Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Studies On The Stress Corrosion Cracking..... 9
Studies On The Stress Corrosion Cracking..... 9
corrosion failure commonly encountered due to combined action of stress and corrosion
medium.
This report describes a study on the Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) behavior of alloys
resulting from the synergistic action of corrodents such as chlorides, oxidants, H2S, etc.
In this study, the threshold stresses for SCC have been determined for few generic alloys
namely; carbon steel, 316L, 317L, 904L, 430 and Monel 400 used in the desalination
plants. The standard Proof Rings and U-Bend samples in NACE and SHELL solutions
containing H2S are used for the purpose. Electrochemical polarization measurements
were performed on these alloys in the specified environments to study the effect of
electrochemical potential on the intergranular SCC. Fractographic analyses were
conducted by Scanning Electron Microscopy supplemented by Energy Dispersive
Spectroscopy. The test results showed that the intergranular and transgranular SCC
fracture of carbon steel and alloy 430 in H2S environment occurs only in the limited
potential environment, where as, the alloys viz., 316L and 317L are immune to SCC
under the condition of test performed. The alloy Monel 400 was also found susceptible
to SCC in presence of H2S.
Issued as Technical Report TR 3804/APP 90001 in October 1999. A paper entitled Studies on the Stress
Corrosion Cracking Behavior of Few Alloys used in the Desalination Plants was presented at the WSTA 4th Gulf
Conference, Bahrain, 13-18 Feb. 1999.
2282
Fractography of alloy 430 indicated that the failure is attributed mainly to the sulfide
stress cracking due to synergistic action of sulfide and chloride that had greatly
enhanced the sensitivity of phases present in the alloy. A tentative ranking of the alloys
has been established on the basis of the threshold stress values obtained from the tests
conducted.
INTRODUCTION
One of the major factors that control the use of structural alloys in desalination industry
is its resistance to corrosion in marine environments and other distillation conditions.
The high chlorinity of seawater associated with its complex salt composition render it
inherently corrosive to many structural alloys. Its deleterious effects on ocean
interfacing structures have been documented and the wealth of information is compiled.
In spite, we continue to experience corrosion related problems on structures that must
interface with the marine environment. Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) is one such
problem which essentially controls and determines the suitability of materials from a
wide range of materials as they are very expensive modes of failures, of particular
relevance to desalination and power plants.
SCC is a stress assisted anodic process as a result of synergistic action of ions, such as
Cl- , H2S and oxidants like elemental sulfur present in the solution. The susceptibility to
SCC is influenced by factors like environmental condition, temperature, hardness of the
material, level of applied stress and microstructure of the material.
The SCC of
materials in acidic solutions containing dissolved hydrogen sulfide (H2S) has been
termed as sulfide stress cracking (SSC). The failure characteristics in SSC are most
consistent with a hydrogen embrittlement mechanism where the fracture modes are
mostly intergranular. The literature available on SCC is quite vast, hence the present
literature survey is restricted to the following sections keeping in view of the objectives
of this project.
2283
The carbon steels are prone to SCC in carbonate, bicarbonate, acetates and phosphate
environments and is identified as the main reason of cracking in natural gas transmission
lines. In low alloy steels, oxygenated water at high temperature, NaNO2 - Na 2SO4
solutions, alkaline chloride solutions such as NaCl - Ca (OH)2 under pitting conditions
[4,5], and anhydrous ammonia - methanol solution [6] in the presence of chloride caused
SCC.
Studies on J-55 and N-80 steels have shown that H2S containing chloride
solutions promote SSC [7]. Similar observation was also made in AISI 1075 steels and
hardness of steel is also found to influence the SCC [8].
carbon steels have been noticed in diethanolamine and manoethanolamine solutions [9],
0.5M NaHCO3 and 0.5M Na2CO3 solutions at 70 oC at high stress levels [10] and CO2
environment [11].
solutions [12] and low concentration of sulfate [13] causing SCC in low alloy steels
have also been reported. The effect of sulfide in NACE standard solution (5% NaCl +
0.5% Acetic acid) was found different from SHELL standard solution (solution
containing 0.5% Acetic acid) in the promotion of SCC for high strength low alloy steels
[14].
In austenitic stainless steels, SCC was well known since three decades.
