Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106484

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

Analysis of the causes of the cracking of tube bundles of 316L

stainless steel Shell-and-Tube heat exchanger
Xiuyun Wang, Lijie Qiao, Lei Zhang *
Institute for Advanced Materials and Technology, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In an oil field, numerous tube bundles in the reboiler at the bottom of a regeneration tower
Heat exchanger cracked and leaked after only 2.8 years of service. Analysis was conducted on the material
316L stainless steel properties, failure characteristics, and corrosion products of the cracked 316L stainless steel tube
Dissolved oxygen
bundles, and the causes of the cracking of the tube bundles of the heat exchanger were clarified.
Stress corrosion
Failure analysis
The results indicated that the failure of the tube bundles was caused by typical stress corrosion
cracking (SCC), and the cracking originated from the pitting corrosion that occurred on the
exterior surface of the tube bundles. The chemical composition, metallography, and mechanical
properties of the failed tube bundles met standard requirements. The synergistic effect of chloride
ions and oxygen in the solution was the main cause of the SCC of the heat exchanger tube bundles.

1. Introduction

Heat exchangers, which are widely used in the petrochemical field, transfer a part of the heat of a hot fluid to a cold fluid so that the
fluid temperature is suitable for meeting the specified process flow index. Specifically, in a shell-and-tube heat exchanger, the surface
of the tube serves as the heat transfer surface. This exchanger is the most used exchanger in the industry and boasts high-temperature
resistance, high-pressure resistance, and a simple manufacturing process. Various types of failure occur during the service of heat
exchangers. Murad Ali et al. [1] summarized the locations of, forms of, mechanisms of, and prevention and control methods for failures
of heat exchangers. Among the 17 typical failure cases listed in the study, 13 were associated with tube bundles, thereby highlighting
the failure of tube bundles as the main reason for the failure of a heat exchanger. Because of its ideal mechanical properties and
excellent corrosion resistance, stainless steel is the most widely used material for producing tube bundles of heat exchangers. With the
rapid development of modern industry, the service conditions of heat exchangers are becoming increasingly corrosive. Under certain
working conditions, stainless steel tube bundles may fail due to hosting a strong corrosive medium, sustaining residual stress, and
unreasonable design [2–7]. Common forms of failure include intergranular corrosion, stress corrosion, and pitting corrosion [8–10],
and these types of failures can occur alone or in combinations. The failure of heat exchanger tube bundles affects industrial production
and even causes serious production accidents or economic loss.
The form and cause of the failure of heat exchanger tube bundles may vary with the working environment conditions. Changes in
sensitive factors related to temperature, pressure, medium, and microorganisms can lead to different extents of corrosion and cracking
in stainless steel [11–15]. One of the major reasons for the pitting corrosion and cracking of stainless steel heat exchanger tube bundles
in their production and use is a change in their working environment, especially the introduction of sensitive ions, caused by

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zhanglei@ustb.edu.cn (L. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2022.106484
Received 24 April 2022; Received in revised form 19 May 2022; Accepted 23 May 2022
Available online 27 May 2022
1350-6307/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Wang et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106484

insufficient understanding regarding suitable environments for the production and use of these bundles among workers at the pro­
duction or application site.
The heat exchanger tube bundle analyzed in this study was a new heat exchanger tube bundle that was replaced in September 2018
after it began leaking. Leakage occurred after only approximately 2.8 years of service. The on-site inspection results indicated the
existence of leakages in more than half the tubes in the upper right and upper left parts of the bundle (in 49 of the 92 tubes in the upper
right part of the bundle). Corrosion and leakage in the heat exchanger tube bundle were not expected until approximately the 12th year
of their service life. In this study, the service history, material, cracking characteristics, and corrosion products of the leaking tubes
were examined to clarify the types of cracking failure of the heat exchanger tube bundle and the main causes of rapid cracking. Ac­
cording to the analysis results, this study proposed measures to prevent and control tube failure under similar working conditions.

