Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The corrosion in the aqueous environment of CO₂–H₂S–O₂–SO₂ is extremely severe, causing frequent failures of pipeline and posing a challenging issue for material selection. This paper drew on excellent standards and past experiences to provide a suitable method for selecting materials. The method consisted of four components: standard primary selection, corrosion evaluation selection, mechanical property selection, and economic final selection. A case study demonstrated that the applicable materials for the environment (total pressure of 1.5 MPa, temperature of 30–120 °C, H₂S content of 0.1–1.5%, CO₂ content of 8–55%, SO₂ content of 0–0.00015% and O₂ content of 1–3%) were composed of 2Cr13 or 316L. Additionally, the main control factors for corrosion rate were ranked as follows: O₂ > H₂S > temperature > CO₂ > SO₂. And a reduction in mechanical properties was observed for 2Cr13, 316L, and 825 after corrosion.

Keywords

Material selection and application pipeline corrosion mechanical properties

Introduction

The matter of energy security has always been a great concern, with the safety of pipelines being an issue directly intertwined with it.¹ The safety of pipelines is often closely related to their inherent properties and environment.^2,3 At present, the excellent quality and cost-effectiveness of carbon steel have made it often used in various process treatment systems in oil and gas fields. However, in harsh corrosive environments, certain types of carbon steel are highly inapplicable and can undergo rapid corrosion perforation failure in the short term.^4–6 The corrosion failure of pipeline materials is a very inevitable and difficult issue, which significantly impacts the secure transportation of oil and gas products.⁷ The RL block of an oilfield, for instance, encountered severe corrosion issues and limited applicability of carbon steel materials due to the presence of H₂S, CO₂, SO₂, and O₂ in the pipeline medium.⁸ Therefore, selecting and designing superior pipeline materials to effectively mitigate corrosion failure has emerged as a crucial and significant research concern.

The selection of materials for oil and gas pipelines involves numerous standards. ISO 15156⁹ defines the general principles, requirements, and recommended methods for evaluating and choosing metal materials applicable for pipelines exposed to H₂S environments in oil and gas production and desulfurisation units. API Spec 5L¹⁰ and ISO 3183¹¹ both define the design, manufacturing, and inspection requirements for pipelines. However, ISO 3183 also includes the installation and operation requirements for pipelines, including provisions for construction, commissioning, operation, maintenance, and repair. Additional standards for material selection include European EN 10208,¹² Chinese GB/T 9711,¹³ Japanese JIS G 3466,¹⁴ Canadian CAS Z245,¹⁵ German DIN 17172,¹⁶ Australian AS 2885,¹⁷ etc. The aforementioned standards primarily include the manufacturing process, chemical composition, mechanical properties, corrosion resistance, dimensions, weight, anti-corrosion measures, and other requirements for various pipeline materials. These standards exhibit significant applicability to sour gas CO₂/H₂S environments as well as O₂ environments. However, there is a lack of recommended material applicability specifically in CO₂–H₂S–O₂–SO₂ aqueous environments. Further determination is necessary to establish a solid foundation for selecting pipeline materials during the design stage.

The corrosion rate is commonly utilised as an evaluation criterion for analysing the resistance of specific materials to corrosion in various harsh environments. A significant number of advancements have been achieved through corrosion experimental methods for the evaluation of pipeline materials in on-site service, specifically in CO₂ environments^18–20 and CO₂–H₂S environments.^21–24 A consensus has been reached regarding the corrosion mechanism in a CO₂ environment. The formation of FeCO₃ on the material’s surface exhibits certain protective properties. However, the deposition and density of this film are closely influenced by variables such as temperature,²⁵ partial pressure,²⁶ and flow rate.²⁷ In CO₂–H₂S environments, the most influential factor is the partial pressure ratio of CO₂/H₂S.²⁸ The generated FeS and FeCO₃ product films exhibit significant differences at different ratios, directly impacting material corrosion rates. The addition of O₂ in CO₂–H₂S–O₂ and CO₂–H₂S–O₂–SO₂ environments further complicates the corrosion mechanism. Firstly, as a depolarising agent, O₂ promotes the cathodic reaction and acts as an oxidant to degrade the dense films of FeCO₃ and FeS, thereby facilitating corrosion. Secondly, the synergistic effect between O₂–H₂S and O₂–SO₂ significantly accelerates corrosion rates and enhances pitting corrosion formation.^29,30 Therefore, studying these two environments is highly valuable and provides essential insights for pipeline material selection.^8,31–34 It can also be inferred that selecting materials for CO₂–H₂S–O₂–SO₂ environments poses significant challenges.

In addition to considering the corrosion rate index, the process for materials also takes into account their mechanical properties, as there is a certain degree of reduction in these properties after corrosion.^35,36 Currently, pipeline material selection is primarily based on comparing the mechanical properties evaluation results of pipes upon leaving the factory with established standards, ensuring they meet requirements before being put into service. However, few studies incorporate the mechanical properties results from corroded service environments as a basis for pipeline material selection, that is, evaluating whether the mechanical properties before and after corrosion meet requirements.

To summarise, the primary purpose of this paper is to fill in the existing gaps in standards and literature pertaining to material selection methods and applications in CO₂–H₂S–O₂–SO₂ aqueous environments. By integrating numerous exemplary standards and leveraging past experiences in material selection, a novel method for selecting materials applicable for gathering and transportation pipelines in CO₂–H₂S–O₂–SO₂ aqueous environments has been developed. It includes four components: standard primary selection, corrosion evaluation selection, mechanical property selection, and economic final selection. The material selection method presented in this paper provides certain assistance and a theoretical basis for the material selection and design of pipelines in corrosive environments similar to RL blocks such as multi-component thermal fluids, fire-driven exhaust gas, and flue gas displacement.