The cracking
was mainly due to chloride (which were neutral at high temperature, acid at low
temperature) and hydroxide solutions [15].
sensitized stainless steels have shown SSC [16]. SCC have been reported at ambient
temperature [17] and at 90 oC [18] in materials with sensitized microstructure in chloride
containing aqueous environments and in 0.1M NaCl or synthetic seawater at 90 oC for
SS 304 and 316 alloys [19]. Alloys SS 304 and 316 was more susceptible to SCC in HCl
and H2SO4 [0.82 K Mol / m3] solutions [20].
2284
type AISI 420 (13 Cr SS) was found prone to SCC in H2S environment and resistant in
CO2 environment. The CO2- H2S - Cl - system inhibited SCC by favoring the formation
of protective layer [23]. In duplex stainless steels SSC is severe at 160 oC in 25% NaCl
containing dissolved H2S and also in aerated brine solutions [24]. SCC was noticed at
ambient temperature in solution of sulfide/3.5 wt % NaCl containing sulfide [25,26].
The nickel base alloys viz., C-276 and alloy 825 were susceptible to SSC in HCl
oxidizing solution containing H2S. In chloride containing solution the SSC has been
observed at temperatures above 204 oC [24]. The copper base alloys are subjected to
SCC in environments like ammonia, sulfur dioxide, organic complexing solution like
acetates, tartrates and sulfate solutions [27].
1.2
As the name implies the threshold stress is the stress below which no SCC occurs. The
main purpose of determining the threshold stress for SCC is to establish a ranking order
under given condition of metal environment combination, heat-treated microstructure,
type of stressing and its magnitude. An exact threshold stress for a given condition is
difficult to define. However, the relative ranking seems quite obvious.
The material which shows highest SCC resistance for a given environment may show
susceptibility to SCC when it is heat-treated to different microstructure. For example,
threshold stress in SCC of carbon and low alloy steels was found to be influenced by
heat treatment when it is studied using 5% NaCl - 0.5% Acetic acid solution containing
3000 ppm of H2S [28]. The heat treatment carried out gave untempered Martensitic
structure which is attacked by H2S and resulted in low threshold stress values for
cracking. From the result of series of test in Drop Evaporation Test on highly alloyed
stainless steel and duplex stainless steels as indicated by their threshold stress values, it
was seen that the highly alloyed stainless steels such as 654 SMO (UNS S 32654) was
most resistant to SCC than the duplex stainless steels viz., 2205 (UNS S 31803) [29] and
least resistant was 304 (UNS S 32304) [30].
2285
1.3
Fractography
The fractography in SCC was used mainly for two purposes. First being failure mode
determination and the other was for the studies of fracture mechanics. The conventional
metallography and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) were widely employed for this
purpose.
SEM fractography had been used in SCC tested stainless steel samples to
1.4
Influence of Metallurgy
The metallurgical aspects of the material have profound influence on SCC. The grain
boundary segregation and phase transformation in steel strongly affect SCC. It was
found that substitutional elements like Molybdenum in specific environment typically of
type caustic medium, could affect SCC [32]. But, it is not true for all elements or in all
solutions.
treatment, cold working, etc. may or may not have beneficial effects. The example of
beneficial effect to SCC was seen by over-aging of Aluminum-Zinc alloys, whereas,
such over-aging is not found beneficial in Aluminum Lithium alloys [33].
1.5
Electrochemical Aspects
The SCC in specific environments is strongly correlated with localized (pit or crevice)
corrosion. The importance of electrochemistry is in the understanding of kinetics of
SCC in the context of changed local environment. The measurement of repassivation
potential of localized corrosion would represent the lowest potential at which special
local environment can be maintained and SCC propagation occurs in this special
environments. Another factor is the critical potential for SCC. If these two potentials
are determined and made to coincide by the alterations in the composition of alloys or
environment (with the help of local chemistry) new SCC resistant alloys can be
developed or mitigation of SCC could be achieved. Two outstanding examples of the
electrochemical contribution to SCC are the development of inexpensive steel [33]
without high nickel content which resist SCC upto 140 oC with 20% NaCl. The other
being the usage of anodic protection from the understanding of electrochemistry, which
is used worldwide.
2286
The prevalence of SCC in desalination plant occupies a major share when compared to
other modes of material failure. In recent years many major SCC failures have been
reported from Desalination plants. The details of the failure is briefly described in
Appendices 1 through 4.
It is clear from the above literature review that till to date no data is available to
determine the susceptibility of various metals and alloys to SCC resulting from
synergistic action of corrodents which are normally encountered in Desalination and
Power Plants. The present investigation, although less comprehensive, is aimed to carry
out a systematic study of such phenomenon and to understand the nature and mechanism
so that occurrence of SCC can be minimized.
