Rapport PFE C.G Et F.M

Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche Scientifique
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Université de Monastir
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Monastir
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Année Universitaire : 2014/2015
MEMOIRE
DE
PROJET DE FIN D’ETUDES

PRESENTE POUR OBTENIR LE
DIPLÔME NATIONAL
D’INGENIEUR
Spécialité : GENIE Mécanique
Par
Mohamed Fedi MANSOURI Chiheb GOUTA
Né le : 21/05/1991 à Tunis Né le : 29/07/1991 à Sousse
Material Selection for Oil & Gas Plants
Soutenu le 12/09/2015 ; devant le jury d’examen:

M. Tarak BOURAOUI Président
Mme. Asma BEL HADJ Membre
M. Salah MEZLINI Encadrant
M. Halim KAZDAR Invité
N° : 5297
N° : 5198
Dedication
To an iron mother, you are the love, the beauty and the inspiration
To my father, my first master, my dear brothers and family
To my adorable sisters and their admirable family I had the chance to be part of
To my friends, my companions of sweet and hard moments, my supporters of life
Thank you for being with me…
M.F.M
Dedication
I dedicate this work to my Beloved Parents for all their love & attention which has
made it possible for me to make it up to this point.
I dedicate also this work to my Beloved Brothers for all their love and assistance
I would express my sincere gratitude for all my friends and my colleagues for their
help and collaboration during my university cursus.
I would express my sincere gratitude for all my professors at ENIM for their efforts
and their academic assistance during my years of study at ENIM.
C.G
Acknowledgment
This project wouldn’t have been possible without the primordial assistance and
supervision of those who dedicated such amount of time to guide, to form, and
to carve us into the shape that would make us good assets in our work.
We would like to express our deepest gratitude for our academic supervisor
Mr. Salah MEZLINI for his rich and wise advices, availability and his wide scientific
background.
Special thanks to Mr. Halim KAZDAR for his huge scientific contribution, his
precious advices, his warm encouragement and time dedication throughout the
duration of the project.
Gratitude for AEI Team for its precious help and collaboration during this project.
We would like to express also our deepest gratitude for Mr. Tarak BOURAOUI and
Ms. Asma BEL HADJ for their acceptance to judge and evaluate our work.
Index Page(i)
Table of Contents
General Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Company Presentation ................................................................................................................................................ 2
Chapter 1: Corrosion in Oil and Gas Overview ............................................................................................... 4
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 4
1.2 Corrosion in Petroleum Industry ........................................................................................................................ 4
1.3 Wet CO2 Corrosion .................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Wet H2S Corrosion ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
1.5 Corrosion Inspection Technics .......................................................................................................................... 10
1.6 Corrosion Inhibitors ............................................................................................................................................... 11
1.7 Glycol[15] ....................................................................................................................................................................... 12
1.8 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................. 12
Chapter 2: CO2 Corrosion Prediction Models ................................................................................................ 13
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.2 Overview of Corrosion Prediction Models .................................................................................................... 13
2.3 De Waard 91 Model ................................................................................................................................................ 13
2.3.1 Inputs of De Waard 1991 Model .............................................................................................. 14
2.3.2 Inputs Ranges Of De Waard 1991 Model ................................................................................ 16
2.3.3 Predicted Corrosion Rate / Result ............................................................................................ 16
2.4 De Waard 95 Model ................................................................................................................................................ 17
2.4.1 Initial inputs of De Waard 1995 model .................................................................................... 17
2.4.2 Input ranges of De Waard 1995 model..................................................................................... 18
2.4.3 Predicted Corrosion Rate of De Waard 1995 Model................................................................ 18
2.5 Cassandra Model (BP) ........................................................................................................................................... 19
2.5.1 Initial Inputs of Cassandra Model ............................................................................................ 19
2.5.2 Inputs Validity Ranges of Cassandra Model ............................................................................ 20
2.5.3 Outputs of Cassandra model ..................................................................................................... 20
2.6 NORSOK M-506 Model .......................................................................................................................................... 20
2.6.1 Input Parameters ....................................................................................................................... 21
2.6.2 Effect of Glycol And Inhibitors: .............................................................................................. 22
2.6.3 Inputs Validity Rages Of NORSOK M-506 Model ................................................................. 22
2.6.4 Outputs of NORSOK M-506 Corrosion Prediction Model ...................................................... 22
2.7 Conclusion: ................................................................................................................................................................. 23
Chapter 3: Corrosion Prediction Models Description .............................................................................. 24
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 24
3.2 Effect of Temperature ............................................................................................................................................ 24
3.3 Effect of Pressure ..................................................................................................................................................... 25
3.4 Effect of CO2 Level / Effect Of pH ....................................................................................................................... 25
ENIM, PFE 2015 Mechanical Engineering Department - AEI

Index Page(ii)
3.5 Effect of Liquid Velocity ........................................................................................................................................ 27

3.6 Effect of Watercut: ................................................................................................................................................... 28
3.7 Effect of The Internal Parameter ....................................................................................................................... 29
3.8 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................. 30
Chapter 4: Corrosion Rate Calculation Tool .................................................................................................. 31
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 31
4.2 Corrosion Rate Calculation Tool ........................................................................................................................ 31
4.2.1 Main Menu ............................................................................................................................... 31
4.2.2 Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 32
4.2.3 Calculation Code ...................................................................................................................... 33
4.2.4 Wall Shear Stress Calculation .................................................................................................. 34
4.2.5 pH Calculation.......................................................................................................................... 35
4.2.6 Results Generator ..................................................................................................................... 35
4.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................. 38
Chapter 5: Materials Selection Work Instruction ....................................................................................... 39
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 39
5.2 What Is a Work Instruction ? .............................................................................................................................. 39
5.3 Equipment Materials Selection Work Instruction ..................................................................................... 39
5.3.1 Reference Documents............................................................................................................... 39
5.3.2 Flow chart ................................................................................................................................. 39
5.3.3 Work Instruction Steps ............................................................................................................. 40
5.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................. 42
Chapter 6: Case Study of an Amine Unit ........................................................................................................... 43
6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 43
6.2 Choice of The Real World Case ........................................................................................................................... 43
6.3 Overview of Amine Units ...................................................................................................................................... 43
6.3.1 Principle ................................................................................................................................... 43
6.3.2 Alkanolamines .......................................................................................................................... 43
6.3.3 Process Description Of The Amine Unit[21].............................................................................. 44
6.4 Materials Selection for Amine Units ................................................................................................................ 45
6.5 CO2 Capture Unit: Piping Materials and Size Selection ............................................................................. 46
6.5.1 Materials Characteristics .......................................................................................................... 48
6.5.2 Resistance to Corrosion ............................................................................................................ 48
6.5.3 Resistance to Cracking ............................................................................................................. 51
6.6 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................. 51
General Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................... 53
References ........................................................................................................................................................................ 54
Appendixes ...................................................................................................................................................................... 55

Index Page(iii)
List of Figures
Figure 1: AEI logo ................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: General corrosion ..................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3: Pitting ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 4: Mesa attack .............................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 5: Flow-induced corrosion ........................................................................................................... 6
Figure 6: Extensive hydrogen blistering on the surface of a steel ........................................................... 8
Figure 7: Stepwise HIC in a carbon steel specimen ................................................................................ 9
Figure 8: SOHIC ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 9: SSC .......................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 10: The principal of radiography ............................................................................................... 10
Figure 11: Corrosion coupons samples ................................................................................................. 11
Figure 12: Effect of the protective film ................................................................................................. 15
Figure 13: Effect of pH ......................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 14: Nomogram of De Waard's 91' .............................................................................................. 17
Figure 15: Effect of high temperature protective films on Cassandra .................................................. 19
Figure 16: Effect of temperature ........................................................................................................... 24
Figure 17: Effect of pressure ................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 18: Effect of CO2 partial pressure on pH ................................................................................... 26
Figure 19: Effect of pH ......................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 20: Effect of CO2 level in the gas phase .................................................................................... 27
Figure 21: Effect of liquid velocity ....................................................................................................... 28
Figure 22: Effect of watercut................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 23: Effect of inside diameter ...................................................................................................... 30
Figure 24: Main menu ........................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 25: Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 32
Figure 26: Calculation code .................................................................................................................. 33
Figure 27: Wall shear stress calculation module window ..................................................................... 34
Figure 28: pH calculation module window ........................................................................................... 35
Figure 29: CRs calculation example ..................................................................................................... 36
Figure 30: Generate results window ...................................................................................................... 36
Figure 31: Generated file of the studied example ................................................................................. 37
Figure 32: Material selection flow chart ............................................................................................... 40
Figure 33: Schematic drawing of physical solvent process equipment ................................................. 44
Figure 34: Amine absorber example ..................................................................................................... 45

Index Page(iv)
List of Tables
Table 1: Contact information of AEI ...................................................................................................... 2
Table 2: Main activities of AEI ............................................................................................................... 2
Table 3: Inhibitors efficiencies for some alloys at room temperature ................................................... 11
Table 4: Validity ranges of De Waard's 91 inputs ................................................................................. 16
Table 5: Input parameters of the De Waard 1995 model ...................................................................... 17
Table 6: Ranges of inputs of the De Waard 1995corrosion prediction model ...................................... 18
Table 7: Initial inputs of the Cassandra model ...................................................................................... 19
Table 8: Ranges of inputs of Cassandra model ..................................................................................... 20
Table 9: Constant Kt .............................................................................................................................. 21
Table 10: f(pH) function........................................................................................................................ 22
Table 11: Validity ranges of NORSOK M-506 inputs .......................................................................... 22
Table 12: Fixed parameters for the variation of temperature ................................................................ 24
Table 13: Fixed parameters for the variation of total pressure .............................................................. 25
Table 14: Fixed parameters for the variation of CO2 level / pH............................................................ 26
Table 15: Fixed parameters for the variation of liquid velocity ............................................................ 27
Table 16: Fixed parameters for the variation of watercut ..................................................................... 28
Table 17: Fixed parameters for the inside diameter variation ............................................................... 29
Table 18: Recommendations menu ....................................................................................................... 32
Table 19: Calculation code window data .............................................................................................. 34
Table 20: Sources of input parameters of the calculation note.............................................................. 41
Table 21: Sources of input parameters for the pH calculation module ................................................. 41
Table 22: Sources of input parameters for wall shear stress calculation module .................................. 42
Table 23: Corrosion severity levels ....................................................................................................... 42
Table 24: Feed gas composition of the amine unit ................................................................................ 46
Table 25: Chemical composition of selected materials ......................................................................... 48
Table 26: Mechanical properties of selected materials ......................................................................... 48

General Introduction Page(1)

Oil and gas plants consist a wide variety of equipment that treat, transport and storage products.
Selection of materials and sizing of these equipment are certainly made to resist to mechanical and
thermal stresses but it takes into consideration corrosion too.
Corrosion is an important selection criteria. The cost of failures associated to this phenomenon is high.
It is thus a very important task to make a relevant and cost effective selection of materials that resist to
corrosion.
This project deals first with oil and gas field corrosion phenomena: mechanisms behind it, remedies and
inspection. Then it treats some models to predict CO2 corrosion potential: input parameters and
equations approaches to expect the corrosion rate.
A whole description of these prediction models and their variation in function of the input parameters
is made too to enable designing a Windows Visual Basic Application that calculates the corrosion
potential using the four different models. Guidelines helping users to make an adequate selection of
materials is set afterwards.
Finally, a real world case is treated following the set guidelines to see if the selection method using the
established calculation note gives valid results or not.

