energies
Article
Failure Analysis of a Centrifugal Compressor Impeller Made of
17-4PH Steel in the Moist Hydrogen Sulfide Environment
Jakub Łagodziński * , Zbigniew Kozanecki and Eliza Tkacz
Citation: Łagodziński, J.; Kozanecki,
Z.; Tkacz, E. Failure Analysis of a
Centrifugal Compressor Impeller
Made of 17-4PH Steel in the Moist
Hydrogen Sulfide Environment.
Energies 2022, 15, 4183. https://
doi.org/10.3390/en15124183
Academic Editor: Valery Okulov
Received: 4 December 2021
Accepted: 1 June 2022
Published: 7 June 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Energies 2022, 15, 4183. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15124183
Institute of Turbomachinery, Lodz University of Technology, 90-924 Lodz, Poland;
zbigniew.kozanecki@p.lodz.pl (Z.K.); eliza.tkacz@p.lodz.pl (E.T.)
* Correspondence: jakub.lagodzinski@p.lodz.pl
Abstract: The impeller under consideration is a rotor wheel of a centrifugal compressor, made of
17-4PH martensitic precipitated hardening stainless steel. Its total operating lifetime was estimated to
80,000 h, but it fractured beforehand, 4 days after the scheduled overhaul without any observed pre-
symptoms. The important causes of the failure were its working conditions: a moist H2 S environment,
the applied shaft fitting stress, and the martensitic structure of its material. In the article the post-
failure analysis of an impeller is described, explaining the root cause of the impeller failure by means
of both experimental and Finite Element Methods (FEM). Sulfide Stress Cracking (SSC) was found to
be the primary failure mechanism for the impeller under investigation. Details of the investigations
and possible corrective measures to improve performance impellers used under harsh environment
conditions are discussed.
Keywords: failure analysis; compressor impeller fracture; sulfide stress cracking
1. Introduction
In the petrochemical industry, the compressors used for hydrocracking, hydrorefining
and reforming work in very aggressive environments. In these harsh conditions, alloy
steels cannot operate. In particular, in the hydrocracking process, thus in the presence of
water vapor with hydrogen disulfide, compressor impellers are exposed to severe stress
corrosion conditions [1–3]. That is why precipitation hardening stainless steels, such as
17-4PH and 14-5PH, are chosen for modern hydrogen centrifugal compressors, instead of
using alloy steels [4]. Stainless steels with optimized chemical compositions and after heat
treatments have more than good corrosion resistance but also outstanding strength and
weldability [5].
Properties of materials and manufacturing techniques are constantly improved, but
despite the know-how growth failures occasionally happen. The root cause seems to be
exceptionally complex stress conditions and an aggressive working environment [3,6,7].
The impeller described in the paper is of closed type, made of the 17-4PH martensitic
precipitation hardening stainless steel, and is used for hydrorefining. The mechanism of
its failure is a subject of this investigation, including optical examination, material testing,
theoretical calculations and numerical simulations. Special attention has been given to the
material properties, the corrosive environment and the complex stress state.
The considered impeller worked as a first stage wheel of a six-stage compressor. Its
failure occurred 4 days after the scheduled overhaul without any observed pre-symptoms.
The total operating lifetime of the wheel was estimated to be 80,000 h.
The main objective of this paper is to identify the root cause of the failure. First,
the impeller was sent to the Strength of Materials Laboratory, where surface hardness
tests were conducted. Second, a numerical analysis based on Finite Element Method was
done to assess the influence of each of stress generating features: shrink fit, centrifugal
force and keyways. Third, we conducted an investigation of the hypothesis that the
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
 caused the Sulfide Stress Cracking phenomenon to occur. The ultimate objective was to
give post failure recommendations for machine improvement, so prevention counter-
measures against failure were suggested.

