See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/289333892

Corrosion management of duplex stainless steel gas production flowlines

Article  in  NACE - International Corrosion Conference Series · January 2014

CITATIONS READS
2 366

7 authors, including:

Janardhan Saithala Timothy Illson

Petroleum Development Oman Det Norske Veritas
27 PUBLICATIONS   65 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   93 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Corrosion resistant liners for oilfield flowlines View project

PhD study View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Janardhan Saithala on 25 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Paper No.
3974

CORROSION MANAGEMENT OF DUPLEX STAINLESS STEEL GAS PRODUCTION FLOWLINES

Janardhan Rao Saithala*, Tim Illson, Ian Thompson, Azrul Hilmi,

Yunnan Gao, Angie Siddle, Andrew Ramage

GL Noble Denton
Holywell Park, Ashby Road
Loughborough,
LE11 3PU; UK

ABSTRACT

Onshore gas production facilities commonly consist of a network of flowlines feeding the gas inlet
manifold before processing. A number of operators use duplex stainless steel (DSS) as one of the
materials of construction (MOC) for gas flowlines due to their good corrosion resistance with the aim of
avoiding extensive maintenance and providing high gas production availability. However duplex
stainless steels (DSS’s) can still be susceptible to internal and external corrosion threats in both above-
ground and buried environments. The threat of corrosion can be effectively managed if DSS flowlines
are operating within their integrity operating window (IOW) and the material limits are clearly
understood. For these reasons effective corrosion management of gas flow lines is one of the core
requirements in maintaining the integrity of gas assets and extending their period of operation beyond
their design life. This paper will present a methodology for corrosion management of DSS flowline
installations. This paper will also discuss flowlines preservation strategy during the long periods of well
shutdowns, and threats associated with stray current interference.

Key words: Duplex Stainless Steel, Gas Flowlines, Integrity operating window, corrosion management

INTRODUCTION

Flowlines are defined as a pipeline between well-head and gathering facility/manifold or vice versa.
Typical flowlines are those transporting unprocessed hydrocarbons from wells to a gathering
station/manifold, water injection lines transporting water from a treatment/pumping station to the
wellhead and gas lift lines transporting high pressure gas from compressor stations/manifolds to the
well head. DSS’s have excellent resistance to CO2 corrosion and good mechanical properties which
make them candidate materials to carry untreated corrosive oil & gas in flowlines from well head to gas
processing plant [1]. DSS’s are generally considered as corrosion resistant alloys (CRA’s) within the oil
& gas industry. The major justification for selection of CRA’s is lower operational expenditure (OPEX)
due to limited maintenance and inspection requirements. In addition, DSS’s are intended to minimise
the requirement for corrosion management. The experience of the authors, however, suggests that

©2014 by NACE International.

Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 1440 South Creek Drive, Houston, Texas 77084.
The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
1
Janardhan Saithala - Invoice 210146 downloaded on 5/23/2021 10:35:32 AM Single-user licence only, copying/networking prohibited
 there are occasions where DSS can be degraded due to particular corrosion mechanisms that occur
under certain operating conditions. As a consequence, corrosion management is as important for DSS
as for conventional carbon steel flowlines. This paper covers the standard approach for corrosion
management of duplex flow lines for onshore facilities.

MATERIALS FOR GAS FLOWLINES

The most commonly used materials for gas flow lines are

 Carbon steel (CS)

 Duplex stainless steel

Selection of flowline materials should take account of the service for which the flowline is intended, the
operating envelope and the life cycle costs (LCC). The information required to make the appropriate
choice of material includes:

 Required life of the flowline

 Corrosivity of the field
 Temperature rating
 Pressure rating
 Flow properties
 Installation design
 Pigging requirements for removal of scaling, sand, wax etc.

For highly corrosive environments CRAs, in particular DSS’s remain the most cost effective option
since the risk of corrosion failure on CS lines is high and use of corrosion inhibition with carbon and
alloy steels is often either impractical, costly or poses too high a risk.

The DSS microstructure consists of approximately 50% austenite and 50% ferrite phases. However if
incorrectly heat treated, these materials suffer from intermetallic phase (IP) precipitation, such as sigma
and chi, that will degrade the mechanical and corrosion properties. The proportion of each phase
depends on the exact composition and on the cooling rate during production or heat treatment (HT). It
is highlighted in several studies [2-4] that HT of DSS grades is critical as improper HT can deteriorate
the beneficial properties that DSS’s offer compared to traditional austenitic grades. Figure 1 shows the
time temperature transformation (TTT) of various DSS grades. DSS’s are stronger but have some
drawbacks with respect to welding and stress corrosion cracking; however, they do have better stress
corrosion resistance in chloride environments than the austenitic range. Welding controls must ensure
that the weld deposit matches the ferrite/austenite ratio of the parent material; excess austenite will
make the alloy weaker and excess ferrite will make the alloy more susceptible to hydrogen cracking.
Despite these shortcomings, the strength of these steels and the relative ease of welding make them a
natural choice for pipelines where the corrosion resistance is paramount. DSS’s materials can perform
satisfactorily in sweet [CO2], sour [H2S] and chloride environments. The DSS range also has high
fatigue strength in marine environments.