Company Presentation Page(2)
Company Presentation
Founded in 2004 by Mr. Mohamed ELLEJMI, ALPHA ENGINEERING International (AEI) is an
Figure 1 shows the logo of AEI.
Figure 1: AEI logo
Contact information of AEI are listed in the table below:
Company name ALPHA ENGINEERING International (AEI)

Address Sahloul III - 4054 - Sousse Tunisia
Phone (00216) 73 82 12 45
Fax (00216) 73 82 12 49
Email contact@alpha-engineering.com.tn
Website www.alpha-engineering.com.tn
Table 1: Contact information of AEI
Working on the quality of its services, the safety and the continuous improvement, AEI is certified ISO
9001 since 2008. It is specialized in the following activities:
Activity Details
Pre-feasibility and feasibility studies
Plant and facilities engineering
Project management & cost control
Process variation and assessment
Process engineering
Wells engineering
Petroleum engineering
Pipeline hydraulic and mechanical design, and stress analysis
Pipeline engineering
Gas turbine based generation plants
Power generation and cogeneration
Steam turbine based
Automation solutions (PLC, DCS)
Automation, instrumentation and process control:
Pollution variation
Environmental engineering:
Refining processes troubleshooting
Troubleshooting
Petroleum engineering
Training
Field Construction Support -
Field Operating Support -
Consulting -
Table 2: Main activities of AEI

Company Presentation Page(3)
is a team composed of multidisciplinary agents

specialized in the following fields:
Process engineering
Mechanical engineering (piping & vessels)
Rotating machinery engineering
Electrical engineering
Control & instrumentation engineering
Structure engineering
Civil engineering
Corrosion engineering
HVAC engineering
HSE engineering.

Chapter 1 : Corrosion in Oil and Gas Overview Page(4)

1.1 Introduction
Corrosion is one of the most important issues encountered in oil and gas field. Mechanisms behind
these phenomena, consequences, inspection and remedies are discussed in this chapter.
1.2 Corrosion in Petroleum Industry

Corrosion is the chemical or electrochemical reaction between a material, usually a metal, and its
environment that produces a deterioration of the material and its properties [1].
It is one of the major encountered problems in oil and gas industry. In 2008, the cost of corrosion was
about 3.7% of the total cost of corrosion. 35 billion dollars/year is the average cost of corrosion
cons
between 0.3 and 0.6 dollar/barrel, without counting the unpredictable events such as equipment failures
and leaks. The analysis of such a phenomenon and its comprehension are thus essential to make an
optimum material selection and reliable processing operations [2].
Corrosion of ferrous materials occurs in aqueous acid environments by the electrochemical mechanism
described below[2]:
The anodic half-reaction is iron oxidation to ferrous ion:
(1.1)
The cathodic half-reaction is hydrogen ion reduction to hydrogen:
(1.2)
The net reaction is the sum:
(1.3)
Extraction, storage, treatment and transportation of oil and gas exposes the operating equipment (tanks,
Gas phase contains often CO2 with more or less high level. However, H2S is not always encountered.
Those acid gases dissolve in the water phase to create a very corrosive environment. The water itself
may contain species such as chlorides and bacterial that affect or induce corrosion.
More developed descriptions of corrosion in aqueous CO2, H2S environments and water content effects
are as follows.
1.3 Wet CO2 Corrosion

Carbon steel (the material the most used in oil and gas industry) and low alloy steels are subject to
corrosion when they are exposed to aqueous CO2 environments. CO2 dissolution in water forms the
carbonic acid (weak), which reacts with iron to form an iron carbonate scale, slightly soluble so not very
protective. Corrosion in such an environment is thus decreased. Several other parameters affect
corrosion and they may sometimes be synergistic. Corrosion in wet CO2 environments mechanism can
be explained by the chemical reactions below [2]:

Carbonic acid formation:
(1.4)
1st dissociation of carbonic acid:
(1.5)
2nd dissociation:
(1.6)
Iron bicarbonate formation:
(1.7)
Iron carbonate formation:
(1.8)
Reduction of the proton:
(1.9)
By conclusion we have:
(1.10)
Corrosion in wet CO2 environments appears differently from an area to another, depending on several
parameters such as flowing, turbulence and temperature. It can be general or localized (pitting, mesa-
type attack and flow-induced localized corrosion).
General corrosion: appears as a material loss at the metal/liquid interface and induces the
protective layer formation. Figure 2 shows the corroded internals throughout the pipe and the
material consumption is not perfectly general (depends on other parameters such as the
mechanical properties of the pipe).
Figure 2: General corrosion[3]

Pitting: pits occur for low fluid velocities and around the dew point temperature of water. Figure
3 shows a high number of pits caused by CO2 corrosion, the rest of the specie is intact.
Figure 3: Pitting[4]
Mesa-type attack: encountered in low to medium flow conditions, and when the formation of
the protective layer is unstable to withstand the operating conditions. Mesa sites are shown in
figure 4, they are larger and deeper than the pits.
Figure 4: Mesa attack[5]
Flow-induced localized corrosion: starting from pits and/or mesa attack sites, and above critical
flow intensities, protective layers are destroyed and their reformation is almost impossible. Figure
5 indicates a leak in a pipeline caused by severe corrosion conditions that gave a flow induced
localized corrosion.
Figure 5: Flow-induced corrosion[5]
CO2 corrosion, as mentioned before, depends on many factors, which are the environmental and
metallurgical properties. The most important are[6]:
Water chemistry: It may contain acidic or alkaline elements, organic acids... Acid contents
increase acidity and thus corrosion and alkaline ones decrease it. In addition, saturation with
ferrous ions or carbonate makes the protective layer more stable and thus decreases the rate of
corrosion.

Watercut: It is the water content of crude oil. Corrosion does not appear if there is no free water
in the fluid. Therefore, watercut must be at a certain level to cause corrosion (depending on
velocities).
CO2 partial pressure: The higher the partial pressure, the lower the pH and then the corrosion
rate increases. If H2S and/or chlorides are present, they might be taken into consideration to
calculate pH.
Temperature: It catalyzes the reaction when it increases. It makes the protective layer more
stable too at a certain temperature (about 70°C). This happens because the precipitation rate is
faster and the iron carbonate film is less soluble.
Metal/environment interface: The metal interface exposed to wet CO2 is not perfect. It may
contain defects or areas under residual stresses. These make the dissociation of ferrous ions easier
and corrosion rate is thus higher.
Finally, corrosion of carbon and low alloy steels in aqueous CO2 environments is a complicated
phenomenon. This is caused by the variety of its affecting parameters and by their dependency. Since
the parameters and their synergy on corrosion. In fact, companies and laboratories set several prediction
models, trying to quantify the corrosion rate of carbon and low alloy steels exposed to wet CO2 in mm/y.
Some of these models will be discussed in chapter 2.
1.4 Wet H2S Corrosion

Wet H2S corrosion of carbon steel represents a significant problem for oil and gas industry. It occurs
in all carbon and low alloy steels in the presence of H2S dissolved in the water phase. H2S is a very
corrosive contaminant that induces general and pitting corrosion and corrosion cracking. In refineries
and petrochemical industry, the consequences of corrosion are so important that a whole strategy must
be settled to monitor correctly this issue.
From the mechanism point of view, wet H2S corrosion is similar to that of wet CO2. However, corrosion
induced by sulfuric acid generates hydrogen atoms, which cause cracking failures of carbon steel. It is
governed by the following equations[2]:
1st acid dissociation :
(1.11)
2nd acid dissociation :
(1.12)
Iron oxidation :
(1.13)
Proton reduction :
(1.14)
Iron sulfide formation :
(1.15)

The most important feature of the wet H2S corrosion is its inhibitive characteristic. Species generated
by the corrosion mechanism ( react together to form the iron sulfide layer (more protective
than iron carbonate layer), which sticks on the substrate surface and protects it against general corrosion.
Generally, H2 ear)[2]. Having a corrosion allowance

for carbon and low alloy steels is always recommended in H2S environment.
Several parameters affect H2S corrosion. The most important are pH, H2S concentration and temperature
and their variation can affect enormously the corrosion rate. More detailed descriptions are as follows[7].
pH: The in situ pH of the solution determines the protectiveness of the generated scales.
At low pHs (below 2), the iron sulfide is highly soluble and results in a non-protective corrosion
that the iron ion oxidized from the steel is dissolved in the solution without playing any role in
the formation of the film protecting the substrate. However, for a higher pH (from 3 to 5), the
inhibitive character of the wet H2S corrosion is developed due to formation of the iron sulfide
film in the surface of the carbon steel.
H2S concentration: It has a very important role in governing the protectiveness of the corrosion
by affecting the iron film structure. Even for pH between 3 and 5, if the H2S concentration
increases, the protective film is loose and do not protect the surface from corrosion.
Temperature: The effect of the temperature on the wet H2S corrosion is negligible as this type
of corrosion is assessed by the protectiveness of the protective film, which is not affected by the
variation of the temperature.
As mentioned before, and in addition to corrosion, carbon and low alloy steels exposed to wet H2S
environments are subject to cracking. Cracking damages, due to the atomic hydrogen generated by the
equation above, are hydrogen blistering, hydrogen induced cracking, stress oriented hydrogen induced
cracking and sulfide stress cracking. More analysis of these damages is as follows.
Hydrogen blistering: Blisters may form as surface bulges on the inner diameter, outer diameter
or within the wall thickness of a pipe or pressure vessel. Hydrogen atoms diffuse first on the steel
and collect at discontinuities such as inclusions or laminations. Then they combine to form
hydrogen molecules, which are too large to diffuse out, and the pressure builds to the point where
deformation occurs and form a blister. Figure 6 shows formed blisters on the surface of a metal.[8]
Figure 6: Extensive hydrogen blistering on the surface of a steel[8]

Hydrogen induced cracking (HIC): Hydrogen blisters may form at different depths. Sometimes,
blisters at slight different depths may develop cracks that link them together. They are called
Figure 7 shows some of the stepwise
cracking[8].
Figure 7: Stepwise HIC in a carbon steel specimen[8]
Stress oriented hydrogen induced cracking (SOHIC): It has the same mechanism as HIC but
it is a potentially more damaging form of cracking. It appears as arrays of cracking stacked on top
of each other. It is usually found in high localized tensile strength areas, and may be caused by
defects including H2S stress cracks or other cracks. Figure 8 shows an expanded SOHIC[8].
Figure 8: SOHIC[8]
Sulfide stress cracking (SSC): SSC is a metal cracking caused by tensile stresses (either applied
or residual) and sulfide corrosion process. It is a form of hydrogen stress cracking resulting from
absorption of hydrogen atoms. SSC can initiate in highly localized zones of hardness such as weld
metal, heat affected zones (HAZ) Figure 9 shows a SSC in a hardened HAZ
of a weld[8].
Figure 9: SSC[8]
As described above, wet H2S damage mechanisms depend on several parameters such as
environmental conditions (pH, H2S level and es (hardness, strength
and d tensile stress level (applied and residual).