2. Experimental analysis and results

2.1. Analysis of service conditions

The cracked heat exchanger tube bundle comprised 316L stainless steel seamless steel tubes. The tube manufacturing process
involved cold working, followed by solution and acid pickling treatments. The dimensions of the tube bundle are as follows: outer
diameter = 19 mm, wall thickness = 2 mm, and length = 4500 mm. As depicted in Fig. 1, synthetic heat transfer oil composed of a
synthetic hydrocarbon mixture flowed through the interior of the tube bundle. The water content in the bundle was 250 ppm, the
operating temperature was 90 ◦ C–100 ◦ C, and the corrosiveness of the tubes was relatively low. The exterior of the tube bundle
contained a mixture of water and methanol (with 10% methanol). The produced water comprised the sewage of various systems and a
small quantity of rainwater. Five water treatment chemicals were added to the tube bundle, namely sodium hydroxide (turned alkaline
by adjusting the pH value, which caused the precipitation of calcium, magnesium, and iron ions), polyaluminum chloride coagulant,
sodium hypochlorite (ferrous oxide ions; flocculation), polyacrylamide (flocculation), and demulsifier (mainly composed of poly­
quaternium and methanol; reverse demulsification).
Table 1 presents the content of major ions after the water treatment agents were added. The scaling ions contained in the solution
included Mg2+ and Ca2+. Among all the ions, Cl− ions had the highest concentration in the solution (2932 mg/L). To increase the
pressure in the production process, air was blown into the medium so that the medium outside the tube bundle contained oxygen. The
working pressure of the tube was approximately 1 MPa, and the design pressure was 1.2 MPa. The production data for June 2021
indicated that the service temperature of the tube bundle fluctuated between 20 ◦ C and 130 ◦ C. According to the composition of the
contact medium inside and outside the tube bundle, the corrosion risk caused by the medium inside the tube bundle was preliminarily
estimated to be relatively small, and the water produced outside the tube bundle, which containing dissolved oxygen, was the main
medium leading to cracking and corrosion.

2.2. Analysis of cracking characteristics

Fig. 2 displays the unevenly distributed yellow and black corrosion products covering the surface of a tube. The longest crack on the
tube surface had a length of approximately 142 mm. After the surface corrosion products were polished and cleaned, cracks and pitting
corrosion defects were exposed on the tube surface. Fig. 3 depicts the cracks and pitting corrosion pits on the aforementioned tube as
well as the dendritic bifurcation of the cracks at the leakage point. The small cracks on this tube had a length of approximately 10 mm,
and their morphology was characterized by a wide middle and narrow sides.
A corrosion pit along the main crack was selected for grinding and polishing, and the extension of this crack along the thickness of

Fig. 1. Schematic of the shell-and-tube heat exchanger.

2
X. Wang et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106484

Table 1
Content of ions in the medium outside the tube bundle.
Ion concentration (mg/L) Na+ K+ Fe Ba2+ Sr2+ Mg2+ Ca2+ Cl- SO2-
4 HCO–3 pH

Before chemicals injection 2020.8 698 32 88 1.01 92 55.3 697 2932 2 618 6.16
After chemicals injection 2021.6 1725 93 2.2 10.12 23.7 31.2 166 1845 7 822 7.79

Fig. 2. Morphology of the corroded tube surface.

Fig. 3. Surface morphology after the removal of corrosion products.

the tube wall was observed through cross-sectional metallographic photography. Fig. 4 indicates that the crack originated from the
pitting corrosion pit on the exterior surface and developed into the interior surface. The cracks are dendritic in shape, which is typical
of the crach shape o SCC. Although the aforementioned crack did not develop into a leakage point, it penetrated the entire wall of the
examined stainless steel tube.
Fig. 5 displays the scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) mapping results of the
corrosion pit. The crack tips were revealed to contain Ca, S, O, Cr, and Cl, thereby indicating that the examined tube experienced
scaling and corrosion problems. Cl enrichment was observed at the crack tips.
The SEM and EDS analysis of the crack tips indicated that cracks extended along the surface. In the SEM images of these pits
(Fig. 6a), corrosion products can be noted and observed inside the crack tips. An EDS analysis revealed that the corrosion products
inside the crack tips mainly comprised Fe, O, Cr, S, and Cl, with the atomic percentage of Cl being as high as 7.18% (Fig. 6b, Table 2).

