Engineering, 2020, 12, 863-885

https://www.scirp.org/journal/eng
ISSN Online: 1947-394X
ISSN Print: 1947-3931

Sulfide Stress Cracking Assessment of Carbon

Steel Welding with High Content of H2S and CO2
at High Temperature: A Case Study

Apolinar Albiter

Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo, Ciudad de México, México

How to cite this paper: Albiter, A. (2020) Abstract

Sulfide Stress Cracking Assessment of Car-
bon Steel Welding with High Content of In the oil and gas industry, it has been established that for pipelines fabricated
H2S and CO2 at High Temperature: A Case with carbon steels, their limitation is related to H2S and CO2 environments,
Study. Engineering, 12, 863-885. which is 7 to 10 psia of partial pressure of CO2. Therefore, in carbon steel
https://doi.org/10.4236/eng.2020.1212061
cracking is shown, after 7 or 10 psia of partial pressure of CO2. The experi-
Received: November 9, 2020 mental work was performed under static conditions in autoclaves within a pH
Accepted: December 8, 2020 of 3 to 3.8; partial pressures of 16 - 96 psi for H2S and 15 - 53 psi for CO2, in
Published: December 11, 2020 the temperature range of 25˚C - 150˚C. It was observed that the average
yielding stress used in Sulfide Stress Cracking (SSC) tests decreases with tem-
Copyright © 2020 by author(s) and
perature increment. Hydrogen Induced Cracking (HIC) evaluations showed
Scientific Research Publishing Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative that X52 steel, under conditions, was not susceptible to HIC. Results of SSC
Commons Attribution International did not show indications of cracking after exposure to sour solutions, except
License (CC BY 4.0). for the specimen exposed to high H2S and CO2 content (96 psi of H2S and 53
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ psi of CO2 of the partial pressure) and high temperature (150˚C). Microcracks
Open Access
located between the upper and lower weld beads were also observed. Howev-
er, the highest average corrosion rate was 0.27 mm/year (10.6 mpy), which
occurred in samples exposed to 96 psi of H2S and 53 psi of CO2 at 150˚C.
Likewise, the highest localized corrosion (severe pitting attack) was obtained
at the same environment with a corrosion rate of 4.2 mm/year (167 mpy).
The oil and gas industry could use carbon steels pipelines in partial pressure
higher than 10 psia.

Keywords
Sulfide Stress Cracking (SSC), Hydrogen Induced Cracking (HIC), Pitting,
Welding, X52 Steel

1. Introduction
The oil and gas industry can provoke a wide variety of corrosive environments.

DOI: 10.4236/eng.2020.1212061 Dec. 11, 2020 863 Engineering

A. Albiter

Mexican crude oil and gas commonly contain entrained water, carbon dioxide
(CO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), high H2S and CO2 contents and heavy oil. There-
fore, the transportation of these corrosive fluids always results in the induce of
failures in the production systems; this shows the need to perform qualification
tests on candidate pipelines steels considered for the development of the Mex-
ican field, due to the high concentrations of H2S and CO2 expected in the exploi-
tation of mature fields.
Sulfide stress cracking (SSC) is a major concern for most oil and gas pipeline
operators for many years; however research work still is done to develop strate-
gies for a better management of this problem [1]-[7]. It is well known that
long-term operation of pipelines causes degradation of its mechanical properties,
such as embrittlement caused by SCC [2]. The SCC occurs due to the combina-
tion of three factors; a susceptible material, localized tensile stress above a thre-
shold and exposure to corrosive environment. However, sometimes due to en-
vironmental conditions, only corrosion occurs with no cracking [8]; nonetheless
in many times the cracks evolve from corrosion pitting [9].
Due to the presence of H2S, many metals are susceptible to: generalized, loca-
lized, pitting, and linear corrosion [10]. Therefore, most research focuses on the
rules and mechanisms of hydrogen damage, such as sulfide stress corrosion
cracking (SSC) and hydrogen-induced cracking (HIC), as well as the effect of
environmental factors (temperature, partial pressure of H2S, solution, and pH)
on the corrosion process [11].
Among the technological challenges being faced to put such corrosive hydro-
carbon’s fields into production, material selection for corrosive environments is
one of the most challenging. Materials selection requires knowledge of chemical
and physical characteristics of the corrosive environment, along with the opera-
tion conditions at which the material will be exposed, in order to ensure good
performance of the installations during his expected operational life. The high
pressure along with the CO2 content variable makes it impossible to use carbon
steel in well, risers and topsides piping’s; therefore it is required to use Corrosion
Resistant Alloys (CRAs) [12].
The understanding of corrosion mechanisms in the combined presence of H2S
and CO2 acidic gases has been discussed as a systematic approach for materials
design strategy for hydrocarbon production systems. But, such approach does not
deal with the important environmental cracking characteristics associated with
sour service; nonetheless it concentrates purely on metal loss degradation process
[13]. The combination of H2S and CO2 modifies the corrosion characteristics sig-
nificantly as compared to damage caused in the sole presence of CO2 or H2S.
Both CO2 and H2S are acid gases which when produced with the hydrocarbon
phase can render the associated water (condensed of formation) producing a
very corrosive environment leading to severe degradation. The selection of ma-
terials to resist such corrosive environment relies mainly on the type of corro-
sion anticipated (e.g. general or localized), the confidence in predicting the rate
and type of corrosion, risk of failure and life cycle cost. While the primary con-

DOI: 10.4236/eng.2020.1212061 864 Engineering

 A. Albiter

cern in selection of materials in H2S containing systems is the sulfide stress

cracking (SSC); however the issue of corrosion should not be underestimated.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the susceptibility of API X52 steel to
environmental cracking, calculate general corrosion rates and analysis of loca-
lized corrosion in different sour environments. Therefore, X52 steel pipe sam-
ples were exposed to brine solutions with acid pH (3 to 3.8) and high concentra-
tions of H2S (16 to 96 psi of partial pressure) and CO2 (15 to 53 psi of partial
pressure) and high temperature (25˚C to 150˚C).

2. Experimental Procedure
2.1. Steel Analyzed
The steel used for the assessment of SSC behavior, corrosion and hydrogen in-
duced cracking was an API X52 pipeline steel. The chemical composition of the
steel is shown in Table 1. For experimental tests, a section of X52 steel with lon-
gitudinal and circumferential welding was used. Steel samples were obtained
from a pipeline with an external diameter of 508 mm (20 in) and a wall thickness
of 19.05 mm (0.750 in). Therefore, microstructural characterization through
optical microscopy of the longitudinal and circumferential welding, along with
the base metal and weld was carried out.