2.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the proposed work are the following :
(i)
(ii)
To establish a ranking order with regard to SCC resistance for the above alloys
by determining the threshold stress.
(iii)
To carry out fractography on the SCC failed specimen using Scanning Electron
Microscope to understand the mechanism of cracking.
(iv)
2287
3.
EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
The materials selected for this study are CS (Carbon Steel), AISI 316L& 317L
(austenitic stainless steel), 430(ferritic stainless steel) and 904 (super austenitic stainless
steel) and Monel 400 (nickel base alloy). The chemical composition and the mechanical
properties of these alloys are shown in Table 1. The materials selected are typical
commercial alloys normally used in desalination and power plants.
3.1
3.1.1
Round and flat tensile samples of CS, 316L, 317L, 430 and Monel 400 were machined
from rod/sheet material
commercial grades. The schematic drawing of round test sample is shown in Figure 1,
the photograph of sheet sample is shown in Figure 2. The tests were carried out in
Cortest Proof Rings [34] with corrosion testing environment chamber. An hour meter
and H2S gas manifold were used to measure the time of failure of specimen and H2S gas
monitoring during test respectively. The photographs of the Cortest Proof Ring and
Cortest Proof Rings Battery with hour meter and manifold are shown in Figure 3.
The media employed for the tests were (i) NACE solution (having composition 5%
NaCl + 0.5% CH3COOH) prepared from distilled water and continuously bubbled with
H2S to maintain H2S saturation in solution. (ii) SHELL solution (having composition
0.5% CH3COOH) prepared from distilled water and continuously bubbled with H2S to
maintain H2S saturation as in (i).
The samples were tested in ambient temperature with the Cortest Proof Ring at 70, 80,
85 and 90% of their respective 0.2% yield stress (YS) with the help of loading nut and
calibration charts. During the test H2S was continuously bubbled in the solution. The
time to rupture of the samples were recorded. The samples those have crossed 500 hours
without rupture were withdrawn from the test. During the test, samples were periodically
withdrawn for examination of any initiation of cracks or corrosion pit development.
2288
useful for detecting large differences between SCC resistances of different alloys in the
same environment or one alloy under different metallurgical conditions or one alloy in
several environments.
The U-Bend specimen is stressed by bending the specimen to U-shape in a fixture either
manually or through Universal Testing Machine (UTM) and maintaining it in the same
shape by means of bolts and nuts. When U-Bend sample is stressed the material in the
outer fibers of the bend is strained into the plastic region. The total strain on the
outside of the bend is given by the following equation:
T
= ---------- When T << R
2R
The U-Bend samples from the strips of 316L, 317L, 430 and 904 were prepared in UTM
using a fixture. The preparation of a typical test sample is shown in Figure 4. The
actual making of samples through fixture in an UTM is shown in Figure 5.
The testing of the samples are carried out in a plastic containers. By immersing in
solutions having specified corrodents.
NACE solution (same composition as that of round samples) containing 0.1M Na2S. (ii)
SHELL solution (same composition as that used for round samples) containing 0.1M
Na2S.
2289
The samples were tested in ambient temperature. These samples outer fiber are stressed
to approximately 70, 80, 85 and 90% of their respective 0.2% yield stress (YS) by
bending them to corresponding diameter with help of rollers as detailed above. The
samples outer fiber surface was critically examined with help of magnifying glass for
crack freeness before they are immersed in the media selected.
withdrawn periodically for the purpose of inspection (every week) till they have crossed
500 hours without any appearance of cracks at the outer most fiber surface. The samples
those crossed 500 hours without crack appearance were continued up to 2000 hours.
The data obtained from U-Bend samples are quantitative and procedure allows for
multiple and field-testing. The limitation of their test is that actual volume of material
tested is relatively small (only small portion of the bend radius, i.e., outer most surface
experiences the highest stress) [35]. Hence very accurate results are difficult to obtain in
this test.
3.2
Electrochemical Tests
2290
disulfide crystal iv) SHELL solution and v) SHELL solution containing known amount
of sulfide ion concentration.
4.
The results of the SCC tests carried out on round and flat tensile samples are shown in
Figure 7 & 8. The results revealed that the SCC occurred more readily in CS samples
in NACE solution and SHELL solution saturated with H2S at stress ranges of 70, 80, 85
and 90% YS. The alloys 430 and Monel 400 are also found susceptible to SCC only
when they are stressed to 90% YS in NACE solution containing H2S. The alloys 316L
and 317L were found immune to SCC in all the condition of tests in NACE or SHELL
solutions containing H2S.
