Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 497504 www.elsevier.

com/locate/engfailanal

Failure analysis of a stainless steel pipeline

M. Suresh Kumar, M. Sujata, M.A. Venkataswamy, S.K. Bhaumik
Received 30 April 2007; accepted 14 May 2007 Available online 26 May 2007

Failure Analysis and Accident Investigation Group, Materials Science Division National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore 560 017, India

Abstract In this study, the failure of a stainless steel (SS) pipeline supplying hydrogen to a hydro cracking reactor of a petrochemical industry is investigated. Leakage was observed in the pipeline during operation. Study revealed that the failure was by chloride stress corrosion cracking. The source of chlorine was found to be the glass wool that was wrapped on the pipeline for thermal insulation purpose. Use of SS foil beneath the thermal insulator facilitated condensation of chloride ions. The protective SS foil was destroyed by pitting corrosion followed by which the pipeline failed by stress corrosion cracking. A detailed analysis of the failure is presented in this paper. 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Stainless steel pipeline; Corrosion under insulation (CUI); Pitting corrosion; Chloride stress corrosion cracking

1. Introduction Corrosion failures of pipeline and equipment under thermal insulation are of major concern in petroleum and chemical process industries. Generally, the insulation is provided to (a) save energy, (b) control process temperatures, and (c) prevent hot working environment. Since the insulated metal surface is not amenable for inspection, corrosion under insulation (CUI) occurs in an insidious manner. If adequate attention not paid, CUI imposes a major problem to these industries and often proves to be too expensive in terms of frequent repairs and shut down time. The failures may also result in the release of hazardous chemicals/gases to environment [1]. In these cases, the disastrous consequences are of more serious concern than that of the economic losses. The majority of the pipelines used in petrochemical and chemical industries are made of either plain carbon steels or 3XX series stainless steels (SS). The failures in carbon steels are mostly manifested due to generalized or localized loss of material while those in SS components occur by pitting corrosion or by stress corrosion cracking (SCC) [2]. The initiation of CUI usually occurs, because of ingression of water/moisture, high operating temperatures, and presence of corrodants such as SO2 (in the form of H2SO4) and chlorides [2]. Despite the fact that most engineers and designers in the chemical industries are aware of CUI, and standard recommended practices for the control of CUI are available, failures due to CUI are still a common
*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 080 25086277; fax: +91 080 25270098. E-mail address: subir@css.nal.res.in (S.K. Bhaumik).

1350-6307/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2007.05.002

498

M. Suresh Kumar et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 497504

occurrence. A number of factors inuence the CUI of pipelines and equipment in service. These are (i) improper design of pipeline/equipment and thermal insulation, (ii) improper selection of material and insulation, (iii) high operating temperatures, and (iv) inadequate inspection procedure [3]. Statistics show that majority of the failures resulting from CUI are due to improper choice of materials. This paper deals with failure of a stainless steel (SS) pipeline wherein improper choice of protective metal foil material/insulation material resulted in chloride induced SCC. 2. Background During operation, a leak was noticed in the pipeline supplying hydrogen to a hydro cracking reactor of a petrochemical industry. The pipeline was made of type 321 SS. The pipeline was wrapped with a protective layer of SS foil followed by glass wool insulation. On removal of the glass wool, perforations were noticed in the SS foil at the location of failure. A tight crack was noticed in the failed region of the pipeline. The normal operating temperature and pressure of the pipeline are 72 C and 195 kg cm2, respectively. 3. Failure identication 3.1. Visual and stereo-binocular examination Fig. 1 shows the cut portion of the pipeline where leakage was observed. Visual examination revealed corrosion on the external surface. The corroded regions were covered with brownish powdery deposit. Examination under a stereo-binocular microscope revealed severe pitting all over the surface of the pipe (Fig. 2). 3.2. Fluorescent dye penetrant inspection (FPI) FPI revealed cracks in the pipe. The appearance of the cracks under the ultraviolet (UV) light is shown in Fig. 3a. Clusters of tight cracks were detected in the failed region of the pipeline. The cracks were interlinked and they were oriented mostly in the longitudinal direction of the pipe (Fig. 3b).

Fig. 1. The failed region of the SS pipeline.

Fig. 2. Pitting corrosion on the external surface of the failed SS pipe.