2.3. Material analysis

2.3.1. Chemical composition and mechanical properties of the tube bundle

The 316L stainless steel tube bundle had the following elemental composition: C = 0.017%, Cr = 17.7%, Cu = 0.492%, Mn =
1.06%, Mo = 2.21%, Ni = 11.1%, P = 0.0259%, S = 0.0107%, Si = 0.475%, and Fe = 66.63%. The tensile strength of the material of

3
X. Wang et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106484

Fig. 4. Cross-sectional photograph of the crack.

Fig. 5. SEM and EDS mapping results of the corrosion pit: (a) SEM; (b) O element; (c) S element; (d) Cr element; (e) Cl element; (f) Ca element.

the bundle was 633 MPa; the specified plastic elongation strength of the material was 319 MPa; and the hardness of the material was
172.2 HV. The aforementioned specifications met the standard requirements of “GB/T 13296–2013 Seamless stainless steel tubes for
boiler and heat exchanger” [9].

2.3.2. Metallographic examination

Samples were collected from tube parts located near to and far away from cracks to analyze the metallographic difference between
these parts. After grinding and polishing, the samples were etched using a solution containing 4% nitric acid and FeCl3. Subsequently,
the samples were rinsed with deionized water and then subjected to alcohol dehydration and cold air drying. The microstructure of the
metal was observed with a metallographic microscope, and the results are presented in Fig. 7. These results indicate that the area
around the crack tips contained austenite, and no considerable difference in grain size and structure was noted between the tube parts
located close to and away from cracks. The main crack propagation mechanism was transgranular cracking. In the cross-sectional
metallographic image, distinct machining streamlines can be observed along the axis. The presence of distinct machining stream­
lines indicates that the heat treatment process for the cold-worked stainless steel tube was insufficient, thereby suggesting that residual
stress exists inside the heat exchanger tube.

2.3.3. Inspection of inclusions

Although the aforementioned standard requirements contained no specific requirement regarding inclusions, inclusions are a
major factor influencing the corrosion resistance of austenitic stainless steel. Images of inclusions at the crack tips are displayed in

4
X. Wang et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106484

Fig. 6. (a) SEM and EDS analysis results for cross section of crack tip.

Table 2
Elemental composition of the corrosion products inside the frames in Fig. 6(a).
Element O S Cr Si Cl Na Fe Ni Ca

Atom% 35.24 15.11 11.90 9.48 7.18 5.71 7.42 3.22 4.75

Fig. 7. Metallographic images: (a) surface and (b) cross section of the examined tube.

Fig. 8. Nonmetallic inclusions in the samples were rated according to the A method of ISO 4967: 2013 [16]. The rating results are
presented in Table 3, where Type A inclusions are sulfide inclusions, Type B inclusions are alumina inclusions, Type C inclusions are
silicate inclusions, and Type D inclusions are spherical oxide inclusions. Higher ratings indicate larger inclusion sizes or higher
numbers of inclusions. The results indicate the existence of a relatively high content of oxide inclusions in the stainless steel, and the
spherical oxide inclusions around the crack tips were rated ≥ 3.

5
X. Wang et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106484

Fig. 8. Images of inclusions: (a) surface of crack tips and (b) cross section of crack tips.

Table 3
Results of inclusion inspection.
Sample Rating result

Crack tip surface A0.5, B2, C1, D ≥ 3

Cross section of crack tips D3

2.4. Stress analysis

During its operation, the heat exchanger tube bundle was subjected to hoop tensile stress originating from its operating pressure
and thermal expansion. Because of the presence of internal pressure inside the tube, the hoop tensile stress acting on the tube bundle
can be calculated using Equation (1). The operating temperature of the heat exchanger tube was up to 130 ◦ C. Presuming that the
construction temperature of the heat exchanger tube is room temperature, the tube bundle is heated and expanded at high operating
temperature. Because the examined heat exchanger was a fixed-tube-sheet heat exchanger, both ends of its tubes were bundled, and
the tube bundle was subjected to axial compressive stress, as expressed in Equation (2). The corresponding hoop direction was affected
by the tensile stress, which is calculated using Equation (3). In summary, the total hoop tensile stress acting on the tube bundle is the
sum of the hoop stress produced by the internal pressure and the hoop stress generated through thermal expansion. The calculated total
hoop tensile stress is 288 MPa, which equals 90% and 45% of the standard-specified plastic elongation and tensile strength, respec­
tively. This stress provides sufficient tensile stress for SCC.
The hoop stress generated by the difference between the internal and external pressures is calculated as follows:
PD
σC,P = (1)
2T
where P is the tube-side pressure (1 MPa), D is the diameter of the heat exchange tube (19 mm), and T is the wall thickness of the
heat exchange tube (2 mm).
The axial compressive stress acting on the heat exchange tube because of thermal expansion is calculated as follows:
σL = E ⋅ α ⋅ ΔT (2)
where E is the elastic modulus of the material (206 GPa), α is the thermal expansion coefficient of the material (1.25 × 10− 5/◦ C),
and ΔT is the difference between the operating temperature and the construction temperature.
The hoop tensile stress acting on the heat exchange tube because of thermal expansion is calculated as follows:
σC,T = υ ⋅ σ L (3)