The results of the SCC tests carried out on U-bend samples are shown in Tables 2
through 9. The results obtained were almost identical to that of round tensile samples
except that the time taken was quite considerable for SCC onset due to nature of sulfide
ion present in the medium. SCC occurred in the alloy 430 in NACE + 0.1M Na2S
media stressed to 90% YS. The first appearance of crack was noticed after 1344 hrs in
samples stressed to 90% YS, whereas first appearance of cracking was observed after
1920 hours of testing in sample stressed to 85% YS (Table 4). The intensity of
cracking/pitting was however less in medium of SHELL + 0.1M Na2S (Table 9) when
compared to cracking in NACE +0.1 M Na2S medium.
samples were however free from SCC was observed upto 2000 hours of exposure. The
photographs of typical alloy 316L samples after exposure are shown in Figures 9 &10
The photographs of samples of alloy 430 when exposed up to 1344 hours (70, 80,
85 & 90% YS) in NACE + 0.1M Na2S and close up view of cracks associated with
pitting are shown in Figures 11 & 12, respectively. The photograph of alloy 430
samples exposed up to 1920 hrs (70, 80, 85 & 90% YS) in SHELL + 0.1M Na2S
solution is shown in Figure 13. Due to some limitation of U-bend test, as explained in
earlier section, the results are not discussed in detail.
The fracture of SCC tested round and flat samples of CS and alloy 430 were analyzed in
Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). The fractures revealed intergranular as well as
transgranular mode of crack propagation (Figures 14 & 15). Branching of secondary
cracks from the primary cracks, which is typical of SCC failure mode were noticed. The
2291
Energy Dispersive Spectrum obtained during SEM fractography at fracture crack tips
containing corrosion products showed sulfur rich regions (Figures 14b & 15b). This also
confirms the onset of SCC due to sulfide activity.
The threshold stress for CS in NACE and SHELL solution is 75% YS, whereas it is
85% for 430 and Monel 400 alloys in NACE solution. Such threshold stress was not
found to exist for the 430 and Monel 400 alloys in SHELL solution at all the stress
levels. The alloys 316L and 317L, however, did not show any threshold limits up to
90% YS either in NACE or SHELL solutions containing H2S. It is possible that
threshold stress might be greater than the YS of these materials. CS has shown greater
susceptibility to SCC in the tested medium when compared to other alloys (Figures 7 & 8)
Sulfides play a dominant role in the structural steels particularly in their resistance to
sulfide stress cracking. The water present would obviously assist the corrosion
mechanism. The reaction will be of the type
H2S + Fe FeS + 2 H
The nascent hydrogen is then expected to embrittle the alloy. The presence of chloride
all the more aggravate corrosion leading to early failure of steel. The instances of
Sulfide Stress Cracking of stainless steels have been reported [36] wherein failure of
specimens have been promoted in high chloride environment (>25% NaCl) at elevated
temperature and pressure saturated with H2S. The chloride content used in some of the
test being 5% , it is conceivable that the stainless steel of type 316L and 317L are less
likely to be affected by H2S as evidenced in the experiment. The effect of H2S in
SHELL solution suggest that except CS, other alloys were immune to SCC. CS was
found prone to SCC > 75% YS. The synergistic effect of chloride in presence of oxidant
(CH3COOH) and H2S to promote SCC in alloys 430 and Monel 400 at stresses > 85%
YS was clearly demonstrated as seen from the results of NACE solution experiment
(Figure 7).
The presence of H2S seems to have exerted a strong influence on the repassivation
which is manifested by cracking in alloy 430.
2292
It is possible that
embrittlement is brought about by ferrite phase of the alloy much more than austenite
[37]. It is also known that cracking of ferrite taken place by mechanical twinning [38],
in this respect, hydrogen embrittlement could greatly enhance the sensitivity of ferrite to
cracking. This point is very important at low temperature and indeed evidenced in the
fractography performed on the failed samples of alloy 430 (Figures 15a & b). Cracked
regions had contained products rich in sulfides as determined in EDAX. Reports have
been published elsewhere that high ferrite duplex stainless steels (70% ferrite) is
inferior to that of low ferrite duplex stainless steels (50% ferrite) for hydrogen
embrittlement [39].