2. Optical Analysis of the Fracture Surface

Energies 2022, 15, 4183 There were six impellers in the compressor and the fracture occurred in the first2one, of 11
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 11
as shown in Figure 1. Their blades were welded using a technique of slot-welding. Then
the impellers were mounted on the shaft with a shrink fit and two keyways.
acid An optical examination
environmental impact on ofthe
the17-4PH
fracturestainless
surface steel
revealed that theof
in presence crack,
highinitiated from
temperatures
environmental
acaused
keyway, impact
the propagated
Sulfide Stress on the 17-4PH
diagonally
Cracking to the stainless steel
occur.inThe
externaltodiameter
phenomenon presence
of ultimate ofobjective
the impeller high temperatures
wheel. In to
was Figure
give
caused
2,
postin cut the
failure Sulfide
view, Stress
one can Cracking
see clear
recommendations chevron
for phenomenon
machinemarks to occur.
pointing
improvement, soThe
towards ultimate
the origin
prevention objective
of failure.was
countermeasures Thisto
give post
examination
against failure
failure recommendations
revealed
were that the fracturefor
suggested. machine
occurred at improvement,
first in the center sohole
prevention
and thencounter-
spread
measures against failure were suggested.
out to the blades and the cover. The Strength of Materials Laboratory, after their exami-
2. Optical
nation, Analysisa of
identified the Fracture
brittle fracture Surface
without visible prior plastic deformation and con-
2. Optical
firmed There Analysis
thatwere
the keywayof the
six impellersFracture
cornerin was Surface
thethe initial point
compressor and ofthe
thefracture
crack. Moreover,
occurred in thethe
local
firsthard-
one,
ness There
of
as shown inwere
fracture six 1.
was
Figure impellers
estimated in
at the
Their blades compressor
336–342
were and
of the HV10
welded using thea fracture
scale, whichoccurred
technique in higher
the firstvalue
isofa slot-welding.
much one,
Then
as shown
than
the in Figure
measured
impellers were 1. Their
in other points
mounted blades
onofthethewere welded
damaged
shaft with using fit
awheel.
shrink a technique of slot-welding. Then
and two keyways.
the impellers were mounted on the shaft with a shrink fit and two keyways.
An optical examination of the fracture surface revealed that the crack, initiated from
a keyway, propagated diagonally to the external diameter of the impeller wheel. In Figure
2, in cut view, one can see clear chevron marks pointing towards the origin of failure. This
examination revealed that the fracture occurred at first in the center hole and then spread
out to the blades and the cover. The Strength of Materials Laboratory, after their exami-
nation, identified a brittle fracture without visible prior plastic deformation and con-
firmed that the keyway corner was the initial point of the crack. Moreover, the local hard-
ness of fracture was estimated at 336–342 of the HV10 scale, which is a much higher value
than measured in other points of the damaged wheel.

Figure
Figure 1.
1. Failed
Failed impeller
impeller of
of the
the first
first stage.
stage.

An optical examination of the fracture surface revealed that the crack, initiated from a
keyway, propagated diagonally to the external diameter of the impeller wheel. In Figure 2,
in cut view, one can see clear chevron marks pointing towards the origin of failure. This
examination revealed that the fracture occurred at first in the center hole and then spread out
to the blades and the cover. The Strength of Materials Laboratory, after their examination,
identified a brittle fracture without visible prior plastic deformation and confirmed that the
keyway corner was the initial point of the crack. Moreover, the local hardness of fracture
was estimated at 336–342 of the HV10 scale, which is a much higher value than measured
in other
Figure 1. points of the damaged
Failed impeller of the firstwheel.
stage.

Figure 2. Fractured surface of the compressor impeller wheel.

Some important conclusions can be drawn from this fracture surface analysis (Figure
3), namely the chevron pattern and the way this pattern converges in the suspected point
of fracture initiation. There are known other cases of the compressor impeller failure with
similar fracture morphology, where the main cause of damage was Sulfide Stress Crack-
ing [3,7,8]. Based on these facts and the local hardening of the section area, it can be

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Fractured surface of
Fractured surface of the
the compressor
compressor impeller
impeller wheel.
wheel.

Some important
Some importantconclusions
conclusionscan
canbe
bedrawn
drawnfrom
fromthis
this fracture
fracture surface
surface analysis
analysis (Figure
(Figure 3),
3), namely
namely thethe chevron
chevron pattern
pattern andand the
the waythis
way thispattern
patternconverges
convergesininthe
the suspected
suspected point
point
of fracture
of fracture initiation.
initiation.There areare
There known
knownother cases
other of the
cases of compressor impeller
the compressor failure
impeller with
failure
similar
with fracture
similar morphology,
fracture wherewhere
morphology, the main
the cause
main of damage
cause was Sulfide
of damage Stress Crack-
was Sulfide Stress
ing [3,7,8]. Based on these facts and the local hardening of the section area, it can be
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 11
Energies 2022, 15, 4183 3 of 11
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 11

concluded that the fracture was caused by excessive fragility resulting from operation in
Cracking [3,7,8]. Based on these facts and the local hardening of the section area, it can be
the aggressive environment.
concluded that
concluded that the
thefracture
fracturewas
wascaused
causedbybyexcessive
excessivefragility
fragility resulting
resultingfrom
fromoperation
operationin
in
the aggressive environment.
the aggressive environment.

Figure 3. Fracture surface of the damaged impeller.