1.5 Corrosion Inspection Technics

There are several technics used to detect corrosion in oil and gas industry. In order to prevent the
dangerous effects of corrosion or to take the adequate decisions to deal with an equipment situation in
a corrosive environment, it is necessary to introduce some of these technics.
Several technics are used in oil and gas industry to quantify corrosion, and they are[9]:
Visual Inspection: Visual inspection is the simplest form of inspection that can be performed
without any aid when there is physical access to the equipment. An experiment inspector can
detect the type of corrosion as it is general, pitting and
Radiography: Radiography makes use of the penetrating quality of short wave electromagnetic
beams, which may be X-rays generated by X-ray equipment or gamma-ray from radioactive
isotopes. When the beams passes through a test specimen, some energy is absorbed in the
material. The thicker the material , the larger the amount of energy is absorbed.
The principals of radiography are explained in Figure 10. The beam from X-ray equipment or
isotope penetrates a piece of metal, and the amount of the beam is attenuated depending on the
thickness of the material, and hence the intensity of the transmitted beam varies with position. A
photographic film at the back side of the specimen will, after development, be dark behind the
thin parts where the transmitted beam intensity was huge, and light behind the thick parts of the
specimen where the intensity was low, i.e. pits and thinning of the material will be visible as dark
areas on the film.
Figure 10: The principal of radiography[9]
Corrosion Coupons: Corrosion coupons are pieces of metal that are available in varying shapes,
sizes and materials. They are made out of the same chemical composition as the equipment to be
monitored. Corrosion coupons are exposed to a corrosive solution similar to that in process
facilities for a specified period of time, and can give visual signs of the corrosion rate and type.
To calculate exactly the corrosion rate, corrosion coupon is polished, then the weight is measured
before and after the test to determine the quantity of the metal loss [10]. Figure 11 shows 3 corrosion
coupons before and after being exposed to a corrosive environment.

Figure 11: Corrosion coupons samples [11]
1.6 Corrosion Inhibitors

One of the most relevant solutions to counter corrosion in pipelines and pipes is corrosion inhibitors
use. They are chemical substances injected in the corrosive environment in order to decrease its effect.
Inhibitors are substances or mixtures that at low concentrations and in aggressive environments inhibit,
prevent or minimize the corrosion. The mechanism can be one or more of the following:
Adsorption on the metallic surface and formation of a protective film with inhibitors effect or by
combination between their ions and the metallic surface.
Protection by formation of oxidization of the base metal.
Reaction with the corrosive environment to decrease its corrosivity.
Corrosion inhibitors are used in the oil and gas industry to reduce the corrosive effect of CO2, H2S and
organic acids enabling the use of cheaper materials. Whether it is inorganic or organic (for ecological
[12]
:
(1.16)
With:
E%
CRu is the uninhibited corrosion rate.
CRi is the inhibited corrosion rate.
Some inhibitors efficiencies (lab data) are detailed in the following table:
Alloy Environmental pH Inhibitor Concentration Efficiency

Al 3% NaCl 6.3 Laurus nobilis L. oil 50 ppm 89.9 %
Steel 0.5 M H2SO4 - Polyacrylamide grafted Okra mucilage (O-g-PAM) 100 ppm 94.4 %
Cu 1 M HCl - Cysteine 18 mM 84.13%
Table 3: Inhibitors efficiencies for some alloys at room temperature[13]
The second approach in using inhibitors is the parameter that returns the probability of having an
inhibitor injected in an equipment at the correct dosage. This is affected by delivery issues, pump
problem
percentage of the time when the inhibitor is at the correct dose from the lifetime of the equipment. The
final corrosion rate will be[14]:

(1.17)
Where:
CR is the more accurate corrosion rate (after the availability introduction)
CRi, CRu are the inhibited and the uninhibited corrosion rate
A is the availability of the inhibitor.
1.7 Glycol[15]
Another way of corrosion mitigation is the use of glycol. It is a series of alcohols with the general
formula C2nH4n+2On+1. The most used are mono-ethylene glycol (MEG) and di-ethylene glycol (DEG)
but there is tri-ethylene glycol (TEG) too. It is added to wet gas pipelines to act on corrosion by two
ways: it reduces the corrosivity of the water phase it mixes with and absorbs water from the gas phase.
The drying effect of this substance is that it lowers the water dew point of the gas (i.e. no water phase
under the new dew point temperature that is below the one before).
The effect of glycol in water is obtained as follows:
(1.18)
1.8 Conclusion
Corrosion in oil and gas industry is a very complicated issue. Nevertheless, it must be understood to
know how to deal with it. Prediction of corrosion caused by wet CO2 is one of the pertinent solutions
enabling the prediction of corrosion potential in order to take the adequate decisions towards the process
or the materials. CO2 prediction models are discussed in the next chapter.

Chapter 2: CO2 Corrosion Prediction Models Page(13)

2.1 Introduction
Several prediction models of corrosion potential were set and they are widely used to expect
corrosion in oil and gas industries. Some of these models are detailed in this chapter describing their
2.2 Overview of Corrosion Prediction Models

As described in the previous chapter, wet CO2 corrosion phenomenon is so complicated that there is no
clear explanations of all the mechanisms behind it. Nevertheless, prediction of this corrosion is required
for materials selection and determination of the required corrosion allowance. No international
guidelines or standards exist for corrosion prediction but several models are available and can be used.
Between commercial and available in the open literature, models can be mechanistic, empirical or semi-
empirical.
approaches of the phenomena.
Empirical models are set using laboratory or field data, or a combination between them.
Semi-empirical models are empirical ones using mechanistic relations as a starting point.
Some of these prediction models and their editors are following [6]:
NORSOK model (Statoil, Saga, Hydro)
De Waard model (De Waard and co-workers)
Cassandra (BP)
HYDROCOR (Shell)
CORPLUS (Total)
KSC Model (IFE)
MULTICORP (Ohio University)
Those models (and others) give different results for the same input parameters. The purpose of this
project is to deal with four models, to well understand them to know how and when to use them. Those
models are the , Cassandra and NORSOK M-506. There are some
common points between: they predict only general corrosion in wet CO2 environments, H2S and other
2.3 De Waard 91 Model [15]

Set by De Waard and his co- el. It starts from a
nomogram/equation giving back the corrosion rate of the worst case. Then this rate is corrected by
factors quantifying the effect of the environmental parameters.

2.3.1 Inputs of De Waard 1991 Model
Main input parameters are as follows:
Temperature of the environment (T) in [°C]
CO2 fugacity (fCO2) in [bar].
At high temperatures, gases are not ideal. To compensate for this, CO2 partial pressure is multiplied by
a correction factor giving CO2 fugacity:
(2.1)
With:
a is the fugacity correction factor:
for P 250 bar (2.2)

for P > 250 bar (2.3)
p is the partial pressure of CO2. It can be found by one of those expressions:
(2.4)
or (2.5)
Where P is the total pressure.
Correction factors are used to introduce the effect of environmental parameters in the calculated
corrosion rate. Affecting parameters factors are less than 1 and non-affecting parameters factor is 1.
Correction factors are more detailed below:
a) Scale factor (fscale): it quantifies the effect of the protective layer on the corrosion rate and is
calculated by the following equation:
(2.6)
(2.7)
(2.8)
The following figure exposes the effect of the protective scale on the corrosion rate. Corrosion rate
protective scales. If they are formed, it makes corrosion less likely.

Figure 12: Effect of the protective film
b) Oil factor (foil):

no corrosion for a watercut less than 30% and for low velocities:
(2.9)
(2.10)
2+
c) pH factor (fpH): )
and deals with this data to correct the pH and thus the corrosion rate as follows:
(2.11)
Where pHsat is the pH when the water is saturated with ferrous ions.
(2.12)
(2.13)
(2.14)
The following figure describes the effect of pH on the corrosion rate. It is certain that pH increases with
time (due to its reaction with more iron) and it thus decreases corrosion. pH and CR are inversely
proportional.

Figure 13: Effect of pH
d) Effect of glycol:
e) Effect of inhibitors: pter 1.
2.3.2 Inputs Ranges Of De Waard 1991 Model
They are not well mentioned in this model but some of them can be concluded from the figures
showing the relationships between the parameters and they are:
Input parameters Validity ranges Units

Temperature (T) 0 to 140 °C
Pressure (P) 1 to 1000 bar
CO2 partial pressure (pCO2) 0.01 to 10 bar
Table 4: Validity ranges of De Waard's 91 inputs
2.3.3 Predicted Corrosion Rate / Result
The single output of the De Waard 1991 model is the corrosion rate, as seen above:
(2.16)
The corresponding nomogram of the model is mentioned in figure 14. The user have to link the
temperature and CO2 partial pressure to obtain the expected CR.