Material selection method

Standard primary selection

The commonly associated gases in oil fields are primarily CO₂ and H₂S, which adhere to internationally recognised ISO 15156 material selection standards and methodologies within this corrosive environment.^37,38 In the severe corrosion environments of the RL block, apart from significant quantities of CO₂ and H₂S, O₂ and SO₂ are present as small amounts of impurities, while a universally recognised method for material selection has yet to be established. If the simultaneous influence of CO₂, H₂S, SO₂, and O₂ is taken into consideration, the corrosion rate of different materials and conditions varies. Consequently, conducting experiments to select materials that meet the requirements would entail a substantial workload. Meanwhile, the sulphide stress cracking (SSC) caused by H₂S needs to be further determined through experiments, which will result in an increased workload. Therefore, in order to efficiently select materials that meet the requirements, this paper proposes the idea of initially selecting recommended materials based on ISO 15156 for CO₂ and H₂S resistance, ensuring they also comply with ISO 15156 standards for SSC. Subsequently, the influence of SO₂ and O₂ on the corrosion resistance of these recommended materials is further evaluated using weight loss and mechanical properties experiments. This method enables a quick screening process to select materials that meet corrosion requirements in four gas environments.

Therefore, the selection of pipeline materials in CO₂–H₂S–O₂–SO₂ aqueous environments is primarily based on ISO 15156. According to ISO, the range of material types for carbon steel and low-alloy steel is mainly determined by considering in-situ pH value and SSC cracking severity. Firstly, the pH value of the fluid under production conditions can be determined by calculating the sum of partial pressures of CO₂ and H₂S (PH₂S + PCO₂), as shown in Figure 1. Secondly, corrosive environments with harsh conditions may cause damage that differs from SSC mechanisms. ISO classifies the severity of carbon steel and low alloy steel cracking in H₂S environments into four zones based on in-situ pH and H₂S partial pressure values: zone 0 does not require consideration for cracking in acidic environments, zone 1 is slightly acidic, zone 2 is moderately acidic, and zone 3 is severely acidic, as depicted in Figure 2. The selection of the zone in this paper needs to be conservative due to the influence of trace amounts of SO₂. In cases where the SO₂ content is high, it is necessary to consider adding the partial pressure of SO₂. The appropriate materials are selected based on different acidic environmental conditions to create primary pipe specimens, as shown in Table 1. (For the sake of subsequent method elaboration, four types of primary materials are presented here, but not limited to these four. They are referred to as Steel No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4.)

Figure 1.

Determination of in-situ pH value under production conditions.

Figure 2.

Zones of environmental severity of carbon steel and low alloy steel sulphide stress cracking (SSC).

Table 1.

Materials used in acidic environments.

Type	Standard	Material/grade	Environment restriction	Application
Carbon steel and low alloy steel	GB/T 9711	S class L245, L290, L360 steel grade for acidic environment	SSC zones 1–3	Equipment tube bundle, collection gas pipeline, fittings, etc.
	GB/T 9711	S class L415, L450 steel grade for acid environment	SSC zones 1 and 2, for SSC zone 3, anti-SSC evaluation should be carried out, users should use caution
	API Spec 5L	B and X-42 to X-52 steel grade	SSC zone 3 product specification level is PSL2
	API Spec 5L	X-56 to X-65 steel grade	SSC zones 1 and 2, for SSC zone 3, anti–SSC evaluation should be carried out, and users should use caution
	GB/T 3077	35CrMo low alloy steel	SSC zones 1–3	Pipes, valve bodies, bonnets, flanges, etc.
Martensitic stainless steel	AISI S41008	S41008 (2Cr13)	SSC zones 1–3	Equipment tube bundle, collection gas pipeline, fittings, etc.
Duplex stainless steel	DMV22.5	S31803 (22Cr5Ni)	SSC zones 1–3
Duplex stainless steel	DMV25.7	S39274 (25Cr7Ni)	SSC zones 1–3
Austenitic stainless steel	AISI S31603	S31603 (316L)	SSC zones 1–3
Nickel based alloy	DMV 825	N08825 (825 alloy)	SSC zones 1–3

SSC: sulphide stress cracking.

Corrosion evaluation selection

Corrosion experiment testing

The second step involves conducting additional corrosion evaluation experiments on the four materials selected during the standard primary selection process. Because the first step only considers CO₂–H₂S corrosion and SSC, it is necessary to further evaluate the effects of other impurities (such as O₂ and SO₂). The corrosion experiment scheme was developed based on the in-site conditions of the RL block, ensuring inclusion of extreme working conditions specific to the site. The floating range of H₂S content, for example, falls between H₁ and H_n. Therefore, the extreme working conditions regarding H₂S content primarily pertain to values of H₁ and H_n, both of which must be taken into consideration when constructing the experimental scheme. The influence of various factors was studied through the control variable method because the corrosion severity was closely related to these factors (as shown in Table 2), where k denotes a set of significant or universal parameters for each factor.

Table 2.

The experimental scheme.

No.	Temperature (°C)	CO₂ (%)	O₂ (%)	H₂S (%)	SO₂ (%)	…
1	T ₁	C _k	O _k	H _k	S _k	…
2	…	C _k	O _k	H _k	S _k	…
3	T _k	C _k	O _k	H _k	S _k	…
4	…	C _k	O _k	H _k	S _k	…
5	T _n	C _k	O _k	H _k	S _k	…
6	T _k	C ₁	O _k	H _k	S _k	…
7	T _k	…	O _k	H _k	S _k	…
8	T _k	C _n	O _k	H _k	S _k	…
9	T _k	C _k	O ₁	H _k	S _k	…
10	T _k	C _k	…	H _k	S _k	…
11	T _k	C _k	O _n	H _k	S _k	…
12	T _k	C _k	O _k	H ₁	S _k	…
13	T _k	C _k	O _k	…	S _k	…
14	T _k	C _k	O _k	H _n	S _k	…
15	T _k	C _k	O _k	H _k	S ₁	…
16	T _k	C _k	O _k	H _k	…	…
17	T _k	C _k	O _k	H _k	S _n	…