2.2. Hardness Tests

Vickers hardness measurements were carried out on sections of the welding
joints of API X52 steel to verify compliance with the ANSI/NACE MR 0175/ISO
15156 [14] restriction, referring to the maximum hardness that should not be
exceed 22 Rockwell C scale (248 HV) in order to avoid SSC problems.

2.3. Tensile Tests

Tensile tests were performed according to ASTM E21 [15] for each test temper-
ature in order to characterize the steel before performing the SSC tests. The tests
temperatures were 25˚C, 50˚C, 65˚C, 80˚C, and 150˚C. The measured yield
strength was used to stress the Four Point Bend Beam specimens. The small-size
samples, similar to standard specimens, were used for tensile tests according to
ASTM E8 [16], the cylindrical specimen with threaded ends was machined with
a diameter of 6.35 mm (0.250 in), fillet radius of 7.74 mm (0.187 in), a reduced
length section of 28.57 mm (1.125 in) and the gage length was 25.4 mm (1 in).

2.4. Hydrogen Induced Cracking Tests (HIC)

HIC tests were conducted on the samples obtained from API X52 steel with di-
mensions according to ANSI/NACE TM 0284 [17]. The HIC specimens were
machined with 20 mm of width, 100 mm in length and full wall thickness of the
pipe. Duplicate specimens were obtained from the circumferential weld, longi-
tudinal weld and parent material; from the parent material one specimen was
machined at 90 and 180 degrees from weld as shown in Figure 1.

DOI: 10.4236/eng.2020.1212061 865 Engineering

A. Albiter

Table 1. Chemical composition of API X52 steel (wt%).

C Si Mn P S Ni Cr Cu Mo V Nb Ti N B Al
0.06 0.190 0.92 0.012 0.002 0.120 0.120 0.210 0.020 0.045 0.045 0.015 0.004 0.0002 0.033

Faces to be examined

Longitudinal axis of the pipe

Circumferential weld
Faces to be examined

20

a)

Faces to be examined

Weld

Longitudinal axis of the pipe

c)

Dimensions in mm
20

b)
Figure 1. Specimen position and orientation for HIC testing: (a) parent metal, (b) longitudinal weld, and (c) circumferential weld.

The specimens were milled using coolant to avoid excessive overheating. After
milling, the specimens were wet grinded with 320-grade SiC grinding paper. A
minimum amount of material, up to 1 mm maximum, shall be removed from
the inner and outer pipe surfaces in order to remove oxidation and provide
prismatic specimens. After the specimens were ultrasonically cleaned (by im-
mersion) with a detergent solvent, it was flushed with methanol or acetone and
warm air-dried.
The formulations for the test solutions used to create the sour environments
are described in Table 2, with a modified brine solution with pH of 3.0. HIC
tests were performed using solution A. The temperature of the test solution was
25˚C a schematic sketch of the test assembly is shown in Figure 2.
The specimens were submerged in the brine solution and saturated with hy-
drogen sulfide at room temperature and it was maintained at a positive pressure
during the 96-hour test duration and following test procedure:

DOI: 10.4236/eng.2020.1212061 866 Engineering

 A. Albiter

Sampling tube
Flow meter X X

X X X

Gas line carrying

H2S or N2

Test vessel with solution

and specimens

Trap 10% NaOH Scrubber

Figure 2. Schematic of the experimental arrangement for HIC testing.

Table 2. Chemical composition of brine solutions.

Solution A Solution Ba
Reactive
Concentration (ppm) Concentration (ppm)

Sodium (Na) 42,462 49,378

Magnesium (Mg) 729 2860

Cations
Calcium (Ca) 14,400 16,167

Iron (Fe) 6 0.1

Chloride (Cl) 92,336 112,900

Anions Sulphate (SO4) 900 175

Bicarbonate (HCO3) 386 100

a
Solution used for one test a high pressure and high temperature (HP/HT).

• The test brine solution was prepared and transferred to the glass-purging
vessel (Figure 2), ensuring that the volume of the test solution was sufficient
to cover all of the test specimens.
• The specimen was separated from the vessel floor and other test specimens
by suitable non-metallic rods with a minimum diameter of 6 mm.
• Purge test vessel with Nitrogen after purge the test solution, within the sealed
purging vessel, with Nitrogen for at least 1 hour at minimum rate or 100
ml/min/liter of test solution.
• Transfer the test solution from de purging vessel to the vessel via the airtight
filing tube, purge test solution, within the test vessel, with Nitrogen for at
least 1 hour at minimum rate or 100 ml/min/liter of test solution.
• Following the Nitrogen purge, the solution shall be saturate with 99.5% H2S
gas, at a minimum rate of 200 ml/min/liter of the test solution for a mini-
mum time of 60 minutes in the test vessel.
• Extract a sample from the solution, via the sampling tube and measure the
pH and the H2S concentration. If the H2S concentration is >2300 ppm and
the pH is within the specified range, the H2S gas will then be passed through

DOI: 10.4236/eng.2020.1212061 867 Engineering

A. Albiter

the test solution for a period of 96 hours at a minimum flow rate in order to
maintain a positive pressure. If not, continue saturation till H2S concentra-
tion is >2300 ppm.
• After the 96-hour exposure period, draw a sample of the solution and meas-
ure pH and H2S concentration. Stop the H2S flow and purge the solution with
Nitrogen at 200 ml/liter per hour flow rate for one-hour minimum to flush
out all the H2S from the test solution.
After exposure for 96 hours, the specimens were removed, cleaned and sec-
tioned for metallographic examination.
The cleaned specimens were visually inspected and sectioned as shown in
Figure 1. Each section was grounded, polished and etched in order to being ob-
served in the optical microscope.
Based on the crack measurement results, the crack sensitivity ratio (CSR), the
crack length ratio (CLR), and the crack thickness ratio (CTR) were calculated for
each section and the average for each test specimen according to the following
equations:

=
CSR
∑ ( a × b ) ×100 (1)
(W × T )

=
CLR
∑ ( a ) ×100 (2)
W

=
CTR
∑ ( b ) ×100 (3)
T
where a is crack length, b is the crack thickness, W is the section width and T is
the test specimen thickness.
All identifiable cracks, visible at magnification up to 100× (10× objective lens)
in the calculation, was included. Sometimes it was necessary to examine at high-
er magnifications to distinguish between small cracks, inclusions, pits or other
discontinuities.