The Tafel plots generated from potentiostatic polarization experiments are shown in
Figures 16 through 23.
shown in Tables 10 & 11. The results obtained from NACE solution and natural
seawater containing 0.1M of sulfide indicated that alloys 316L and 317L showed higher
current densities relative to the Monel 400. The current density in natural seawater
solution for alloy 430 with 0.1M sulfides was lowest can be attributed to the
development of a stable passive film over the surface of the alloy.
The electrochemical data from the SHELL solution revealed that lowest current
densities for 317L alloy in 0.1M sulfide solution, while the highest was observed for
alloy Monel 400 except CS. In general, for all the alloys studied, high sulfide content
moved the corrosion potential to active direction thus enhancing localized corrosion.
Lowest current densities exhibited by alloys 316L and 317L indicated that they are least
susceptible to corrosion in presence of sulfide.
From the results of electrochemical tests it is seen that the synergistic effect of chloride
and sulfide on the corrosion behavior were prominent particularly for alloys 316L and
317L. For alloys 430 and Monel 400 such effect were not noticed. However, under the
influence of stress as noticed from the SCC test results, the trend was reverse. It is
plausible that the passive films formed over the alloy 430 and Monel 400 was less stable
and get disrupted easily, leading to SCC.
The data generated in this investigation suggests a tentative ranking of alloys could be
made with respect to their susceptibility to SCC. On the whole, at ambient temperature,
austenitic steels (alloys 316L, 317L and 904L) were better resistant than the Monel 400
2293
and alloy 430 in solutions containing chloride and sulfide ions when stressed beyond
80% YS. The tentative ranking can be expressed as (in order of most resistant to SCC):
316L, 317L & 904L > Monel 400 > 430 > CS
5.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are drawn on the basis of investigations carried out.
(i)
(ii)
Alloys 316L and 317L were found SCC resistant under all conditions of
the tests performed.
(iii)
Alloys 316L and 317L had shown higher current densities relative to the other
alloys in presence of specified oxidant, chloride and sulfide ionic species. Under
the influence of stress, they were least susceptible to corrosion.
(iv)
CS was found prone to SCC at stress levels > 75% YS in solutions containing
specified amounts of sulfide, chloride and oxidants.
(v)
A tentative ranking of the alloys have been established on the basis of threshold
stress value in solutions containing chloride and sulfide ions (in the order of
increasing resistance to SCC) 316L, 317L, 904L > Monel 400 > 430 > CS.
(vi)
The failure of alloy 430 is mainly attributed to sulfide stress cracking as sulfides
greatly enhanced the sensitivity of phases present in the alloy to cracking as
evidenced from fractography.
(vii)
6.
RECOMMENDATIONS
(1)
From the investigation carried out it is apparent that austenitic stainless steels of
type AISI 316L, 317L and high alloy 904L are the alloys of choice in
desalination plant environments containing high chloride. In these steels if any
stresses arising from fabrication, fit-up, welding and differential heating could
2294
increase the susceptibility of these alloys to SCC and hence these stresses should
be avoided in practice.
(2)
Chlorides and sulfides do cause SCC in carbon steel and alloy 430. Although it
is not possible to eliminate chlorides in desalination plants, meticulous care
should be exercised to minimize their introduction as an effective and essential
alloy. Satisfactory use of these alloys could be permitted by minimizing the
fabrication stress and cold work avoiding thermal insulation and gasket material
high in chloride, avoiding elastomers, lubricants, sealants and other material
containing halogens.
(3)
7.
(1)
(2)
2295
(3)
Due to lack of standardized test method for particular application, more test
results should be obtained on enlarged list of commercial alloys from various
laboratories and industries which can be realistically compared and used by
design engineers to select materials which will ensure reliable operation in
environments where stress corrosion cracking or sulfide stress cracking could be
a problem.
2296
Alloy
No.
UNS
No.
Composition (%)
Fe
Mild
Steel
J2503 Bal
316L
Cr
0.5
Cu
Mn
Si
0.3
1.2
Max
Max
Max
S31603 Bal
16.0 3.0
11.0
0.02
0.2
1.0
317L
S31703
Bal.
18.5 3.2
13.5
0.02
1.0
0.08 N
904L
N08904
Bal.
20
0.017 1.4
1.5
1.4Cu,1.0Si
430
S43000
Bal.
18.0 -
0.12
1.0
1.0 0.04P,0.03S
2.5
66.5
0.3
Bal.
