Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T11:57:48.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of pH and Temperature on Stress Corrosion Cracking of API X60 Pipeline Steel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

A. Contreras ,
S. L. Hernández  and
R. Galván-Martínez
A. Contreras
Affiliation:
Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo, Eje central Lázaro Cárdenas Norte 152, San Bartolo Atepehuacan, C. P. 07730, México. E-mail: [email protected]
S. L. Hernández
Affiliation:
Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo, Eje central Lázaro Cárdenas Norte 152, San Bartolo Atepehuacan, C. P. 07730, México. E-mail: [email protected]
R. Galván-Martínez
Affiliation:
Unidad Anticorrosión, Instituto de Ingeniería, Universidad Veracruzana, Av. S.S. Juan Pablo II S/N, Z. Universitaria, Fracc. Costa Verde, Veracruz, México, CP 94294
Get access

Abstract

Stress corrosion cracking (SCC) is the result of the combined influence of tensile stress and a corrosive environment on a susceptible material. This paper analyzes the understanding mechanisms of stress corrosion cracking (SCC) of API X60 pipeline steel. The susceptibility to SCC and mechanism was investigated using slow strain rate tests (SSRT). The SSRT were performed at strain rate of 25.4 × 10−6 mm/sec in a glass autoclave containing a soil solution called NS4 with pH of 3 and 10 at room temperature and 50°C. Cathodic polarization potentials of −200 mV referred to Ecorr was applied. SCC properties were evaluated by SSRT in simulated soil solution (NS4 solution) that is typical environment for SCC under cathodic charging. The results of ratio reduction area (RRA), time to failure ratio (TFR) and elongation plastic ratio (EPR) indicate that X60 pipeline steel was more susceptible to SCC at pH 3 independently of the temperature. At high pH the SCC susceptibility was higher at 50°C. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) observations of these specimens showed a brittle type of fracture with transgranular appearance. The failure and SCC mechanism of X60 steel into NS4 solution was hydrogen based mechanism. Hydrogen absorption by X60 pipe steel may result in local corrosion (primarily, SCC) of underground pipeline steel. SEM observations revealed the presence of internal cracks in some of these specimens.

Keywords

SteelCorrosionFractureScanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)Stress/Strain relationship
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1275: Structural and Chemical Characterization of Metals, Alloys and Compounds , 2010 , S3-P28
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Gu, B., Yu, W.Z., Luo, J.L. and Mao, X., Corrosion 55(3), 312 (1999).Google Scholar
2. Parkins, R.N., “Stress Corrosion Cracking” Uhlig's Corrosion Handbook, second edition, Edited by Revie, R. Winston, 191 (2000).Google Scholar
3. Parkins, R.N., Corrosion, 50, 394 (1994).Google Scholar
4. Elboujdaini, M., Wang, Y.Z., Revie, R.W., International Pipeline Conference (IPC) ASME, 967–972 (2000).Google Scholar
5. Leis, B.N. and Eiber, R.J., Proceedings, first International Business Conference on Onshore Pipelines, Berlin, December (1997).Google Scholar
6. Beavers, J. A., Harle, B. A., Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Artic Eng. 123, 147 (2001).Google Scholar
7. Pan, B.W., Peng, X., Chu, W.Y., Su, Y.J., Qiao, L.J., Materials Science Eng. A, 434 76 (2006).Google Scholar
8. Bulger, J. and Luo, J., “Effect of microstructure on near-neutral pH SCC” International Pipeline Conference (IPC) ASME 2000, 947–952, (2000).Google Scholar
9. Zhang, X. Y., Lambert, S.B., Sutherby, R. and Plumtree, A., Corrosion. 55, 297 (1999).Google Scholar
10. Durairajan, A., Krishnieyer, A., Haran, B. S., White, R. E., Popov, B. N., Corrosion. 56, 283 (2000).Google Scholar
11. Kolat, V. S., Bayri, N., Atalay, S., J. Alloy. Compd. 343, 234 (2002).Google Scholar
12. Gonzalez-Rodriguez, J.G., Espinosa-Medina, M.A., Angeles-Chavez, C., Zeferino-Rodriguez, T., Mater. Corros. 58, 599 (2007).Google Scholar
13. Abd, H., Elhamid, B. G., Ateya, K. G., Weil, K. G., Pickering, H. W., Corrosion. 57, 428 (2001).Google Scholar
14. He, D. X., Chen, W., Luo, J. L., Corrosion. 60, 778 (2004).Google Scholar
15. Parkins, R. N., Beavers, J. A., Corrosion. 59, 258 (2003).Google Scholar
16. Perdomo, J. J., Morales, J. L., Vitoria, A., Lusinchi, A. J., Mater. Perform. 41, 54 (2002).Google Scholar
17. Velazquez, Z., Guzman, E., Espinosa-Medina, M. A. and Contreras, A., in Materials Characterization, Edited by Campos, Ramiro Pérez, Cuevas, Antonio Contreras and Muñoz, Rodrigo Esparza, (Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. Vol. 1242, 2010, pp.69–78).Google Scholar
18. NACE TM-0198 Slow Strain Rate Test Method for Screening Corrosion-Resistant Alloys (CRAs) for Stress Corrosion Cracking in Sour Oilfield Service, 1–21, (2004).Google Scholar
19. ASTM G-129, Slow strain rate testing to evaluate the susceptibility of metallic materials to environmentally assisted cracking, 1–7, (2006).Google Scholar
20. Kane, R. D., Joia, C.J.B.M., Small, A.L.L.T. and Ponciano, J.A.C., Materials Performance, 36, 71 (1997).Google Scholar
21. Rhodes, P. R., Corrosion, 57, 923 (2001).Google Scholar