whereυ is the Poisson’s ratio of the material (0.3).

2.5. Analysis of corrosion products

Macroscopic images indicated the existence of considerable black and yellow corrosion products on the inspected tube surface. The
SEM and EDS analysis results obtained for the black and yellow corrosion products are presented in Figs. 9, 10, and Table 4. The results
indicate that the main elements in the two types of corrosion products were Fe, O, Ca, Mg, and Cl. That means the corrosion product
film consisted mainly of oxygen corrosion products as well as scale deposits. From the elemental content analysis, the black products
had a higher content of corrosion product, while the yellow ones had a higher content of scale deposits. Combined with the macro­
scopic morphology shown in Fig. 2, the corrosion product film is relatively loose.

6
X. Wang et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106484

Table 4
Elemental composition of the corrosion products inside the frames in Fig. 9(a) and Fig. 10(a).
Element C O Mg Ca Si Fe S Ba Cl Na Pt

Black corrosion products 39.36 32.93 2.63 5.63 1.72 13.34 1.52 / 0.62 / 0.75
Yellow corrosion products 26.78 41.03 20.95 3.78 2.12 2.03 1.49 1.24 0.58 / /

The corrosion products of the tube samples were collected, dried, and ground. The phase composition of the powder was then
analyzed using an X-ray diffractometer (XRD). As displayed in Fig. 11, Fe3O4 was the main component of the corrosion products, which
also contained a small quantity of CaCO3 scaling product. The aforementioned results are consistent with those of EDS analysis.

3. Analysis of the cracking causes

An analysis of the failure characteristics indicated that the main crack originated from the exterior surface and expanded toward
the interior surface. In addition to the main leakage point, the tube surface contained several cracking and pitting corrosion defects.
Abundant dendritic bifurcations were formed along the crack expansion path and at the crack tips. The crack expansion mechanism
was transgranular cracking, which is a type of SCC. Considerable Cl− were detected at the cracks. In the presence of tensile stress, Cl−
were redox sensitive elements that led to the stress corrosion and pitting corrosion of austenitic stainless steel, which resulted in the
anodic dissolution-induced SCC of the heat exchanger tube bundle[[17].
Numerous experiments have been conducted on the halide ion-induced SCC of stainless steel. Truman et al. [18] performed an in-
depth examination on the relationship between the concentration of chloride ions and the SCC behavior of stainless steel. SCC occurred
on austenitic stainless steel only when the pH value of the medium was 7 and the mass concentration of chloride ions reached 105 mg/
L. The chloride ion concentration in the medium outside the heat exchanger tube in this study was only 1000–2900 mg/L, which is
below the corresponding concentrations reported in literature. However, the investigation on service conditions indicated that dis­
solved oxygen existed in the water produced at the tube side. Oxygen can elevate the expansion rate of cracks in austenitic stainless
steel and considerably decrease its tolerance for chloride ions. In the presence of oxygen, a chlorine content of tens of mg/L in the
solution can induce SCC in austenitic stainless steel. The higher the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the solution, the more likely is
the occurrence of SCC. Yang et al. [19] explained the effect of oxygen content on the susceptibility of regular austenitic stainless steel to
chloride-induced SCC (CISCC) at temperatures between 245 ◦ C and 260 ◦ C. When the concentration of chloride ions in the solution is
merely 1 µg/g, SCC might occur on austenitic stainless steel if the oxygen content of the solution is merely approximately 10 µg/g.
However, when the concentration of chloride irons in the solution is as high as 1000 µg/g, no SCC occurs on austenitic stainless steel if
the oxygen content of the solution is less than 0.5 µg/g.