0.5
Monel N4000
400
0.2
Ni
0.25
0.5
Mo
Others
4.74 24.5
-
0.6 0.04P,0.04S
1.0 0.04P,0.02S
0.024S
Alloy
UNS
No.
0.2% Yield
Stress (Mpa)
UTS
Elongation(%)
(Mpa)
1
2
3
4
Carbon steel
316L
317L
430
J2503
S31603
S31703
S43000
179
170
216
205
324
485
525
450
30
35
40
28
904L
N08904
220
490
35
N08904
172
480
30
Monel 400
2297
Applied Stress
( % of YS)
Time of first
appearance of
crack (Hours)
1
2
3
4
5
70
70
75
75
85
NFC
NFC
NFC
NFC
NFC
6
7
8
85
90
90
NFC
NFC
NFC
Appearance of
surface/cross
section
NC
NC
NC
NC
Brown coloration
over the bent
portion
--DO---DO---DO--
Remarks
No cracking
--DO---DO---DO--
NC - indicates No Change
Applied Stress
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
70
70
75
75
85
85
90
Time of first
appearance of
crack (Hours)
NFC
NFC
NFC
NFC
NFC
NFC
NFC
90
NFC
( % of YS)
2298
Appearance of
surface/cross
section
Brown coloration
over the bent
portion
--DO
Remarks
NC - indicates No Change
Applied
Stress
( % of YS)
Time of first
appearance of
crack (Hours)
Appearance of
surface/cross
section
Remarks
NC
NC
NC
NC
1
2
3
4
5
70
70
75
75
85
NFC
NFC
NFC
NFC
1920
6
7
85
90
1920
1344
90
1344
Cracking is prominently
associated with pitting over
the bent radius when test
contd. Beyond 1920 hrs.
--DO---
NC - indicates No Change
Applied Stress
( % of YS)
Time of first
appearance of
crack (Hours)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
70
70
75
75
85
85
90
NFC
NFC
NFC
NFC
NFC
NFC
NFC
90
NFC
2299
Appearance of
surface/cross
section
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Faint brown
coloration over
the bent radius
--DO--
Remarks
No cracking
--DO--
NC - indicates No Change
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Applied Stress
( % of YS)
Time of first
appearance of
crack (Hours)
70
70
75
75
85
NFC
NFC
NFC
NFC
NFC
85
NFC
90
NFC
90
NFC
NFC-indicates no first crack beyond 2000 hours.
Appearance of
surface/cross
section
Remarks
NC
NC
NC
NC
Faint brown
No cracking
coloration over
the bent radius
--DO---DO---DO---DO---DO---DO-NC - indicates No Change
Applied Stress
( % of YS)
Time of first
appearance of
crack (Hours)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
70
70
75
75
85
85
90
NFC
NFC
NFC
NFC
NFC
NFC
NFC
90
NFC
2300
Appearance of
surface/cross
section
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Brown coloration
over the bent radius
--DO--
Remarks
No cracking
--DO--
NC - indicates No Change
Applied Stress
Appearance of
surface/cross
section
Remarks
( % of YS)
Time of first
appearance of
crack (Hours)
70
NFC
NC
70
NFC
NC
75
NFC
NC
75
NFC
NC
85
NFC
NC
85
NFC
NC
90
NFC
NC
90
NFC
NC
NC - indicates No Change
Applied Stress
Appearance of
surface/cross
section
Remarks
( % of YS)
Time of first
appearance of
crack (Hours)
70
NFC
NC
70
NFC
NC
75
NFC
NC
75
NFC
NC
85
NFC
NC
85
NFC
NC
90
1920
90
1920
--DO--
2301
NC - indicates No Change
Table 10. Potentiostatic Polarization data from NACE Solution and Natural
Seawater (NSW).
S.No.