The experimental setup utilised a high-temperature and high-pressure autoclave, and the schematic diagram is shown in Figure 3. The dimensions of the specimen were 50 mm × 10 mm × 3 mm with a 6 mm aperture. Prior to the experiment, the specimen underwent step-by-step sandpaper grounding (400#, 600#, 800#, 100#, and 1200#) to ensure uniform surface roughness. The specimen was immersed in petroleum ether and anhydrous ethanol for dehydration and degreasing, each for 10 min. After drying the specimen with cold air for 10 min, it was placed in a vacuum desiccator for 24 h. Following the drying process, an electronic balance with an accuracy of 0.1 mg was utilised to measure the mass m₁. The size of the specimen was measured using a vernier calliper with an accuracy of 0.01 mm, allowing for the calculation of its surface area S. Subsequently, the specimen was suspended on a support and inserted into the autoclave. Two-thirds of the autoclave volume solution (see Table 3) was poured into it, immersing the specimen completely and sealing the autoclave. Then, N₂ gas was introduced into the autoclave for 2 h in order to exclude air. Temperature parameters were set and corrosive gases (CO₂, O₂, H₂S, and SO₂) were sequentially injected into the system. Finally, using N₂ gas to maintain total pressure. After a 5-day corrosion test, the specimens were removed and descaled using ultrasound in a solution of hexamethylenetetramine (5 g), hydrochloric acid (100 mL, density 1.19 g/mL), and deionised water (900 mL) for 10 min.⁶ Subsequently, the specimens were followed by ultrasonic cleaning with anhydrous ethanol. They were then dried at room temperature for 24 h and weighed their mass m₂. The corrosion rate value was calculated according to equation (1):

v_{corr} = \frac{87600 (m_{1} – m_{2})}{ρ S t}

(1)

Where v_corr represents the corrosion rate (mm/year); 87,600 represents the unit conversion constant; (m₁–m₂) represents weight loss of the specimen (g); t represents the test time (h); ρ represents the density of the specimen (g cm⁻³); and S represents the exposed surface area of the specimen (cm²).

Figure 3.

The schematic diagram of the autoclave.

Table 3.

The composition of simulated formation water (mg/L).

Composition	NaCl	NaHCO₃	CaCl₂	MgCl₂·6H₂O	pH
Concentration (mg/L)	16478.9	3831.0	136.0	321.4	7.0

Material selection based on corrosion rate

The corrosion rates are obtained by conducting experiments on four primary selected pipes under various influencing factors. After obtaining the corrosion rates of four different materials, the recommended range of materials is determined based on the corrosion rate value as a judgment index. The severity of corrosion is evaluated according to NACE RP0775–200 in Table 4.³⁹ The darker the colour, the more severe the corrosion. When categorising the corrosion rate as moderate (corrosion rate < 0.12 mm/year), it indicates that the material meets the selection requirements.

Table 4.

The judgment of general corrosion severity.

Corrosion rate (mm/year)	<0.025	0.025–0.12	0.13–0.254	>0.254
Degree of corrosion	Low	Moderate	High	Severe

The in-site conditions corresponding to different process locations, however, exhibit inconsistency, including variations in temperature, gas content, and corrosion rate. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the material range within the corresponding division range based on the corrosion rate according to the division of different conditions. The main control factors for corrosion rate need to be determined because the division of conditions and the magnitude of corrosion rate are closely related to the values of each factor. The applied method is the mature grey correlation method,^40,41 commonly employed for analysing the main control factors of multiple variable factors on a certain key factor. For instance, in this paper, it is used to discuss the main control factors of the influence of temperature/CO₂/H₂S/O₂/SO₂ on the corrosion rate, to facilitate the next analysis or the decision of condition division, corrosion prevention and control measures. Among them, the corrosion rate is taken as the reference sequence and each factor is taken as the comparison sequence to calculate the correlation degree between each factor and the corrosion rate. Then all the correlation degrees of each factor are averaged and then sorted to get the ranking of the main control factors. The sequence of main control factors is used to determine the basis of condition division. Next, the corrosion rate judgment index and the range of materials meeting this index are combined to divide the condition range for each factor, forming a corrosion material selection table in a CO₂–H₂S–O₂–SO₂ aqueous environment. Table 5 shows an illustrative example of corrosion material selection with O₂ > H₂S > temperature > CO₂ >SO₂ being the sequence of main control factors. Recommended materials can be searched based on specific process location conditions.

Table 5.

Example of corrosion material selection under condition division.

O₂ (O, %)	H₂S (H, %)	Temperature (T, °C)	CO₂ (C, %)	SO₂ (S, %)	Material recommendation
O = O₁	H₁ ≤ H ≤ H_n	T_k ≤ T ≤ T_n	C₁ ≤ C ≤ C_n	S₁ ≤ S ≤ S_n	Steel No. 1, Steel No. 2, Steel No. 3, Steel No. 4
O = O₁	H₁ ≤ H ≤ H_n	T₁ ≤ T < T_k	C₁ ≤ C ≤ C_n	S₁ ≤ S ≤ S_n	Steel No. 2, Steel No. 3, Steel No. 4
O₁<O ≤ O_k	H₁ ≤ H ≤ H_n	T_k ≤ T ≤ T_n	C ≤ C₁ or C ≥ C_k	S₁ ≤ S ≤ S_n	Steel No. 2, Steel No. 3, Steel No. 4
		T_k ≤ T ≤ T_n	C₁<C < C_k		Steel No. 3, Steel No. 4
		T₁ ≤ T < T_k	C₁ ≤ C ≤ C_n		Steel No. 3, Steel No. 4
O_k < O ≤ O_n	H₁ ≤ H ≤ H_n	T_m<T ≤ T_n (m≠k)	C ≤ C₁ or C ≥ C_k	S₁ ≤ S ≤ S_n	Steel No. 2, Steel No. 3, Steel No. 4
	H₁ ≤ H ≤ H_n	T_m<T ≤ T_n (m≠k)	C₁<C < C_k		Steel No. 3, Steel No. 4
	H₁ ≤ H ≤ H_n	T₁ ≤ T ≤ T_m	C ≤ C₁ or C ≥ C_k		Steel No. 2, Steel No. 3, Steel No. 4
	H₁ ≤ H ≤ H_n		C₁<C < C_k		Steel No. 3, Steel No. 4
	H < H₁ or H ≥ H_n		C ≤ C₁ or C ≥ C_k		Steel No. 2, Steel No. 3, Steel No. 4
	H < H₁ or H ≥ H_n		C₁<C < C_k		Steel No. 3, Steel No. 4
	H₁<H < H_n		C₁ ≤ C ≤ C_n		Steel No. 3, Steel No. 4