Figure3.3.Fracture
Figure Fracturesurface
surfaceof
ofthe
thedamaged
damagedimpeller.
impeller.
3. Stress Analysis
3.3. Stress
StressAnalysis
Analysis
To confirm the given hypothesis and understand the mechanism of the failure, the
stressTo To confirm
confirm
levels and the
the given
given hypothesis
hypothesis
distribution to and
need and understand
understand
be found. the mechanism
thecomplex
For mechanism of theoffailure,
geometries, the failure,
the the ofthe
usestressthree-
stress
levels levels
and and distribution
distribution need need
to betofound.
be found.
ForFor complex
complex geometries,
geometries,
dimensional Finite Element Method analysis is a common engineering practice. In order the
the use
use of
of three-
three-
dimensionalFinite
model theFinite ElementMethod
Methodanalysis
spareanalysis
is is a common engineering practice.
visibleInlight
order
dimensional Element a common engineering practice. In order to
to geometry, a real impeller has been scanned using band
to model the geometry, a real spare impeller has been scanned using visible light band
model the geometry, a real spare impeller has been scanned using visible light band method.
method. Thanks to 3D scanning, the object was transferred to the computer environment
method.toThanks
Thanks to 3D scanning,
3D scanning, the object the
wasobject was transferred
transferred to the environment
to the computer computer environment
in a short
in a short time and with good accuracy. The obtained geometry is shown in Figure 4. One
in a short
time time good
and with and with good accuracy.
accuracy. The obtainedThe obtained
geometrygeometry
is shownisinshown
Figurein4.Figure 4. One
One cannot
cannot forget that the impeller was mounted on the shaft with two keyways. However,
cannotthat
forget forget that the impeller
the impeller was mountedwas mounted
on the shafton the
withshaft
two with two keyways.
keyways. However,However,
the exact
the
the exact
radius exact radius
radius of
of keyways ofcorners
keyways
keyways corners
corners
could could
not could
be not
not
found bebe
from found
found from
from
the 3D thethe
scanning3D3D scanning
scanning
technique, so technique,
technique,
it was
so it was assumed to be
so it was assumed to be 0.5 mm.
assumed to be 0.5 mm. 0.5 mm.

Figure 4. 3D model of the geometry of the impeller under analysis.

Figure 4. 3D
Figure 4. 3Dmodel
modelofofthe
thegeometry
geometryofof
thethe
impeller under
impeller analysis.
under analysis.
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 1

Energies 2022, 15, 4183 4 of 11

The material properties assigned for the 3D geometry were those of precipitation
hardening stainless
The material steels assigned
properties 17-4PH, for namely:
the 3Dd geometry
= 7850 kg/m were—material
3 density, ν = 0.3—
those of precipitation
Poisson’s ratio
hardening andsteels
stainless E = 217-4PH,
× 10 MPa—Young’s
5
namely: d = 7850 modulus. 3
kg/m —material density, ν = 0.3—
The ratio
Poisson’s applied
and boundary
E = 2 × 105conditions
MPa—Young’s corresponded
modulus. to those of the shrink fit and nomina
rotational speed.
The applied The design
boundary shrink
conditions fit of this rotor
corresponded to thosewas relatively
of the high—approximately
shrink fit and nominal
2‰ with the shaft diameter of ϕ175 mm. In absolute numbers, the exact value
rotational speed. The design shrink fit of this rotor was relatively high—approximately 2‰of the dif
with the shaft diameter of φ175 mm. In absolute numbers, the exact value of the difference
ference between the shaft and sleeve diameters was equal to 0.34 mm. The given nomina
between the shaft and sleeve diameters was equal to 0.34 mm. The given nominal speed of
speed of the compressor was equal to 9300 rpm.
the compressor was equal to 9300 rpm.
AAmesh
meshof ofthe
themodel
modelisispresented
presentedininFigureFigure5.5.ItItconsisted
consistedofof185,403
185,403nodes
nodesand
and 62,670
elements. The mesh was mainly an unstructured grid with high
62,670 elements. The mesh was mainly an unstructured grid with high enough mesh enough mesh density in
chamfers
density and corners
in chamfers to reveal
and corners to expected stressstress
reveal expected concentration.
concentration.

Figure5.5.Mesh
Figure Meshofof
thethe impeller
impeller model
model withwith a shaft
a shaft section.
section.