Fig. 9. (a) SEM and (b) EDS analysis results for the black corrosion products.

7
X. Wang et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106484

Fig. 10. (a) SEM and (b) EDS analysis results for the yellow corrosion products. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 11. XRD analysis of the corrosion products.

The mechanisms of Cl− aggregation in the presence of oxygen and the CISCC process are illustrated in Fig. 12. In the total absence of
oxygen, chloride corrosion is unlikely to occur in austenitic stainless steel. In a dilute solution without oxygen, the risk of stress
corrosion is relatively low despite even when the chloride content is high. When the solution contains dissolved oxygen, dissolved
oxygen diffuses into the pitting corrosion pits and toward the crack tips under the action of concentration difference. Hydrogen atoms
are generated through the reaction of metal with oxygen inside the pitting corrosion pits or at the crack tips, and the dissolved oxygen
can react with hydrogen atoms, which leads to oxygen consumption. An oxygen consumption rate higher than the diffusion rate causes
an uneven distribution of oxygen along the diffusion path, which results in different potential intervals and gradients [20]. In the
presence of potential gradients, anions in the medium (i.e., chloride ions) are driven into pitting corrosion cracks or toward crack tips,
whereas cations (hydrogen and ferrous ions) move outward from inside the pitting corrosion pits, which causes the rapid aggregation
of anions at the bottom of the pits. Therefore, an extremely high concentration of chloride ions might be produced at the bottom of the
pits or at the crack tips despite a low concentration of chloride ions in the solution. The analysis results presented in Fig. 5(f) indicate

8
X. Wang et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106484

Fig. 12. Schematics of the mechanism of the aggregation of Cl− in the presence of oxygen.

the aggregation of chloride ions at a crack tip. A high concentration of chloride ions accelerates the dissolution of metal and the
damage of the oxide film, which decreases the formation rate of the oxide film and leads to the rapid formation and expansion of
cracks. Thus, the presence of oxygen considerably enhances susceptibility to CISCC.
The existence of a large number of oxide inclusions causes a discontinuity in the passivating film or a potential difference between
inclusions and the metal substrate. An uneven distribution of corrosion products and scale deposits on the tube surface can lead to the
aggregation of chloride and oxygen ions at the bottom of scale deposits. Hypochlorite ions, which are used in water treatment agents,
are redox-sensitive ions; the presence of these ions can lead to increased risks of pitting corrosion and SCC. The aforementioned factors
were the secondary causes of the leakage of the 316L stainless steel heat exchanger tube bundle examined in this study.

4. Conclusions and recommendations

(1) The results of material inspection indicated that the hardness, tensile strength, plastic elongation, and chemical composition of
the examined heat exchanger tube bundle met standard requirements. The cracking of the heat exchanger tube bundle was
caused by typical SCC, and cracking originated in the pitting corrosion pits on the exterior surface. The chloride ions and
dissolved oxygen in the solution were the main cause of SCC in the heat exchange tube. Because of the effects of interior pressure
and thermal expansion, the stainless steel heat exchange tube experienced a hoop tensile stress of 288 MPa. Secondary causes of
the SCC include the presence of inclusions in the material of the bundles, sodium hypochlorite in the water treatment system of
the heat exchanger, and corrosion products and scale deposits in the water produced by the regeneration tower, all of which
increased the risk of SCC.
(2) This article proposes the following recommendations:
• The produced water should be subjected to deoxidation treatment prior to its entry into the shell side. Moreover, the oxygen
content is suggested to be limited to below 10 ppb to reduce the risk of stress corrosion.
• The number and size of inclusion particles inside the tube should be controlled to improve the cleanliness of stainless steel. An
inclusion rating of below 0.5 is recommended.
• The compatibility of water treatment agents with the heat exchange tube and the corrosiveness of certain ions in water
treatment agents (such as sodium hypochlorite) on 316L stainless steel tubes should be investigated.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51871027) and Key R&D Program of Inner
Mongolia, China (No. 2021ZD0038).