Mechanical property selection

After locating the recommended materials based on the process position, the next step involves conducting tests to evaluate the mechanical properties before and after corrosion. Materials that meet the standard requirements in terms of their mechanical properties are then further selected. The evaluation of a material’s mechanical properties primarily includes tensile, impact, and hardness testing. The dimensions of the specimens are presented in Figure 4. The mechanical properties of optional materials are subjected to 5-day corrosion tests, and the experimental conditions are determined according to the conditions of specific process locations (see Table 2). Following the 5-day period, they are extracted and subjected to tensile, impact, and hardness testing alongside the uncorroded specimens. The results of the material's tensile test before and after corrosion can be recorded in Table 6, and the impact and hardness test results are similar.

Figure 4.

Dimensions of mechanical property size (a, tensile specimen; b, impact specimen; c, hardness specimen).

Table 6.

Examples of tensile test results of steel before and after corrosion.

Material	Tensile strength (MPa)				Meet standards
Material	Before corrosion	After corrosion	Difference	Standard value	Yes or No?
Steel No.1	I _f	I _af	△I	I ₀	Yes
…	…	…	…	…	…

Economic final selection

After completing the aforementioned three steps, the chosen material will be able to meet the process conditions on-site. In case there are materials available, an economic evaluation will be conducted based on their usage in the process, primarily considering factors such as material purchasing cost, installation cost, and other associated expenses. The objective is to select the material that offers optimal economic benefits. Finally, the materials selected should meet standard requirements, and undergo corrosion evaluation and mechanical properties evaluation, while also providing good economic benefits. If there are additional cost-effective options available, this section can be combined with the collected data for a detailed economic analysis.

Case application analysis

Standard primary selection analysis

The pipeline of RL block primarily contained CO₂/H₂S/O₂, along with a small amount of SO₂, as indicated in Table 7. Among these gases, the content and temperature varied due to fluctuations in test values across different periods and process locations. The partial pressure was calculated according to the content of H₂S/CO₂ and equation (2). As shown in Table 8, the calculated PH₂S partial pressure ranged from 0.15 to 1.5 kPa, and the PH₂S + PCO₂ partial pressure ranged from 121.5 to 847.5 kPa. According to Figures 1 and 2, the in-situ pH ranged from 3.88 to 3.69, with the severity of SSC falling within zones 2 and 3.

P_{x} = P \times \frac{x}{100}

(2)

Where P_x is the total pressure of the system (MPa) and x is the molar fraction of a certain factor (H₂S and CO₂) (%).

Table 7.

In-situ conditions of RL block pipeline.

Total pressure (MPa)	Temperature (°C)	H₂S (%)	CO₂ (%)	SO₂ (%)	O₂ (%)
1.5	30–120	0.1–1.5	8–55	0–0.00015	1–3

Table 8.

In-situ pH value and sulphide stress cracking (SSC) cracking severity.

PH₂S(kPa)	PH₂S + PCO₂(kPa)	In-situ pH	SSC severity area
1.5–22.5	121.5–847.5	3.88–3.69	Zones 2 and 3

According to the severity of zones 2 and 3 and the integrated material selection table (Table 2), a primary selection was made for four types of carbon steel, low alloy steel, and high alloy steel as presented in Table 9.

Table 9.

Primary selection results of pipeline materials.

Material	Standard	Grade	Environment restriction	Application
Carbon steel	GB/T 9711.3	S class L245, grade for an acidic environment	SSC zones 1–3	Equipment tube bundle, collection gas pipeline, fittings, etc.
Martensitic stainless steel	AISI S41008	S41008 (2Cr13)	SSC zones 1–3
Austenitic stainless steel	AISI S31603	S31603 (316L)	SSC zones 1–3
Nickel-based alloy	DMV 825	N08825 (825 alloy)	SSC zones 1–3

SSC: sulphide stress cracking.

Corrosion evaluation selection analysis

Corrosion rate and ranking of main control factors

The corrosion experiment scheme (Table 10) was determined using the control variable method, considering the in-situ conditions of the RL block pipeline (Table 7), and evaluating the influence of each factor on the corrosion behaviour of four materials.

Table 10.

The experimental scheme.

No.	Total pressure (MPa)	Temperature (°C)	CO₂ (%)	O₂ (%)	H₂S (%)	SO₂ (%)
1	1.5	30	25	2	1	0.00005
2	1.5	60	25	2	1	0.00005
3	1.5	90	25	2	1	0.00005
4	1.5	120	25	2	1	0.00005
5	1.5	90	5	2	1	0.00005
6	1.5	90	15	2	1	0.00005
7	1.5	90	35	2	1	0.00005
8	1.5	90	25	2	0.1	0.00005
9	1.5	90	25	2	0.5	0.00005
10	1.5	90	25	2	1.5	0.00005
11	1.5	90	25	1	1	0.00005
12	1.5	90	25	3	1	0.00005
13	1.5	90	25	2	1	0
14	1.5	90	25	2	1	0.0001
15	1.5	90	25	2	1	0.00015

According to the corrosion experiment testing presented in the ‘Corrosion evaluation selection’ section, Table 11 presents the corrosion rate and severity distribution of four materials. The darker the colour, the more severe the corrosion. It is evident that L245NS exhibited a high and severe degree of corrosion, while 2Cr13 primarily demonstrated moderate to high levels with a few cases being serious. Both 316L and 825 display mainly low degrees of corrosion, with one group showing moderate levels.

Table 11.

The corrosion rate and degree under different conditions.