Duplex stainless steels are available in either 22Cr 5Ni 3Mo or 25Cr 5Ni 1.5Mo alloys. They have
excellent resistance to CO2 but the combination of H2S and water containing chlorides can lead to
attack by crevice corrosion and stress corrosion cracking; when H 2S is present in combination with
chloride free water, crevice corrosion and stress corrosion cracking are not a concern. The MOC for
flowlines generally is 22 Cr DSS grade, UNS 31803 with minimum nitrogen content 0.14%. Nitrogen
requirement shall be considered as important for DSS grade as it contributes to corrosion resistance
and phase balance of DSS grades.

©2014 by NACE International.

Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 1440 South Creek Drive, Houston, Texas 77084.
The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
2
Janardhan Saithala - Invoice 210146 downloaded on 5/23/2021 10:35:32 AM Single-user licence only, copying/networking prohibited
 CORROSION MANAGEMENT

Since the early 1990s there have been significant cultural shifts in the way that offshore safety issues,
including corrosion and asset integrity, are managed. Many of these changes have also been applied
to onshore process plants. Previously, it was generally accepted that certification based on
inspections/survey identified the condition of equipment/structures at the inspection date and implied
that integrity would be maintained until the next survey. Emphasis is now being placed on the
continuous assessment of risks, monitoring of performance, and a pro-active approach to promote
safety and integrity. Many operators implement this approach by using Risk Based Inspection (RBI)
techniques. CRA’s and specifically DSS’s are generally not part of an inspection strategy and the
specification of a CRA generally infers that a “fit and forget” philosophy has been adopted for that
specific component. However, DSS’s can suffer from various degradation mechanisms, which will
require an active corrosion control strategy to be maintained.
One way to manage the corrosion is through a proactive approach, a fundamental component of which
is the corrosion management manual (CMM). This manual is asset specific and identifies corrosion
threats to which the asset will be exposed. The manual also contains the requirements for corrosion
monitoring, key performance indicators and mitigating action that should be taken should KPIs not be
met. A dedicated CMM is intended to ensure that the facilities meet the stated design life. The CMM
can be integrated with health and safety management, as part of an overall asset management system,
covering integrity, maintenance and inspection.
There is a vast difference between simply monitoring for corrosion and corrosion management. The
move from corrosion monitoring to corrosion management requires a shift in emphasis in the way that
facility operators and engineers regard the issue of corrosion. Corrosion management can often
require sometimes fundamental, changes in working practices and organisation [5]. Typical corrosion
management strategy includes the following steps
 Corrosion risk assessment
 Corrosion mitigation strategy
 Corrosion monitoring strategy
 Corrosion KPI Scorecard
 Corrosion data management, reporting and performance

The corrosion management structure for DSS’s flowlines has followed the established framework [6] as
shown in Figure 2.

CORROSION RISK ASSESSMENT

In authors experience the main internal corrosion threats for DSS flow lines are

 Under deposit corrosion

 Stray current induced internal corrosion of DSS isolating Joints
 Pitting & Stress corrosion cracking

The main external corrosion threats for DSS flow lines are

 Soil corrosion
 Chloride stress corrosion cracking
 Stray current and cathodic interference
 Hydrogen induced stress cracking

©2014 by NACE International.

Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 1440 South Creek Drive, Houston, Texas 77084.
The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
3
Janardhan Saithala - Invoice 210146 downloaded on 5/23/2021 10:35:32 AM Single-user licence only, copying/networking prohibited
 Internal Corrosion Threats

The precise data on the produced water composition within the flow lines is important to assess the
level of risk to which the pipeline system is subjected. Internal corrosion can occur where the fluid has
not been processed, for example H2S, CO2, organic acids or other corrosive components may be
present in the line, which can , in the presence of water, cause rapid internal corrosion. There are two
major approaches to counteracting these corrosive mechanisms, viz. the careful choice of material for
the line and/or the use of chemical inhibition to prevent the mechanism taking place. CO 2 internal
corrosion is not a credible threat for DSS material as laboratory and operator’s experience shows that
DSS’s are resistant to CO2 corrosion even at very high partial pressures of CO2[7]. But in conditions
containing H2S the performance of DSS’s are sensitive to chloride ions [7].