2.5. Sulfide Stress Cracking (SSC) at Low Pressure (LP) and High
Temperature and High Pressure (HT/HP)
SSC tests were performed according to NACE TM 0177 [18], method B and EFC
Publication: 16 “Guidelines on Material Requirements for Carbon and Low Al-
loy Steels for H2S—Containing Environments in Oil and Gas Production” [19].
Four Point Bent-Beam (FPBB) specimens, fabricated from API X52 pipeline
steel were machined and tested. The specimens were machined close to the ID
with the weld located on the center of the specimen as is shown in Figure 3.
Specimen’s dimensions were approximately 119.4 × 19.05 × 4.83 mm (4.7 × 0.75
× 0.19 in). Prior to testing, the specimens were measured, cleaned and degreased
in accordance with ASTM F21 [20].
The FPBB specimens were stressed up to 80% of the Actual Yield Strength
(AYS) for each test temperature. Tensile testing was performed on each material
to determine the AYS at different temperatures. The stresses were measured us-

DOI: 10.4236/eng.2020.1212061 868 Engineering

 A. Albiter

ing two strain gauges attached adjacent to the weld as is shown in Figure 3. The
stress was applied on the root weld surface (ID in tension). The stresses were
recorded by the means of strain gauges on each side of the weld.
The stressed FPBB specimens were exposed in triplicate to each sour envi-
ronment to simulate the field conditions. The exposure time was 720 hours and
the environments consisted of two solutions (A and B) saturated. The summary
of the FPBB tests conditions for the SSC testing and corrosion tests are presented
in Table 3.
Eight liters of solution were prepared for testing and deaerated by purging
with nitrogen. The stressed specimens and the mass-loss coupons were placed
into the vessel and seal dry. After the solution was transferred into the vessel,
then it was purged with nitrogen for eight hours. Figure 4 shows the specimens
and set-up before the exposure.

Table 3. Testing conditions for corrosion tests and SSC assessment.

Partial
Corrosion CO2/H2S Temperature pH
Test SSC pressure
Tests ratio (˚C) solution
No. (psi)

LP HP/HT H2S CO2 T1 T2 A B

1 X - X 8 - - 25 - 3 -

2 X - X 16 - - 25 - 3 -

3 - X X 16 15 0.937 50 - 3.8 -

4 - X X 16 15 0.937 - 80 3.8 -

5 - X X 45 35 0.777 50 - 3.5 -

6 - X X 45 35 0.777 - 80 3.5 -

7 - X X 24.4 18.8 0.770 65 - 3.5 -

8 - X X 83 45 0.542 - 150 3.5 -

9 - X X 96 53 0.552 - 150 - 3.5

10 - X X 13.5 10 0.740 50 - 3.8 -

11 - X X 13.5 10 0.740 - 80 3.8 -

Weld Base metal

OD - Outside Diameter

Weld

ID - Inside Diameter
Strain gauges placed at 1mm
from weld

Figure 3. Location of strain gauges used to measure the apply stress in the FPBB tests.

DOI: 10.4236/eng.2020.1212061 869 Engineering

A. Albiter

Corrosion
coupon

50 mm
Corrosion
coupon

25mm

Framework
Four Point Bent-
Beam specimen
(FPBB)

Figure 4. FPBB and mass-loss coupons set-up before testing.

For the exposure with total pressures below 16 psi, the solution was saturated
with the respective brine solution A. The brine solution was saturated at room
temperature and then the temperature was increased. Once the thermal equili-
brium was achieved, the conditions were maintained during all time testing.
Upon completion of the exposures, the pH of the solutions was measured at
room temperature. The FPBB specimens were removed, cleaned, and visually
examined at a magnification of 10× to determine the presence of cracking. The
cracking assessment was performed according to the NACE TM 0177 [18] and
EFC Publication 16 [19]. Metallographic analysis was performed on all FPBB
specimens after testing.

2.6. Corrosion Testing

Twenty-two coupons were machined from the API X52 steel; the dimensions are
50 × 25 × 3 mm (2.0 × 1.0 × 0.125 inches) as is shown in Figure 4. Corrosion
testing was performed on API X52 steel coupons according to ASTM G 111 [21].
The coupons were tested in duplicate in each sour environment. The conditions
for corrosion testing were summarized in Table 3.
FPBB specimens and mass-loss coupons were exposed in the same vessel for
each test environment during 720 hours. Eleven environments were created in
the laboratory to simulate the different field conditions; the environments con-
sisted of two solutions (A and B) saturated with nine gas mixtures at five test

DOI: 10.4236/eng.2020.1212061 870 Engineering

 A. Albiter

temperatures. All the test was performed under static conditions in autoclaves
with temperature and pressure control, in glass containers for low pressure tests.
After the 720 hours’ exposure time, the mass-loss coupons were removed and
photographed to document the surface appearance. Then, the coupons were
cleaned to remove corrosion products according to specifications of ASTM G1
[22], rinsed in toluene/acetone, dried and re-weighed. General corrosion rates of
each coupon were calculated according to the following equation.
534 ∗ W
CR ( mpy ) = (4)
ρ ∗ A ∗T
where W is the weight loss (mg), ρ is the density (g/cm3), A is the area (in2) and
T is the time (hours).
The coupons were visually examined at a magnification of 50× to find evi-
dences of localized corrosion. Any pitting was further characterized according to
the specification of ASTM G46 [23].
The pitting depth was determined using optical measurements with an in-
verted metallurgical microscope and verified with a micrometer. The technique
consists on initially focusing on the undamaged surface of the coupon and then
re-focusing on the bottom of the pit. The difference in optical stage height is
then converted to units of length. This length is reported in mils (0.001 inch)
and corresponds to the pit depth. Once the maximum depth is established, the
penetration rate is calculated using the ratio of 365 days/time exposed. The pe-
netration rate is given in mils per year (mpy) units.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Microstructural Characterization
Figure 5(a) and Figure 5(b) show an optical microscopy image of the longitu-
dinal and circumferential welds. The longitudinal weld was performed using the
submerged metal arc welding (SMAW) process with V-bevel and consists of two
weld seams, where the heat affected zone is clearly visible. While circumferential
welding is a welding of multiple passes, where overheating by the different weld
seams makes it difficult to see the thermally affected zone. Figure 5(c) and Fig-
ure 5(d) shows an optical microscopy image of base metal and welding micro-
structure respectively. The base metal shows a homogeneous microstructure with a
fine grain size (average grain size of 10 microns). The microstructure of the base
metal consisted of predominately ferrite.

