NOTICE

Forums are temporarily disabled while we are working on a new login procedure.

When migrating the old forums over to our new forums we were unable to retain the identity of the authors, so the old posts will show up as "anonymous". All NEW posts will show up credited to their authors. So please participate and share knowledge just as you have in the past.

You must log in if you are an existing user or register if you are a new user in order to contribute to the discussions.

Discussion Forums - The Hendrix Group
HomeHomeDiscussionsDiscussionsGeneral Corrosi...General Corrosi...304L vs 316L vs ? for Calcium Chloride Corrosion304L vs 316L vs ? for Calcium Chloride Corrosion
Previous
 
Next
New Post
8/31/2005 9:00 AM
 
User is offline 
No Ranking

Joined: 1/1/0001
Posts: 0
My firm manufactures air to air plate heat exchangers. We have an installation where the process airstream had mist carryover that was evaporating in the hot exchanger leaving behind a Calcium Chloride deposit that built up to several inches deep. The heat exchanger experienced some cracking of welds and splitting of plates. I'm looking for information on 304L and 316L for this type of application and any recommendations for alternative (and economical) materials of construction. Max temperature is 800F with an average temperature of 450F.
 
New Post
9/2/2005 9:00 AM
 
User is offline 
No Ranking

Joined: 1/1/0001
Posts: 0
James: Neither 304 nor 316SS are suitable alloys for your plate/frame exchanger if you expect a calcium chloride buildup and dew point conditions. Either eliminate the CaCl, stay above dew point or upgrade to a more resistant alloy. In this case, you need resistance to both pitting and chloride SCC. We hesitate to recommend a specific alloy in this forum, but generally you need one with a nickel content greater than %7E35% and a higher PREN number (40+) than 304 and 316SS. Hope this helps! David Hendrix The Hendrix Group Inc.
 
New Post
9/2/2005 9:00 AM
 
User is offline 
No Ranking

Joined: 1/1/0001
Posts: 0
Adding fruther to Hendrix views, if average temperature is 450 o F and maximum temp is 800 o F, no alloy will resist this temperature for Calcium Chloride. Maxiumim temperature any exotic alloy like Ti/Ta or alloys of Ti can stand is only 250 o C. 304 L / 316 L is unsuitable for your service duties and will pit and develop SCC for CaCl2 at this temperature of operation. trust this is of help to you C.V.Srinivasan Nishi Engineers Pvt Ltd India Sept 3 E-mail:nishi@vsnl.com >My firm manufactures air to air plate heat exchangers. We >have an installation where the process airstream had mist >carryover that was evaporating in the hot exchanger leaving >behind a Calcium Chloride deposit that built up to several >inches deep. The heat exchanger experienced some cracking >of welds and splitting of plates. I'm looking for >information on 304L and 316L for this type of application >and any recommendations for alternative (and economical) >materials of construction. Max temperature is 800F with an >average temperature of 450F.
 
New Post
9/2/2005 9:00 AM
 
User is offline 
No Ranking

Joined: 1/1/0001
Posts: 0
Hi all, I am just being curious- and so want to know further details. What is the dew point of the system ? Whether CaCl2 deposition (quite thick, as mentioned) probability was considered from the very beginning ? What is the service life of the failed exchangers ? Regards
 
 Page 1 of 1
Previous
 
Next
HomeHomeDiscussionsDiscussionsGeneral Corrosi...General Corrosi...304L vs 316L vs ? for Calcium Chloride Corrosion304L vs 316L vs ? for Calcium Chloride Corrosion


  

News

NEW! Calculation of Ammonium Salt Deposition Temperatures
With a little delay, our Calculation of Ammonium Salt Deposition Temperatures...read more
Sulfidic corrosion calculators NOW AVAILABLE
Our sulfidic corrosion calculators are now available at hghouston.com/calcula...read more

Stay Current

Sign up for our quarterly newsletter

covering updates on corrosion

Sign Up