Adamson University

College of Engineering

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Comparative Analysis of Stainless-Steel Grades 2507, 316 and a Coating

Solution for the Draft Tube Inlet Corrosion

Presented by: Group 4

Cabrera, Aniel

Malazzab, Efphraim

Mendoza, Jeffrey

Mughal, Abdul Mateen

Naron, Justine Phillip

Pascual, Adrian

Segaya, Abbygail

Presented to:

Engr. Fernando P. Constantino

November 27, 2019

1
Contents

Chapter 1: Design Project Background.......................................................................................6

1.1Statement of the Problem......................................................................................................10
1.2Objectives..............................................................................................................................11
1.3 Scope and Limitations..........................................................................................................12
1.3.1 Alternative No. 1...........................................................................................................12
1.3.2 Alternative No. 2...........................................................................................................12
1.3.3 Alternative No. 3...........................................................................................................13
1.4 Design and Conceptual Framework.....................................................................................14
1.4.1 Alternative No. 1...........................................................................................................14
1.4.2 Alternative No. 2...........................................................................................................14
1.4.3 Alternative No. 3...........................................................................................................15
Chapter 2: Review of Theoretical Design Inputs......................................................................16
2.1 Mild Steel (Carbon Steel ST37-2).......................................................................................16
2.2 Stainless Steel (2507)...........................................................................................................17
2.3 Stainless Steel 316...............................................................................................................19
2.4 Corrosion..............................................................................................................................20
2.5 Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC)........................................................................................20
2.6 Pitting and Crevice Corrosion..............................................................................................22
2.6.1 Critical Pitting Temperature..........................................................................................22
2.6.2 Critical Crevice Temperature........................................................................................22
2.7 Alloying Elements in Duplex Stainless Steels.....................................................................24
2.8 Polyurethane Lining.............................................................................................................25
Chapter 3: Design Output...........................................................................................................26
3.1 Design Alternative No. 1.....................................................................................................26
3.1.1 Pitting Resistance Equivalent Number (PREN)............................................................27
3.1.2 Corrosion Rates.............................................................................................................28
3.1.2 SCCR (Stress Corrosion Cracking Resistance).............................................................28
3.1.3 CPT and CCT (Critical Pitting and Crevice Temperature)...........................................29
3.2 Design Alternative No. 2.....................................................................................................29

2
ALLOY MIXTURE COMPOSITION (316 Stainless Steel).....................................................29
3.2.1 Pitting Resistance Equivalent Number (PREN)............................................................30
3.1.2 Corrosion Rates.............................................................................................................30
3.1.2 SCCR (Stress Corrosion Cracking Resistance).............................................................30
3.1.3 CPT and CCT (Critical Pitting and Crevice Temperature)...........................................30
3.3 Design Alternative No. 3..................................................................................................31
Chapter 4: Design Comparative Analysis.................................................................................32
4.1 Constraints...........................................................................................................................32
4.1.1 Justifications for the Decisions in the PWC Chart........................................................33
4.1.2 Ranking of the Constrains.................................................................................................34
4.1.3 Weight...............................................................................................................................35
4.1.4 Constraints to be considered in comparing the Three (3) Design Alternatives in this
Study..........................................................................................................................................35
4.1.3.1 Economic Constraint..................................................................................................36
4.1.3.2 Sustainability Constraint............................................................................................37
4.1.3.3 Technical Constraint...................................................................................................38
4.2 Trade-offs.............................................................................................................................41
4.3 Codes and Standards............................................................................................................42
4.3.1 For Design Alternatives 1 & 2 (Change of material):...................................................42
4.3.2 For Design Alternative 3 (Application of coating or linings to prevent corrosion):.....42
Chapter 5: Conclusion, Recommendation and Final Design Summary.................................44
References.....................................................................................................................................46

Appendices....................................................................................................................................47

Appendix A: Plant Profile..................................................................................................47

Appendix B: Corrosion Rate Testing.................................................................................53

Appendix C: Magat River Properties.................................................................................54

Appendix D: Manufacturer’s Data -Properties of Polyurethane Solvent-Free Coating

(Data from Chemline Incorporated)...............................................................................................55

Appendix E: Design Computations...................................................................................56

3
List of Tables

Table 3.1.1: Alloying Composition of 2507 Stainless Steel............................................26

Table 3.1.2.: Alloying Composition of ST37-2.................................................................26

Table 3.2.1: Alloying Composition of 316 Stainless Steel..............................................28

Table 4.1: Pairwise Comparison Matrix............................................................................32

Table 4.1.3: Evaluation Criteria.........................................................................................34

Table 4.1.4: Evaluation Criteria.........................................................................................35

Table 4.1.3.1: Economic Cost for Design Alternatives 1, 2 & 3.....................................36

Table 4.1.3.2: Sustainability for Design Alternatives 1, 2 & 3........................................37

Table 4.1.3.3: Technical Analysis for Design Alternatives 1, 2 & 3...............................39

Table 4.2: Trade-offs for Design Alternatives 1, 2 & 3....................................................40

4
List of Figures

Figure 1: Typical Layout of an Impoundment Type Hydroelectric Power Plant......................7

Figure 2: PH Level of water in Magat River...................................................................................9

Figure 3: Mild Steel (ST37-2) Material Properties........................................................................16

Figure 4: Stainless Steel (2507) Material Properties.....................................................................18

Figure 5: Stainless Steel (316) Material Properties.......................................................................19

Figure 6: Stress Corrosion Cracking Resistance............................................................................21

Figure 7: Critical Pitting and Crevice Corrosion Temperatures....................................................23

Figure 8: Drafted Model for Draft Tube........................................................................................26

5
Chapter 1: Design Project Background

Hydroelectric Power Plant is one of the most reliable renewable energy producing

plants nowadays. It is a power plant in which kinetic energy from moving water is

captured and converted into mechanical energy through turbines, then the generator turns

mechanical energy into electrical energy to produce “Hydropower”. The fundamental of a

Hydroelectric Power Plant came from the simple Water Cycle, the natural way we rely on

for hydropower. It describes how water absorbs the heat energy from the sun and turns it

into water vapor, and as it rise up in the atmosphere, it turns into tiny particles of ice or

water because the temperature is lower at higher altitude which then, the condensed water

vapor or which is known as clouds, lose their heat energy which causes it to fall down in

the form of rain or snow through which it eventually form streams and rivers as it heads

back to the ocean.