No.	Temperature (°C)	CO₂ (%)	H₂S (%)	O₂ (%)	SO₂ (%)	Corrosion rate (mm/year)
No.	Temperature (°C)	CO₂ (%)	H₂S (%)	O₂ (%)	SO₂ (%)	L245NS	2Cr13	316L	825
1	30	25	1	2	0.00005	0.3716	0.1764	0.0012	0.0010
2	60	25	1	2	0.00005	0.5371	0.2197	0.0052	0.0900
3	90	25	1	2	0.00005	0.3111	0.1976	0.0127	0.0110
4	120	25	1	2	0.00005	0.1845	0.0845	0.0062	0.0024
5	90	5	1	2	0.00005	0.2531	0.1264	0.0022	0.0011
6	90	15	1	2	0.00005	0.2993	0.2577	0.0075	0.0050
7	90	35	1	2	0.00005	0.3206	0.1454	0.0155	0.0088
8	90	25	0.1	2	0.00005	0.1874	0.0796	0.0018	0.0006
9	90	25	0.5	2	0.00005	0.2857	0.2286	0.0068	0.0054
10	90	25	1.5	2	0.00005	0.2422	0.1577	0.0072	0.0068
11	90	25	1	1	0.00005	0.1814	0.0232	0.0004	0.0003
12	90	25	1	3	0.00005	0.4011	0.3014	0.0401	0.0351
13	90	25	1	2	0	0.2891	0.1949	0.0120	0.0080
14	90	25	1	2	0.0001	0.3304	0.1989	0.0145	0.0126
15	90	25	1	2	0.00015	0.3749	0.2002	0.0166	0.0149

The corrosion rate of L245NS, which represents the material with the most severe corrosion, was initially chosen for grey correlation analysis in order to determine the ranking of the main control factors. Table 12 presents the correlation degree between temperature and CO₂/H₂S/O₂/SO₂ with respect to the corrosion rate, while Table 13 provides the average sub-correlation degree for each factor (each column). The correlation sequence was observed as follows: O₂ > H₂S > temperature > CO₂ > SO₂, with the highest correlation coefficient of 0.8181 found for O₂, indicating its significant impact on corrosion rate. H₂S and temperature exhibited similar correlation degrees, both higher than that of CO₂, with coefficients of 0.7511, 0.7491 and 0.7312, respectively. SO₂ had the smallest impact on corrosion rate with a coefficient of 0.7017.

Table 12.

Correlation coefficient results of CO₂/O₂/H₂S/SO₂ content and temperature on corrosion rate.

No.	Temperature (°C)	CO₂ (%)	H₂S (%)	O₂ (%)	SO₂ (%)
1	0.4522	0.8192	0.8263	0.7695	0.6829
2	0.4026	0.5047	0.5074	0.4854	0.4494
3	0.9736	0.9607	0.9511	0.9790	0.8430
4	0.4767	0.6162	0.6122	0.6477	0.7250
5	0.7729	0.5378	0.7587	0.8139	0.9400
6	0.9247	0.6757	0.9045	0.9840	0.8834
7	1.0000	0.6294	0.9923	0.9388	0.8131
8	0.6267	0.6213	0.5868	0.6533	0.7321
9	0.8742	0.8638	0.6409	0.9270	0.9351
10	0.7441	0.7366	0.4733	0.7820	0.8977
11	0.6160	0.6108	0.6069	0.8886	0.7176
12	0.7299	0.7373	0.7431	0.8010	0.6250
13	0.8863	0.8756	0.8677	0.9406	0.4309
14	0.9569	0.9697	0.9796	0.9008	0.5144
15	0.8002	0.8092	0.8161	0.7606	0.3361

Table 13.

Correlation degree between CO₂/O₂/H₂S/SO₂ content and temperature on corrosion rate.

Influencing factor	Temperature	CO₂	H₂S	O₂	SO₂
Average correlation degree	0.7491	0.7312	0.7511	0.8181	0.7017
Sequence	3	4	2	1	5

Material selection based on corrosion rate

The corrosion rate judgment index of 0.12 mm/year was utilised to determine the recommended range of materials for each experimental condition in the CO₂–H₂S–O₂–SO₂ aqueous environment, forming a corrosion material selection table as presented in Table 14.

Table 14.

Material recommendation under working condition division.

No.	Temperature (°C)	CO₂ (%)	H₂S (%)	O₂ (%)	SO₂ (%)	Material recommendation
1	30	25	1	2	0.00005	316L, 825
2	60	25	1	2	0.00005	316L, 825
3	90	25	1	2	0.00005	316L, 825
4	120	25	1	2	0.00005	2Cr13, 316L, 825
5	90	5	1	2	0.00005	2Cr13, 316L, 825
6	90	15	1	2	0.00005	316L, 825
7	90	35	1	2	0.00005	2Cr13, 316L, 825
8	90	25	0.1	2	0.00005	2Cr13, 316L, 825
9	90	25	0.5	2	0.00005	316L, 825
10	90	25	1.5	2	0.00005	316L, 825
11	90	25	1	1	0.00005	2Cr13, 316L, 825
12	90	25	1	3	0.00005	316L, 825
13	90	25	1	2	0	316L, 825
14	90	25	1	2	0.0001	316L, 825
15	90	25	1	2	0.00015	316L, 825