Under deposit corrosion

Under-deposit corrosion occurs at sites where deposits allows a localised concentration of a specific
chemical such as chloride or oxygen to be notably different from the amount found in the bulk water
environment. The corrosion mechanism is considered a secondary reaction, where the primary
reaction is general corrosion. However, this secondary reaction can be more devastating and
unpredictable.

A concentration cell can involve the segregation of any aggressive anions, such as negatively charged
chloride and sulphate ions, beneath deposits. As positively charged metal ions leave the surface,
negatively charged anions diffuse through the deposit to maintain neutrality, and resulting in the
concentration of an aggressive acidic electrolyte.

This localised corrosion could lead to accelerated attack of the DSS and carbon steel flowlines. DSS is
more resistant to pitting than austenitic stainless steel, however, it may still be vulnerable to under-
deposit corrosion if debris such as proppant or reservoir fines are left in the line. Flowlines that have
been mothballed for extended periods are more likely to be at risk of under-deposit corrosion.

Stray current Induced internal corrosion at DSS isolating Joints (IJs)

Stray current induced corrosion can occur at the isolation connection between the cathodically
protected and unprotected side of the IJs installed in DSS flowlines. The corrosion occurs internally
and on the unprotected (non-cathodically protected) side of the IJ.

In order to manage the threat of stray current corrosion the following approach should be implemented

 Mitigation
 IJs should be internally coated with materials suitable for the [products contained and the
service temperature

 Monitoring
 Cathodic Potential surveys should be conducted e.g. pipe-to soil potentials either side of the IJ
will identify those IJs that have shorted as a result of conductive liquid bridging across the IJ

 Maintenance
 Replacement of IJs with IJs with service appropriate internal coatings.

 Material selection of IJs

 Alternative materials such as nickel alloys may be need to be qualified.

©2014 by NACE International.

Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 1440 South Creek Drive, Houston, Texas 77084.
The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
4
Janardhan Saithala - Invoice 210146 downloaded on 5/23/2021 10:35:32 AM Single-user licence only, copying/networking prohibited
 Pitting and chloride stress corrosion cracking

Historically operators considered internal scc and pitting as a low probability failure mode in DSS’s,
because of the low oxygen levels in the oil field fluids. However recent incidents have shown that in
specific circumstances it is possible. The circumstances where it is possible is attributed to high
chloride concentration due to evaporation of brines at temperatures above 100 0C. Failures have
occurred by chloride induced cracking in duplex stainless steel piping operating at elevated
temperatures in high chloride environments [8-11]. Observations suggested that internal cracking
initiated beneath chloride deposits left by evaporated formation waters. Reduction of pressure on
passing level control valves resulted in water evaporation creating supersaturated liquor in the
downstream flow. This can lead to localised deposition of chlorides. Failures have occurred where a
pressure drop, which caused water flash with a high chloride concentration and salt deposition,
coincided with a weld [8 & 11]. The concentration of chloride (Cl-) salts can increase the propensity for
stress corrosion cracking of duplex stainless steels as highlighted by the HSE information sheet [8].

Where the production of formation water is intermittent, water may pool at the bottom of flow lines and
evaporate leaving a salt deposit leaving this area vulnerable to ClSCC.

 Mitigation
 Inject fresh water to dilute the brine and reduce the concentration of chloride ions.

 Monitoring
 The operating conditions such as chloride, temperature, H 2S etc shall be monitored and

 Material selection
 Material selection shall consider the possibility of potential evaporation conditions along with
steady state conditions.

External Corrosion Threats

External corrosion is less of an intrinsic materials problem and is normally mitigated by a combination of
coatings and cathodic protection.

Soil Corrosion

Corrosion of buried structures is dependent on the soil/backfill properties, which can change over short
distances, the soil/backfill properties known to have an influence on the corrosion of buried structures
include:

 Water (position of the water table and soil moisture level)

 Degree of aeration
 Resistivity
 Redox potential
 Chloride and sulphate level
 Microbial content

Soil corrosion occurs where localised electrochemical cells develop between the metal and soil.

Whilst DSS’s does have good general corrosion resistance they can be vulnerable to localised pitting
corrosion in black fill materials containing high chloride content. As indicated above pitting corrosion
rates can be high especially in high chloride and high temperature environments. Dissolved oxygen

©2014 by NACE International.

Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 1440 South Creek Drive, Houston, Texas 77084.
The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
5
Janardhan Saithala - Invoice 210146 downloaded on 5/23/2021 10:35:32 AM Single-user licence only, copying/networking prohibited
 present in chloride containing sand in which the lines may be buried can result in pitting of the DSS
where the anti-corrosive layer has been damaged or degraded. The corrosion risk is highest is in the
heat affected zone near welds and where there may be locally high chloride concentrations in the soil.