Hydroelectric Power Plants can be classified in three categories according to

operation and type of flow – run of river (ROR), impoundment/dam, and pumped storage.

For Magat Hydroelectric Power Plant, impoundment type was applied. Typically, an

impoundment type is composed of these following components:

1. Dam

2. Reservoir

3. Intake

4. Penstock

5. Water Turbine

6. Generator

6
Typical Layout for an Impoundment type Hydroelectric Power Plant

Figure 1. Typical Layout of an Impoundment Type Hydroelectric Power

Plant
(Picture from HowStuffWorks)
The theory of an impoundment type hydroelectric plant is to store enough

quantity of water to be stored in a dam from a large body of water specifically a river that

could produce a large drop in elevation. At the intake, the water flows through the

penstock due to gravity. A turbine, at the end of the penstock is turned by moving water

and the shaft from the turbine goes up into the generator to which it generates power.

Water is the medium used to operate a hydroelectric plant. With its components

that are fully submerged in the water, corrosion of metal is the most common problem

encountered. Corrosion occurs when metals tend to lose their electrons to oxygen and

other substances into the air or in water. As oxygen is reduced, it forms an oxide with the

metal. With corrosion occurring on the surface of the metal components, it could cause

breakage or leakage into the system. In the case of Magat Hydroelectric Power Plant, a

presence of corrosion at the inlet of the draft tube is their major problem.

7
Globally, hydroelectric power plants are used as an effective alternative

renewable energy source to conventional steam and internal combustion power plants to

produce energy. Here in the Philippines, a total installed capacity of 22,728 MW,

comprising 3627 MW of hydropower is connected to its three grids. Magat Hydroelectric

Power Plant in Ramon, Isabela, is one of the largest hydro facilities in Luzon, contributes

a maximum output of 380 MW.

Plant Facts and Figures

 Dam

Dam Type: Earth and rockfill dam

Height: 114 meters

Crest Length: 4,160 meters

River Source: Magat River

 Reservoir

Storage Capacity at Full Supply Level: 1.08 mcm

Elevation Full Supply Level: 193 masl

Minimum Supply Level: 160 masl

Maximum Flood Level: 193 masl

 Power

Nameplate Capacity: 360 MW

Gross Min. Head: 58.3 meters

Gross Max. Head: 88.4 meters

8
Rated Net Head: 81 meters

Rated Flow 127.9 cms

Turbine: 4 Units/Francis Vertical Shaft

Generator: 4 Units/Vertical Synchronous

Average Annual Output: 734.52 GWh (2009-2015)

PH Level of Water in Magat River

Figure 2. PH Level Data of Magat River

(Data taken from Engr. Daryl M. Ramos of Magat Hydroelectric Power
Plant, Ramon, Isabela)

9
1.1 Statement of the Problem

In a hydroelectric power plant, water is the main requirement to run the system

for hydropower generation. Mainly, the components in a hydroelectric power plant are

made up of either concrete or metal. With components fully submerged in water,

corrosion has been a common problem in a hydroelectric power plant. Corrosion occurs

in a metal submerged in water when oxygen combined with metal and electrons are

liberated. At the chosen power plant, Francis Turbine was used. Turbine is the prime

mover to generate hydropower. At the end of the turbine, an elbow type draft tube built of

Mild Steel (Carbon Steel ST37-2 was installed. A draft tube functions as the component

that increases pressure of fluid passing through it at the expense of its velocity. However,

the draft tube inlet was found to be affected by corrosion. In response to that, redesigning

the draft tube material is the primary concern of this study. Although all components are

well maintained, but with corrosion taking place into the draft tube, over time when set

aside, it could result to failure of components which will later on become a greater

problem when a unit’s operation must be shut down.

10
1.2 Objectives

1.2.0 General Objective

The design project aims to redesign the draft tube by changing the material which

the draft tube is built with, considering a specific material with preferred quality and

characteristics that is resistant or can prevent or lessen the occurrence of corrosion in the

draft tube. Also, the design project aims to provide alternative solutions to the draft tube

in order to prolong the life of the said material.

1.2.1 Specific Objectives

 To determine the specific material that has a better resistance from corrosion inducing

environments.

 To compare each of the proposed stainless-steel material’s parameters to be considered

 To determine whether reinforcing the component of material from corrosion with specific

protective coating will be suitable.

 Implementation of the new material for the draft tube.

11
1.3 Scope and Limitations

1.3.1 Alternative No. 1

The main focus of this alternative is changing the material of the draft tube that is

affected by the corrosion. A material with higher resistance to corrosion will be used as a

substitute material to mild steel. The dimension of the draft tube will be the same. The

affected part of the draft tube will be the only part to be replaced by the new material.

Flow rate of the water travelling from reservoir to the turbine will still be the same as of

the original flow rate. Major components of the power plant such as reservoir, dam,

intake, control gate, penstock, generator, transformer and other components that is not a

part of the draft tube will not be tampered with.

1.3.2 Alternative No. 2

The main focus of this alternative is changing the material to be used in the draft

tube, from mild steel to stainless steel considering a different specification of material

from the material used in the first alternative. The replacement material will have a

higher resistance to corrosion. The dimension of the turbine will be the same. Major

components of the power plant such as reservoir, dam, intake, control gate, penstock,

generator, transformer and other components that is not a part of the draft tube will not be

tampered with.