To estimate the stress distribution in the impeller, the superposition method was used.
To estimate the stress distribution in the impeller, the superposition method was
The multistep numerical analysis was performed, including following consecutive steps:
used. The multistep numerical analysis was performed, including following consecutive
1. Estimation of stresses induced by the shrink fit—no keyways taken into consideration;
steps:
2. Estimation of stresses caused by the centrifugal force;
1. Estimation
3. Estimationofof stresses
stresses induced
induced byshrink
by the the shrink fit—notaken
fit—keyways keyways taken into considera
into account;
4. tion;
Superposition of all the conditions—stresses induced by the centrifugal force, keyways
2. and
Estimation offit.
the shrink stresses caused by the centrifugal force;
3. In Estimation of only
the first step stresses induced
the shrink fit by
wasthe shrink
taken into fit—keyways taken
account. This load into account;
condition was
4. Superposition of all the conditions—stresses induced by the centrifugal force, key
applied to the model by means of the diameter difference between the shaft and the sleeve.
In Figure
ways6 and
the equivalent
the shrinkstress
fit. distribution is shown. Its maximal value in the inner
chamfer, where the stress concentration occurs, was equal to 336 MPa. In the fitting surface
In the first
the equivalent step
stress only
value wasthearound
shrink318 fitMPa.
was taken into account. This load condition was
applied
In the second step, both the shrink fit and thedifference
to the model by means of the diameter centrifugalbetween
force weretheapplied
shaft and
to thethe sleeve
In Figure
model. The6 von
the hoop
equivalent stress distribution
stress distribution for theseisconditions
shown. Its maximal value
is presented in Figurein 7.
the inne
chamfer,
Its where the
exact maximal stress
value wasconcentration
406 MPa, which occurs, was equal
corresponds to 336
to 59% of MPa. In the
the yield fitting sur
stress
face
(σ g = the
689 equivalent
MPa). In thestress
fittingvalue was
surface around
though, the318 MPa.
hoop normal stress value was around
366 MPa, slightly greater than in the first step without centrifugal
In the second step, both the shrink fit and the centrifugal forceforce
actingwere
on theapplied
rotor. to the
model. The von hoop stress distribution for these conditions is presented in Figure 7. Its
exact maximal value was 406 MPa, which corresponds to 59% of the yield stress (σg = 689
MPa). In the fitting surface though, the hoop normal stress value was around 366 MPa
slightly greater than in the first step without centrifugal force acting on the rotor.
 and not precisely
Finally, themeasured,
last step ofso the
the simulation
result presented
was here is more of qualitative
superposition of the totaland
lo
quantitative importance.
fit, centrifugal force and keyways. The hoop stress distribution for this com
Finally, the last step of the simulation was superposition of the total loading: sh
presented in Figure 9. The results show that the stress level in the fitting flan
fit, centrifugal force and keyways. The hoop stress distribution for this complex sta
Energies 2022, 15, 4183 to 394 MPa, which corresponds to 57% of the yield stress for the 17-4PH
presented in Figure 9. The results show that the stress level in the fitting flange was eq
5 of 11 ma
portant
to stress
394 MPa, concentration
which corresponds to still
57% being predicted
of the in for
yield stress keyway corners.
the 17-4PH material, an
portant stress concentration still being predicted in keyway corners.

Figure
Figure
Figure 6.6.Hoop
6.Hoop
Hoopstress distribution
stress
stress in theinimpeller,
distribution
distribution theinimpeller,
the caused
impeller,
caused by by the
caused
the shrink fit. shrink
by thefit.
shrink fit.

Figure
Figure 7.7.Hoop
Hoop stress
stress distribution
distribution induced
induced by the by the centrifugal
centrifugal force andforce and fit.
the shrink the shrink fit.

In the third case the shrink fit was taken into account, the same as in the first step but
Figure
this time 7.
twoHoop stress
keyways distribution
were induced
extruded from by the
the model. The centrifugal
hoop normal force and the shrink fit
stress distribution
for this simulation is presented in Figure 8, where the stress level value reached 322 MPa
on the fitting flanges. Special attention should be paid to the keyway corners where the
stress concentration occurs, indicating the highest stress levels. However, its value is
strongly dependent on mesh density and keyways corners radius, the latter only assumed
and not precisely measured, so the result presented here is more of qualitative and not
quantitative importance.
Finally, the last step of the simulation was superposition of the total loading: shrink
fit, centrifugal force and keyways. The hoop stress distribution for this complex state
is presented in Figure 9. The results show that the stress level in the fitting flange was
equal to 394 MPa, which corresponds to 57% of the yield stress for the 17-4PH material,
an important stress concentration still being predicted in keyway corners.
Energies 2022, 15, 4183 6 of 11
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 11

FigureFigure
8. Hoop
Figure stress
8. Hoop distribution
stress caused
distribution caused byby
thethe shrink
shrink fit andfit
theand the presence
presence of the keyways.
of the keyways.
8. Hoop stress distribution caused by the shrink fit and the presence of the keyways.

Figure 9. Hoop stress distribution caused by the centrifugal force, the shrink fit and the presence of
the keyways.

To conclude the numerical analysis results, the method of assembling the impeller
on the shaft is probably overdone, meaning that the use of both the tight shrink fit and
two keyways is excessive and introduces significant stress levels, especially stress concen-
FigureFigure
9. Hoop stress distribution caused
caused bybythethe centrifugal
force,force, the fit
shrink fitpresence
and the presence
tration9. in keyways
Hoop stress slots. The impeller
distribution design should have
centrifugal been optimized
the shrink andin
theterms of of
the keyways.
stress
the levels and the shrink fit tightness, as well as keyways design and number being
keyways.
parameters of the optimization.
To conclude the numerical analysis results, the method of assembling the impeller on
To conclude
The analysisthestep
numerical analysis
by step allowed us to results, theinfluence
evaluate the methodof of each assembling
loading statethe impel
the shaft is probably overdone, meaning that the use of both the tight shrink fit and two
on theonshaft
stressislevels. The obtained
probably numerical
overdone, results confirm
meaning that theundoubtedly
use of boththe hypothesis
the tightthat
keyways is excessive and introduces significant stress levels, especially stress concentration shrink fit a
two keyways
in keywaysisslots.
excessive and introduces
The impeller design should significant stress levels,
have been optimized especially
in terms stress conce
of stress levels
tration
andinthe
keyways
shrink fit slots. Theas impeller
tightness, design
well as keyways should
design have been
and number beingoptimized
parameters of in terms
stress levels and the shrink fit tightness, as well as keyways design and number bei
the optimization.

parameters of the optimization.