E corr
I corr
CR
(mv)
(
A/cm2)
(mpy)
i) NACE Solution
-59.6
1.53
0.67
ii) NSW
-216
0.32
0.13
-348
0.31
0.137
-389
-212
-261
-383
-392
-332
-65
-480
-503
-207
24.64
0.58
0.31
0.39
15.72
0.47
0.16
16.72
1.62
9.53
10.84
0.26
0.13
0.17
8.17
0.21
0.06
7.35
7.12
3.7
ii) NSW
-244
8.85
3.45
-315
1.61
0.63
-601
7.98
3.11
Material
316L
317L
430
Monel
400
Electrolyte
Material
Mild
Steel
316L
317L
430
Monel
400
Electrolyte
i) SHELL Solution
ii) SHELL Solution
Sulfide
i) SHELL Solution
ii) SHELL Solution
Sulfide
i) SHELL Solution
ii) SHELL Solution
Sulfide
i) SHELL Solution
ii) SHELL Solution
Sulfide
i) SHELL Solution
ii) SHELL Solution
Sulfide
+ 0.1 M
E corr
(mv)
-705
-715
I corr
(
A/cm2)
57.88
37.71
CR
(mpy)
25.46
16.59
+ 0.1 M
-100
-72
1.31
4.81
0.57
2.11
+ 0.1 M
-62
-125
0.34
3.87
0.15
1.7
+ 0.1 M
-150
-215
0.93
1.6
0.41
0.7
+ 0.1 M
-492
-450
9.96
11.89
3.88
4.64
2302
2303
Figure 3. Photographs of Cortest Proof Ring (a) Sample set up, (b) Battery of
Proof Ring under test.
2304
2305
2306
2307
T im e t o F a ilu r e ( H r s .)
600
316, 317
500
400
400
MS
430
Indicates no failure
300
75
80
85
90
0 .2 O f f s e t Y ie ld S tr e n g th %
F ig u r e 7 . S C C o f a llo y s in N A C E S o ln . C o n t a in in g H y d r o g e n S u lf id e
2308
500
CS
400
Indicates no failure
300
75
80
85
90
2309
Figure 10.
2310
Figure 11.
2311
Figure 12.
2312
Figure 13. Photograph of U-Bend (alloy 430) stressed to 70%, 80%, 85% & 90%
YS exposed to SHELL solution containing 0.1 M Na2S. Exposure time
1344 hrs.
2313
Counts
Fe
3000
2000
Fe
1000
O
C
Fe
P
S
Cl
Ca
Cr Mn
0
0
Cu
10
Energy (keV)
2314
Counts
Fe
1000
500
Fe
Cr
O
Cr
Ni
Cu
Cu
0
0
10
Energy (keV)
Figure 15.
2315
Figure 16.
2316
Figure 17. Potential Polarization Curves (Tafel Plots) Showing the Effect of
Varied Sulfide Content on 317L. 1-NACE Solution, 2-Natural
Seawater, 3-Natural Seawater + 0.06M Sulfide and 4 - Natural
Seawater + 0.1M sulfide.
2317
2318
2319
Figure 20.
2320
Figure 21. Potential Polarization Curves (Tafel Plots) Showing the Effect of
Sulfide Content on 317L. 1-SHELL Solution and 2- SHELL Solution +
0.1M sulfide.
2321
Figure 22.
2322
Figure 23. Potential Polarization Curves (Tafel Plots) Showing the Effect of
Sulfide Content on 400 Alloy. 1-SHELL Solution and 2- SHELL
Solution + 0.1M sulfide.
2323
APPENDIX- 1
LOCATION :
CAUSE :
MATERIAL :
2324
APPENDIX - 2
LOCATION :
CAUSE :
MATERIAL :
2325
APPENDIX - 3
SCC FAILURE OF STEAM TURBINE BLADES
LOCATION :
CAUSE :
MATERIAL :
2326
APPENDIX - 4
LOCATION :
CAUSE :
MATERIAL :
2327
REFERENCES
1.
Staehle R.W., Forlty A.J. and Van Rooyan, D., (1969), Fundamental Aspects of
Stress Corrosion Cracking, Houston, TX, NACE, 46.
2.
Congleton, J., Shoji, T. and Parkins, R.N., (1985), Corrosion Sci., 25, 633.
3.
Gangloff, R.P. and Ives, N.B., (1990), Environment induced cracking of metals,
Houston, TX, NACE.
4.
5.
6.
Zheng W., Newman, R.C. and Procter, R.P.M., (1990), Environment induced
cracking of metals, Houston, TX, NACE, 555.
7.
Kerns, G.E., (1986), Process industries corrosion, Houston, TX, NACE, 356.
8.
9.
Faroulis, Z. A., (1989), SCC of carbon steel in aqueous DEA and MEA
solutions, Corrosion Engineering, 38 (1), 9-18.
10.
Garth, H., Dahl, W. and Schework, W., (1988), Workstoffe and Korrosion, 38
(12), 568-574.
11.
12.
13.