12
1.3.3 Alternative No. 3

This alternative will be focusing on the material that was affected by corrosion.

Application of coating or lining to the material to attain the resistance needed to prevent

corrosion in the draft tube. A protective coating is a material that, when applied to a

structure, will isolate the structure from its environment. The dimension of the draft tube

will be the same. Major components of the power plant such as reservoir, dam, intake,

control gate, penstock, generator, transformer and other components that is not a part of

the draft tube will not be tampered with.

13
1.4 Design and Conceptual Framework

1.4.1 Alternative No. 1

FLOW CHART

Gathering of data
Corrosion resistant material

Selecting suitable
material available with
manufacturers data

Comparison of the selected

alternative metal to the existing
material.

Quality of the new material is

greater than the old one.
No

Modification of the draft tube

Yes
material.

1.4.2 Alternative No. 2

The process flow in this alternative is the same with the first alternative, but in this

alternative, the material to be used for the draft tube will be of different specifications, and

comparison to the first alternative will be considered.

14
1.4.3 Alternative No. 3

FLOW CHART

Gathering of data
possible coating material

Selection of suitable
protective coating
available with
manufacturer’s data

Comparison of the coated material

to the non-coated material

Quality of the coated material is

greater than the old one.
No

Modification of the draft tube

Yes
coating

15
Chapter 2: Review of Theoretical Design Inputs

2.1 Mild Steel (Carbon Steel ST37-2)

Carbon steel is sometimes referred to as ‘mild steel’ or ‘plain carbon steel’. The

American Iron and Steel Institute defines a carbon steel as having no more than 2 %

carbon and no other appreciable alloying element. Carbon steel makes up the largest part

of steel production and is used in a vast range of applications.

Carbon steels are strong. They also exhibit ferromagnetism. This means they are

extensively used in motors and electrical appliances. Welding carbon steels with a carbon

content greater than 0.3 % requires that special precautions be taken. However, welding

carbon steel presents far fewer problems than welding stainless steels. The corrosion

resistance of carbon steels is poor (i.e. they rust) and so they should not be used in a

corrosive environment unless some form of protective coating is used.

Figure 3. Mild Steel (ST37-2) Material Properties

Steels, like ST37-2, is classified to be carbon steel when there is no need to require alloys

which includes Chromium (Cr), Molybdenum (Mo) and Tungsten (W).

16
(https://pearlitesteel.com/difference-between-stainless-steel-and-mild-steel/ )

2.2 Stainless Steel (2507)

It is a Duplex type of Stainless steel which exhibits a high level of corrosion

resistance in most environments where the standard austenitic grades are used.

The high chromium, molybdenum and nitrogen contents in duplex grades provide

very good resistance to chloride-induced localized corrosion in aqueous environments.

Depending on the alloy content, some duplex grades are among the best performing

stainless steels. Because they contain relatively high chromium content, duplex stainless

steels provide a high level of corrosion resistance very economically.

Duplex stainless steel 2507, will eventually crack at some fraction of their yield

strength in this test, but that fraction is much higher than that of Type 316 stainless steel.

Because of their resistance to SCC in aqueous chloride environments at ambient pressure,

for example, under insulation, the duplex stainless steels may be considered in chloride

cracking environments.

Grade 2507 duplex stainless steels outperform many high nickel austenitic

stainless steels in solutions containing up to about 15% acid.

17
These alloying elements have the following positive influence on a material’s

resistance to pitting corrosion:

-Chromium (Cr)

-Molybdenum (Mo)

-Nitrogen (N)

Figure 4. Stainless Steel (2507) Material Properties

(Practical Guidelines for the Fabrication of Stainless Steels, IMOA)

18
2.3 Stainless Steel 316

It is an austenitic chromium-nickel stainless steel that contains between two and

3% molybdenum. The molybdenum content increases corrosion resistance, improves

resistance to pitting in chloride ion solutions, and increases strength at high temperatures.

Type 316 grade stainless steel is particularly effective in acidic environments.

This grade of steel is effective in protecting against corrosion caused by sulfuric,

hydrochloric, acetic, formic, and tartaric acids, as well as acid sulfates and alkaline

chlorides.

Figure 5. Stainless Steel (316) Material Properties

(United Performance Metals, ONI Company)

19
2.4 Corrosion

Pitting corrosion attacks most often take place at points where the passive layer

might be weakened, for example by slag inclusions, a damaged surface or imperfections

in the passive layer. Once the attack has started, the material can be completely

penetrated within a short time.

Problems with pitting corrosion attacks depend primarily on the chloride content,

the acidity, the temperature. If pitting has taken place and if the environment in such is

not too corrosive for the steel grade, a spontaneous repair of the passive layer will occur

in the presence of oxygen.

Natural seawater is more corrosive than would be expected from its chloride

content. The reason is that biological activity will occur. Therefore, chlorination as

biocide is often used as to prevent the growth of micro-organisms in seawater-bearing

pipe systems.

(https://www.materials.sandvik/en/materials-center/corrosion/wet-corrosion/pitting/ )

(United Performance Metals, ONI Company)

2.5 Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC)

Stress corrosion cracking (SCC) is the cracking induced from the combined

influence of tensile stress and a corrosive environment. The impact of SCC on a material

usually falls between dry cracking and the fatigue threshold of that material. The required

20
tensile stresses may be in the form of directly applied stresses or in the form of residual

stresses

Compared with austenitic stainless steels with similar chloride pitting and crevice

corrosion-resistance, the duplex stainless steels exhibit significantly better SCC

resistance. Many of the uses of duplex stainless steels in the chemical process industries

are replacements for austenitic grades in applications with a significant risk of SCC. This

may occur in high temperature, chloride-containing environments, or when conditions

favor hydrogen-induced cracking.

