi * 0.91) = 12% of the allowable used

Using this degradation factor still provides a safety factor of more than 5. This
shows that older units will still handle the loads that are imposed by the tube
spreader. These loads ae also reduced further if a smaller tube spreader is used or
at a distance further from the support.

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 56
FEA 3D MODEL RESULTS – TUBE DEFLECTION
CONTOURS DUE TO TUBE SPREADING

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 57
FEA 3D MODEL RESULTS – STRESS (VIDEOS)
DUE TO 0” TO 1.5” TUBE SPREADER INSERTION

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 58
FEA 3D MODEL RESULTS – STRESS AT
TUBE TO HEADER CONNECTION WELD CALCULATION

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 59
FEA 3D MODEL ANALYSIS - CONCLUSIONS

• The new supplier’s tube spreader width is 5/8” which is way smaller than the 1.5”
tube spreader other vendors use.
• The stress values due to Tube spreading at tube to header weld connections are
insignificant and are way well below the allowable stress limits.
• There is no need for adverse impact concern at tube to header connection weld
area due to tube spreader used at way away from 2 ft minimum distance required
from the support brackets.
• No plant has experienced any damage due to tube spreader’s use for the deep
cleaning of HRSG tubes.

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 60
RECOMMENDED HRSG TUBES
CLEANING METHODS FOR 2022 TSM OUTAGE

To minimize the GT back pressure and for better cleaning

of deeper tube bundles and to get the PAH oil film
deposits out, perform the following scope of cleaning:
1. Deep Cleaning by Tube Spreading CO2 Ice Blasting
2. For PAH Cleaning, use a liquid solvent developed by
PIC followed by CO2 Ice Blasting

Copyright © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2022. All rights reserved. Tham Chelvan/ TSM Customer Meeting on 06/17/2022
Page 61