According to the sequence of main control factors and the influence law of the corrosion rate of each factor, the working conditions were divided, and the corrosion material selection was further determined in Table 15. For instance, the O₂ content ranged from 1% to 3% under working conditions (Nos. 3, 11, and 12 experiments). For an O₂ content of 1%, 2Cr13, 316L and 825 materials were recommended. When O₂ content was 2% and 3%, only 316L and 825 materials were recommended. Therefore, O₂ content was divided into three ranges [0, 1], (1, 2) and [2, 3] according to the recommended materials. The higher the O₂ content was, the more serious the corrosion would be. It was inferred that the corrosion degree of O₂ content [0, 1] was lighter than that of 1%, and the available materials were 2Cr13, 316L and 825. The prerequisite conditions for experiments Nos. 3, 12, and 13 were as follows: H₂S, CO₂, and SO₂ contents of 1%, 25%, and 0.0005%, respectively, along with a temperature of 90°C. Subsequently, the influence of H₂S content (0.1–1.5%, test Nos. 3, 8, 9, and 10) was studied according to the main control sequence. The corrosion rate reached its maximum when the H₂S content was 1%, while the O₂ content was 2%. Therefore, it was inferred that the corrosion degree at O₂ content [0, 1] and H₂S content [0.5, 1.5] was lower than that at O₂ content 1% and H₂S content 1%. This indicates that the corrosion rate was below a corrosive index of 0.12 mm/year and the recommended materials could choose 2Cr13, 316L and 825, but the recommended results were all based on the temperature of 90 °C. Further analysis was made on the recommended materials within the temperature range under O₂ content [0, 1] and H₂S content [0.5, 1.5]. The influence of temperature was shown in the experimental results of Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4. The corrosion rate was found to the ranking of 60 °C > 90°C > 30°C > 120°C when the O₂ content was at 2% and H₂S content was at 1%. It can be inferred that three kinds of material can be selected within the range of temperature [0, 30]∪[90, 120], with O₂ content [0, 1] and H₂S content [0.5, 1.5]. The corrosion rate within the range of (30, 90) may be higher than 90 °C, which was divided into the recommended ranges of 316L and 825 steels. However, the temperature division was based on the conditions of CO₂ and SO₂ content of 25% and 0.00005%. According to the experimental results from Nos. 3, 5, 6, and 7, it was found that the corrosion rate followed the sequence of 35% > 25% > 15% > 5% at an O₂ content of 2%, H₂S content of 1%, and a temperature of 90 °C. Three kinds of material could be selected within the range of O₂ content [0, 1], H₂S content [0.5, 1.5], temperature [0, 30]∪[90, 120] and CO₂ content [0, 25]. Within the range of CO₂ content (25, 35), there was a high probability that the corrosion rate of 2Cr13 was greater than the corrosion index, which was divided into the recommended range of 316L and 825 materials, and the SO₂ content was 0.00005%. Finally, based on group Nos. 3, 13, 14, and 15, it was found that low SO₂ content had little influence on the corrosion rate, which was uniformly divided into [0, 0.00015].

Table 15.

Corrosion evaluation selection results under the working conditions division.

O₂ (%)	H₂S (%)	Temperature (°C)	CO₂ (%)	SO₂ (%)	Material selection
[0, 1]	[0, 1.5]	[0, 30]∪[90, 120]	[5, 25]	[0, 0.00015]	2Cr13, 316L, 825
		[0, 30]∪[90, 120]	(25, 35]		316L, 825
		(30, 90)	[5, 35]		316L, 825
(1, 2)	(0, 0.1]	[0, 30]∪[90, 120]	[5, 25]		2Cr13, 316L, 825
		[0, 30]∪[90, 120]	(25, 35]		316L, 825
		(30, 90)	[5, 35]		316L, 825
	(0.1, 2]	[30, 120]	[5, 35]		316L, 825
[2, 3]	[0, 1.5]	[30, 120]	[5, 35]		316L, 825

In addition, the recommended materials with O₂ content in the range (1, 2) and [2, 3] were determined by the same working condition division method, as shown in Table 15. Corrosion material selection in Table 15 is only applicable to material selection in the in-situ condition range in Table 7. However, it also holds certain application value for other similar conditions.

Mechanical property selection analysis

The results presented in Table 18 indicate the applicability of three recommended materials: 2Cr13, 316L, and 825. However, it should be noted that while these materials are deemed applicable based on corrosion evaluation, their mechanical properties may not fully meet the specified requirements. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate whether the mechanical properties (tensile strength, impact energy, and hardness) meet the standards before and after corrosion. Tables 16–18 present the values of tensile strength, impact energy, and hardness for the three materials before and after corrosion. Among them, the most severe corrosion condition was selected for conducting the corrosion experiment (Table 11, No. 12), as it fulfilled all requirements in both this condition and other conditions. The results indicated that the mechanical properties of all three materials exhibited a slight decrease following corrosion, albeit within acceptable limits. The mechanical properties before and after corrosion all met the requirements, and all of them could be used as recommended materials. The ‘None’ in the table means that the material execution standard does not give specific requirements for the mechanical property index. In practical applications, the purchaser has the option to specify their desired mechanical property index from the manufacturer.

Table 16.

Tensile test results of three materials before and after corrosion.

Material	Tensile strength (MPa)						Meet standards
	Before corrosion		After corrosion		Difference	Standard value	Yes, or No?
	Test value	Average value	Test value	Average value	Difference	Standard value	Yes, or No?
2Cr13	658.32	654.85	646.46	643.99	10.86	640	Yes
	656.39		639.58
	649.83		645.92
316L	706.2	704.85	699.85	696	8.85	480	Yes
	704.6		696.59
	703.74		691.56
825	677.8	677.89	679.7	675.57	2.32	586	Yes
	684.17		679.2
	671.69		667.8

Table 17.

Impact test results of three materials before and after corrosion.

Material	Impact energy (J)						Meet standards
	Before corrosion		After corrosion		Difference	Standard value	Yes, or No?
	Test value	Average value	Test value	Average value	Difference	Standard value	Yes, or No?
2Cr13	80.61	83.54	74.76	75.24	−8.3	63	Yes
	81.59		74.45
	88.42		76.5
316L	196.06	192.98	189.18	189.86	−3.12	None	—
	191.04		190.24
	191.84		190.16
825	299.82	299.88	299.79	299.8	−0.07	None	—
	299.92		299.81
	299.89		299.81

Table 18.

Hardness test results of three materials before and after corrosion.