21
Figure 6: Stress corrosion cracking resistance of mill annealed austenitic and duplex

stainless steels in the drop evaporation test with sodium chloride solutions at 120°C

(248°F) (stress that caused cracking shown as a percentage of yield strength).

(Practical Guidelines for the Fabrication of Stainless Steels, IMOA)

2.6 Pitting and Crevice Corrosion

Stainless steel can be characterized by a temperature above which pitting

corrosion and crevice corrosion will initiate and propagate to a visibly detectable extent

within about 24 hours.

2.6.1 Critical Pitting Temperature

This temperature is known as the critical pitting temperature (CPT), wherein any

temperatures lower than this threshold pitting corrosion occurs. It is a characteristic of the

particular stainless-steel grade and the specific environment.

2.6.2 Critical Crevice Temperature

This temperature is known as the critical pitting temperature (CCT), wherein any

temperatures lower than this threshold crevice corrosion occurs

The critical crevice temperature (CCT) is dependent on the individual sample of

stainless steel, the chloride environment, and the nature (tightness, length, etc.) of the

crevice. Because of the dependence on the geometry of the crevice and the difficulty of

achieving reproducible crevices in practice, there is more scatter for the measurement of

CCT than for the CPT.

22
A comparison of pitting and crevice corrosion resistance for a number of stainless

steels in the solution annealed condition as measured by the ASTM G 482 procedures

(6% ferric chloride)

ASTM G 48 – Standard test method for pitting and crevice corrosion resistance of

stainless steels and related alloys by ferric chloride solution.

Figure 7. Critical pitting and crevice corrosion temperatures for unwelded austenitic

stainless steels (left side) and duplex stainless steels (right side) in the solution annealed

condition (evaluated in 6% ferric chloride by ASTM G 48).

(Practical Guidelines for the Fabrication of Stainless Steels, IMOA)

23
2.7 Alloying Elements in Duplex Stainless Steels

Chromium: A minimum of about 10.5% chromium is necessary to form a stable

chromium passive film that is sufficient to protect a steel against mild atmospheric

corrosion. The corrosion resistance of a stainless-steel increases with increasing

chromium content. Chromium is a ferrite former, meaning that the addition of chromium

promotes the body-centered cubic structure of iron.

Nitrogen: Nitrogen increases the pitting and crevice corrosion resistance of

austenitic and duplex stainless steels. It also substantially increases their strength and, in

fact, it is the most effective solid solution strengthening element.

Molybdenum: Molybdenum enhances the pitting corrosion resistance of stainless

steel. When the chromium content of a stainless steel is at least 18%, additions of

molybdenum become about three times as effective as chromium additions in improving

pitting and crevice corrosion resistance in chloride-containing environments.

Nickel: The addition of nickel delays the formation of detrimental intermetallic

phases in austenitic stainless steels but is far less effective than nitrogen in delaying their

formation in duplex stainless steels.

The resistance of a duplex stainless steel to localized corrosion is strongly related

to its alloy content. The primary elements that contribute to the pitting corrosion

resistance are Cr, Mo, and N. W, although not commonly used, is about half as effective

on a weight percent basis as Mo. An empirical relationship called the Pitting Resistance

24
Equivalent Number (PREN) has been developed to relate a stainless steels composition to

its relative pitting resistance in chloride containing solutions.

PREN = Pitting Resistance Equivalent Number = Cr + 3.3(Mo + 0.5W) + 16N

(values are in terms of weight percentages of alloy as given in material property

tables)

(Practical Guidelines for the Fabrication of Stainless Steels, IMOA)

2.8 Polyurethane Lining

The polyurethane lining, Chemthane 4200, is a solvent free, two-component

polyurethane lining. Application of this substance is made directly to surface prepared

steel or ductile iron. Primers are not necessary.This product cures to form a hard polymer

film.

(CHEMTHANE 4200 PW ANSI/NSF 61, Chemline Inc.)

25
Chapter 3: Design Output

For Design Alternatives No.1 and No. 2, a drafted model of how the application

of the material to the part replacement on the corroded area is shown as follows:

Figure 8. Drafted model for draft tube

26
3.1 Design Alternative No. 1

Proposal to implement Stainless Steel Grade 2507

For the proposed design solution in number 1, the researchers altered the material

that is being used in the draft tube with the material that has greater corrosion resistance.

The original material used for the draft tube for the power plant is Low Carbon

Steel (ST37-2). The researchers propose to replace the previous material to Stainless

Steel Duplex 2507. Given the following alloy mixture properties as referenced from

Figures 3 and 4.

ALLOYING MIXTURE COMPOSITION (2507 Stainless Steel)

MOLYBDENUM 3-5
CHROMIUM 24-26
NITROGEN 0.24-0.32
TUNGSTEN 0
Table 3.1.1. Alloying composition of 2507 Stainless Steel

ALLOYING MIXTURE COMPOSITION (ST37-

2)
MOLYBDENUM --
CHROMIUM --

NITROGEN 0.011
TUNGSTEN --

Table 3.1.2. Alloying composition of ST37-2

3.1.1 Pitting Resistance Equivalent Number (PREN)

27
The researchers have computed the PREN for both ST37-2 Steel and 2507

Stainless Steel for comparison later on (computations are given, see APPENDIX C for

reference)

For ST37-2 Carbon Steel,

PREN =1.71

For 2507 Stainless Steel,

PREN =37.74 ⁓ 47.62

3.1.2 Corrosion Rates

Approximating from the values shown from the test results, Grades 2507 and 316

were taken. Carbon Steel ST37-2 was neglected for test results as they are indeed

significantly faster to corrode as they little to no alloying mixture which resists corrosion

attacks over time. (See Appendix A for reference)