References

[1] M. Ali, A. Ul-Hamid, L.M. Alhems, A. Saeed, Review of common failures in heat exchangers – Part I: Mechanical and elevated temperature failures, Eng. Fail.
Anal. 109 (2020) 104396.
[2] X. Liu, H. Zhu, C. Yu, H. Jin, C. Wang, G. Ou, Analysis on the corrosion failure of U-tube heat exchanger in hydrogenation unit, Eng. Fail. Anal. 125 (2021)
105448.
[3] V. Romanovski, Y.S. Hedberg, A. Paspelau, V. Frantskevich, J.J. Noël, E. Romanovskaia, Corrosion failure of titanium tubes of a heat exchanger for the heating
of dissolving lye, Eng. Fail. Anal. 129 (2021) 105722.
[4] M. Rezaei, Z. Mahidashti, S. Eftekhari, E. Abdi, A corrosion failure analysis of heat exchanger tubes operating in petrochemical refinery, Eng. Fail. Anal. 119
(2021) 105011.

9
X. Wang et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106484

[5] X.-L. Yang, Y.i. Gong, Z.-G. Yang, Failure analysis on abnormal leakage between tubes and tubesheet of spiral-wound heat exchanger for nuclear power plant,
Eng. Fail. Anal. 118 (2020) 104900.
[6] H. Panahi, A. Eslami, M.A. Golozar, A. Ashrafi Laleh, An investigation on corrosion failure of a shell-and-tube heat exchanger in a natural gas treating plant, Eng.
Fail. Anal. 118 (2020) 104918.
[7] Z. He, K. Guan, T. Jiang, X. Zhang, J. Zhong, Localized cavitation corrosion on heat exchange tubes in a reboiler: Design and operation causes, Eng. Fail. Anal.
130 (2021) 105773.
[8] L.J. Qiao, K.W. Gao, A.A. Volinsky, X.Y. Li, Disconti-nuous surface cracks during stress corrosion cracking of stainless steel single crystal, Corros. Sci. 53 (2011)
3509–3514.
[9] GB/T 13296-2013, Seamless stainless steel tubes for boiler and heat exchanger, CN-GB, China, 2013.
[10] M.G.S. Ferreira, J.L. Dawson, Electrochemical Studies of the Passive Film on 316 Stainless Steel in Chloride Media, J. Electrochem. Soc. 132 (2019) 760.
[11] Z. Wang, Z. Feng, L. Zhang, Effect of high temperature on the corrosion behavior and passive film composition of 316 l stainless steel in high H2S-containing
environments, Corros. Sci. 174 (2020) 5544.
[12] A. Sáez-Maderuelo, D. Gómez-Briceño, C. Maffiotte, Influence of Changes in Pressure and Temperature of Supercritical Water on the Susceptibility to Stress
Corrosion Cracking of 316L Austenitic Stainless Steel, J. Nucl. Eng. Radiat. Sci. 3 (2016), 011009.
[13] J. J. Xie, H. Ningyu, J. Y. Zhan, Corrosion behavior of 316L stainless Steel under Cl− corrosion medium, IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 711(2020) 012058-
012058.
[14] W.T. Choi, K. Oh, P.M. Singh, V. Breedveld, D.W. Hess, Hydrophobicity and Improved Localized Corrosion Resistance of Grain Boundary Etched Stainless Steel
in Chloride-Containing Environment, J. Electrochem. Soc. 164 (2) (2017) C61–C65.
[15] M.A. Javed, W. Neil, G. Mcadam, J.W. Moreau, S.A. Wade, Microbiologically influenced corrosion of stainless steel by sulfate reducing bacteria A tale of caution,
Corros. 76 (2020) 639–653.
[16] ISO 4967 Steel-Determination of content of non-metallic inclusions-Micrographic method using standards diagrams, 2013.
[17] M. Kaneko, H.S. Isaacs, Pitting of stainless steel in bromide, chloride and bromide/chloride solutions, Corros. Sci. 42 (1) (2000) 67–78.
[18] J.E. Truman, Stress-corrosion cracking of martensitic and ferritic stainless steels, Int. met. Rev. 26 (1) (1981) 301–349.
[19] H. Yang, Y. Duan, Review on chloride stress corrosion cracking of austenitic stainless steels, Total Corros. Control. 31 (2017) 13–19.
[20] P. Andresen, Emerging Issues and Fundamental Processes In Environmental Cracking In Hot Water, Corros. 64 (2007) 439–464.

10