3.2. Hardness Measurements

Vickers hardness measurements along the circumferential weld joint of the API
X52 steel were carried out as observed in Figure 6. According to NACE MR
0175 [14] a maximum hardness of 22 Rockwell C scale (248 HV) should be per-
mitted in order to avoid SSC problems. The maximum hardness measured was
216 HV (18 HRC) located in the weld bead as is shown in Figure 6.

DOI: 10.4236/eng.2020.1212061 871 Engineering

A. Albiter

a) b)

Weld
Weld

Base HAZ Base

metal metal HAZ

1mm 1mm

c) d)

100μm 100μm

Figure 5. Micrographs obtained by optical microscopy from (a) longitu-

dinal weld, (b) circumferential weld, (c) base metal microstructure, and (d)
circumferential weld microstructure.

BM HAZ Weld HAZ BM

250

200
Hardness Vickers (HV)

150

BM HAZ Weld HAZ BM

100

50

Zone

Figure 6. Vickers hardness measurements in the circumferential weld-

ing joint of X52 steel.

DOI: 10.4236/eng.2020.1212061 872 Engineering

 A. Albiter

3.3. Tensile Tests

Tensile tests were performed according to ASTM E21 [15] for each test temper-
ature (25˚C, 50˚C, 65˚C, 80˚C and 150˚C) in order to characterize the steel be-
fore performing the SSC tests. The tensile test results at different temperatures
are presented in Table 4. The AYS obtained at different temperatures were used
to stress the Four Point Bend Beam specimens. From Table 4 it is observed that
YS decreases as temperature of the test increases.

3.4. Hydrogen Induced Cracking Tests (HIC)

HIC tests on samples obtained from API X52 steel with dimensions according to
NACE TM 0284 [17] were carried out. The test results, including the average
crack sensitivity ratio (CSR), crack length ratio (CLR), and crack thickness ratio
(CTR) for each specimen are presented in Table 5.
After specimen’s exposure for 96 h, they were removed for sectioning and
polish. Cracking was observed only in the specimen removed from the parent
material (CS-5) at 90 degrees from the longitudinal weld. The average ratios for
this specimen were 8.25% for CLR, 0.097% for CTR and 0.012% for CSR. How-
ever, the acceptance criteria of NACE TM 0284 are: CLR less than of the 15%,
CTR less than of the 5%, CSR less than 2%, therefore, the values obtained did
not exceed the criteria established in NACE TM 0284. All other specimens did
not exhibit cracking after metallographic analysis.
Figure 7 shows an optical image of the CS-5 specimen for section B and C af-
ter been polished and etched with 2% Nital to reveal the crack path; it was ob-
served that apparently the crack mechanisms was intergranular. These cracks
were observed in the metal base.

a) b)

680 μm

100 μm 100 μm

c) d)

1.1 mm

100 μm 100 μm

Figure 7. Micrograph of specimen CS-05 (90˚ from weld): (a) section B at 100× po-
lished only (b) section B at 200× after being attacked with Nital 2%, (c) section C at
100× polished only, and (d) section C at 200× after being attacked with Nital 2%.

DOI: 10.4236/eng.2020.1212061 873 Engineering

A. Albiter

Table 4. Tensile test results at different temperatures.

Temperature 0.2% YS 80% AYS

Specimen Average YS (psi)
(˚C) (psi) (psi)

CS-379 64,072
25 64,616 51,693
CS-380 65,160
CS-381 58,624
50 60,183 48,146
CS-382 61,742
CS-383 63,033
65 61,075 47,293
CS-384 59,117
CS-385 57,696
80 57,892 46,313
CS-386 58,087
CS-387 55,926
150 55,716 44,572
CS-388 55,505

Table 5. HIC testing results for X52 steel welded joints.

CLR CTR CSR

Specimen Location Section Results
(%) (%) (%)

Sec. A 0.000 0.000 0.000

Sec. B 0.000 0.000 0.000
CS-01 Circumferential weld No cracking
Sec. C 0.000 0.000 0.000
Average 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sec. A 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sec. B 0.000 0.000 0.000
CS-02 Circumferential weld No cracking
Sec. C 0.000 0.000 0.000
Average 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sec. A 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sec. B 0.000 0.000 0.000
CS-03 Longitudinal weld No cracking
Sec. C 0.000 0.000 0.000
Average 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sec. A 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sec. B 0.000 0.000 0.000 No
CS-04 Longitudinal weld
Sec. C 0.000 0.000 0.000 cracking

Average 0.000 0.000 0.000

Sec. A 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sec. B 12.133 0.144 0.018
CS-05 90˚ from weld Cracking
Sec. C 12.623 0.145 0.018
Average 8.252 0.097 0.012
Sec. A 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sec. B 0.000 0.000 0.000
CS-06 180˚ from weld No cracking
Sec. C 0.000 0.000 0.000
Average 0.000 0.000 0.000

DOI: 10.4236/eng.2020.1212061 874 Engineering

 A. Albiter

3.5. Sulfide Stress Cracking Tests

SSC tests were performed according to NACE TM 0177 [18] method B and
FPBB specimens from API X52 steel were tested. As described above, the Four
Point Bent-Beam (FPBB) specimens were stressed up to 80% of the Actual Yield
Strength (AYS) obtained at each test temperature. The results of SSC tests of X52
steel are shown in Table 6. This table includes the material, specimen, test tem-
perature, AYS, stress applied, initial and final pH, and testing results.

Table 6. SSC testing results for X52 steel.