For 2507 Stainless Steel,

mm
Rate of Corrosion=0.01−0.03
yr

3.1.2 SCCR (Stress Corrosion Cracking Resistance)

Taken from the results shown on Figure 6, resistance to cracking are shown by its

behavior in terms of observing a corrosion attack at certain percentages of the tested

materials, Stainless Steel 2507 and 316’s yield strength (Sy), expressed in terms of a

fraction or percent of its yield strength,

28
For 2507 Stainless Steel,

Pct of S Y =76 %

3.1.3 CPT and CCT (Critical Pitting and Crevice Temperature)

The following temperatures were also approximated and taken as results from

testing of materials shown on Figure 7., including Stainless Steel Grades 2507 and 316, in

a ferric chloride solution wherein temperatures lower from these have pitting and crevice

corrosion attacks starts to show,

For 2507 Stainless Steel,

CPT =78 ° ∁

CCT =37 ° ∁

3.2 Design Alternative No. 2

Proposal to implement Stainless Steel Grade 316

For the proposed alternative 2, another corrosion resistant material is proposed that can

be used as a material to use for the draft tube, Stainless Steel 316. Given the following

alloying mixture properties as shown:

ALLOY MIXTURE COMPOSITION (316 Stainless Steel)

MOLYBDENUM 18-20
CHROMIUM 18-20
NITROGEN 0.10
TUNGSTEN 0
Table 3.2.1. Alloying composition of 316 Stainless Steel

29
3.2.1 Pitting Resistance Equivalent Number (PREN)

The researchers have computed the PREN for Stainless Steel 316.

For 316 Stainless Steel,

PREN =24.2⁓ 29.5

3.1.2 Corrosion Rates

For 316 Stainless Steel,

mm
Rate of Corrosion=0.01−0.25
yr

3.1.2 SCCR (Stress Corrosion Cracking Resistance)

For 316 Stainless Steel,

Pct of S Y =5 %

3.1.3 CPT and CCT (Critical Pitting and Crevice Temperature)

For 316 Stainless Steel,

CPT =10 ° ∁

CCT =−10 ° ∁

3.3 Design Alternative No. 3

30
Coating the old material (Carbon Steel ST37-2) with Polyurethane Coating

(Solvent-free Polyurethane Coating)

For the Design alternative 3, the researchers considered the use of Polyurethane

coating to protect the linings of the draft tube from corrosion occurrence. The coating to

be used exhibits excellent impact and abrasion resistance, providing four times longer life

of the draft tube.

(Appendix C as reference) Manufacturer’s Data -Properties of Polyurethane

Solvent-Free Coating

(Data from Chemline Incorporated)

Chapter 4: Design Comparative Analysis

31
Multiple constraints were used in this study to determine the most capable design

for implementation. The Constraints discussed in this study were economic,

sustainability, and technical. The constraints were defined and parameters designated in

Chapter 3 were justified accordingly and the values for each constraint will be an input to

evaluate the trade-offs. Different constraints consist of different level of significances,

applicable standards were also applied. The design with the highest total weighted score

based from the calculation of the ranking scale will be chosen.

4.1 Constraints

Pairwise Comparison Matrix

Using the pair-wise comparison method, the considered constraints specifically

economic, societal, sustainability, are ranked in order of importance. Table shows the

pair-wise comparison matrix chart for constraints considered for each alternative design.

Each cell in the matrix corresponds to a comparison of a pair of items (hence the name

“pair-wise comparison”). The cells contain the constraint that is considered the most

important of the pair.

Constraints to be compared:

1. Economic - Determining whether a project should be carried out from a financial

perspective. Primary considerations are the cost of making a product (including fixed and

variable costs), the pricing of a product (can it compete in the marketplace), and the cost

of ownership for both producer and consumer.

32
2. Sustainability - The process of developing engineering devices, products, and systems

that use the resources available to it to meet the needs of the present without

compromising the ability of future generations to also meet their own needs.

3. Technical – To get an idea of the preferred specifications that is essential to take into

account technical factors that limit the resource.

A B C

Economical A - A A

Sustainability B - - BC

Technical C - - -

Table 4.1. Pairwise comparison matrix

Note: Consider constraints Economic (A); Sustainability (B); Technical (C); -- (D).

Comparison AB is equivalent to BA so consider first comparison.

4.1.1 Justifications for the Decisions in the PWC Chart

1. Economical > Sustainability

Economical should always be the main consideration, compared to Sustainability

since a more sustainable material comes with a greater cost.

2. Economical > Technical

Technical aspect and economical aspect are both important in designing a material

but the economical aspect is much more important when compared to the technical

33
aspect. Since for considering the material with a greater specification that can resist

corrosion and cracking will lead to higher quality of material but will cost more.

3. Sustainability = Technical

Technicality is just as important as sustainability because selection of material used

means the longer the life expectancy of the material, the more sustainable it is.

4.1.2 Ranking of the Constrains

Below is a sorted list of the constraints. The number that is in the parenthesis is

the number of cells containing their flag letter appeared wherein these numbers will be

used for the ranking of their ranking. This leads to:

Economic (2)

Sustainability (1)

Technical (1)

In determining the percentage weights, weights must obey the relative ranking given

by the pairwise comparison sum of which equal to 100%.

Assuming a linear proportion between all the weights and solving the following

equation:

100 %=2 x+ x + x

with x = 25% (Approximately) where the coefficients in the equation are the number of

occurrences of each constraint in the pair-wise comparison matrix. This leads to:

34
● Economical: 2x = 50%

● Sustainability: x = 25%

● Technical: x = 25%

4.1.3 Weight

In assigning the weights of the constraints, the total of the weights must be 100% and the
weights must obey the relative ranking given by the pairwise comparison.