Material	Hardness values (HBW)						Meet standards
	Before corrosion		After corrosion		Difference	Standard value	Yes, or No?
	Test value	Average value	Test value	Average value	Difference	Standard value	Yes, or No?
2Cr13	169.6	166.66	172.07	173.22	−6.56	≤192	Yes
	166.82		177.45
	163.56		170.15
316L	110.46	107.25	120.67	125.65	−18.4	≤187	Yes
	106.81		125.84
	104.48		120.43
825	179.89	183.67	186.03	188.94	5.27	None	–
	186.82		185.47
	184.3		195.31

Economic Brief Analysis

In the economic calculation of this case, the costs associated with maintenance and replacement due to corrosion or defect damage of pipelines were not considered, as well as the expenses related to purchasing and operating corrosion inhibitors and filling equipment (including equipment maintenance and electricity charges). One-time input costs of materials were mainly taken into account, including acquisition costs and installation costs, among which acquisition costs include material costs, pipeline processing and manufacturing costs. According to the design document for the pilot project on pipeline material selection (designed for a 10-year period) in the RL block, the one-time cost of 2Cr13 was lower than that of 316L and 825, amounting to 4.42 million RMB, 11.45 million RMB, and 13.22 million RMB, respectively.

Therefore, considering the economic benefits of the three recommended materials, Table 19 shows the material selection guide for pipelines CO₂–H₂S–O₂–SO₂ aqueous environments, with 2Cr13 and 316L being the preferred choices. The selection and application of 2Cr13 and 316L need to be determined based on the specific process conditions in the environment. It is important to reiterate that the recommended material listed in Table 19 is only the applicable-situ condition range mentioned in Table 7. The method presented in this paper can assist in determining the most applicable recommended material for similar oilfield conditions.

Table 19.

Final material selection results.

O₂ (%)	H₂S (%)	Temperature (°C)	CO₂ (%)	SO₂ (%)	Material recommendation
[0, 1]	[0, 1.5]	[0, 30]∪[90, 120]	[5, 25]	[0, 0.00015]	2Cr13
		[0, 30]∪[90, 120]	(25, 35]		316L
		(30, 90)	[5, 35]		316L
(1, 2)	(0, 0.1]	[0, 30]∪[90, 120]	[5, 25]		2Cr13
		[0, 30]∪[90, 120]	(25, 35]		316L
		(30, 90)	[5, 35]		316L
	(0.1, 2]	[30, 120]	[5, 35]		316L
[2, 3]	[0, 1.5]	[30, 120]	[5, 35]		316L

Conclusions

This paper presented a novel method for material selection applicable for pipelines in CO₂–H₂S–O₂–SO₂ aqueous environments, including four components: standard primary selection, corrosion evaluation selection, mechanical property selection, and economic final selection.

The final materials utilised in the aqueous environment of CO₂–H₂S–O₂–SO₂ (with a total pressure of 1.5 MPa, temperature of 30–120 °C, H₂S content of 0.1–1.5%, CO₂ content of 8–55%, SO₂ content of 0–0.00015% and O₂ content of 1–3%) were determined as being composed of 2Cr13 and 316L. The selection and application of 2Cr13 and 316L should be determined based on the specific process conditions in the pipeline location to achieve both economic efficiency and safety goals.

The main control factors for corrosion rate in the aqueous CO₂–H₂S–O₂–SO₂ aqueous environment were ranked as follows: O₂ > H₂S > temperature > CO₂ > SO₂.

The mechanical properties of 2Cr13, 316L, and 825 exhibited a reduction trend after corrosion.

Footnotes

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Author contributions

Kexi Liao: Review & editing, funding acquisition, and supervision. Jihui Leng: Methodology, investigation, and writing – original draft. Yongbo Yan, Tengjiao He, Xidi Lv, Xin Liu. Min Qin, Shuai Zhao, and Y. Frank Cheng: Investigation and visualisation.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (52174062), the Natural Science Foundation of Sichuan Province (2023NSFSC0420), and the Research and Innovation Fund for Graduate Students of Southwest Petroleum University (2022KYCX010).

References

Qin

Liao

, et al. Quantitative risk assessment of static equipment in petroleum and natural gas processing station based on corrosion-thinning failure degree. Process Safety Environ Protect 2023; 172: 144–156.

Zhao

Liao

Wang

, et al. Corrosion behavior of 35CrMo steel in a CO₂/O₂ coexistent simulating environment of fire-drive tail gas. Mater Chem Phys 2021; 272: 125016.

Liao

, et al. Quantitative study on magnetic-based stress detection and risk evaluation for girth welds with unequal wall thickness of high-grade steel pipelines. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2022; 108: 104825.

Dong

Zeng

Favero

, et al. Insight into polymer concentration, temperature, CO₂ content, and Cl⁻ content on corrosion of N80 steel tubing in polymer flooding. Mater Corros 2023; 74: 943–961.

Leng

Tian

Liao

, et al. Localised corrosion failure of an L245N pipeline in a CO₂–O₂–Cl⁻ environment. Corros Eng Sci Technol 2023; 58: 1–12.

Leng

Frank Cheng

Liao

, et al. Synergistic effect of O₂–Cl⁻ on localized corrosion failure of L245N pipeline in CO₂–O₂–Cl⁻ environment. Eng Fail Anal 2022; 138: 106332.

Liao

Qin

, et al. Study on corrosion mechanism and the risk of the shale gas gathering pipelines. Eng Fail Anal 2021; 128: 105622.

Xiang

Wang

, et al. Effect of temperature on corrosion behaviour of X70 steel in high pressure CO₂/SO₂/O₂/H₂O environments. Corros Eng Sci Technol 2013; 48: 121–129.

I.O.f. Standardization. Petroleum and natural gas industries – materials for use in H₂S-containing environments in oil and gas production. 2020.

10.

A.P. Institute. Specification for line pipe. 2013.

11.

I.O.f. Standardization. Petroleum and natural gas industries – steel pipe for pipeline transportation systems. 2019.

12.

E.C.f. Standardization. Steel pipes for pipelines for combustible fluids – technical delivery conditions. 1998.

13.

S.A.o. China. Petroleum and natural gas industries – steel pipe for pipeline transportation systems. 2017.

14.

J.I.S. Committee. Carbon steel square and rectangular tubes for general structure. 2015.

15.

C.S. Association. Steel pipe. 2007.

16.