The threat of soil corrosion can be managed by:

 Mitigation
 The application of protective coatings suitable for burial and resistant to the service
temperature.
 The application of impressed current cathodic protection systems to protect the exposed
metal in the case of the coating damage and/or failure

 Monitoring
 Coating Condition surveys: Operators tend to use the direct current voltage gradient (DCVG)
technique to locate and size coating defects from above ground.
 Cathodic potential surveys e.g. measurement of ‘On’ and ‘Off’ ’potentials at test posts, and the
use of Close Interval Potential (CIP) Surveys to assess the overall effectiveness of the CP
scheme.

 Maintenance
 Coating maintenance e.g. repair of defects located by DCVG
 Maintenance and repair of TR’s, groundbeds and test posts and connections

Stray Current and Cathodic Interference

Buried structures may suffer increased corrosion due to stray currents. In this mechanism, stray
(direct) current ‘jumps’ from foreign cathodically protected structures may be picked up on an operators
line due to its lower resistance to current flow than the surrounding soil. The structure is cathodically
protected where the current enters the structure but corrodes where it leaves the structure.

The threat of stray current corrosion can be managed using the following methods:

 Mitigation

 External coatings
 Communication with other infrastructure owners
 Design e.g., appropriate layout of ground beds, auxiliary current drainage, use of electrical
isolation or bonding between structures as appropriate

 Monitoring

 Right- of-Way surveillance

 Pipe potential surveys e.g. interference testing with foreign structures.

Chloride stress corrosion cracking (ClSCC)

Duplex stainless steels can be vulnerable to stress corrosion cracking under certain environmental
conditions of tensile stress, temperature and aqueous chloride environment. The presence of oxygen
can increase the propensity for cracking. Critical factors for stress corrosion cracking include chloride
content, pH, temperature, presence of oxygen, and alloy composition. ClSCC usually occurs at
temperatures >100ºC although exceptions do occur at lower temperatures. Norsok [12] specifies
temperature limits of 100ºC for DSS in salt laden environments. Susceptibility to cracking increases

©2014 by NACE International.

Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 1440 South Creek Drive, Houston, Texas 77084.
The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
6
Janardhan Saithala - Invoice 210146 downloaded on 5/23/2021 10:35:32 AM Single-user licence only, copying/networking prohibited
 with increase in temperature. SCC usually occurs at pH>2. At lower pH values, uniform corrosion
tends to occur.

Externally, ClSCC could be an issue where the anti-corrosive layer has been damaged or defective
where the chloride concentration is locally high.

The following approach will reduce the threat of external ClSCC

 Mitigation
 Primary means of external corrosion control is the use of coating systems which prevent
corrosion by isolating the metal from the soil
 Impressed current cathodic protection system which protects exposed metal in the event of
coating failure.

 Monitoring
 Coating Condition surveys e.g the direct current voltage gradient (DCVG) technique which
can locate and size coating defects using equipment from above ground.
 Potential surveys e.g. measurement of ‘On’ and ‘Off’ ’potentials at test posts, and the Close
Interval Potential Surveys (CIPS), which are used to assess cathodic protection levels at 1- 2
metre intervals between test posts.

 Maintenance
 Coating maintenance e.g. repair of defects located by DCVG
 Maintenance of cathodic protection potentials within agreed criteria.

Hydrogen Induced stress cracking (HISC)

Duplex stainless steels are normally protected externally by coating and, if buried or underwater, by
cathodic protection. Cases of hydrogen induced stress cracking (HISC) have occurred on cathodically
protected pipelines and therefore such installations require special attention.

The vast majority of cathodically protected duplex SS lines have not suffered hydrogen cracking.
Locations where cracking has been observed have generally been associated with areas where the
coating has been damaged and where high local strains or significant local stress concentrations
existed.

HISC is credible in offshore flowlines and proper design of cathodically protected duplex stainless steel
subsea lines should involve

1) Use of high quality insulating coatings,

2) Attention to detail to avoid local strains in excess of about 0.3%, and
3) A “moderate” protection potential, less heavily polarized than is common for CP of carbon
steel lines, to avoid “overprotection” and the generation of hydrogen.

CP potentials below -1.0 V vs SCE (saturated calomel electrode) are considered unsafe. Thus
sacrificial anodes with especially low potentials, for example magnesium or aluminum-zinc, are not
recommended for use on duplex SS subsea lines. Careful potential surveys along the length of the line
and automatic potential limitation or regulation systems will be necessary when using impressed
current systems or sacrificial anodes. Zinc anodes will not be useful at temperatures above 50ºC due to
the possibility of polarization or erratic consumption.