Figure 14: Nomogram of De Waard's 91'
This wet CO2 prediction model has known wide acceptance and have been used in materials selection
in oil and gas industry. Then it has been developed to set other models.
2.4 De Waard 95 Model [16]

-empirical one based on laboratory
experiments and mechanistic aspects of wet CO2 corrosion phenomena. The result is given by
calculating two types of corrosion rate first: a CR due to the chemical reaction and another due to the
mass transfer. Then, making the parallel sum, the uncorrected CR is obtained.
(2.17)
2.4.1 Initial inputs of De Waard 1995 model
Input parameters of this model are:
Inputs Units
Total Pressure (P) bar
Temperature (T) °C
pH -
Hydraulic diameter (d) mm
Liquid flow rate (U) m/s
Fugacity (fCO2) bar
Table 5: Input parameters of the De Waard 1995 model

Correction factors are:
a) Scale factor (fscale):
(2.18)
Where T is the temperature and fCO2 is the fugacity of CO2.
b) H2S factor (fH2S):

Nevertheless, it affects the pH:
(2.19)
Where pH2S is the partial pressure of H2S.
c) Oil factor (foil):

for W% < 15% and U > 1 m/s (2.20)
% < 30% (2.21)
otherwise. (2.22)
Where W% is the watercut and U is the actual liquid velocity.
2.4.2 Input ranges of De Waard 1995 model
As the previous models, validity ranges are not well mentioned. Some of them are as following:
Parameters Range of De Waard 1995 Comments

CO2 fugacity (fCO2) 0.3 to 6.5 barg
Liquid actual velocity (U) 1.5 to 13 m/s
Table 6: Ranges of inputs of the De Waard 1995corrosion prediction model
2.4.3 Predicted Corrosion Rate of De Waard 1995 Model
The single output of the De Waard 1995 model is the corrosion rate, as seen above, it derive from
two corrosion rate rates:
Reaction corrosion rate:

(2.22)
Where pHCO2
Mass transfer corrosion rate:

(2.23)
Where d is the hydraulic diameter.

Final corrosion rate (parallel sum):
(2.24)
Being the first researcher working on wet CO2 corrosion prediction, De Waard and his co-workers made
other scientists and companies follow their initiative to set other models.
2.5 Cassandra Model (BP) [13]

The model was developed by British Petroleum (BP), one of the biggest oil and gas companies in
ls of 93 and 95, and with the BP approach and field data, it
calculates the corrosion rate as following.
2.5.1 Initial Inputs of Cassandra Model
Cassandra model are:
Inputs Units
Total Pressure (P) bar
Temperature (T) °C
pH -
Hydraulic diameter (d) mm
Liquid flow rate (U) m/s
Fugacity (fCO2) bar
Table 7: Initial inputs of the Cassandra model
the expected corrosion rate. 95 model is thus not accurate when it falls down the 93 model and should
be ignored. Correction factors shall be applied only on 93 model and they are:
a) Scale factor:
Cassandra maintains the CR constant beyond the scaling temperature.
The following figure describes how each model behaves when the temperature attends the scale
temperature. De Waard models tend to zero, IFE approach tend to infinite and Cassandra goes to
constant plateau.
Figure 15: Effect of high temperature protective films on Cassandra

b) Glycol effect: same as the previous model.
c) pH effect: same as the previous model.
2.5.2 Inputs Validity Ranges of Cassandra Model
The Cassandra model have several limitations due to those of De Waard model 1993 and 1995. In
this table, we expose the limitations of the Cassandra model.
Inputs Validity ranges Units

Total pressure (P) < 200 bar
CO2 fugacity (fCO2) 0.3 to 6.5 bar
Liquid velocity (U) 1.5 to 13 m/s
Table 8: Ranges of inputs of Cassandra model
2.5.3 Outputs of Cassandra model
Cassandra expected CR is found following the steps below:
a)
(2.25)
b) Multiplication by the correction factors (listed above).
c) circulation:
(2.26)
(2.27)
(2.28)
d) Final CR calculation:
(2.29)
Same as the other CR prediction models, Cassandra is used to gain order of magnitude estimates rather
than absolute corrosion rates.
2.6 NORSOK M-506 Model [17][18]

NORSOK M-506 is developed in Norway by Statoil and Norsk Hydro, and is adopted by the
Norwegian oil companies and the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) as a standard for CR
prediction and materials selection. It is an empirical calculation model for carbon steel in water
containing CO2 environment, at different levels of the affecting parameters. Those parameters are
temperature, pH, CO2 fugacity and wall shear stress. It is based on flow-loop experiments and a large
amount of data is used to build it.

2.6.1 Input Parameters
The NORSOK M-506 corrosion prediction model have several parameters as follows:
Kt is a constant depending on temperature:
Temperature [°C] Kt
5 0.42
15 1.59
20 4.762
40 8.927
60 10.695
80 9.949
90 6.25
120 7.77
150 5.203
Table 9: Constant Kt
fCO2 is CO2 fugacity [bar] (same as the other models)

S is the wall shear stress, calculated as follows:
[Pa] (2.29)
With:
3
m: mixture (fluid) density [Kg/m ]
f: friction factor
um: mixture velocity [m/s]
constitution (watercut, gas/liquid rate) on corrosion rate. Nevertheless, this mean value is available
only for straight pipes.
f(pH)t is the pH function given as follows:
Temperature [°C] pH f(pH)t

5
15
20
40
60
80
90
120

3.5
150
Table 10: f(pH) function
2.6.2 Effect of Glycol And Inhibitors:
NORSOK CR calculation model takes into account, as the other models, the effect of glycol and
inhibitors injections but they are not combined (the largest effect/the smaller factor is the one
considered)
=> (2.30)
For %glycol > 95% => (2.31)
2.6.3 Inputs Validity Rages Of NORSOK M-506 Model
One of the strong points of NORSOK model is the clarity of its input parameters and their validity
ranges.
Input Validity ranges Unit

Total pressure (P) 1 to 1000 bar
CO2 fugacity (fCO2) 0.1 to 10 bar
Wall shear stress (S) 1 to 150 Pa
pH 3.5 to 6.5 -
Table 11: Validity ranges of NORSOK M-506 inputs
2.6.4 Outputs of NORSOK M-506 Corrosion Prediction Model
The NORSOK M506 corrosion model is as follows:
- For T=5°C:
(2.32)
- For T=15°C:
(2.33)
- For T=20°C, 40°C, 60°C, 80°C, 90°C, 120°C and 150°C:
(2.34)
For other temperatures, corrosion rate is obtained by a linear extrapolation between the CR of the
temperature above and the one below the desired temperature.

2.7 Conclusion:
Prediction of corrosivity and quantification of potential corrosion rates is not an easy task but it is
required to be able to make a cost effective material selection, particularly for long pipelines, that the
cost of the material represents a significant part of the total capital cost and a correct material selection
is thus important to optimize the life cycle cost. It is then primordial to well understand the CR prediction
models listed above to know when to use them, to conclude approximate results and to approach them
to the reality. To do thus, a comparison between the four models is following in the next chapter.

Chapter 3: Corrosion Prediction Models Descriptions Page(24)

3.1 Introduction
Predicted CR, for same input parameters, differs from one model to another. This is due to the
different approaches of every model towards the affecting parameters. The effect of those parameters
on every model and differences between these approaches will be discussed in this chapter.
scription, the others were fixed to specific values, precisely chosen to

show the most the effect of that parameter.
3.2 Effect of Temperature
Parameter Value Unit

Pressure 25 barg
Liquid velocity 1.5 m/s
% CO2 4 -
pH 3.5 -
Shear stress 1 Pa
Diameter 304.8 mm
% Watercut 40 -
Table 12: Fixed parameters for the variation of temperature
Obtained results are detailed in figure 16.
Figure 16: Effect of temperature
As discussed above in chapters 1 and 2, one of the most affecting phenomena of corrosion is the
formation of the protective layer. This scale is only obtained for high temperatures. Prediction models
take into account this phenomenon but with different approaches. For De Waard models, the scale factor

reduces the calculated CR starting from a certain calculated temperature but Cassandra maintains it
constant after that value, always with a correction factor. M-
by the constant Kt. In our case, the protective layer is considered effective at 60°C for M-506, at 95°C
for De Waard models and at 100°C for Cassandra.
3.3 Effect of Pressure

To see the effect of total pressure on the prediction models, fixed parameters are as follows:

Temperature 40 °C
% CO2 4 -
pH 3.5 -
Shear stress 1 Pa
Diameter 304.8 mm
% Watercut 40 -
Table 13: Fixed parameters for the variation of total pressure
Figure 17 shows the influence of the different values of pressure on the prediction models.
Figure 17: Effect of pressure
Increasing the total pressure of the gas phase, CO2 partial pressure increases as well and thus CR .
Starting from low potentials at the atmospheric pressure, corrosion rate can reach high values for higher
levels of pressure. The approaches of the models towards the pressure variation are almost the same but
they still give different results.
3.4 Effect of CO2 Level / Effect Of pH

CO2 level and pH are two synergistic parameters. Water containing CO2 gives the carbonic acid i.e.
the more the CO2 level in the gas phase, the more the acidity and the less the pH.
Parameters fixed to see the synergy between CO2 partial pressure and pH, and their effect on the
predicted corrosion rate are mentioned in the next table:


Temperature 40 °C
Pressure 25 barg
Shear stress 1 Pa
Diameter 304.8 mm
% Watercut 40 -
Table 14: Fixed parameters for the variation of CO2 level / pH
Figure 18: Effect of CO2 partial pressure on pH
Figure 18 shows the decrease of pH when the CO2 level is higher, as explained above.
Figure 19: Effect of pH

Figure 20: Effect of CO2 level in the gas phase
Figures 19 and 20 describe the same effect. Curves are more or less linear. Corrosion potential is
proportional to CO2 level and inversely proportional to pH. Corrosion prediction models differ, one
from the other, towards pH / %CO2 but the approach is the same.
3.5 Effect of Liquid Velocity

Liquid velocity is one of the parameters that are difficult to quantify for a multiphase flow. This is
approaches of liquid velocity are defined: the actual and the superficial. Actual velocity is the real liquid
velocity inside an equipment at a specific moment. It is difficult to obtain its value unless a flowmeter
is installed in the plant. Nevertheless, it varies from one point to another. Superficial velocity is the
liquid velocity when the gas phase is not considered in a multiphase flow but it is considered uncertain
as well. De Waard and Cassandra models use the actual liquid velocity and M-506 model uses the
superficial.
Parameters fixed to obtain the effect of liquid velocity variation on the prediction models are:

Temperature 40 °C
% CO2 4 -
Pressure 25 barg
Diameter 304.8 mm
pH 3.5 -
Liquid fraction 0.8 -
Superficial gas velocity 1 m/s
% Watercut 40 -
Table 15: Fixed parameters for the variation of liquid velocity
Figure 21 shows the effect of liquid velocity on every studied model.