CONSTRAINTS WEIGHTED PERCENTAGE

Economical 50%
Sustainability 25%
Technical 25%
Table 4.1.3. Evaluation Criteria

4.1.4 Constraints to be considered in comparing the Three (3) Design Alternatives in

this Study

Based on the weight of the constraints, the Economical Constraint with 50%
weighted to get the highest level of importance compared to Sustainability Constraint and
Technical Constraint which both weighted 25%. Thus, for the comparison of the design
alternatives, the said constraints with the highest level of importance would be
considered.

The ability of the design to satisfy each constraint was assigned and tabulated by the
researchers and is shown in Table (6).

1 Least
2 Recommended

35
3 Highly Recommended
Table 4.1.4. Evaluation Criteria

4.1.3.1 Economic Constraint

Based on the gathered data, the cost of the materials for the Design Alternative 1

(Stainless Steel Duplex 2507) and Design Alternative 2 (Stainless Steel 316) costs Php

61,031.00 per Metric Ton and Php 50,855.00 per Metric Ton, respectively. Also, for the

the Design Alternative 3 (Application of Polyurethane Coating) costs Php 5,680.5 for

every 30 m ²/ton. Considering the rough information given by suppliers, the design

alternative with the lowest initial cost will prove to be more economical among the

proposed alternative solutions

Constraint Design Alternative (DA)

First DA Second Third DA

Economic Stainless DA Polyurethane

Steel Stainles Coating

Duplex s Steel

2507 316

36
Cost 2 3 1
Table 4.1.3.1. Economic Cost for Design Alternatives 1,2 and 3

4.1.3.2 Sustainability Constraint

All the design alternatives will increase the reliability of the component,

specifically the draft tube. But, changing the material built of the affected part of the draft

tube considering the material with greater properties that would combat corrosion would

be more favorable as it would help prolong the life of the draft tube for more than 25

years.

The researchers have based the life expectancies of the material being proposed to

implement on the replaced part on the test conducted wherein it shows the corrosion rate

of both Stainless Steel 2507 and 316 on formic acid solution emulating water body

conditions.

Basing on the test results, Grade 316 shows the highest rate of corrosion among

the tested stainless steels, approximated between 0.01-0.25 mm/yr with respect to the

increasing formic acid concentration. On the other hand, Grade 2507 was shown to have

the least corrosion rate with little to no attacks at an approximated 0.01-0.03 mm/yr.

(See Appendix A – for the Corrosion Rate Test Graph)

37
The latter, the coating application will be the least of viability in terms of

sustainability given that applied polyurethane degrades faster over time.

Constraint Design Alternative (DA)

First DA Second Third DA

Sustainability Stainless DA Polyurethane

Steel Stainles Coating

Duplex s Steel

2507 316
Cost 3 2 1
Table 4.1.3.2. Sustainability for Design Alternatives 1, 2 and 3

4.1.3.3 Technical Constraint

First parameter to be considered is the material’s resistance to yielding. Material

yielding is further induced in oxidizing environments such as the conditions for hydro-

electric plants. Considering the material’s yield strength, for Design Alternative 1

(Stainless Steel Duplex 2507) the yield strength (Sy) of the material is 550 MPa and for

Design Alternative 2 (Stainless Steel 316) the yield strength (Sy) of the material is 205

MPa.

Additionally, as shown on Figure 6, by basing on each of the material’s behavior

by a drop evaporation test with sodium chloride solutions at a condition where it induces

SCC or Stress Corrosion Cracking, Stainless Steel Grade 316 was shown to have been

showing cracks at an approximately 5% of its yield strength while Grade 2507 was only

38
found to have been showing subjection to SCC at a relatively higher rate at an

approximately 76% of its yield strength.

Second parameter to be considered are the temperature thresholds wherein pitting

corrosion and crevice corrosion are likely to occur on lower temperatures, CPT and CCT

obtained from the test results show the corrosion attacks at a condition to simulate

corroding environments. Grade 2507 has been found to have higher threshold of

temperatures before corrosion occurs compared to Grade 316.

Lastly, the PREN, pitting resistance equivalent numbers are used as a standard to

determine a material’s susceptibility to corrode, by comparing the results obtained from

the researcher’s computations basing on the referenced empirical formula where it relates

alloying elements used for resisting corrosion (See Appendix D)

PREN SS 2507 > PREN SS316 > PREN ST 37−2

The resistance of a stainless steel to localized corrosion is strongly related to its

alloy content. The primary elements that contribute to the pitting corrosion resistance are

Cr, Mo, and N. W. An empirical relationship called the Pitting Resistance Equivalent

Number (PREN) has been developed to relate a stainless steel’s composition to its

relative pitting resistance in chloride containing solutions. (Practical Guidelines for the

Fabrication of Stainless Steels, IMOA)

39
The Design Alternative 3 however, (Polyurethane Coating) falls short in

terms of reinforcement as it acts as a coating solution for temporary fix.

Constraint Design Alternative (DA)

First DA Second Third DA

Technical Stainless DA Polyurethane

Steel Stainless Coating

Duplex Steel

2507 316
Cost 3 2 1
Table 4.1.3.3. Technical Analysis for Design Alternatives 1, 2 and 3

4.2 Trade-offs

The design with the highest score with rating of 3 (Highly Recommended) will the

considered as the best design as it is measured using the selected constraints.