The industry document DNV-RP-F112, “Design of Duplex Stainless Steel Subsea Equipment Exposed
to Cathodic Protection” [13], details appropriate methods for the design of cathodically protected duplex

©2014 by NACE International.

Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 1440 South Creek Drive, Houston, Texas 77084.
The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
7
Janardhan Saithala - Invoice 210146 downloaded on 5/23/2021 10:35:32 AM Single-user licence only, copying/networking prohibited
 stainless steel pipelines. The main thrust of the DNV document is limiting the localized strain in duplex
construction to levels low enough to ensure that hydrogen induced stress cracking does not occur.
HISC is a less credible threat for onshore flowlines as there is continuous water phase, the black fill
resistivity’s are high when compared with seawater and greater control can be practiced over pipe to
soil potentials, particularly with impressed current cathodic protection systems.

CORROSION MITIGATION STRATEGY

External coatings

Primary means of external corrosion and CSCC mitigation is the use of coating systems which prevent
corrosion by isolating the metal from the soil.

The coating systems which are employed for the flow lines are:

 3 LPP/3LPE - Three layer polypropylene/polyethylene

 FBE- fusion bonded epoxy
 PE polyethylene

Cathodic Protection

In addition to coatings as the means of external corrosion mitigation, impressed current cathodic
protection systems should be used for all lines to protect exposed metal where coating damage exists.

The flowlines should generally be protected by cathodic protection with transformers/rectifiers installed
at the respective manifolds. The transition between above and below ground sections of pipe should be
electrically isolated from the manifold by monolithic isolating joints made of duplex stainless steel. The
isolating joints should be internally coated using a solvent free liquid epoxy or other compatible coating.

Application of cathodic protection is used by most operators to prevent corrosion at sites of local
breakdown of the coating. It is generally considered that if DSS is shifted to a more negative polarised
potential than -850mV, with respect to a Cu/CuSO4 reference electrode, corrosion should be
prevented. However, over protection can be detrimental to the pipeline and may cause hydrogen
embrittlement cracking to occur. It is recommended to set the CP protection level for all buried steel
flow lines to be in the range -850 to -1150mV (with respect to Cu/CuSO4). Cathodic protection is
applied in accordance with operator’s internal specification or other agreed international standards such
as BS EN 12954 [14].

Welding of DSS flow lines.

The metallurgy of the duplex stainless steel family is complex and requires very close control of welding
parameters if corrosion resistance are not to be adversely affected. Microstructure or phase balance of
parent, heat affected zone and weld metal should be between 35 - 60% ferrite. In addition to this, the
formation of intermetallic phases, such as sigma and chi phase and secondary austenite is a major risk
during welding and markedly reduce both toughness and corrosion resistance. To produce the optimum
mechanical properties and corrosion resistance heat input and interpass temperature should be
carefully control.

©2014 by NACE International.

Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 1440 South Creek Drive, Houston, Texas 77084.
The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
8
Janardhan Saithala - Invoice 210146 downloaded on 5/23/2021 10:35:32 AM Single-user licence only, copying/networking prohibited
 CORROSION MONITORING STRATEGY

Monitoring of Critical Process Variables (CPV)

Critical process variables should be monitored to ensure the flow line falls within the integrity operating
window (IOW) of the flow lines. Process variables such as temperature, chloride content, oxygen and
H2S should be monitored frequently for each well. Frequent fluid sampling is required in order to
maintain the integrity of DSS flow lines. Changes in operating conditions and excursions beyond the
IOW should be highlighted and assessed to ensure the flowlines are fit for purpose.

Coating conditions surveys

Coating integrity is verified principally by using the Direct Current Voltage Gradient (DCVG) technique
for buried lines which can locate and size coating defects by measuring variations in voltage gradient in
the soil. It is usually performed in conjunction with a Close Interval Potential Surveys (CIPS) survey.
CIPS and DCVG are appropriate inspection techniques for buried flowlines with impressed current
cathodic protection. The two techniques are usually applied in tandem.
CIPS, which records the pipe-to-soil potential every 1 – 2 metres, indicates how efficiently the CP
system is operating. The DCVG survey utilises the pipeline’s existing CP system to accurately locate
defects along the pipeline by measuring the voltage gradients in the soil caused by the flow of the CP
current at these defects.

 CIPS is used for whole-line screening to identify regions of inadequate cathodic protection

 DCVG is then applied to locate and size coating faults where the CP criterion can’t be achieved

The output of a DCVG survey usually contains a list of coating defects which are characterized as
low/medium/high priority depending on their size.