Liu, J.Y. and Su, C.C., (1994), Environment effects in the SCC of turbine disc
steels, Corrosion Science, 36 (12), 2017-2028.
14.
Kindein, W. Jr., Schilling, P.T., Schrode, R.M. & Muller, I.L., (1993),
Characterization of sulfide stress corrosion susceptibility of high strength steels
in standard solutions, Corrosion Science, 34 (8),. 1243-1250.
15.
Newman, R.C. and Mehta, A., (1990), Environment induced cracking, Houston,
TX, NACE, 459.
16.
Issac, H.S, Vyas, B. and Kendig, M.W., (1982), Corrosion, 36, 130.
17.
Herbsleb, G. & Theiler, F., (1989), SCC of austenitic chromium nickel steels at
ambient temperature, Workstoffe and Korrosion, 40(8), 467-480.
2328
18.
McInlyre, P., Younes, C.M. and Chan, S.W., (1996), Synergistic effect of
impurities and sensitization on IG corrosion and SCC in type 316H stainless
steel, British Corrosion Journal, 31 (12), 133-137.
19.
Trabenelli, G., Rochinni, G. and Perboni, G., (1989), SCC of sensitized austenitic
stainless steel in chloride solution at 80 oC, Corrosion Science, 29 (4), 417-426.
20.
Nishimura, R. and Kudo, K; (1989), SCC in AISI 304 and 316 stainless steel in
HCl and H2SO4 solution - prediction of time to failure and criterion for
assessment of SCC susceptibility, Corrosion, 45(4), 308-316.
21.
Frangini, S., (1994), Sensitivity to SCC of type 405 stainless steel in high
temperature aqueous environment, Corrosion, 447-456.
22.
Nishimura, R., (1992), SCC of type 430 ferritic stainless steel in chloride and
sulfate solution, Corrosion, 48 (ii), 882-890.
23.
Fierro, G., Ingo, G.M., Mancia, F., Scoppio, L.and Zacchetti, N. (1990), XPS
investigation on AISI 420SS in oil and gas wall environment, Journal of
Material Science, 25(2B), 1407-1445.
24.
Place, J.C.M, Mack. Jr, D. and Rhoder, P.R., (1991), Material Performance,
December 56.
25.
Tsai, S.T., Yen, K.P. & Shihi, H.C, (1998), The embrittlement of duplex stainless
steel in sulfide containing 3.5 wt. NaCl solution, Corrosion Science, 40 (213),
281-295.
26.
Cigoda, A., Pastore, T., Pediffirrio & Vicentini, B., (1987), Studies with duplex
and austenitic stainless steel in chloride -sulfide environment, Corrosion Science,
43(9), 518-526.
27.
Pinchback, I.R,, Clough, S.P. and Heldt, L.A., (1976), Corrosion, 32, 469.
28.
29.
30.
Helle, A., Paul, Erik A., Wiolette, W. & Lena, W., (1998), SCC of stainless
steels under evaporative condition, ACOM, Avesta Shiefield, 1-3.
31.
32.
Parkins, R.N, Stattery, P.O. and Poulsow, B.S,. (1980), Corrosion, 37, 450.
33.
Tsugikawa, S. Ref. In Neuman R.C. and Proctor, R.P.M, (1990), Silver Jubilee
Review, Stress Corrosion Cracking 1965-90, Br. Corr. Jour. 25, 267.
2329
34.
Sedric, J.A. and Syrett, B. C, (Eds), (1990), SCC test methods, NACE, TX, USA,
369.
35.
Cox, D.O., (1988), Bent Beam test method for hydrogen sulfide stress corrosion
cracking resistance, hydrogen embrittlement, prevention and control, ASTM,
STP 962, Ed. ASTM, Philadelphia, 190-199.
36.
Asphahani, A.I., Tuftle, R.N. and Kane, R.D., (1969), Corrosion in oil gas
production, NACE, Houston, TX USA, 369.
37.
Hochmann, J., Desestret, A., Jolly, P. and Mayoud, R., (1977), SCC and
hydrogen embrittlement of Fe-base alloys, NACE, Houston, TX, 956.
38.
39.
Destret, A., (1983), Sulfide stress corrosion cracking of several austenitic and
duplex steels in chloride solution containing hydrogen sulfide, Corrosion, 83,
California, USA, 165/1-17.
40.
Malik, A.U., Prakash, T.L. and Ismaeel Andijani, (1996), Failure evaluation in
desalination plants - some case studies, Desalination, 105, 283-295.
2330