Design Alternative 1 which is changing the material from Mild Steel (ST37-2) to

Stainless Steel Duplex 2507 resulted to be the “Highly Recommended” among all the

constraints. While Design Alternative 2 which is also changing the material from Mild

Steel (ST37-2) to Stainless Steel 316 comes second as “Recommended” among the

constraints, and the Design Alternative 3, comes third as the “Least Recommended”

design alternative. The computation will be:

40
%𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 = %𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑥 (𝑅𝑎𝑡e 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡 /2)

Constraint Design Alternative (DA)

First DA Second Third DA

Stainless DA Polyurethane

Steel Stainless Coating

Duplex Steel

2507 316
Economical (50%) 50% 75% 25%
Sustainability 37.5% 25% 12.5%

(25%)
Technical (25%) 37.5% 25% 12.5%
Table 4.2. Trade-offs for Design Alternatives 1, 2 and 3

4.3 Codes and Standards

4.3.1For Design Alternatives 1 & 2 (Change of material):

Section 16.3 of Philippine Mechanical Code – Corrosion-Resistant Steels

Addresses the applications of stainless steels in two groups: (1) Where corrosion

resistance to high temperature oxidation; (2) properties of hardness, strength, toughness

of ductility is required, including resistance to wear and abrasions. Corrosion resistant

steels cover a wide range of compositions and physical properties. The common

applications include cutlery; surgical and dental instruments; poppet valves for internal

combustion engines; turbine blades; pump shafts; architectural trim; polished parts of

automobiles; chemical, dairy, laundry and oil equipment etc. The chromium content

commonly ranges from 10 to 12 to 18 or 20%, some steels have less and some more than

41
these minimum and maximum values. The “1 8-8” stainless steel often referred to is a

steel having about 18 % chromium and 8% nickel.

4.3.2 For Design Alternative 3 (Application of coating or linings to prevent

corrosion):

ANSI/NSF 61 – Drinking Water System Components

Address the human health effects of drinking water system components. As an

approved standard of the American National Standards Institute, NSF/ANSI 61 is the

legally recognized national standard in the United States for the human health effects

assessment of drinking water contact materials, components and devices. This standard

form the basis of the regulatory framework and of public health protection for controlling

the health effects of drinking water contact materials across the USA and Canada.

NSF/ANSI 61 is intended for voluntary use by certifying organizations, utilities,

regulatory agencies, and/or manufacturers as a basis for providing assurances that

adequate health protection exists for products covered by this standard, which include:

•Pipes and related products (pipe, hose and fittings)

•Protective and barrier materials (cements/coatings)

•Joining and sealing materials (gaskets, adhesives and lubricants)

•Process media (filter media)

•Mechanical devices (water meters, valves and filters)

42
•Mechanical plumbing devices (faucets, drinking fountains and components)

•Potable water materials (non-metallic materials

Chapter 5: Conclusion, Recommendation and Final Design Summary

5.1. CONCLUSION

The researchers were able to modify the previous design of the draft tube to make

it more resistant to rust and corrosion, the researchers came up with 3 different

alternatives to improve the selected component while considering the given parameters in

the design output and factors considering the material to be used in the draft tube. The

first alternative was the changing of the corroded material from mild steel ST37-2 to

stainless steel duplex 2507. Stainless steel 2507 has higher values obtained for corrosion

resistance and yield strength making it a suitable replacement. Second is the use of a

different grade of stainless steel in this case is SS316, considering the yield strength,

SS316 is more susceptible to yielding dealt by corrosion attacks as compared to SS2507

and is only relatively cheaper by a small amount. Taking into account the pH levels in the

Magat River to be basic at 8-9, the need for extreme corrosion resistance seem a little far-

43
fetched. But given the chloride composition in the river, it is more advantageous in the

long term to provide longevity by replacing with materials that are well-suited for

corrosion attacks. Third is the remedying of a protective coating such as a solvent less

polyurethane epoxy a polymer-based coating it will be applied to the draft tube to

increase its corrosion resistance while making it more durable. Weighing in all the factors

considered, stainless steel 2507 was found out to be more recommended among the three

alternatives proposed.

Therefore, among the three possible solutions the best alternative is to the

corroded part with a replacement implemented with Stainless Steel 2507.

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

The researchers would like to recommend

● Analysis of SS2507 and its installation process to the draft tube such as by using rivets.

● Considering other trade off strategies

● Analysis of possible sherardizing applications to the draft tube and its effects (if there are

any) to the water pH levels.

44
References

CHEMTHANE 4200 PW ANSI/NSF 61, Chemline Inc.

Classification of Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels (2001), AISI

Difference between Mild Steel and Stainless Steel, https://pearlitesteel.com/difference-between-

stainless-steel-and-mild-steel/

Low-Carbon Steel ST37-2, Stainless Steel 316 and 2507 Pricing Index,

https://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?

fsb=y&IndexArea=product_en&CatId=&SearchText=stainless+steel

Magat Hydroelectric Power Plant, Ramon, Isabela (2019), Engr. Daryl M. Ramos

Practical Guidelines for the Fabrication of Duplex Stainless Steels (2014), International

Molybenum Association

45
United Performance Metals, ONI Company

Appendices

APPENDIX A: Plant Profile

SN Aboitiz Power Corporation

SN Power invests in clean, renewable energy on a commercial basis in emerging markets.

The company’s primary focus is hydropower. The company is fully owned by Norfund, the

Norwegian Investment Fund for Developing Countries.

Aboitiz Power Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary representing the consolidated

electricity interests of the Aboitiz Group. Which is one of the largest conglomerates in the

Philippines, focusing on the electricity, financial, and food sectors. Aboitiz has been involved in

the Philippine electricity industry since the 1930s.

46
The company concentrates on acquiring, developing, constructing, and operating hydropower

assets and are currently operating, through Joint Venture partnerships, hydropower plant in The

Philippines, Laos, Zambia, Panama and Uganda.

SN Power has a multinational team of professionals, globally employed with a head office

located in Oslo, Norway.

Since the establishment of SN Power in 2002, the company has invested in a portfolio of more

than 38 hydropower assets, with an average annual production of 15 TWh, equal to

approximately 10% of the total power production in Norway.

Mission

 Develop and operate world-class renewable energy facilities.

 Provide our customers with innovative energy solutions that best meet their needs.

 Foster and engaging work environment that inspires performance, learning, and growth.

 Partner with our communities in their development.

Vision

By having the best team in the industry, we will be the leading developer and operator of

renewable energy facilities, preferred by our customers, host communities and stakeholders

47
Hydroelectric Power

Hydroelectric power harnesses water’s potential energy and converts it into electrical energy. It

is a simple process: falling or running water turns a turbine, which turns a generator, producing

electricity.