Test Temp. Applied pH pH Surface cracks Sub-Surface

Specimen AYS (psi)
No. (˚C) stress (psi) initial final observed cracks observed
CS-1 No No
1 CS-2 25 64,616 51,693 3.0 4.5 No No
CS-3 No No
CS-4 No No
2 CS-5 25 64,616 51,693 3.0 4.6 No No
CS-6 No No
CS-19 No No
3 CS-20 50 60,183 48,146 3.8 4.3 No No
CS-21 No No
CS-22 No No
4 CS-23 80 57,892 46,314 3.8 4.8 No No
CS-24 No No
CS-28 No No
5 CS-29 50 60,183 48,146 3.5 4.1 No No
CS-30 No No
CS-25 No No
6 CS-26 80 57,892 46,314 3.5 4.6 No No
CS-27 No No
CS-7 No No
7 CS-8 65 61,075 47,293 3.5 4.4 No No
CS-9 No No
CS-10 No No
8 CS-11 150 55,716 44,572 3.5 4.9 No No
CS-12 No No
CS-13 No Yes
9 CS-14 150 55,716 44,572 3.5 4.8 No No
CS-15 No No
CS-34 No No
10 CS-35 50 60,183 48,146 3.9 4.2 No No
CS-36 No No
CS-31 No No
11 CS-32 80 57,892 46,314 3.9 4.3 No No
CS-33 No No

DOI: 10.4236/eng.2020.1212061 875 Engineering

A. Albiter

No indications of cracking were observed on any surface specimen’s after the

exposures to SSC testing, except for specimen CS-13 exposed to the testing con-
ditions No. 9 from Table 3, consisting of solution B saturated with 96 psi of H2S
and 53 psi of CO2 at 150˚C. This sample showed subsurface cracks after metal-
lographic examination. Micrographs of the cracks are presented in Figure 8. The
specimen CS-13 showed two cracks between the upper and lower weld bead, one
on the right and other in the left sides as shown in Figure 8(a). Figure 8(a1)
shows a crack between the two weld beads very close to interface between metal
base and weld bead. Figure 8(a1) shows a crack that initiated close to fusion
zone interface, which propagated through the weld as a consequence of the dif-
ferent microstructures and the properties of each phase. Also, the reheating
during the welding process of the second weld bead produced recrystallization
and grain growth of the first bead, which makes it more fragile and susceptible
to SSC. Figure 8(a2) shows two cracks that seem to have their origin in a weld
defect. The remaining specimens did not show any cracks after metallographic
examination.

3.6. Corrosion Testing

Corrosion testing was performed on X52 steel coupons according to ASTM G
111 [21]. The coupons were tested in duplicate in each sour environment during
720 hours according to conditions showed in Table 7.
The calculated corrosion rates (CR) for general corrosion and the localized
corrosion evaluation for coupons are presented in Table 7 and Table 8 respec-
tively. General corrosion rate was calculated according to Equation (4); mean-
while localized corrosion rate was evaluated according to ASTM G46 [24].

a)

Weld

a1

BM a2

Weld

a1 a2

200 μm 200 μm

Figure 8. Optical micrographs of X52 weld joint after testing at 96 psi of

H2S and 53 psi of CO2 at 150˚C: (a) Microstructure of longitudinal weld
joint at 10× showing the presence of two cracks, (a1) higher magnification
of the crack a1 at 50×, and (a2) higher magnification of the crack a2 at 50×.

DOI: 10.4236/eng.2020.1212061 876 Engineering

 A. Albiter

The highest average value for general corrosion rate was 0.27 mm/year (10.6
mpy) corresponding to CS-53 and CS-54 coupons exposed to conditions of high
pressure and high temperature (HP/HT); and correspond to the testing condi-
tions No. 9 of Table 7 (96 psi of H2S and 53 psi of CO2 at 150˚C). This value can
be considered moderate, but should be used as a conservatively value because
the tests were performed under static conditions. Some images of this SSC-Four
Point Bent-Beam after testing are presented in Figure 9. The lowest average
value for general corrosion rate was 0.028 mm/year (1.1 mpy) belong to CS-61
and CS-62 coupons exposed to the testing conditions No. 1 of Table 7 (H2S at 8
psi; at 25˚C).

Table 7. General corrosion rates for X52 steel coupons.

Surface Weight Weight after Weight after Average

Test Length Width Thick CR
Specimen area before test test-before test-after clean CR
No. (in) (in) (in) (mpy)
(in2) (g) clean (g) (g) (mpy)

CS-61 1.999 0.994 0.124 4.716 31.185 31.18 31.133 1

1 1.1
CS-62 1.984 0.991 0.124 4.67 30.702 30.695 30.641 1.2

CS-65 1.996 0.995 0.125 4.72 31.3 31.281 31.224 1.5

2 1.6
CS-66 1.996 0.993 0.124 4.705 31.316 31.288 31.229 1.7

CS-55 1.993 0.993 0.122 4.687 31.138 31.063 30.934 4.1

3 4.5
CS-56 1.995 0.986 0.122 4.662 30.981 30.872 30.742 4.9

CS-59 1.991 0.991 0.123 4.68 30.559 30.574 30.296 5.3

4 5.3
CS-60 2.001 0.993 0.124 4.716 31.18 31.217 30.912 5.4

CS-57 1.986 0.985 0.123 4.643 30.791 30.777 30.484 6.3

5 6.3
CS-58 1.971 0.988 0.122 4.617 30.519 30.477 30.214 6.3

CS-51 1.997 0.972 0.124 4.618 30.593 30.259 30.241 7.2

6 6.9
CS-52 1.991 0.989 0.124 4.677 30.808 30.499 30.483 6.6

CS-63 1.998 0.993 0.124 4.71 31.135 30.938 30.824 6.2

7 6.2
CS-64 1.997 0.995 0.123 4.71 31.341 31.158 31.036 6.1

CS-69 1.993 0.99 0.121 4.668 30.877 30.622 30.483 8

8 8
CS-70 1.986 0.986 0.121 4.636 30.288 30.052 29.897 8

CS-53 1.986 0.989 0.124 4.666 30.895 30.431 30.411 9.8

9 10.6
CS-54 1.992 0.988 0.123 4.669 30.576 30.039 30.017 11.3

CS-71 1.997 0.987 0.121 4.664 30.784 30.763 30.689 1.9

10 1.8
CS-72 1.997 0.991 0.122 4.687 31.084 31.071 30.999 1.7

CS-67 1.986 0.982 0.123 4.631 30.67 30.623 30.555 2.4

11 2.5
CS-72 1.997 0.991 0.122 4.687 31.084 31.071 30.999 1.7

DOI: 10.4236/eng.2020.1212061 877 Engineering

A. Albiter

Table 8. Localized corrosion rates for X52 steel coupons.