D.I.f.N. e.V. Steel pipe for long-distance pipelines for combustible liquids and gases. 1978.

17.

C.o.S. Australia. Pipelines – gas and liquid petroleum. 2012.

18.

López

Pérez

Simison

. The influence of microstructure and chemical composition of carbon and low alloy steels in CO₂ corrosion. A state-of-the-art appraisal. Mater Design 2003; 24: 561–575.

19.

Huizinga

Orzessek

Mul

, et al. Materials selection and corrosion control for a CO2 transport and injection system. In: Paper presented at the CORROSION 2013, Orlando, Florida, Paper Number: NACE-2013-2664, Published: 17 March 2013.

20.

Dong

Zeng

, et al. Major corrosion influence factors analysis in the production well of CO₂ flooding and the optimization of relative anti-corrosion measures. J Petrol Sci Eng 2021; 200: 108052.

21.

Kermani

Martin

Esaklul

. Materials design strategy: Effects of H₂S/CO₂ corrosion on materials selection. In: Paper presented at the CORROSION 2006, San Diego, California, Paper Number: NACE-06121, Published: 12 March 2006.

22.

Zeng

Dong

Zeng

, et al. Analysis of corrosion failure and materials selection for CO₂–H₂S gas well. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2021; 86: 103734.

23.

Ali

Khalid

Mostafa

. Material selection for downhole sour environments. In: The Abu Dhabi international petroleum exhibition and conference 2008, Abu Dhabi, UAE, Paper Number: SPE-118011-MS, Published: 3 November 2008.

24.

Liu

Huang

. Study and application for corrosion-resistant material selection of tubing and casing in sour gas reservoirs under coexistence of H₂S and CO₂. Adv Mater Res 2012; 485: 429–432.

25.

Yin

Feng

Zhao

, et al. Effect of temperature on CO₂ corrosion of carbon steel. Surf Interface Anal 2009; 41: 517–523.

26.

Schmitt

. Fundamental aspects of CO₂ metal loss corrosion – Part II: Influence of different parameters on CO₂ corrosion mechanism. In: Paper presented at the CORROSION 2015, Dallas, Texas, Paper Number: NACE-2015-6033, Published: 15 March 2015.

27.

Nesic

. Effects of multiphase flow on internal CO₂ corrosion of mild steel pipelines. Energy Fuel 2012; 26: 4098–4041.

28.

Pots

BFM

Kapusta

John

, et al. Improvements on de Waard-Milliams corrosion prediction and applications to corrosion management. In: Paper presented at the CORROSION 2002, Denver, Colorado, Paper Number: NACE-02235, Published: 7 April 2002.

29.

Sun

Zhang

, et al. Effect of O₂ and H₂S impurities on the corrosion behavior of X65 steel in water-saturated supercritical CO₂ environment. Corros Sci 2016; 107: 31–40.

30.

Sun

Wang

, et al. Synergistic effect of O₂, H₂S and SO₂ impurities on the corrosion behavior of X65 steel in water saturated supercritical CO₂ environment. Corros Sci 2016; 107: 193–203.

31.

Liao

Leng

Frank Cheng

, et al. Effect of H₂S concentrations on corrosion failure of L245NS steel in CO₂–O₂–H₂S system. Process Safety Environ Protect 2022; 168: 224–238.

32.

Zou

Liao

Leng

, et al. Corrosion mechanism of oil field gathering pipeline containing small H2S impurity. Arabian J Sci Eng 2022; 47: 12075–12087.

33.

Yang

Liu

Zhao

, et al. Effect mechanism of O₂ concentration on CO₂–O₂–H₂S–SO₂ corrosion in the environment of cargo oil tanks of crude oil tankers. In: Paper presented at the CORROSION 2013, Orlando, Florida, Paper Number: NACE-2013-2476, Published: 17 March 2013.

34.

Zhao

Liu

Zhao

, et al. Influence of chromium on the initial corrosion behavior of low alloy steels in the CO₂–O₂–H₂S–SO₂ wet–dry corrosion environment of cargo oil tankers. Int J Miner Metall Mater 2015; 22: 829–841.

35.

Gao

Pang

, et al. Mechanical properties of CO₂ corrosion product scales and their relationship to corrosion rates. Corros Sci 2008; 50: 2796–2803.

36.

Chen

Tzeng

Wei

, et al. Corrosion resistance and mechanical properties of low-alloy steels under atmospheric conditions. Corros Sci 2005; 47: 1001–1021.

37.

Milliams

Cottage

Tuttle

. ISO 15156/NACE MR0175 – a new international standard for metallic materials for use in oil and gas production in sour environments. In: Paper presented at the CORROSION 2003, San Diego, California, March 2003. Paper Number: NACE-03090, Published: 16 March 2003.

38.

Foroni

Malara

. High strength and corrosion resistant superalloys for oil & gas. In: Paper presented at the CORROSION 2011, Houston, Texas, March 2011. Paper Number: NACE-11116, Published: 13 March 2011.

39.

N. International. Preparation, installation, analysis, and interpretation of corrosion coupons in oilfield operations. 2005.

40.

Cao

Deng

Lan

. Use of the grey relational analysis method to determine the important environmental factors that affect the atmospheric corrosion of Q235 carbon steel. Anti-Corros Methods Mater 2015; 62: 7–12.

41.

Lei

Frank Cheng

. Grey relational analysis of static tensile properties of structural steel subjected to urban industrial atmospheric corrosion and accelerated corrosion. Construct Building Mater 2022; 315: 125706.

A novel material selection method and application in an aqueous environment containing CO 2,H 2 S,O 2 and SO 2

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Material selection method

Standard primary selection

Corrosion evaluation selection

Corrosion experiment testing

Material selection based on corrosion rate

Mechanical property selection

Economic final selection

Case application analysis

Standard primary selection analysis

Corrosion evaluation selection analysis

Corrosion rate and ranking of main control factors

Material selection based on corrosion rate

Mechanical property selection analysis

Economic Brief Analysis

Conclusions

Footnotes

Data availability statement

Author contributions

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

References