Cathodic protection surveys

Soil to structure potential is a key measure of CP system performance. Therefore, the CP system
performance is regularly verified using periodic CIPS surveys and frequent On/Off potential surveys.
Operators generally record the ‘On’ pipe-to-soil potential on a quarterly basis and the ‘On and OFF’
potentials annually. CIPS surveys are carried out periodically, typically every five years dependent on
the external corrosion threat on the line.

Other parameters that are monitored include transformer rectifier station output voltages and currents,
ground bed resistance, auxiliary drain currents etc.

The CP system performance can highlight if there are potential issues related to corrosion at Isolation
Joints. There have been a number of incidents of corrosion at isolation joints with a number of
contributing factors. The original coating was thought not to be suitable for the service conditions, which
required alternative materials to be identified.

Inspection methods for DSS flow lines

Review of recent failures on DSS flow lines [8-11] reveals that the failure morphology of in-service
damage for DSS component is either stress corrosion cracking or pitting. Both these damage types
occur with little warning and over a relatively short time interval. Hence, inspection cannot be relied
upon to detect cracking or pitting prior to failure. Most inspection techniques have been directed
towards prevention rather than detecting or monitoring the growth of the damage. Most operators carry

©2014 by NACE International.

Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 1440 South Creek Drive, Houston, Texas 77084.
The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
9
Janardhan Saithala - Invoice 210146 downloaded on 5/23/2021 10:35:32 AM Single-user licence only, copying/networking prohibited
 out coating examination for pinholes, damage, degradation etc. Review on operator’s strategy for
inspection of duplex stainless steel flow lines reveals that they are a number of inspection techniques
used by operator. The inspection techniques are listed below.

External inspection:
The methods that are employed for the external inspection of DSS flowlines are
 Ultrasonic
 Long Range Ultrasonic Testing (LRUT)
 Creeping Headwave Inspection Method (CHIME)
 Pipe Support Tool (PST)

 Magnetic
 NoPig
 Magnetic tomography method (MTM)

 Radiographic
 Sentinel

The identified ultrasonic and radiographic inspection methods should be equally effective for both
carbon steel and DSS flowlines. However, external magnetic methods will have reduced effectiveness
for DSS flowlines due to the reduced saturation flux density and the significantly reduced magnetic
permeability of the material.

Internal inspection:
For internal inspection, ultrasonic testing (UT) tools should be equally as effective for DSS flowlines as
they are for carbon steel. However, standard UT tools require a liquid environment to ensure adequate
coupling between the sensors and the pipe wall. Before such tools could be used, gas flowlines would
generally require decommissioning and then be water filled. An alternative technique suitable for use
in gas is the Elastic Wave tool which couples its sensors to the pipe wall via liquid filled wheels.
However, this is available for 600, 750 and 900mm pipes only, i.e. the currently available sizes are too
large for typical sizes of flowlines.
The special magnetic properties of DSS result in a difficult environment for ILI MFL tools. To
investigate this, ROSEN, together with TOTAL, performed a series of pull-through tests in 2009 using
the 12” Corrosion Detection tool (CDP). Their paper presented to PPIM in 2010 discusses the
capabilities of MFL in-line inspection (ILI) in DSS, as well as the results from the pull tests, and a
detailed analysis of DUPLEX material samples. Their conclusions were as follows:

 DSS known as a useful material to protect pipelines against, for example, stress corrosion
cracking, revealed magnetic properties which allow for an inspection with a high resolution MFL
in-line inspection tool. The pull-through tests showed that metal loss feature detection and sizing
is possible with MFL tools.
 With help of the pull-through test results, a special calibration for MFL feature sizing was
generated. The CDP is not only capable of detecting external metal loss features, but also the
MFL signal amplitudes of the external test features are comparable with the corresponding test
features in standard steel pipe (e.g. API 5L grade X52). The data evaluation showed that the
metal loss defect internal/external discrimination in DUPLEX is comparable, or only slightly
restricted, to standard pipe line steel.

©2014 by NACE International.

Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 1440 South Creek Drive, Houston, Texas 77084.
The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
10
Janardhan Saithala - Invoice 210146 downloaded on 5/23/2021 10:35:32 AM Single-user licence only, copying/networking prohibited
  Deep metal loss features in girth welds, as well as girth weld anomalies like excessive root
penetration, severe lack of fusion, or lack of penetration, are visible in the data. Also references
like extra metal, valves or tees can be reported for DUPLEX pipelines. Minor MFL detection and
sizing restrictions are also discussed in this paper.” [15]

DSS Flow line preservation strategy

The chief issue when mothballing/suspending a duplex stainless steel pipeline/flowline will be pitting
caused by the presence of chlorides, liquid water and air ingress. For localised corrosion to occur at
ambient temperatures liquid water, chlorides and oxygen all need to be present. Localised corrosion is
promoted by the presence of deposits. Thus, the objective when suspending a pipeline/flowline must be
to remove one or more of the factors that promote localised attack. The table 1, below shows two
general strategies that can be used when preserving duplex lines. It is split into piggable and non-
piggable lines. The strategy attempts to minimize the use of water to avoid complex drying
requirements and the potential for leaving water at low spots. An alternative where in regions low
chloride potable water is available in abundance the line can be displaced with potable water as
opposed to drying.