Figure 21: Effect of liquid velocity
De Waard 91 model
with this parameter but they are still different and M-506 is the most conservative.
3.6 Effect of Watercut:

Different approaches towards the ratio of water in the liquid phase are considered. It is certain that
water containing CO2 is the corrosive specie but if water is the dispersed phase (for low watercuts), oil
can be adsorbed on the metal surface and it thus forms a protective oil layer.
Fixed parameters to see the different approaches of the models towards the watercut are:

Temperature 40 °C
% CO2 4 -
Pressure 25 barg
Shear stress 1 Pa
Diameter 304.8 mm
pH 3.5 -
Superficial liquid velocity 1.2 m/s
Actual liquid velocity 1.5 m/s
Table 16: Fixed parameters for the variation of watercut
Obtained results are mentioned in figure 22.

Figure 22: Effect of watercut
M-
De Waard models consider t
low, which is more realistic.
3.7 Effect of The Internal Parameter

Parameters fixed to see the effect of the internal pipe diameter variation on the predicted corrosion
rate of every model are detailed in the following table:

Temperature 40 °C
% CO2 4 -
Pressure 25 barg
Shear stress 1 Pa
Diameter 304.8 mm
pH 3.5 -
Superficial liquid velocity 1.2 m/s
Actual liquid velocity 1.5 m/s
Table 17: Fixed parameters for the inside diameter variation

Obtained results are detailed in figure 23. It is clear that the potential corrosion is higher for low inner
diameters but the effect is negligible.
Figure 23: Effect of inside diameter
3.8 Conclusion
Seeing the effect of the main corrosion parameters on the corrosion potential and how every model
is taking into consideration these parameters leads to more understanding the models, knowing how to
manipulate them, and make approximations too.

Chapter 4: Corrosion Rate Calculation Tool Page(31)

4.1 Introduction
After being keen on using the four corrosion prediction models, mentioned in the previous chapters,
the purpose is to set a calculation tool to predict corrosion with these models.
4.2 Corrosion Rate Calculation Tool

Some of the CO2 corrosion prediction models are available with an attached calculation tool helping
the users getting directly the expected corrosion rate, without dealing with the internal equations. The
idea was to make such a tool but this time with four prediction models (those listed in the previous
chapters). Input parameters of the models are more or less the same. The tool requires all these inputs
with the chemical injection data (inhibitors and glycol injection) to give back corrosion potential
predictions with the approaches of De Waard 91 and 95, Cassandra and NORSOK M-506.
This calculation tool is made with Microsoft Excel VBA, it is a kind of a windows application which
deals with the Excel spreadsheet by inserting in it the taped inputs, and giving back from it the found
results. All the equations and the calculations behind these results are in the spreadsheet. Calculation
tool windows are detailed below and the Excel spreadsheets are mentioned in appendix 1.
4.2.1 Main Menu
Main menu window is the home page of the calculation tool. It is shown in figure 24.
Figure 24: Main menu
As written, the user shall read the recommendations of use (ref. 2) to understand how to obtain a concrete
the user to the window of CR calculations.

4.2.2 Recommendations
Recommendations window is shown in figure 25.
Figure 25: Recommendations
Recommendations are guidelines helping the user to know if he is well using the calculation tool or not.
General recommendations concern the use of the note globally and the others are concerning a specific
calculation. The user choose the desired option button to obtain the validity ranges of the models and
modules, other recommendations are mentioned too. Option buttons are listed below.
Ref. Recommendations
2 De Waard 91 model
3 De Waard 95 model
4 Cassandra model
5 NORSOK M-506 model
6 pH calculation module
7 Wall shear stress calculation module
Table 18: Recommendations menu

4.2.3 Calculation Code
Calculation code is the CR calculation interface. Users introduce the required input parameters then
cli The window is shown in figure 26.
Figure 26: Calculation code
Between inputs, outputs, option button and buttons, boxes of the calculation code are detailed in the
following table.
Ref. Value / utility Type

1 Temperature
2 Pressure
3 CO2 level
4 Wall shear stress
5 pH
6 Actual liquid velocity Inputs
7 Internal diameter
8 % watercut
9 % inhibitor efficiency
10 % inhibitor availability
11 % glycol concentration
12 CO2 fugacity
13 CR of De Waard 91 before chemical injection
14 CR of De Waard 95 before chemical injection
Results
15 CR of Cassandra before chemical injection
16 CR of NORSOK M-506 before chemical injection
17 CR of De Waard 91 with chemical injection

18 CR of De Waard 95 with chemical injection

19 CR of Cassandra with chemical injection
20 CR of NORSOK M-506 with chemical injection
21 Water property choice Option button
22 Wall shear stress calculation module
23 pH calculation module
Buttons
24 Giving back the results
25 Generating the report of results (active only when there are results)
Table 19: Calculation code window data
Shear stress and pH values can be estimated by the tool as well. They have their own modules which
demand specific inputs and sometimes these inputs are same as the
result (of pH for example) and all the input parameters to calculate it are frozen in the calculation note
not to give contradictory results.
4.2.4 Wall Shear Stress Calculation
Even though the wall shear stress value is only required for NORSOK M-506 model, its estimation
is necessary and a calculation module is associated to it. Shear stress calculation module is shown in
figure 27.
Figure 27: Wall shear stress calculation module window
Input parameters for the shear stress calculation can be divided to two sections: main input parameters
(ref. 1 to 6) and expert calculation inputs (ref. 7 to 17). Some of the main inputs are inputs for CR
the found value of shear stress. Superficial

liquid and gas velocity (ref. 3 and 4) are specific inputs for this calculation. Expert calculation inputs
(ref. 7 to 17) are specific to this estimation too. Default values are already introduced and the user shall
change them with others to find a more accurate value of the shear stress. By changing expert inputs,
button after doing their calculation to go back to the me

set values.

4.2.5 pH Calculation
Same as wall shear stress value, users can estimate pH value by introducing the required inputs in
the pH calculation module. Its window is shown in figure 28.
Figure 28: pH calculation module window
button) and another with Oddo & Thomson approach (O&T option button). pH calculated with De
-free waters and the other is more valid when there are some
dissolved salts in the water phase. User shall select the desired way of calculation (ref. 6) before clicking
es
4.2.6 Results Generator
An example of the calculation tool use is following in figure 29.

after introducing all the required inputs (as explained above). The purpose of a results generator is to
make users able to release a final document resuming the calculations details without mentioning the
equations behind i.e. inputs and outputs.

Figure 29: CRs calculation example
s .
Figure 30: Generate results window
Users introduce the required data for generating the final report (ref. 1 to 4). Company name (ref. 3) is
g ated but
parameters listed above with a verification if input parameters are in the range of every model or not.
The generated file of this example is shown in figure 31.

Figure 31: Generated file of the studied example

4.3 Conclusion
The set calculation note is a very important tool helping users to predict CR, with four different
calculation models, easily and to obtain resumed and clear results.

Chapter 5: Material Selection Work Instruction Page(39)

5.1 Introduction
One of the most predominant criteria in choosing the adequate material for an equipment in oil and gas
plants is corrosion. Starting from this important phenomenon, a work instruction is a sort of guidelines
for users to make a suitable and cost effective material selection.
5.2 What Is a Work Instruction ?

Work instructions present a sequence of steps that execute a task or an activity. The format is
typically text, but a visual depiction of the steps can also constitute work instructions. Additionally,
hyperlinks and pictures are often included. The following work instruction is set to guide users to select
the right material for a pipeline, a pipe or a vessel.
5.3 Equipment Materials Selection Work Instruction

This work instruction accomplishes the corrosion rate calculation tool to arrive to the adequate choice
of the material. It describes the method to be followed for the selection of pipelines, piping and vessels
exposed internally to a corrosive environment. Required documents and steps to follow are mentioned
below as they are written in the internal document of AEI.
5.3.1 Reference Documents
Reference documents are those from where to obtain the required data for the calculations. Reference
documents for this work instruction are:
Heat and material balance (H&MB): it is a document produced by process design engineers and
contains all the data of a fluid flow.
Process and instrumentation diagram (P&ID): it is a document that shows the piping of the
process flow with the other equipment.
Corrosion rate calculation note.
Materials selection spreadsheet: an Excel spreadsheet that contains the calculations behind the
final material choice.
5.3.2 Flow chart
The following flow chart describes the steps to be followed to select the material for a specific
equipment. It is shown in figure 32.

Data gathering
CO2 CR
calculation
CR severity
assessment
Material
selection
Figure 32: Material selection flow chart
5.3.3 Work Instruction Steps
a) Data Gathering
First, we proceed by collecting data mainly:
Equipment properties
Fluid properties
Environmental conditions
Chemical injection data.

b) CO2 Corrosion Rate Calculation
In this step, we will calculate the CR (in mm/year) using the attached calculation note.
As we have four calculated CR, we have to use only one corrosion rate so we can adopt one of the
following strategies:
Take the maximum, which is the more secure choice.
Take the average of the corrosion rates.
Take the corrosion rate specified by the customer.
Take the corrosion rate, which its model is adequate to the operating conditions.
Valid corrosion rates are only the ones whose inputs are in the specified ranges, described in the
calculation note, but corrosion rates having out of range inputs may be cautiously considered.
Sources of input parameters for the calculation note are mentioned in the next tables.
Input Source
Temperature
Pressure
H&MB
% CO2
Liquid velocity
pH Process department / calculated
Wall shear stress Calculated
Internal diameter P&ID
Watercut H&MB
% Inhibitor efficiency
% Inhibitor availability Chemical Injection Data
% Glycol concentration
Table 20: Sources of input parameters of the calculation note
Input Source
Temperature
Pressure H&MB
% CO2
TDS
Process department
[HCO3-]
Table 21: Sources of input parameters for the pH calculation module
Input Source
Temperature
Pressure
Superficial liquid velocity H&MB
Superficial gas velocity
% Watercut
Pipe diameter P&ID
Gas compressibility
Gas specific gravity
H&MB
Water density
Oil density

Gas density
Water viscosity
H&MB
Oil viscosity
Gas viscosity
Maximum relative viscosity of the oil
Process department
Inversion point
Table 22: Sources of input parameters for wall shear stress calculation module
c) CO2 Corrosion Severity Assessment
After calculating the appropriate corrosion rate, we shall evaluate corrosion severity of the operating
fluid. To proceed it, we define a severity scale that gives the appropriate severity of the operating fluid.
It is explained in the following table.
CR(mm/year) Corrosion Severity

CR<0.1 1
2
CR>1 3
Table 23: Corrosion severity levels[14]
According this severity, we will proceed the selection of the right material for our equipment.
e) Material Selection
This final step consists in selecting the appropriate material according to the defined severity. After
making the chemical injection, and from the CR value do as follows.
- For corrosion severity 1: Select carbon steel; A106 grade B for pipes and vessels and API 5L for
pipelines.
- For corrosion severity 2: The choice will be based on a technical and commercial study.
As a starting choice we consider carbon steel with chemical inhibition: A106 grade B for pipes and
vessels and grade API 5L for pipelines. Then we make a cost comparison between the chosen carbon
steel and the stainless steel options. The alternative is austenitic stainless steel: 300 series stainless steels
are adequate for CO2 corrosion environments.
- For corrosion severity 3: Select stainless steel: 300 series choice is adequate.
Final material choice depends on the cost, market availability, feasibility of the strategy and the end user
approval.
5.4 Conclusion
Guidelines helping users to make an adequate material selection for pipes and vessels is proposed in
this chapter. It may be different from other methods due to the difficulty and complexity of the materials
selection task.