The analysis step by step allowed us to evaluate the influence of each loading sta
on stress levels. The obtained numerical results confirm undoubtedly the hypothesis th
Energies 2022, 15, 4183 7 of 11

The analysis step by step allowed us to evaluate the influence of each loading state
on stress levels. The obtained numerical results confirm undoubtedly the hypothesis that
the stress concentration in the keyway corner was the cause and the starting point of the
failure mechanism.

4. Influence of the Working Fluid on the Failure

The machine under analysis is a six-stage compressor operating in the hydrocracking
installation. We have limited choice of materials to manufacture parts for turbomachines
working in aggressive environment, namely destructive fluids. According to standards,
ISO 15156-1 or the corresponding American NACE MR0175 [9], 17-4PH steel material
is commonly applied in many aggressive environments due to its high yield stress and
corrosion resistant properties. Nevertheless, there are publications where it has been
shown that this steel is susceptible to Sulfide Stress Cracking under specific environment
conditions [10,11].
Sulfide Stress Cracking is a phenomenon requiring three factors to occur, namely:
a corrosive medium, a susceptible material and a constantly present significant stress state.
The damage caused by this process is mostly sudden and unpredictable. The failure can
occur after hours, months or even years of normal exploitation.
The problem of stress concentration was described in chapter “Stress analysis”. In this
chapter, we take a closer look at the working fluid influence on the failure.
The components of the working medium were mainly hydrogen (90.2% vol.), methane
(4.2% vol.), hydrogen disulfide (3.7% vol.) and other hydrocarbons (the remaining part).
Also, from the process point of view, a certain amount of water vapor is acceptable in
the working medium (up to 0.12% of the molar fraction). All these data indicate that the
compressor works with a relatively acid medium, since the presence of H2 S causes a low
pH. The acid environment, under some conditions, can induce hydrogen absorption by the
metal and thus, as a result, the phenomenon referred to as hydrogen embrittlement.
Not only the composition of the working fluid but also its pressure has a significant
role in the Sulfide Stress Cracking phenomenon. It is even more likely to occur when the
working medium is at a pressure of 0.448 MPa or higher and when the partial pressure of
H2 S in the mixture is higher than 0.545 kPa. In the compressor under consideration, both
conditions were fulfilled.
Thus, according to ISO 15156-1, chapter 7.2.1.2, both parameters (the fluid acidity
and its pressure) need to be taken into account to evaluate a threat of failure due to the
Sulfide Stress Cracking (SSC). This is achieved first by finding the pH level based on partial
pressures of H2 S and carbon dioxide (CO2 ) in the working medium. In our case, there
was no CO2 fraction in the medium under analysis, only hydrogen disulfide with a partial
pressure of 545 kPa to be considered. For this pressure, the acidity of pH = 3.5 was read
(Figure 10). Second, the compressor operation point can be found by transferring this
information to Figure 11, where four regions are indicated based on partial pressures of
H2 S and pH of the environment.
The chart presented in Figure 11 describes four possible levels of environment aggres-
siveness, namely:
• SSC Region 0, where the H2 S partial pressure is lower than 0.3 kPa. The choice of steel
in this region requires no special precautions;
• SSC Region 1, where the H2 S partial pressure is higher than 0.3 kPa. There is a minimal
risk of steel cracking;
• SSC Region 2, where the H2 S partial pressure is higher than 0.3 kPa. There is a risk of
steel cracking;
• SSC Region 3, where the H2 S partial pressure is higher than 0.3 kPa. The steel is
especially susceptible to stress corrosion.
The compressor in the case under consideration was operating in Region 3.
 Figure
Figure 12
12 presents
presents the
the partial
partial pressure
pressure ofof water
water vapor
vapor andand saturated
saturated vapor
vapor at
at inlets
inlets of
of the
the
consecutive
consecutive compressor
compressor stages.
stages. It
It can
can be
be observed
observed that
that at
at the
the first
first stage
stage inlet,
inlet, the
the temper-
temper-
ature
ature was
was 54
54 °C.
°C. Under
Under these
these conditions,
conditions, the
the partial
partial pressure
pressure of
of water
water vapor
vapor is
is higher
higher than
than
the
the saturated
saturated vapor
vapor pressure.
pressure. This
This indicates
indicates the
the condensation
condensation of of the
the liquid
liquid H
H22OO phase
phase and
and
Energies 2022, 15, 4183 8 of 11
thus,
thus, the
the compressor
compressor first
first stage
stage impeller
impeller might
might bebe in
in contact
contact with
with humid
humid andand acid
acid hydro-
hydro-
gen
gen disulfide.
disulfide.