Line type Preservation strategy

1. Suspend pipeline/flowline
2. Run mechanical pigs to remove water/debris
3. Run foam pigs/methanol slugs to finish drying
o

Piggable (option A) 4. Flush with heated nitrogen until dewpoint of gas leaving pipe is 5 C<
than the minimum ambient temperature and oxygen level is below 10
ppm.
5. Close in line leaving a nitrogen pressure of 0.5 barg.

1. Suspend pipeline/flowline
2. Run combination pig train for drying and debris removal. Train
includes mechanical cleaning pigs and methanol gel pigs for drying
and to entrain debris.
o
Piggable (option B) 3. Flush with heated nitrogen until dewpoint of gas leaving pipe is 5 C<
than the minimum ambient temperature and oxygen level is below 10
ppm.
4. Close in line leaving a nitrogen pressure of 0.5 barg.

o
1. Flush with heated nitrogen until dewpoint of gas leaving pipe is 5 C<
than the minimum ambient temperature and oxygen level is below 10
Unpiggable ppm.
2. Close in line leaving a nitrogen pressure of 0.5 barg.

Table1: DSS flowline preservation strategy

For a duplex flowline line to be selected for preservation it must meet the following criteria:

 A plan should exist to use the line in the future, lines attached to abandoned wells do not require
preservation. Lines attached to suspended wells only require preservation if the well is to be
reinstated at some point.

©2014 by NACE International.

Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 1440 South Creek Drive, Houston, Texas 77084.
The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
11
Janardhan Saithala - Invoice 210146 downloaded on 5/23/2021 10:35:32 AM Single-user licence only, copying/networking prohibited
  The pipeline/flowline transports wet hydrocarbons containing chlorides. Dry hydrocarbons and
low salinity water are not corrosive to duplex stainless steel and lines transporting these fluids
can be closed in without special preservation strategies.
 The line will be shut-in for at least 60 days.

CORROSION MANAGEMENT KPI SCORECARD

Reporting on key performance indicators for the duplex flow lines should include

 Status of CP test every month.

 Coating integrity checks using CIPS/ DCVG every 5 years.
 Fluid (including) chloride sampling analysis during well tests.

CORROSION DATA MANAGMENT, REPORTING AND PERFORMANCE

The corrosion management team receives a number of monthly reports on corrosion management
activities and barrier status.

Cathodic protection system status report includes

 Structure to soil potential readings.

 System parameter readings (TR output voltage, current etc.).
 Protection status.

The corrosion control department should report on corrosion management barrier status to the asset
owners on a quarterly basis. A Pipeline Integrity Working Group (PIWG) should be established as the
principal management forum for communication and discussion of the prevailing integrity issues and
anomalies.

The PIWG has the following key objectives:

 Facilitates inter-disciplinary communication with respect to corrosion management

 Reviews effectiveness of corrosion management and control programme

PWIG meetings should be held on a regular basis. The exact content will vary with issues arising
but must include

 Review of all anomalies affecting SCEs –(safety critical elements) and current status of repair
(as applicable)
 Review of all significant corrosion monitoring activities undertaken since the last PWIG meeting
 Review of the updated CMM

Any inspection anomaly or defect identified by the reporting process should be assessed and required
corrective action taken as appropriate. Corrective actions including repair, further inspection or fabric
maintenance should be entered into the database system as a notification. Anomalies corrective action
and corrective action due dates should be listed and reviewed on a monthly basis with operations
management. Any relevant anomaly information should be fed back into the corrosion risk assessments
for possible change in frequency, type and locations of inspections or monitoring activities.

©2014 by NACE International.

Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 1440 South Creek Drive, Houston, Texas 77084.
The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
12
Janardhan Saithala - Invoice 210146 downloaded on 5/23/2021 10:35:32 AM Single-user licence only, copying/networking prohibited
 Corrosion Monitoring Change-out Reporting

Any material changes to the corrosion barriers should be subject to technical due diligence, followed
through a management of change procedure and approved by senior corrosion professionals.
Technical notes and reports should be published to record all details of the modification from concept to
design to implementation and close out.