Chapter 6: Case Study of an Amine Unit Page(43)
Chapter 6: Case Study of an Amine Unit

6.1 Introduction
After implementing a VBA calculation note for corrosion rate prediction and the establishment of a
material selection work instruction, this chapter treats a real-world case. It is a gas treatment unit: an
amine unit owned by Shell Canada Energy.
The main objective of this chapter is to apply the work instruction with the calculation note, previously
established, to make materials selection for the piping of this unit.
6.2 Choice of The Real World Case

Knowledge, skills and tools previously acquired in this project concern at first corrosion case study
for different environments and parameters. Then an adequate material selection for piping is made to
optimize the life cycle cost of the plant. The concerned unit contains 49 different pipes transporting
compare the results with the owner company ones.
The chosen unit contains different corrosive fluids so it is effective to apply the developed models on
this unit.
6.3 Overview of Amine Units

Amine gas treating, also known as amine scrubbing, gas sweetening and acid gas removal, refers to
a group of processes that use aqueous solutions of various alkanolamines (commonly referred to simply
as amines) to remove hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and carbon dioxide (CO2) from gases.[19]
6.3.1 Principle
Amine processes remove CO2 and/or H2S from the gas stream by chemical reaction with amines in
the solvent solution. In a reversible reaction the amine removes CO2 and/or H2S in the absorption section
of the plant at high partial pressure and/or relatively low temperature (room temperature). High
temperature and low pressure in the regeneration section of the plant reverses the reaction so that CO2
and/or H2S are released [20].
Amine systems have three main functions:
- Treatment of feed streams to meet product specifications in terms of acidic component loadings.
- CO2 removal from gas streams to prevent freezing in downstream cryogenic

processes.
- H2S removal from fuel gas to avoid sulfate production.
6.3.2 Alkanolamines
Alkanolamines (amines) are chemical compounds that contain hydroxyl (OH) and amino (primary:
NO2, secondary: RNH and tertiary: RN). They are used to extract acid gases (CO2 and H2S) and
mercaptans from steams by forming a salt. The main amines used are:
- Monoethanolamine (MEA): primary
- Diethanolamine (DEA): secondary
- Triethanolamine (TEA): tertiary

- Methyldiethanolamine (MDEA): tertiary
- Di-
There are also vendor specific formulated amines (additives and amine) and hybrid solvents (amine
combined with a physical solvent). These chemical classifications provide differences between the
properties of amines. Secondary amines (and thus tertiary amines) have a lower boiling point than the
6.3.3 Process Description Of The Amine Unit[21]
A schematic drawing of typical process equipment for sweetening sour gas (contains more than 4
ppm of H2S by volume under standard conditions) with regenerative solvent is shown in figure 33. The
first vessel is the inlet separator, which performs the important function of separating the fluid phases
on the basis of density difference between the liquid and the gas. The sour gas flows from the separator
into the lower part of the absorber. This vessel usually contains 20 to 24 trays, but for small units, it
could be a column containing packing. Lean solution containing the sweetening solvent in water is
pumped into the absorber near the top. As the solution flows down from tray to tray, it is in intimate
contact with the sour gas as the gas flows upward through the liquid on each tray. When the gas reaches
the top of the vessel, virtually all the H2S and, depending on the solvent used, all the CO2 have been
removed from the gas stream. The gas is now sweet (contains less than 4 ppm of H2S by volume under
standard conditions) and meets the specifications for H2S, CO2 and total sulfur content:
Figure 33: Schematic drawing of physical solvent process equipment[21]
The rich solution leaves the contactor at the bottom and is flowed through a pressure letdown valve,
allowing the pressure to drop to about 4 barg. In some major gas plants, the pressure reduction is
accomplished through turbines recovering power. Upon reduction of the pressure, the rich solution is
flowed into a flash drum, where most dissolved hydrocarbon gas and some acid gas flash off. The
solution then flows through a heat exchanger, picking up heat from the hot, regenerated lean solution
stream. The rich solution then flows into the still, where the regeneration of the solvent occurs at a
pressure of about 1 barg and at the solution boiling temperature. Heat is applied from an external source,
such as a steam reboiler. The liberated acid gas and any hydrocarbon gas not flashed off in the flash
drum leave the still at the top, together with some solvent and a lot of water vapor. This stream of vapors
is flowed through a condenser, usually an aerial cooler, to condense the solvent and water vapors. The
liquid and gas mixture is flowed into a separator, normally referred to as a reflux drum, where the acid
gas is separated from the condensed liquids. The liquids are pumped back into the top of the still as
reflux. The gas stream, consisting mainly of H2S and CO2, is generally piped to a sulfur recovery unit.
The regenerated solution is flowed from the reboiler or the bottom of the still through the rich/lean
solution heat exchanger to a surge tank. From here, the solution is pumped through a cooler to adjust
the temperature to the appropriate treating temperature in the absorber. The stream is then pumped with
a high-pressure pump back into the top of the absorber, to continue the sweetening of the sour gas.
Most solvent systems have a means of filtering the solution. This is accomplished by flowing a portion
of the lean solution through a particle filter and sometimes a carbon filter as well. The purpose is to
maintain a high degree of solution cleanliness to avoid solution foaming. Some solvent systems also
have a means of removing degradation products that involves maintaining an additional reboiler for this
purpose in the regeneration equipment hook-up. In some designs, the rich solution is filtered after it
leaves the surge drum.
The following figure describes the components of the absorber:
Figure 34: Amine absorber example [22]
6.4 Materials Selection for Amine Units

An adequate materials selection for an amine unit means the right materials choice to resist to
occurring problems in this unit. API Recommended Practice 945 resumes these problems to
environmental cracking and corrosion.
- Corrosion: Not caused by the amines themselves, amine corrosion results from dissolved acid gases in
the amines and from a variety of degradation products such as heat stable amine salts (HSAS).
- Environmental cracking: occur in high hardness and/or high residual stresses regions of carbon steels.
These regions are often in and adjacent to welds. Cracking may occur without corrosion, and four
different mechanisms are identified in amine units:
a) Sulfide stress cracking (SSC)
b) Hydrogen induced cracking (HIC) associated with hydrogen blistering
c) Stress oriented hydrogen induced cracking (SOHIC)

d) Alkaline stress corrosion cracking (ASCC).
Mechanisms a, b, and c are discussed in chapter 1. ASCC is the cracking that occurs when there is a
combined action of corrosion and tensile stress (residual or applied). ASCC is found in carbon steels
exposed to lean amine service and can occur with or without metal loss..
Materials selection for the studied unit will be made taking into consideration these problems.
6.5 CO2 Capture Unit: Piping Materials and Size Selection

The studied amine unit in this chapter is a CO2 capture unit designed by Shell Canada Energy. The
role of this unit is to decrease the CO2 percentage of the feed gas (hydrogen).
The composition of the feed gas streams to the amine absorbers is following in table.
Feed gas Base HMU1 Base HMU2 Base HMU3

composition (to C1) [mol%] (to C2) [mol%] (to C3) [mol%]
H2O 0.18 0.18 0.18
CO2 16.51 16.51 17.08
CO 2.41 2.41 2.92
N2 0.30 0.30 0.27
H2 74.79 74.79 72.38
CH4 5.81 5.81 7.17
Total 100 100 100
Table 24: Feed gas composition of the amine unit
HMU1, HMU2 and HMU3 refer to the absorbers of the amine unit. They are shown with all the
equipment of the unit in the process flow diagram mentioned in the next page.
Amines used to extract acid gases from the inlet gas are MDEA and DEDA: tertiary amines.

6.5.1 Materials Characteristics
In our study we will consider several specific grades of materials in order to choose the right one for
each pipe.
These materials are carbon steel and stainless steel:
Carbon steel: Grade A106 B
Stainless steel: Grade 304L
Grade 317L
Grade SMO 254
The selected carbon steel is based on general recommendations used within the oil and gas industry.
Pipes shall be made from carbon steel A106 grade B, and this material is in accordance with the
American standard ASME B36.10 that specifies the existing wall thicknesses for each diameter in the
market.
When carbon steel is not the appropriate material, alternatives are several. They can be stainless steel,
hoosing a stainless steel material.
We have preselected the previously cited stainless steels because they are available in the market and
they are in accordance with the standard ASME B36.10 so we can find the sizing.
We will expose the chemical and mechanical specifications of this carbon steel.
The following tables describes the chemical composition of the materials previously mentioned:
C Si Mn P S Cr Cu Mo Ni V
Grade
(max) (min) (max) (max) (max) (max) (max) (max) (max) (max)
A106B 0.30 0.10 1.06 0.035 0.035 0.40 0.40 0.15 0.40 0.08
304L 0.030 0.75 2 0.045 0.030 18-20 - - 8-12 -
317L 0.030 0.75 2 0.045 0.030 18-20 - 3-4 11-15 -
SMO 254 0.020 0.8 1 0.03 0.01 19.5-20.5 - 6-6.5 17.5-18.5 -
Table 25: Chemical composition of selected materials[23][24][25][26]
The following table exposes the mechanical properties of the materials previously stated:
Grade Ultimate tensile Strength (Mpa) 0.2 Yield Strength (Mpa) Hardness
A106B 415 240 -
304L 586 241 B80 (Rockwell)
317L 683 331 B85 (Rockwell)
SMO 254 650 300 270 (HB)
Table 26: Mechanical properties of selected materials[23][24][25][26]
6.5.2 Resistance to Corrosion
Treated fluids are corrosive when wet CO2 is present. These examples are within the limits of use of
the calculation note and the work instruction previously established. A H&MB table is associated with
the process flow diagram. The selection of pipes materials and sizes are made by the same method
explained in chapter 4. The next page shows an extract of the H&MB table and the whole one with the
materials selection spreadsheet are mentioned in appendix 2 and 3.