Figure
Figure10.
Figure 10.Environment
10. Environment
EnvironmentpH
pH
pHvs. partial
vs.vs.
partial pressure
pressure
partial of
of H
pressure of22SSHand
H and CO
CO22[5].
[5].
2 S and CO2 [5].

Figure
Figure11.
Figure 11.Aggressiveness
11. Aggressiveness
Aggressivenessof the
ofof environment,
thethe
environment, according
according
environment, to
to [5],
according to (X—partial
[5], (X—partial
[5], pressure
pressure
(X—partial of
of H
H22S,
pressure S, Y—pH
of Y—pH
H2 S, Y—pH
of
ofthe
of theenvironment).
the environment).
environment).

The presence of dry hydrogen disulfide favors development of the Sulfide Stress
Cracking process but there is more. Some investigations [3] suggest that the additional
presence of liquid H2 O can rapidly increase the crack development. The chart shown
in Figure 12 presents the partial pressure of water vapor and saturated vapor at inlets
of the consecutive compressor stages. It can be observed that at the first stage inlet, the
temperature was 54 ◦ C. Under these conditions, the partial pressure of water vapor is
higher than the saturated vapor pressure. This indicates the condensation of the liquid
H2 O phase and thus, the compressor first stage impeller might be in contact with humid
and acid hydrogen disulfide.
 Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Energies 2022, 15, 4183 9 of 11 9 of 11
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 11

60 84
60 84
50 partial pressure of water vapor 79

50 partial pressure of watervapor

saturated vaporpressure 79 74
40
saturated vapor pressure 74 69
40
[kPa] 30 64
69
59
[kPa] 30 20 54 64
59
20 10 54

10 0
40 50 60 70 80 90
0 temperature [°C]
40 50 60 70 80 90
Figure 12. Partial pressure of water vapor in the working medium vs. saturated vapor pressure.
temperature
Figure 12. Partial [°C]
pressure of water vapor in the working medium vs. saturated vapor pressure.
5. Influence of the Temperature
17-4PH is5.martensitic
Influence of the Temperature
precipitated hardening stainless steel. The final material yield
Figure 12. Partial pressure of water vapor in the working medium vs. saturated vapor pressure.
stress and surface17-4PH hardness is martensitic
depends on precipitated
the hardening hardening stainless steel.
temperature. TheThe ISOfinal material yield
15156-1
standard limitsstress and surfacesurface
the permissible hardness depends
hardness to on
33 the
HRC, hardening temperature.toThe
which corresponds 328 ISO
HV. 15156-1
5. Influence of the Temperature
After the failure,standard limits theofpermissible
the Strength Materials surface hardnessthe
Lab measured to 33 HRC, which
hardness of thecorresponds
material to 328
sample 17-4PH
taken isHV.
frommartensitic
After
the impeller precipitated
the failure, the sleeve
inner hardening
Strength toof stainless
beMaterials
equal 332steel.
to Lab HV. TheThatfinal
measured the
value material
hardness ofyield
approached the material
stress and surface
sample hardness
taken fromdepends
the limit advised by the ISO 15156 standard.the impelleron the
innerhardening
sleeve to be temperature.
equal to 332 The
HV. ISO
That 15156-1
value approached
standard limits
the the permissible
limit advised by surface
the ISO hardness
15156 to
standard. 33 HRC,
The steel resistance to Sulfide Stress Cracking is highly dependent on the temperature which corresponds to 328
HV. After the failure, the Strength of Materials Lab measured
of the working medium. The chart presented in Figure 13 shows an influence of thetempera-
The steel resistance to Sulfide Stress Cracking the
is hardness
highly of
dependentthe material
on the
environment ture
fromofthe
sample taken temperature theimpeller
working
on the medium.
inner
mean sleeve The
time tochart presented
befailure
to equal to
of332 inHV.
Figure
a sample. 13value
ThatThe shows an influence
under of the
approached
sample
the limit
testing environment
advised
was madeby ofthe temperature
ISO 15156
high-yield on
standard.
steel the mean time to failure of a sample.
and subjected to an aggressive H2 S environment. The sample under test-
ing
The steelcan was
resistancemade of
tofromhigh-yield
Sulfide steel and subjected to an aggressive H 2S environment. A con-
A conclusion be drawn thisStress
chart Cracking is highly
that martensitic dependent
stainless steels on
havethethe
tempera-
lowest
ture of the clusionmedium.
working can
◦ be drawn
The from this
chart chart that
presented in martensitic
Figure 13
◦ stainless
shows an steels have of
influence thethe
lowest re-
resistance to SSC at 25 C. For higher temperatures, up to 80 C, the mean time to failure
sistance to SSC at 25 °C. For higher temperatures, up to 80 °C, the mean time to failure
environment
increases, andtemperature on the meanlevel,
above this temperature timeno to failure
failuresofwere
a sample.
observed.The sample under test-
increases, and above this temperature level, no failures were observed.
ing was made of
A similar high-yieldcan
conclusion steel
beand drawnsubjected
from the to anchart
aggressive
in Figure H2S14, environment.
which presents A con- a
clusion between
relation can be drawn from this chart
the temperature and thethatminimal
martensitic stainlessstress
permanent steelslevel
have (asthe lowest re-
a fraction of
sistance
the yield to SSC as
stress) at the
25 °C. For higher
condition temperatures,
promoting the SSCup to 80 °C, For
occurrence. the the
mean time to failure
compressor inlet
increases, and
temperature (54above thispermissible
◦ C), the temperature level,
stress no failures
level is equal were
to 55% observed.
of the yield stress.