Test No. Specimen Max. Pit Depth (mils) Max. Pit Depth (mm) Corrosion rate (mpy) Observations

CS-61 0.4 0.01 4.795

1 General Corr. Attack on surface
CS-62 0.5 0.013 6.234

CS-65 0.6 0.015 7.193

2 General Corr. Attack on surface
CS-66 1.3 0.033 15.825

CS-55 2 0.051 24.456

3 Loc. Corr. Attack on selective areas
CS-56 1.8 0.046 22.059

CS-59 2.8 0.071 34.047

4 Loc. Corr. Attack on selective areas
CS-60 1.5 0.038 18.222

CS-57 2.8 0.071 34.047

5 General Corr. Attack on surface
CS-58 3.9 0.099 47.474

CS-51 6.5 0.165 79.124

6 Loc. Corr. Attack on selective areas
CS-52 2.8 0.071 34.047

CS-63 3.5 0.089 42.679

7 Loc. Corr. Attack on selective areas
CS-64 3 0.076 36.445

CS-69 11 0.279 133.791

8 Severe pitting attack
CS-70 12.6 0.32 153.452

CS-53 13.4 0.34 163.043

9 Severe pitting attack
CS-54 13.7 0.348 166.879

CS-71 1.4 0.036 17.263

10 Loc. Corr. Attack on selective areas
CS-72 1.7 0.043 20.620

CS-67 0.8 0.02 9.591

11 Loc. Corr. Attack on selective areas
CS-72 3.0 0.076 36.445

a)

CS-60
25mm

b)

CS-51
25mm

c)

CS-54
25mm

Figure 9. Images of X52 steel SSC-FPBB after being exposed to environ-

ment: (a) No. 4 (CS-60), (b) No. 6 (CS-51), and (c) No. 9 (CS-54).

The localized corrosion rate was evaluated according to ASTM G46 [23]. For
this purpose, all the coupons were analyzed through optical microscopy; then
measurements of pitting depth using a micrometer were carried out. Table 8

DOI: 10.4236/eng.2020.1212061 878 Engineering

 A. Albiter

shows the corrosion rate for each specimen.

The surface of the specimens through optical microscopy was analyzed in or-
der to determine localized corrosion (pitting). Figure 10 shows images obtained
by optical microscopy of the pitting corrosion on the surface of CS-60, CS-51
and CS-54 steel coupons. The corrosion-pitting rate was calculated for these
specimens exposed to environment No. 4, No. 6 and No. 9 was 18.22, 79.12 and
166.87 mpy, respectively. The observed severe pitting in these coupons can be
attributed to high H2S and CO2 content at high temperature that make possible
the formation of a non-homogeneous layer of iron sulfides products and iron
carbonates/bicarbonates combinations.
The presence of H2S at low partial pressures can induce the formation of sul-
fides layers reducing the corrosion rate; however, at temperatures above 50˚C,
the films can become unstable with the exposure time giving origin to pitting.

a)

100 μm

b)

100 μm

c)

100 μm

Figure 10. Images of pitting morphology generated on the

surface of X52 steel after being exposed to environment: (a)
No. 4 (CS-60), (b) No. 6 (CS-51), and (c) No. 9 (CS-54).

DOI: 10.4236/eng.2020.1212061 879 Engineering

A. Albiter

As expected, a black scale was observed in all specimen’s surfaces after testing
due to the presence of sulfides. Localized corrosion (pitting) in all specimens of
X52 steel exposed to sour environments was observed. The specimen, CS-54 ex-
posed to environment No. 9 (96 psi H2S and 53 psi CO2 at 150˚C), presented the
deepest pit measured. The pit depth was 0.348 mm (13.7 mils) that corresponds
to a corrosion rate of 4.2 mm/year (167 mpy). It was also observed that HP/HT
environments not only generate the deepest pitting, but also these pits grow in
extension as shown in Figure 10(c).
Comparing the general corrosion rate against localized corrosion rate at high
temperature (150˚C) and high concentrations of H2S and CO2 (96 psi H2S and 53
psi CO2; test 9 from Table 3), the calculated average corrosion rate was 10.6 and
164 mpy, respectively. As expected, the localized corrosion (pitting) rate is high-
er than general corrosion rate.

3.7. Influencing H2S/CO2 Corrosion

The damage caused by H2S occurred in two types, localized corrosion or general
corrosion, which depend upon the type and nature of formed corrosion product.
H2S corrosion has been claimed to be strongly dependent on chloride ion con-
centration with severe damage rate. However, the presence of other corrosive
agents and/or fluid chemistry on the corrosion rate degradation is unknown [24]
[25]. The corrosion reaction often leads to the formation of iron sulfide (FeS)
scales, which under certain conditions are highly protective. However, when
they fracture (i.e. under turbulent flow conditions) can lead to severe localized
corrosion in a similar manner for FeCO3 cracking with CO2 corrosion [26]. The
kinetics and nature of FeS film formation, stabilizes and contribute to reduce
corrosion rate, therefore they are the key for corrosion protection. Similarly, to
CO2 corrosion, the corrosion rate of H2S is affected by: fluid chemistry, organic
acids and fluids flow velocity in addition to the presence of elemental Sulphur. It
has been identified that the ability of H2S to affect acidity is indicated by its io-
nization as follows:
H 2S ↔ H + + HS− (5)

From Equation (5), it can be observed that as the term H+ is removed through
the cathodic reaction of hydrogen reduction, more is formed, leading to the ap-
pearance of hydrogen gas on steels exposed to oxygen and free water containing
H2S as follows:
2H + + 2e → 2H ( atomic hydrogen ) → H 2 ( molecular hydrogen ) (6)

Then, the anion (HS−) dissociates further to S2− and H+. Therefore, the S2− ion
reacts with iron to form the black FeS corrosion product commonly found in
service. H2 may not be present in the bulk solution, but it can be formed locally
within the corrosion layer as a cathodic corrosion product, diffusing from its
electrochemical production at the metal surface to its final dispersion in the bulk
at the outer surface (contact surface).

DOI: 10.4236/eng.2020.1212061 880 Engineering

 A. Albiter

As a general, in CO2 containing environments the presence of H2S can:

• Increase the corrosion risk by either:
 Facilitating localized corrosion, at a higher rate than the general metal loss or
localized rate expected from CO2 corrosion, or:
 Preferentially forming an FeS corrosion product, which is less protective than
an iron carbonate corrosion product.
• Decrease the corrosion risk by promoting the formation of films of FeS
through either:
 Replacing a less protective iron carbonate film, or:
 Forming a combined iron sulfide and iron carbonate protective layers.
It can also be observed that in the presence of both acid gases, the dominant
acid gas governs the corrosion process.
The presence of H2S in CO2 contents, in oil and gas production environments,
has been reviewed by Pots et al. [24]. Who introduced a notion of CO2/H2S ratio
and considered three different corrosion domains, based on the dominance cor-
rosion mechanism affected by the dominating acid gas, as follows:
CO 2 H 2S < 20 (7)

 Corrosion dominated by H2S (FeS as the main corrosion product)

20 < CO 2 H 2S < 500 (8)

 Mixed CO2/H2S corrosion dominance (a mixture of FeS and FeCO3 as the

main corrosion products)
CO 2 H 2S > 500 (9)

 CO2 corrosion dominates (FeCO3 as the main corrosion product).