a) material selection (using the work instruction)
b) Sizing of the pipe
Required pressure design wall thickness is made with accordance to ASME B31.3:
(6.1)
Where:
P: Pressure design thickness (mm)
D: Outside diameter (mm)
S: Stress value for material (MPa)
E: Quality factor
W: Weld joint strength reduction factor
Y: Coefficient
Wall thickness calculation includes a tolerance of ±12.5% (American pipes).
While the inner diameter (ID) effect on CR is negligible, the ID used in the calculation note will be:
(6.2)
Recommended materials are ASTM A106 for carbon steel pipes and those with accordance to ASTM
312 and/or ASTM 358. The schedule that the related wall thickness is just above the calculated thickness
shall be chosen. It is found as follows:
For carbon steel:
(6.3)
For stainless steel:

(6.4)
Dimensions are with accordance to ASME B31.10 for carbon steel and to ASME B31.10 and ASME
B31.19 for stainless steel.
ASME is the American Society for Mechanical Engineers
ASTM is the American Society for Testing and Materials
Sizes are available in the market with schedules and not with thicknesses.
Extracts of the materials standards and available sizes (Trouvay & Cauvin) are shown in appendix 4.

c) Cost Assessment
A cost comparison is made when the severity is 2 to select the appropriate material. The cost of a pipe
is found as follows:
(6.5)
Where:
C : Cost of the pipeline/pipe ($)
Cm: Cost of the material ($/ton)

3
)
L: Length of the pipeline/pipe (m)
OD: Outer diameter of the pipeline/pipe (mm)
ID: Inner diameter of the pipeline/pipe (mm)
A cost comparison is made to select which stainless steel (SS) to use from 300 series: SS 304L, SS 317L
or SS SMO 254.
6.5.3 Resistance to Cracking[8]
2S, no wet H2S damages will be considered and the only problem
that may be encountered is the alkaline stress corrosion cracking. To remedy it, a post weld heat
treatment (PWHT) should be applied on the weldments between pipes. A weldment includes the weld,
heat affected zones (HAZ) and adjacent zones subject to residual stresses after the weld.
The PWHT consists on heating the metal to 593°C 649°C then holding it at that temperature for 1
hour per 25 mm of metal thickness. An extract of materials selection spreadsheet (treating the pipes
previously mentioned in the H&MB extract) is shown in the next page.
6.6 Conclusion
The treated amine unit pipes, using the method previously described, has shown that the set method
gives valid results compared to Shell materials selection for amine units document. Some differences
are encountered, they are caused by the commercial approach of our method while the other decides the
material of a specified pipe regardless its environment.

Pipe NPS CR Severity CA WT (A106B) WT chosen Schedule Price $/m WT(304L) Price $/m WT(UNS 31254) Price $/m WT(317L) Price $/m Choice
3B 12 0 1 1 22.38 25.4 XXS 120 51.276 29.42 268.707 17.15 479.751 24.66 369.245 A106B
3C 16 0 1 1 28.14 30.96 120 79.076 37.4 413.257 21.8 867.662 31.36 648.031 A106B
4 20 0.9475 2 23.6875 68.26 56.82 33.33 1568.608 47.76 1110.687 A317L
4A 16 0.8025 2 20.0625 55.88 45.46 26.67 1015.799 38.21 717.326 A317L
4B 16 0.8025 2 20.0625 55.88 45.46 26.67 1015.799 38.21 717.326 A317L
4C 18 0.8275 2 20.6875 60.7 51.12 29.99 1287.782 42.97 902.711 A317L
5A 16 12.183 3 304.563 375.34 37.76 413.774 22.02 869.326 31.67 648.933 A304L
5B 16 12.183 3 304.563 375.34 37.76 413.774 22.02 869.326 31.67 648.933 A304L
5C 20 12.178 3 304.438 382.45 47.79 641.142 27.88 1354 40.09 993.968 A304L
5 18 14.073 3 351.813 429.71 38.35 464.876 22.3 918.746 32.13 714.298 A304L
Appendix 1
Calculation Note Spreadsheets
Main inputs
Temperature [°C] 24
Total pressure [bara] 5.013
% CO2 5
Shear stress [Pa] 1.00
pH 3.90
Velocity [m/s] 1.60
Internal pipe diameter [mm] 304.80
Ionic strengh [M] 1
Inhibitor efficiency % 84
Inhibitor availability % 95
Glycol concentration % 0
Total pressure [barg] 4
Watercut 37
Results
Uninhibited corrosion rates
DW '91 0.44
DW '95 1
BP 0.72
M-506 1.91
Inhibitor effect
DW '91 0.09
DW '95 0.21
BP 0.15
M-506 0.39
Glycol effect
DW '91 0.44
DW '95 1
BP 0.72
M-506 1.91
Inhibited corrosion rate

DW '91 0.09
DW '95 0.21
BP 0.15
M-506 0.39
NORSOK STANDARD M-506
Functions
f(CO2) [bar] S [Pa] pH
0.25 1 3.9
t [°C] Kt f(pH) CRt [mm/y]

5 0.42 1.16709 0.297585683
15 1.59 1.16709 0.776258127
20 4.762 1.16709 1.621297934
40 8.927 1.16709 3.03933781
60 10.695 1.12698 3.516139439
80 9.949 1.25466 3.641451833
90 6.25 1.31303 2.393997816
120 7.77 1.05 2.38001345
150 5.203 0.8406 1.275887067
Linear extrapolation
t [°C] a b CRt [mm/y]
5..15 0.04787 0.297586 0
15..20 0.16901 0.776258 0
20..40 0.0709 1.621298 1.904905909
40..60 0.02384 3.039338 0
60..80 0.00627 3.516139 0
80..90 -0.12475 3.641452 0
90..120 -0.00047 2.393998 0
120..150 -0.0368 2.380013 0
CRt 1.91
De Waard 1991
Inputs
T 24
P 5.013
% CO2 5
f(CO2) 0.25
pH 3.900000095
Functions
Ts 105.47
Fsystem 0.65235989
pHsat 5.860802159
FpH 1 set to 1 if Fscale<1 4.2409
Fscale 1
Foil 1
Outputs
DW '91 0.44 gas velocities exceeding 17 m/s may affect inhibitor performance
De Waard 95
Inputs
T 24
f(CO2) 0.25
pH actual 3.9
D 304.8
u 1.6
Functions
pH CO2 4.130246
Foil 1
Vreact 8.047559
Vmass 1.131356
CR 1
Cassandra
Inputs
T 24
f(CO2) 0.25
pH actual 3.900000095
D 304.7999878
u 1.600000024
Functions
pH CO2 4.13
FpH 1 [1.5,13] 1.1847
Fscale 1
Vreact 8.367206935
Vmass 1.131355507
Ts 71.434674
V93 0.438480664
V95 0.996601928
CR 0.72
Oddo and Tomson pH calculation
Inputs
T 24
P 5.013
TDS[mg/L] 0
[HCO3-] [mg/L] 0
f(CO2) 0.25
Outputs
pH DW 4.13 only valid between 10° and 80° C
ph OT #NOMBRE! not accurate if [HCO3-]<50
Fugacity f(CO2)
Inputs
% CO2 5
Total pressure [bar] 5.013
Outputs
p(CO2) [bar] 0.2507
a 0.9816
f(CO2) [bar] 0.25

Wall shear stress S
Inputs Default
Total pressure [bar] 5.013
Liquid flow [Sm3/d] 1017
Gas flow [Sm3/d] 9.56E+03
Watercut 37
Internal pipe diameter [mm] 304.7999878
Roughness [µm] 5.00E+01

Compressibility 0.9
Specific gravity of gas 0.8
Water density 1024
Oil density 850
Gas density 5.23 10
Water viscosity 0.00092 0.00046
Oil viscosity 0.0011
Gas viscosity 0.00003
Max relative liquid viscosity 7.6
Inversion point 0.5
Wall shear stress S
Outputs
Friction factor 0.004144783
Mixture density 311.46
Liquid density 914.38
Mixture velocity 3
Mixture viscosity 0.001398439
Liquid viscosity 4.14E-03
B oil 0.758014458
B water 0.613579747
S [Pa] 5.81
Inhibitors effect
Inputs
DW '91 un 0.44
DW '95 un 1
BP un 0.72
M-506 un 1.91
Outputs
DW '91 in 0.0704
DW '95 in 0.16
BP in 0.1152
M-506 in 0.3056
CR
0.09
0.21
0.15
0.39
Glycol reduction factor
Inputs
glycol concetration % 0
DW '91 un 0.44
DW '95 un 1
BP un 0.72
M-506 un 1.91
Outputs
Reduction factor 1
CR
0.44
1
0.72
1.91
Final report
Name: MANSOURI & GOUTA
Project: Graduation project
Company: Alpha Engineering International (AEI SARL)
Date: 21/05/2015
Main input parameters:

Parameter Unit Value
Temperature °C 24
Pressure Barg 4
CO2 % 5.00
Wall shear stress Pa 1
pH 3.90
Actual liquid velocity m/s 1.60
Internal pipe diameter mm 304.80
Glycol concentration % 0
Ranges:
De Waard 91' In the range
De Waard 95' Out of the range
Cassandra (BP) Out of the range
Norsok M-506 In the range
Results:
CO2 fugacity Bara 0.25
Uninhibited corrosion rates mm/y
De Waard 91' 0.44
De Waard 95' 1
Cassandra (BP) 0.72
Norsok M-506 1.91
Inhibited corrosion rates mm/y
De Waard 91' 0.09
De Waard 95' 0.21
Cassandra (BP) 0.15
Norsok M-506 0.39
Appendix 2
Heat & Material Balance
(Amine Unit)
Appendix 3
Material Selection Spreadsheet
Pipe NPS OD m DW 91' DW 95' BP M-506 CR Severity CA WT (A106B) WT chosen Schedule Price $/m WT(304L) Price $/m WT(UNS 31254) Price $/m WT(317L) Price $/m Choice
24C 2 0.0603 0.6 0.1 0.13 0.67 0.375 2 1 5.36 5.54 XS 2.023 5.83 12.165 3.41 19.289 4.9 14.565 A106B
22A 4 0.1143 0.47 0.09 0.1 0.54 0.3 2 7.5 16.45 17.12 XXS 10.584 10.91 32.282 6.37 77.662 9.15 54.86 A106B
22B 4 0.1143 0.47 0.09 0.1 0.54 0.3 2 7.5 16.45 17.12 XXS 10.584 10.91 32.282 6.37 77.662 9.15 54.86 A106B
10 CO2 free 6 0.1524 0 1 0 0.16 2.77 5 2.512 0.23 10.642 0.13 31.381 0.19 18.084 A106B
20A 6 0.1683 0.57 0.05 0.1 0.55 0.3175 2 7.9375 20.21 21.95 XXS 20.582 15.43 75.664 8.99 149.875 12.94 106.043 A106B
20B 6 0.1683 0.57 0.05 0.1 0.55 0.3175 2 7.9375 20.21 21.95 XXS 20.582 15.43 75.664 8.99 149.875 12.94 106.043 A106B
2A (Note1) 12 0.3238 0 1 1 22.57 25.4 XXS 120 51.331 29.68 268.927 17.3 480.483 24.88 1025.598 A106B
2A gas 12 0.3238 0 1 0 21.42 21.44 100 44.985 29.68 268.927 17.3 480.483 24.88 1025.598 A106B
2B (Note2) 12 0.3238 0 1 1 22.57 25.4 XXS 120 51.331 29.68 268.927 17.3 480.483 24.88 1025.598 A106B
2B gas 12 0.3238 0 1 0 21.42 21.44 100 44.985 29.68 268.927 17.3 480.483 24.88 1025.598 A106B
3A 12 0.3238 0 1 1 22.38 25.4 XXS 120 51.276 29.42 268.707 17.15 479.751 24.66 369.245 A106B
3B 12 0.3238 0 1 1 22.38 25.4 XXS 120 51.276 29.42 268.707 17.15 479.751 24.66 369.245 A106B
16 16 0.4064 1.17 0.22 0.26 1.11 0.69 2 17.25 28.27 30.96 120 72.262 12.01 140.496 6.87 278.197 9.99 238.759 A106B
17 16 0.4064 0.53 0.21 0.17 0.78 0.4225 2 10.5625 18.91 21.44 80 51.725 9.61 137.633 5.49 224.021 7.99 182.011 A106B
2C (Note3) 16 0.4064 0 1 1 28.38 30.96 120 79.165 37.72 413.615 22 868.814 31.63 648.655 A106B
2C gas 16 0.4064 0 1 0 27.24 30.96 120 79.165 37.72 413.615 22 868.814 31.63 1799.736 A106B
3C 16 0.4064 0 1 1 28.14 30.96 120 79.076 37.4 413.257 21.8 867.662 31.36 648.031 A106B
1A gas 18 0.457 0 1 0 30.66 34.93 120 100.378 42.46 520.469 24.76 1096.192 35.61 2214.899 A106B
1B gas 18 0.457 0 1 0 30.66 34.93 120 100.378 42.46 520.469 24.76 1096.192 35.61 2214.899 A106B
18 20 0.508 0.41 0.1 0.1 0.52 0.2825 2 7.0625 12.94 15.09 40 46.695 6.86 130.305 3.9 210.409 5.69 154.583 A106B
1C gas 24 0.61 0 1 0 41.45 46.02 120 177.337 57.39 918.324 33.48 1945.26 48.13 3918.005 A106B
14 24 0.61 13.41 0.02 0.38 0.78 0.3933 2 9.83333 28.44 30.96 80 116.623 24.09 406.345 13.82 763.66 20.07 690.545 A106B
15 24 0.61 3.67 0.05 0.3 1.18 1.3 3 32.5 51.55 52.37 140 181.487 20.19 399.342 11.56 674.74 16.81 506.61 A106B
11 30 0.762 4.59 0.01 0.08 0.14 0.0767 1 1.91667 3.54 7.92 10 36.666 1.9 125.773 1.08 370.897 1.57 213.74 A106B
13 30 0.762 4.96 0.01 0.07 0.13 0.07 1 1.75 3.35 7.92 10 36.666 1.9 125.773 1.08 370.897 1.57 213.74 A106B
9 36 0.9144 0 1 1 2.08 7.92 10 43.544 1.33 184.513 0.75 544.116 1.1 313.562 A106B
12 gas 36 0.9144 0 1 0 1.61 7.92 10 44.346 2.28 187.911 1.29 554.138 1.89 319.337 A106B
8 gas 42 1.0668 0 1 0 1.17 9.53 STD 61.232 1.65 259.467 0.94 765.932 1.37 440.94 A106B
19 (Note2) 2 0.0603 0.47 0.03 0.08 0.43 0.2525 2 6.3125 11.19 5.51 8.51 3.21 19.099 4.62 14.462 A304L
24A 2 0.0603 0.47 0.05 0.09 0.48 0.2725 2 6.8125 11.94 5.76 12.165 3.36 19.289 4.83 14.565 A304L
24B 2 0.0603 0.47 0.05 0.09 0.48 0.2725 2 6.8125 11.94 5.76 12.165 3.36 19.289 4.83 14.565 A304L
21A 3 0.0889 0.57 0.14 0.15 0.69 0.3875 2 9.6875 17.4 8.75 23.736 5.11 40.634 7.34 30.128 A304L
21B 3 0.0889 0.57 0.14 0.15 0.69 0.3875 2 9.6875 17.4 8.75 23.736 5.11 40.634 7.34 30.128 A304L
21C 4 0.1143 0.57 0.12 0.14 0.67 0.375 2 9.375 18.96 11.4 37.555 6.66 78.013 9.57 55.051 A304L
22C 6 0.1683 0.6 0.09 0.12 0.67 0.37 2 9.25 22.33 16.28 76.147 9.5 151.462 13.66 106.915 A304L
20C 8 0.2191 0.57 0.04 0.1 0.53 0.31 2 7.75 23.54 20.34 114.959 11.86 232.669 17.06 177.664 A304L
5A 16 0.4064 24.63 4.7 6.49 12.91 12.183 3 304.563 375.34 37.76 413.774 22.02 869.326 31.67 648.933 A304L
5B 16 0.4064 24.63 4.7 6.49 12.91 12.183 3 304.563 375.34 37.76 413.774 22.02 869.326 31.67 648.933 A304L
5 18 0.4572 23.29 8.36 8.33 16.31 14.073 3 351.813 429.71 38.35 464.876 22.3 918.746 32.13 714.298 A304L
6 18 0.4572 79.81 4.58 12.79 10.41 9.26 3 231.5 289.2 34.24 414.602 19.86 900.886 28.65 612.855 A304L
5C 20 0.508 25.06 4.44 6.41 12.8 12.178 3 304.438 382.45 47.79 641.142 27.88 1354 40.09 993.968 A304L
7 36 0.914 7.79 0.08 0.7 1.87 0.8833 2 22.0833 26.57 1.88 186.696 1.07 550.555 1.56 317.272 A304L
4A 16 0.4064 1.18 0.3 0.31 1.42 0.8025 2 20.0625 55.88 45.46 26.67 1015.799 38.21 717.326 A317L
4B 16 0.4064 1.18 0.3 0.31 1.42 0.8025 2 20.0625 55.88 45.46 26.67 1015.799 38.21 717.326 A317L
4C 18 0.457 1.18 0.33 0.33 1.47 0.8275 2 20.6875 60.7 51.12 29.99 1287.782 42.97 902.711 A317L
4 20 0.508 1.18 0.51 0.42 1.68 0.9475 2 23.6875 68.26 56.82 33.33 1568.608 47.76 1110.687 A317L
Appendix 4
Extracts from TRAUVAY & CAUVIN

Rapport PFE C.G Et F.M

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rapport PFE C.G Et F.M

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche Scientifique

PROJET DE FIN D’ETUDES

Material Selection for Oil & Gas Plants

Soutenu le 12/09/2015 ; devant le jury d’examen:

ENIM, PFE 2015 Mechanical Engineering Department - AEI

3.5 Effect of Liquid Velocity ........................................................................................................................................ 27

ENIM, PFE 2015 Mechanical Engineering Department - AEI

ENIM, PFE 2015 Mechanical Engineering Department - AEI

ENIM, PFE 2015 Mechanical Engineering Department - AEI

ENIM, PFE 2015 Mechanical Engineering Department - AEI

Figure 1 shows the logo of AEI.

Figure 1: AEI logo

Contact information of AEI are listed in the table below:

Company name ALPHA ENGINEERING International (AEI)

Table 1: Contact information of AEI

Table 2: Main activities of AEI

ENIM, PFE 2015 Mechanical Engineering Department - AEI

is a team composed of multidisciplinary agents

ENIM, PFE 2015 Mechanical Engineering Department - AEI

1.2 Corrosion in Petroleum Industry

The anodic half-reaction is iron oxidation to ferrous ion:

The cathodic half-reaction is hydrogen ion reduction to hydrogen:

1.3 Wet CO2 Corrosion

ENIM, PFE 2015 Mechanical Engineering Department - AEI

Carbonic acid formation:

Figure 2: General corrosion[3]

ENIM, PFE 2015 Mechanical Engineering Department - AEI

Figure 4: Mesa attack[5]

Figure 5: Flow-induced corrosion[5]

ENIM, PFE 2015 Mechanical Engineering Department - AEI

1.4 Wet H2S Corrosion

1st acid dissociation :

2nd acid dissociation :

Iron sulfide formation :

ENIM, PFE 2015 Mechanical Engineering Department - AEI

Generally, H2 ear)[2]. Having a corrosion allowance

Figure 6: Extensive hydrogen blistering on the surface of a steel[8]

ENIM, PFE 2015 Mechanical Engineering Department - AEI

Figure 7: Stepwise HIC in a carbon steel specimen[8]

ENIM, PFE 2015 Mechanical Engineering Department - AEI

1.5 Corrosion Inspection Technics

Figure 10: The principal of radiography[9]

ENIM, PFE 2015 Mechanical Engineering Department - AEI

Figure 11: Corrosion coupons samples [11]

1.6 Corrosion Inhibitors

Protection by formation of oxidization of the base metal.

Reaction with the corrosive environment to decrease its corrosivity.

Alloy Environmental pH Inhibitor Concentration Efficiency

Table 3: Inhibitors efficiencies for some alloys at room temperature[13]

ENIM, PFE 2015 Mechanical Engineering Department - AEI

The effect of glycol in water is obtained as follows:

ENIM, PFE 2015 Mechanical Engineering Department - AEI

2.2 Overview of Corrosion Prediction Models

approaches of the phenomena.

NORSOK model (Statoil, Saga, Hydro)

De Waard model (De Waard and co-workers)

KSC Model (IFE)

MULTICORP (Ohio University)

2.3 De Waard 91 Model [15]

ENIM, PFE 2015 Mechanical Engineering Department - AEI

2.3.1 Inputs of De Waard 1991 Model

Main input parameters are as follows:

Temperature of the environment (T) in [°C]

CO2 fugacity (fCO2) in [bar].