Non-routine reporting

Reports may be required on an ad-hoc basis e.g. in response to corrosion failures, root cause
investigations, review and audits etc. The reports should be maintained in a centralized database and
the lessons learnt incorporated in the integrity/inspection plans.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though unique issues associated with welding, heat treatment, manufacturing QA/QC and
inspections of DSS arise, these issues are not obstacles for successful use of DSS as a material for
flow lines provided an adequate inspection and corrosion management strategy is in place.

There are circumstances where DSS can degrade an inspection strategy together with proper corrosion
management is required that means some of the cost advantages in selecting CRA’s are lost. Also if
the production data are poor or simply not available, (e.g. chloride and H 2S level varies significantly
across wells), then conservative assumptions may have to be made for a CRA design and operating
envelopes needs adjustment to make a CRA design choice more attractive.

The economic benefit of CRA steel production systems needs to be evaluated for each specific project,
as the CAPEX of CRAs and carbon steel can vary widely, depending on external factors and project
conditions.

Our experience with DSS flowlines shows that this option is not always “fit and forget” and that
corrosion and inspection management are still required to assure flowline integrity.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank GL Noble Denton for giving permission to publish this work.

REFERENCES

1. Liane Smith & Mario Celant “A guideline to the successful use of duplex stainless steels for
flowline”, Paper 51 – Duplex 2000, Houston, Texas, USA, 29th Feb – 1st March 2000.

2. Sudhakar Mahajanam, Raymundo P. Case, Hernan E. Rincon, Dale R. McIntyre, Michael

W.Joosten, Stig Gjesdal, Henning Monsen, “Effect of sigma phase on the corrosion and stress
corrosion of 2205 and 2507 duplex stainless steels”, paper no 11173, NACE 2011.

3. C.J. Park, V. Shankar Rao, and H.S. Kwon, “Effects of Sigma Phase on the Initiation and
Propagation of Pitting Corrosion of Duplex Stainless Steel”, Corrosion 61, (2005) p76.

4. J.L Crolet, S. Corbineau and C.P.Perrollet “Sigmatization of duplex forgings”, Paper No 15,
CORROSION 1997.

©2014 by NACE International.

Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 1440 South Creek Drive, Houston, Texas 77084.
The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
13
Janardhan Saithala - Invoice 210146 downloaded on 5/23/2021 10:35:32 AM Single-user licence only, copying/networking prohibited
 5. Bijan Kiramani, John Martin & Khlefa Esaklul, “Materials design strategy: Effects of H 2S/ CO2
corrosion on materials selection”, Paper no: 06121, CORROSION 2006, USA.

6. “Guidance for corrosion management in oil & gas production and processing”, published by
Energy Institute, London 2008.

7. Bruce. D.Craig and Liane smith, “Corrosion Resistant Alloys (CRAs) in the oil and gas industry –
selection guidelines update. Nickel institute technical series No 10073.

8. HSE Information sheet ‘Stress corrosion cracking of duplex stainless steel piping systems in hot
chloride service’ Offshore Information sheet No7/2007.

9. Karly Moore and Cathleen A. Shargay, “Duplex stainless steel chloride stress corrosion cracking
risk in the oil refining industry”, Paper No: 2520, CORROSION 2013, Orlando, Florida, USA.

10. R.A.Cottis and R.C.Newman, “Stress corrosion cracking resistance of duplex stainless steels”
prepared for Health and Safety executive and published by HMSO 1994.

11. Philip J. Webb, “The Role of Electrolyte Simulation in Understanding the Failure of Shearwater
Process Pipework”, SPE, ISBN 978-1-55563-984-6

12. NORSOK standard M-001 Rev4, August 2004 ‘Materials Selection’.

13. DNV Recommended Practice DNV–RP-F112, ‘Design of Duplex Stainless Steel Subsea
Equipment exposed to Cathodic Protection, October 2008.

14. BS EN 12954, “Cathodic Protection of Buried or immersed structures – General Principles and
Application Parameters”, 2001.

15. Capabilities of MFL inspection in duplex steel pipelines, PPIM Conference, 2010.

720
Super
Duplex

Duplex

Figure 1: TTT diagram showing the time and temperature regimes for the formation of IP in
various duplex stainless steels

©2014 by NACE International.

Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 1440 South Creek Drive, Houston, Texas 77084.
The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
14
Janardhan Saithala - Invoice 210146 downloaded on 5/23/2021 10:35:32 AM Single-user licence only, copying/networking prohibited
 Figure 2: Frame work for successful corrosion management

©2014 by NACE International.

Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 1440 South Creek Drive, Houston, Texas 77084.
The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
15
Janardhan Saithala - Invoice 210146 downloaded on 5/23/2021 10:35:32 AM Single-user licence only, copying/networking prohibited
View publication stats