M. Suresh Kumar et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 497504

499

Fig. 3. (a) Cracks under UV light (after FPI) and (b) close-up view of the region marked in (a).

3.3. Fractography The tube was longitudinally cut into two halves and the half containing the cracks was subjected to tensile load in the transverse direction to facilitate opening of the cracks. The appearance of the cracks during the process of opening is shown in Fig. 4. On the external surface, several cracks had joined together to form a large crack in the longitudinal direction. But on the inner surface, the cracks were discrete in nature. This

Fig. 4. Cracks on (a) external surface and (b) internal surface of the SS pipeline.

500

M. Suresh Kumar et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 497504

indicates that the cracks have initiated on the outer surface and propagated progressively through the thickness. There was no corrosion on the internal surface of the pipe. A typical appearance of the fracture surface is shown in Fig. 5. The fracture surface was very uneven and it was covered with corrosion products. The gross fractographic features presented a brittle mode of fracture. The fracture surface was further examined under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) for identication of the mode of fracture. Examination revealed that the cracks had propagated mainly by transgranular mode of fracture. The fracture surface also showed presence of enumerable number of secondary cracks along the grain boundaries (Fig. 6). 3.4. Analysis of corrosion product The corrosion products on the fracture surface as well as those on the outer surface of the pipe were analyzed by energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) analyzer attached to the SEM. Analysis showed presence of sulphur and chlorine in the corrosion products (Fig. 7). Examination revealed numerous pits on the external surface of the pipe (Fig. 8). The chlorine concentration in these pits was found to be as high as 1.0 wt%. 3.5. Metallographic study Suitable samples were cut from the cracked regions of the pipe, mounted on the cross section, metallographically prepared and observed under an optical microscope. The samples showed presence of branching cracks (Fig. 9). These cracks had emanated from corrosion pits present on the external surface of the pipe. The cracks had propagated in both intergranular and transgranular mode (Fig. 10). The pipe material revealed a microstructure typical of austenitic stainless steel. There was no carbide precipitation at the grain boundaries (Fig. 11).

Fig. 5. Typical appearance of the fracture surface.

Fig. 6. SEM fractograph showing transgranular fracture and secondary cracks along the grain boundaries.

M. Suresh Kumar et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 497504

501

Fig. 7. EDX spectrum of the corrosion products.

Fig. 8. Corrosion pits on the external surface of the pipeline.

Fig. 9. Branching cracks emanating from a corrosion pit on the external surface.

502

M. Suresh Kumar et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 497504

Fig. 10. Transgranular and intergranular crack propagation.

Fig. 11. A typical microstructure of the parent material.

4. Failure analysis The external surface of the pipe was covered with a brown, powdery scale. It had rough appearance and contained enumerable number of corrosion pits. Cracks were found to have originated from these pits and had penetrated the pipe wall. The cracks had propagated mainly in transgranular mode, and they were branching in nature. These features are typical of stress corrosion cracking (SCC). Stress corrosion cracks generally undergo extensive branching and proceed in a direction perpendicular to the stresses contributing to their initiation. In general, four conditions are necessary for SCC to occur: (a) susceptible material (b) sustained tensile stress, either residual or applied, (c) aggressive environment containing specic ions, and (d) presence of an electrolyte (water/moisture) [2]. It is known that austenitic stainless steels are susceptible to SCC and hence they need protection for satisfactory working under certain environmental conditions. The SCC in wrought stainless steels is usually transgranular in nature, if the microstructure is not sensitized. In sensitized microstructure, SCC invariably results in intergranular cracking. The microstructural examination conrmed that the pipe was properly heat-treated and there were no microstructural abnormalities. Hence, the SCC in the pipeline was caused due to environmental eects that resulted in transgranular mode of fracture.