As expected, according to Equations (7) and (8), the CO2/H2S ratio, results ob-
tained from Table 3, the corrosion damage pattern is the formation of a mixture
of FeS and FeCO3 protective film. The possible formation of a non-homogeneous
layer of combination of iron sulfide products and iron carbonates/bicarbonates
occurred because initially, the pH value can promote a less reactive metal-liquid
interface, and subsequently during exposure to temperature of 150˚C the film of
the corrosion products is weakened, inducing the generation of deep corrosion
pitting along the surface exposed to HP/HT conditions.
In the oil and gas industry, it has been established that for pipelines fabricated
with carbon steels, their limitation is related to H2S and CO2 environments,
which is 7 to 10 psia of partial pressure of CO2, as indicated in Figure 11. There-
fore, in carbon steel, after 7 or 10 psia of partial pressure of CO2, the steel shows
cracks. However, under the conditions of the tests carried out, the oil and gas
industry use carbon steels pipelines in partial pressure higher than 10 psia of
CO2 (Figure 11), considering corrosion rate and the pitting speed values, during
a determined life service, the pipelines are replaced by new carbon steel pipe-
lines.
The operational parameters affecting CO2-H2S corrosion rate:

DOI: 10.4236/eng.2020.1212061 881 Engineering

A. Albiter

100

CS CS

H2S partial pressure (Psia)

No Craking Craking

0.05

0
7 or 10 100

CO2 partial pressure (Psia)

Figure 11. Cracking limits for carbon steel pipelines as function par-
tial pressure of H2S and CO2.

• CO2/H2S ratio.
• Temperature.
• Fluid Chemistry (water chemistry, pH, organic acids, water cut, oil wettabili-
ty, phase ratios, etc.).
• The hydrocarbon phase.
• Flow characteristics and fluid velocity.
• Steel surface.
• Corrosion products, such as: scales, wax and asphaltenes.
• Steel chemistry.

4. Conclusions
According to the results obtained from the qualification tests of X52 steel to be
used in fields at high pressure and high temperature we can draw the following
conclusions:
• The oil and gas industry could use carbon steels pipelines in partial pressure
higher than 10 psia of CO2. X52 steel is not susceptible to HIC or SSC phe-
nomenon at the studied conditions; however, the values of the corrosion rate
are considered moderate, but under conditions of hydrodynamic flow regime
they can be greatly increased.
• In the combined environment of CO2 and H2S, there is a competitive interac-
tion between FeCO3 and FeS corrosion products leading to cracking and/or
rupture of protecion layers, resulting in progressive localized corrosion.
• Vickers hardness measurements were made on the welded joints of X52 steel
obtaining the maximum hardness in the weld beads (216 HV) which meets
the requirements established in NACE MR 0175/ISO 15156 (maximum 248
HV).

DOI: 10.4236/eng.2020.1212061 882 Engineering

 A. Albiter

• Tensile tests were performed according to ASTM E21 for each test tempera-
ture in order to characterize the steel before performing the SSC. The average
yielding stress (AYS) used in SSC tests by Four Point Bend Beam technique
decreases as temperature of the test increases.
• The results of HIC tests, performed according to NACE TM 284, showed that
welding joints did not exhibit cracks, except for specimen CS-5 obtained
from the base metal at 90 degrees from the longitudinal weld. However, the
obtained values did not exceed the criteria established in NACE TM 0284.
• Results of SSC did not show indications of cracking after the exposure to
sour solutions, except specimen CS-13, which was exposed to solution B sa-
turated with 96 psi of H2S and 53 psi of CO2 at 150˚C. This sample showed
subsurface cracks after metallographic examination, located between the up-
per and lower weld bead, and some of them seem to have their origin from a
welding defect.
• The highest average value for general corrosion rate was 0.27 mm/year (10.6
mpy) corresponding to CS-53 and CS-54 coupons exposed to the testing
conditions of 96 psi H2S and 53 psi CO2 at 150˚C. These values can be consi-
dered conservatively because the tests were performed under static condi-
tions.
• Localized corrosion (pitting) in all specimens of X52 steel exposed to the sour
environments was observed. Specimen CS-54 exposed to environment No. 9
(96 psi H2S and 53 psi CO2 at 150˚C) presented the deepest pit measured
0.348 mm (13.7 mils) that correspond to a corrosion rate of 4.2 mm/year
(167 mpy).
• Comparing the general corrosion rate with localized corrosion rate at high
temperature (150˚C) and high concentrations of H2S and CO2 (96 psi H2S
and 53 psi CO2), the calculated average corrosion rate was 10.6 and 164 mpy,
respectively. As expected, the localized corrosion (pitting) rate is higher than
general corrosion rate.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thanks Dr. Pedro Hernandez and Dr. Antonio Contre-
ras for the technical support during experimental tests. The financial support
received from Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo through the project manager Li-
borio Garcia and Eduardo Antonio Castillejos is gratefully acknowledged.

Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this pa-
per.

References
[1] de Assis, K.S., Schuabb, C.G.C., Lage, M.A., Gonçalves, M.P.P., Dias, D.P. and Mat-
tos, O.R. (2019) Slow Strain Rate Tests Coupled with Hydrogen Permeation: New
Possibilities to Assess the Role of Hydrogen in Stress Corrosion Cracking Tests Part