Figure 13. Time to sample failure vs. temperature [11].

Figure13.
Figure 13. Time
Timeto
tosample
samplefailure
failurevs.
vs.temperature
temperature[11].
[11].
 A similar conclusion can be drawn from the chart in Figure 14, which presents a re-
lation between the temperature and the minimal permanent stress level (as a fraction of
Energies 2022, 15, 4183 the yield stress) as the condition promoting the SSC occurrence. For the compressor10inlet
of 11

temperature (54 °C), the permissible stress level is equal to 55% of the yield stress.

Figure
Figure 14.
14. Permanent
Permanent stress
stress level
level vs.
vs. temperature
temperature as
as the condition favoring
the condition favoring the
the SSC
SSC occurrence
occurrence [11].
[11].
Considering the stress levels presented in Section 2, the impeller is not particularly
Considering
exposed theof
to the risk stress levels
failure. presentedit in
However, Section
should be2,noted
the impeller is not
that a high particularly
concentration
exposed to the risk of failure. However, it should be noted that a high concentration
of stress occurs in the keyway corners and these points are especially prone of
to Sulfide
Stress Cracking.
stress occurs in the keyway corners and these points are especially prone to Sulfide Stress
Cracking.
6. Conclusions
6. Conclusions
The conducted failure analysis consisted of the optical analysis, the finite element
method stress analysis and the evaluation of the working fluid influence according to the
The conducted failure analysis consisted of the optical analysis, the finite element
ISO 15156 standard, as well as temperature influence on the Sulfide Stress Cracking of
method stress analysis and the evaluation of the working fluid influence according to the
17-4PH martensitic precipitated hardening stainless steel. The analysis allows us to draw
ISO 15156 standard, as well as temperature influence on the Sulfide Stress Cracking of 17-
several conclusions.
4PH martensitic precipitated hardening stainless steel. The analysis allows us to draw
First, the stress analysis suggests the presence of a high level of stress concentration
several conclusions.
in the keyway corners. Its value could not be calculated with a high level of confidence
First, the stress analysis
but from conducted suggests
simulations the over
it was presence900 ofMPa.a highFromlevela of stress point
design concentration
of view,
in the keyway corners. Its value could not be calculated
the original shrink fit should be sufficient to transfer the torque from the with a high level ofshaft
confidence
to the
but from The
impeller. conducted
presence simulations it wasweakens
of the keyways over 900 theMPa.
shrink From a design
fit and introducespointheterogeneity
of view, the
original shrink
of the stress fit should in
distribution bethe
sufficient
matchingto transfer
surfacesthe of torque
the shaft fromandthe theshaft to the impeller.
sleeve.
The presence of the keyways weakens the shrink fit and introduces
According to the ISO 15156 standard, the steel the impellers were made of is especially heterogeneity of the
stress distribution in the matching surfaces of the shaft and the
exposed to Sulfide Stress Cracking induced by the working medium. The damaged first sleeve.
stageAccording
wheel wastoworking
the ISO in15156 standard,
an acid, humidthe steel the impellers
environment of H2 S, were
at themade
partial ofpressure
is espe-
cially exposed to Sulfide Stress Cracking induced by the working
of 545 kPa, which is known to be an initiator of SSC in 17-4PH steel. A negative impact medium. The damaged
first
was stage wheel wasby
even reinforced working
the inletingas
an temperature
acid, humid in environment
this stage (54 of ◦HC,2S,for
atwhich
the partial pres-
the partial
sure of 545
pressure of kPa,
waterwhich
vaporiswas
known
higherto be anthe
than initiator of SSC
saturated in 17-4PH
vapor pressure.).steel. A negative im-
pact was even reinforced
The impeller by the inlet
surface hardness gastotemperature
equal the ISO 33 HRC in this
limit stage (54 °C,
indicates forthe
that which the
material
partial pressure of water vapor was higher than the saturated vapor
of the wheel is susceptible to SSC. Increased hardness in the fracture surface (35 HRC) pressure.).
The impeller
indicates surface hardness
that the embrittlement equalhad
process to the ISO 33
already HRCplace
taken limitin indicates that the
the impeller mate-
material.
rial ofOnthethe
wheel
basis is of
susceptible
the abovetostatements,
SSC. Increased it canhardness in the fracture
be concluded that thesurface
presence(35 HRC)
of the
indicates
followingthat the embrittlement
unfavorable conditionsprocess had already
was highly probable: taken place in the impeller material.
• On Thethe basis ofenvironment
aggressive the above statements, it can be
containing humid concluded
hydrogen thatatthe
sulfide thepresence of the
partial pressure
following unfavorable
of 545 kPa; conditions was highly probable:
• The aggressive
Permanent stressenvironment
concentrationcontaining humid
in the keyway hydrogen
corners: over 900sulfide
MPa ofathoop
the normal
partial stress;
pres-
• sure of 545
The use of kPa;
17-4PH stainless steel prone to SSC as the impeller material may have
contributed to the crack failure of the first stage compressor impeller wheel due to the
Sulfide Stress Cracking phenomenon.
To avoid similar compressor failures in the future, it is advised to redesign the way the
impeller is mounted on the shaft or select a different material for the impeller wheel in ac-
cordance with the ISO 15156-3 standard. Those will be the subject of further investigations.
Energies 2022, 15, 4183 11 of 11