M. Suresh Kumar et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 497504

503

Compositional analysis showed that chlorine ion was responsible for the initiation of pitting corrosion on the external surface and subsequent SCC in the pipeline. A chloride concentration of less than 10 ppm is sucient to cause SCC in austenitic stainless steel if the metal temperature is >60 C [2]. The operating temperature of the failed pipeline was 72 C, which is ideal for chloride induced SCC. The source of chloride was identied to be the insulation material, i.e., glass wool. Chemical analysis revealed that the glass wool contained about 200 ppm of chloride. Chlorides do not cause SCC unless an aqueous phase is present and therefore, it is certain that there was a condensation of water at the hot metal surface. The SS pipeline was wrapped with a protective layer of SS foil followed by which it was thermally insulated by a layer of glass wool. On removal of the glass wool at the failed region of the pipeline, perforations were observed in the SS foil protective layer. It is, therefore, imperative that SS foil had undergone pitting corrosion rst. After this, the protective layer was ineective and the chlorides from the glass wool could easily migrate to the hot surface of the SS pipeline. As a result, concentrated chlorides had condensed/accumulated in localized regions on the outer surface of the pipeline leading to SCC failure. A concentration of 200 ppm of chlorides in the glass wool at a temperature of about 70 C would cause extensive pitting in the SS foil. Once this protection is destroyed, the pipeline beneath the protective layer is aected. Stainless steel is a bad thermal conductor and hence, there existed a temperature gradient wherein the SS foil was at a lower temperature than that of the outer surface of the pipeline. This facilitated preferential migration of the chlorides to the hot surface of the pipeline and resulted in condensation/accumulation of chlorides in localized regions at much higher concentrations.

5. Conclusions and recommended corrective actions The SS pipeline had failed by chloride induced stress corrosion cracking. The source of chlorides was the glass wool insulation. In the sequence of failure, the protective layer of SS foil had undergone pitting corrosion rst. Subsequently, the chlorides from the glass wool had preferentially migrated and condensed on the external surface of the SS pipeline resulting in chloride induced stress corrosion cracking. In general, the insulation materials contain chlorides. The concentration of chloride may vary depending on the type of insulation material chosen. On exposure to moisture, such insulation materials release chlorides, which in turn result in pitting/stress corrosion cracking in the SS pipeline. Under the present operating conditions, a leachable chloride level as low as 10 ppm can cause failure by SCC. From this perspective, an additional SS foil as protective layer is ineective and therefore, cannot eliminate the vulnerability of the SS pipeline failure. In view of the above, the following recommendations are made to prevent the recurrence of similar failures. (a) Prevention of chloride leaching from the thermal insulation would be the most ecient remedial action. This can be achieved by adopting one or more of the following. (i) Use of insulation materials low in chlorides [2,4,5]. (ii) Substitution of chloride containing glass wool by inhibited asbestos or calcium silicate insulation. (iii) Waterproong the insulation. (iv) Coating the pipeline prior to insulation. (b) Instead of wrapping the SS pipeline with SS foil, use of aluminum foil would reduce the risk of corrosion [2,6]. This is a preferred practice when the operating temperatures are within 60500 C, because of the following reasons. (i) The aluminium foil provides a physical barrier that prevents the saturated chloride solution from reaching the hot stainless steel surface. (ii) Due to its high thermal conductivity, aluminium would be at same temperature as that of the stainless steel pipe and hence the chloride solution would shift to the foil rather than to the stainless steel. (iii) Aluminium also provides cathodic protection to stainless steel in the presence of chlorides and thereby prevents pitting and stress corrosion cracking.

504

M. Suresh Kumar et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 497504

Acknowledgements The authors thank Head, Materials Science Division and Director, NAL for granting permission to publish this paper. The help received from Mr. M. Madan for microstructural study and Mr. C.R. Kannan for NDT is gratefully acknowledged. References
[1] John J. Mc Ketta, executive editor. Encyclopedia of chemical processing and Design; vol. 57: 1996. p. 343. [2] Corrosion under thermal insulation. Corrosion, ASM handbook, Metals Park (OH): American society for metals; vol. 13: 1987. p. 11448. [3] Peter III Lazaar. Factors aecting corrosion of carbon steel under thermal insulation. ASTM STP 1983;880:1126. [4] Brown BF. Stress corrosion cracking control measures. US Department of commerce. National Bureau of standard; NBS monograph 156; p. 57. [5] Sumbry Louis, Jean vegdahl E. Prevention of chloride stress corrosion cracking under insulation. ASTM STP 1983;880:16577. [6] Richardson James, Fitzsimmons Trevor. Use of aluminium foil for prevention of stress corrosion cracking of austenitic stainless steel under thermal insulation. ASTM STP 1983;880:18898.