Types of SN Aboitiz Hydro Power Plants

 Run-of-river hydropower channels flowing water from a river through a canal or

penstock to spin a turbine, generating electricity before being returned to the river.

 Large hydropower uses the stored energy of water in reservoirs and allows its flow to

drive hydraulic turbines, which in turn activates a generator to produce electricity.

 Pumped-storage hydropower harnesses water which is cycled between a lower and upper

reservoir, using surplus energy at times of low demand.

Benefits of Hydroelectric Power

It is renewable, because the water used to generate electricity is not depleted during the process.

It is environment-friendly, clean and natural, harnessing the energy of flowing and falling water.

It is reliable because hydropower can go from zero power to maximum output quickly, allowing

it to meet changing demands for electricity. And because water from our rivers is a domestic

resource, it is local and not subject to foreign exchange movement and logistical issues.

48
The 4 Hydropower Plants

SN Aboitiz operates 4 Hydroelectric Power Plant which is Magat, Ambuklao, Binga, and Maris.

The 4 hydroElectric Power Plant can go from zero to maximum output quickly, allowing us to

meet the changing demands for Electricity. It can produce 633.5 MW of depandable capacity.

The Basic Components of a conventional Hydroelectric Power plant

 Dam – A structure that holds back water, creating a reservoir where the power plant

stores water that is used for generation. Some dams are multi-purpose since they are

intended to be used for irrigation, flood control and potable water supply.

 Headrace – A channel or waterway that carries water to the turbine.

 Intake – Structure where water enters a hydroelectric power plant. Gravity pulls the water

through to the penstock.

 Penstock – A shaft or pipeline that leads from the intake to the turbine.

 Turbine – When water strikes the blades of the turbine, energy is converted and drives the

generator.The more common type of turbine design for larger hydroelectric plants, such

as SNAP’s Magat, Ambuklao and Binga facilities, is the Francis turbine.

 Generator – A rotating machine that converts mechanical energy into electrical energy.

As the turbine blades turn, so do a series of magnets inside the generator. This rotating

part of the generator is called the rotor. The fixed component of the generator is called

49
the stator. It is the cutting of electro-magnetic fluxes between these parts that create

electrical energy.

 Tailrace Outlet – Water that has passed the turbine is carried through this structure and

re-enters the river downstream.

SN Aboitiz - Magat Hydroelectric Power Plant, Ramon, Isabela and Alfonso Lista, Ifugao

The Magat Hydroelectric Power Plant is one of the largest hydro facilities in Luzon, with a

maximum output of 380 megawatts (MW). It draws water from the Magat River through the

multi-purpose Magat dam.

The national government began construction of the plant in February 1980 and completed the

commissioning in Dec 1983. Under the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA), the power

facility was subject to privatization in 2006. Following a successful bid of US$530 million,

SNAP took over operations on April 26, 2007.

50
The source is coming from Magat River having a Crest length of 4,160 meters and height of 114

meters. The type of Magat Dam is Earth and rock fill. The Maximum Flood level is 193 masl

and the Elevation Full Supply is 193 masl. The Rated Net head and Rated Flow is 81 meters and

127.9 cms. The Turbines consist of 4 units/Francis Vertical Shaft.

Operation

Magat is designed as a peaking plant, and each generating unit has the capability to be on-line

and deliver electricity to the system in less than two minutes. The units are started/stopped

approximately 300 times a year. During wet season, energy is delivered outside peaking hours.

Magat’s output is partly hedged through long term contracts. The rest is sold at spot price

through the Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM). Magat is also a large provider of

ancillary services to the system operator, National Grid Corporation of the Philippines. To

optimize use of energy, Magat is operated mainly during peak hours when it can meet the need

for electricity while also taking irrigation requirements into accoun

Development

The plant is prepared for extension. Inlet arrangements for two more units are built in the

existing dam construction

Magat Hydro

Location

51
APPENDIX B: Corrosion Rate Testing

52
Corrosion of duplex and austenitic stainless steels in boiling mixtures of 50% acetic acid and

varying proportions of formic acid.

APPENDIX C: Magat River Properties

53
APPENDIX D: Manufacturer’s Data -Properties of Polyurethane Solvent-Free Coating
(Data from Chemline Incorporated)

54
APPENDIX E: Design Computations

The Pitting Resistance Equivalent Number is given by the following equation.

55
PREN =Cr % +3.3 ( Mo %+ 0.5W % ) +16 N %

For ST37-2 Carbon Steel,

%Cr = 0

%Mo = 0

%W = 0

%N = 0.011

*Since Carbon Steels have little to no alloy mixture of Chromium (Cr), Molybdenum

(Mo), and Tungsten (W), consider values to be zero (Classification of Carbon and Low-

Alloy Steels AISI, 2001)

PREN =0+ ( 3.3 ) ( 0+0 )+16 ( 0.011 )

PR EN =1.71

Carbon steels have very low PREN as they aren’t very suitable for corrosion-inducing

conditions.

For 316 Stainless Steel,

%Cr = 16⁓18

%Mo = 2⁓3

%W = 0

%N = 0.1

56
PREN =16 ⁓18+ ( 3.3 ) [ ( 2 ⁓3 )+ ( 0.5 ) ( 0 ) ]+16 ( 0.1 )

PREN =24.2⁓ 29.5

For 2507 Stainless Steel,

%Cr = 24⁓26

%Mo = 3⁓5

%W = 0

%N = 0.24⁓0.32

PREN =24 ⁓ 26+ ( 3.3 ) [ ( 3 ⁓5 ) + ( 0.5 )( 0 )]+ 16 ( 0.24 ⁓0.32 )

PREN =37.74 ⁓ 47.62

57