As an alternative to the above-mentioned suggestions, a surface treatment in a low

temperature plasma nitriding process can be considered [12,13]. This treatment introduces
compressive stresses to the material and, thus, removes one of three necessary factors for
Sulfide Stress Cracking to occur.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.Ł. and Z.K.; methodology, J.Ł.; software, J.Ł. and E.T.;
validation, Z.K. and E.T.; formal analysis, Z.K.; investigation, J.Ł. and E.T.; writing—original draft
preparation, J.Ł.; writing—review and editing, E.T.; supervision, Z.K. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Fantechi, F.; Innocenti, M. Chloride stress corrosion cracking of precipitation hardening S.S. impellers in centrifugal compressor.
Laboratory investigations and corrective actions. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2001, 8, 477–492. [CrossRef]
2. Musgrove, G.O.; Matheidas, M.T.; Beck, G.C.; Uptigrove, S.O. Measured Effects of Liquid Distribution on Compressor Performance
during Wet Gas Ingestion. In Proceedings of the 44th Turbomachinery and 31st Pump Symposia, Houston, TX, USA, 14–17
September 2015.
3. Chu, Q.; Zhang, M.; Li, J. Failure analysis of impeller made of FV520B martensitic precipitated hardening stainless steel. Eng. Fail.
2013, 34, 501–510. [CrossRef]
4. Dowson, P.; Bauer, D.; Laney, S. Selection of Materials and Material Related Processes for Centrifugal Compressors and Steam
Turbines in the Oil and Petrochemical Industry. In Proceedings of the 37th Turbomachinery Symposium, Houston, TX, USA, 8–11
September 2008.
5. ANSI/NACE MR0175/ISO 15156 Standard; Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Materials for Use in H2S-Containing Environ-
ments in Oil and Gas Production. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
6. Mostofi, J.; Zamanian, M. Stress Cracking of Stainless Steel Safety Gate Valve Stem. Mater. Perform. Mag. 2008, 47, 64–67.
7. Sun, J.; Chen, S.; Qu, Y.; Li, J. Review on Stress Corrosion and Corrosion Fatigue Failure of Centrifugal Compressor Impeller.
Chin. J. Mech. Eng. 2015, 28, 217–225. [CrossRef]
8. Nie, D.; Chen, X.; Fan, Z.; Wu, Q. Failure analysis of a slot-welded impeller of recycle hydrogen centrifugal compressor. Eng. Fail.
Anal. 2014, 42, 1–9. [CrossRef]
9. Gutierrez, I. NACE MR0175 2015 and the Stainless Steel Industry. Stainl. Steel World Mag. 2016, 51–55.
10. Davis, J.R. Stainless Steels (ASM Specialty Handbook); ASM International: Almere, The Netherlands, 1995; ISBN 0871705036.
11. Della Roverys Coseglio, M.S. Sulphide stress cracking of 17-4 PH for applications in oilfield components. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2017,
33, 1863–1878. [CrossRef]
12. Kochmański, P. Azotowanie gazowe stali nierdzewnych utwardzanych wydzieleniowo. Eksploat. Niezawodn. 2003, 2, 41–44.
13. Surowska, B. Wybrane Zagadnienia z Korozji i Ochrony Przed Korozja;˛ Lublin University of Technology: Lublin, Poland, 2002.