DOI: 10.4236/eng.2020.1212061 883 Engineering

A. Albiter

I: Methodology and Commissioning Results. Corrosion Science, 152, 45-53.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2019.02.028
[2] Zvirko, O., Gabetta, G., Tsyrulnyk, O. and Kret, N. (2019) Assessment of In-Service
Degradation of Gas Pipeline Steel Taking into Account Susceptibility to Stress Cor-
rosion Cracking. Procedia Structural Integrity, 16, 121-125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2019.07.030
[3] Nykyforchyn, H., Krechkovska, H., Student, O. and Zvirko, O. (2019) Feature of
Stress Corrosion Cracking of Degraded Gas Pipeline Steels. Procedia Structural In-
tegrity, 16, 153-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2019.07.035
[4] Roccisano, A., Nafisi, S. and Ghomashchi, R. (2020) Stress Corrosion Cracking Ob-
served in Ex-Service Gas Pipelines: A Comprehensive Study. Metallurgical and Ma-
terials Transactions A, 51, 167-188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-019-05496-3
[5] Wang, Q., Sun, Y., Shi, G., Meng, K., Wang, Q. and Zhang, F. (2020) Effect of Nio-
bium on Sulfide Stress Cracking Behavior of Tempered Martensitic Steel. Corrosion
Science, 165, Article ID: 108387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2019.108387
[6] Rahimi, S. and Marrow, T.J. (2020) A New Method for Predicting Susceptibility of
Austenitic Stainless Steels to Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking. Materials &
Design, 187, Article ID: 108368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108368
[7] Gong, K., Wu, M. and Liu, G. (2020) Stress Corrosion Cracking Behavior of Rusted
X100 Steel under the Combined Action of Cl− and HSO3− in a Wet-Dry Cycle En-
vironment. Corrosion Science, 165, Article ID: 108382.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2019.108382
[8] Saleem, B., Ahmed, F., Rafiq, M.A., Ajmal, M. and Ali, L. (2014) Stress Corrosion
Failure of an X52 Grade Gas Pipeline. Engineering Failure Analysis, 46, 157-165.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2014.08.011
[9] Fang, B.Y., Eadie, R.L., Chen, W.X. and Elboujdaini, M. (2010) Pit to Crack Transi-
tion in X-52 Pipeline Steel in Near Neutral pH Environment Part 1—Formation of
Blunt Cracks from Pits under Cyclic Loading. Corrosion Engineering, Science and
Technology, 45, 302-312. https://doi.org/10.1179/147842208X386304
[10] Pessu, F., Barker, R. and Neville, A. (2017) Pitting and Uniform Corrosion of X65
Carbon Steel in Sour Corrosion Environments: The Influence of CO2, H2S, and Tem-
perature. CORROSION, 73, 1168-1183. https://doi.org/10.5006/2454
[11] Shoesmith, D.W., Taylor, P., Bailey, M.G. and Ikeda, B. (1978) Electrochemical Be-
haviour of Iron in Alkaline Sulphide Solutions. Electrochimica Acta, 23, 903-916.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4686(78)87014-5
[12] Henriques, C.C.D., Joia, C.-J.B., Guedes, F. and Baptista, I.P. (2012) Material Selec-
tion for Brazilian Presalt Fields. 2012 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
30 April-3 May 2012, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.4043/23320-MS
[13] Henriques, C.C.D., Joia, C.-J.B., Guedes, F. and Baptista, I.P. (2012) Materials De-
sign Strategy: Effects of H2S/CO2 Corrosion on Materials Selection. 2012 Offshore
Technology Conference, San Diego, CA, USA, 12-16 March 2012, 1-18.
https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/NACE-06121
[14] National Association of Corrosion Engineers (2015) Petroleum and Natural Gas
Industries—Materials for Use in H2S-Containing Environments in Oil and Gas
Production. ANSI/NACE MR0175/ISO 15156, Houston, USA.
[15] American Society for Testing and Materials (2017) Standard Test Methods for Ele-
vated Temperature Tension Tests of Metallic Materials. ASTM E21, West Consho-
hocken, PA, USA.
https://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/HISTORICAL/E21-17.htm

DOI: 10.4236/eng.2020.1212061 884 Engineering

 A. Albiter

[16] American Society for Testing and Materials (2016) Standard Test Methods for Ten-
sion Testing of Metallic Materials. ASTM E8, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
https://www.astm.org/Standards/E8.htm
[17] American National Standards Institute and National Association of Corrosion En-
gineers (2011) Standard Test Evaluation of Pipeline and Pressure Vessel Steels for
Resistance to Hydrogen-Induced Cracking. ANSI/NACE TM0284, 20.
https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/standard-test-method-evaluation-pipeline-pr
essure-vessel-steels-resistance-hydrogeninduced-cracking-1/
[18] National Association of Corrosion Engineers (2016) TM0177-2016-SG, Laboratory
Testing of Metals for Resistance to Sulfide Stress Cracking and Stress Corrosion
Cracking in H2S Environment. National Association of Corrosion Engineers, Hou-
ston.
[19] European Federation of Corrosion (2013) Guidelines on Material Requirements for
Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for H2S-Containing Environments in Oil and Gas
Production. Publication No. 16.
https://es.scribd.com/doc/142021712/EFC-16-Guidelines-on-Materials-Requiremen
ts-for-Carbon-and-Low-Alloy-Steels-for-H2S-Containing-Environments-in-Oil-and
-Gas-Production-pdf
[20] American Society for Testing and Materials (2014) Standard Test Method for Hy-
drophobic Surface Films by the Atomizer Test. ASTM F21-20.
https://www.astm.org/search/fullsite-search.html?query=F21&
[21] American Society for Testing and Materials (2018) Standard Guide for Corrosion
Tests in High Temperature or High Pressure Environment, or Both. ASTM G111-97.
https://www.astm.org/search/fullsite-search.html?query=G111&
[22] American Society for Testing and Materials (2017) Standard Practice for Preparing,
Cleaning, and Evaluating Corrosion Test Specimens. ASTM G1-03.
https://www.astm.org/search/fullsite-search.html?query=G1&
[23] American Society for Testing and Materials (2018) Standard Guide for Examination
and Evaluation of Pitting Corrosion. ASTM G46-94.
https://www.astm.org/Standards/G46
[24] Pots, B.F.M., Kapusta, S.D., John, R.C., Simon Thomas, M.J.J., Rippon, I.J., Whi-
tham, T.S. and Girgis, M. (2002) Improvements on de Waard-Milliams Corrosion
Prediction and Applications to Corrosion Management. National Association of
Corrosion Engineers, Denver, USA
[25] Bich, K. and Goerz N.N. (1996) Caroline Pipeline Failure: Findings on Corrosion
Mechanisms in Wet Sour Gas Systems Containing Significant CO2. National Asso-
ciation of Corrosion Engineers Annual Corrosion Conference and Exposition: Wa-
ter and Waste Water Industries, Denver, 24-29 March 1996, 1-14.
[26] Kermani, M.B. and Morshed, A. (2003) Carbon Dioxide Corrosion in Oil and Gas
Production—A Compendium. CORROSION, 59, 659-683.
https://doi.org/10.5006/1.3277596

DOI: 10.4236/eng.2020.1212061 885 Engineering