free-content
HomeFree Content Corrosion Reports Corrosion ...  

Corrosion Study of a Sour Water System


Abstract:
Carbon Steel and Type 304 stainless steel samples were exposed in thirteen corrosion tests conducted in solutions (with varying pH, oxygen content, SO2 content and chloride ion content) in a simulated sour water solution produced in the laboratory. Corrosion rates were calculated, and U-bends were examined for stress-corrosion cracking.
My Saved Article

Summary

Carbon Steel and Type 304 stainless steel samples were exposed in thirteen corrosion tests conducted in solutions (with varying pH, oxygen content, SO2 content and chloride ion content) in a simulated sour water solution produced in the laboratory. Corrosion rates were calculated, and U-bends were examined for stress-corrosion cracking.

Introduction

The sour water handling system in chemical plants often show swings in pH, oxygen content, SO2 content and chloride ion content, or different locations. All of these variables theoretically affect the corrosivity of the sour water, and they could be monitored and controlled to minimize corrosion in the handling system.

The objective of experimental study of sour water systems was to determine the relative importance of the different possible control parameters with regard to their effect on corrosion.

Specific variables of interest were pH, temperature, oxygen content and inhibitor concentration. Carbon steel, the primary material of construction in the system, and AISI Type 304 stainless steel were to be studied. The possibility of stress-corrosion cracking on Type 304 Stainless steel was to be addressed.

Experimental Procedure

Corrosion tests were carried out on flat coupons of AISI type 1010 carbon steel and AISI type 304 stainless steel. Coupon dimension were 1 X 0.5 X 0.06 inches. In the elevated-pressure tests, U-bend specimens were made of 3 X 0.75 X 0.062 inch type 304 stainless steel sheet in the solution-annealed condition, as described in ASTM G30. After bending over a mandrel, the arms of each U bend specimen were pulled parallel by stressing with Hastelloy c screws and nuts.

For each test duplicate specimens of both alloys were cleaned in acetone, dried and weighed to the nearest tenth of a milligram. Samples for atmospheric pressure tests were suspended in 1 liter Ehrlenmeyer flasks using Teflon tape.

Samples for elevated-pressure tests in autoclaves were mounted on Stainless steel rods with non-conducting Teflon washers. Duplicate samples of carbon steel and 304 stainless steel were exposed in each solution. In the autoclave tests duplicate U-bends of 304 stainless steel were also tested.

Test solutions and conditions are listed in Table 1.

Solution drawn from the 11T5 outlet stream was used for two tests, one at 110 F and one at 190 F, to determine the relative effect of temperature in this location.

The bottom stream from the 11T4 column was used for three tests: one as received at 190 F, one at 190 F with 250 ppm of IPC 2625 inhibitor added, and one at 190 F with air sparging to simulate leakage of air into the system from the 11T13 vacuum column.

Solution drawn from the 11E2 fin-fan condenser was used for three tests conducted in autoclaves at 250 F. One test used solution drawn from the condenser outlet as-received. In the second test, 11E2 inlet solution was acidified to pH 3 with HCl, to simulate high-chloride excursions due to desalter outage. In the third test, 250 ppm of IPC 2625 inhibitor was added to the acidified 11E2 inlet solution described above.

Bottoms drawn from the 11T6 desalter were used in two atmospheric pressure tests at 110 F. In one, the as-received solution was acidified to pH 4 with acetic acid. In the other, NaOH was added to the as-received solution until the pH equaled 7.0.

Three atmospheric pressure tests were conducted at 190 F in a simulated sour water solution prepared by sparging SO2 through distilled water for one-half hour. pH of these laboratory solutions was then adjusted with acetic acid or NaOH, as needed, to produce three solutions with pH levels of 3.5, 4.0 and 4.5.

All atmospheric pressure tests were conducted for one week. The autoclave tests were held at temperature three weeks. After the test exposure the samples were cleaned and re-weighed. The U-bends from the autoclave tests were cleaned after exposure and then examined under a 20 X binocular microscope for evidence of stress-corrosion cracking.

Results and Discussion

The results of these corrosion tests are presented in Table 2. Calculated corrosion rates are the average of the two exposed coupons. The variation between the two coupons in the same environment is also listed in Table 2.

Corrosion rates on carbon steel in all these tests were significantly higher than the rates recorded in the actual sour water handling system equipment. Films forming on the steel surfaces apparently lead to a slow decrease in corrosion rate with time. Longer term tests may be needed to predict field corrosion rates. The results obtained in these tests should, however, be useful for predicting the relative effects of the different variables.

Decreasing the temperature of the 11T5 outlet solution from 190 F to 110 F resulted in a 28 percent decrease in corrosion rate, from 18.5 to 13.4 mils/year.

Air sparged into the 11T4 bottoms solution increase the corrosion rate by 400 percent, from 21.8 mpy to 86.6 mpy. This is probably due to the formation of polythionic acids from sulfides. At 250 ppm, the Ipc 2625 inhibitor was not effective in lowering corrosion in 11T4 bottoms solution; in fact, the calculated corrosion rate on the "inhibited" solution was slightly higher that the rate on the as-received solution.

The 11E2 outlet condensate solution, tested at 250 F, was the most corrosive rate of 87 mpy on carbon steel. Lowering the pH in this solution to 3.0 did not increase the corrosion rate; in fact, the calculated rate on carbon steel dropped fom 87 mpy in the as-received solution to 66.7 mpy in the pH adjusted solution. The solution with 250 ppm IPC 2625 inhibitor showed significantly higher corrosion rates than a comparable solution without inhibitor.

Raising the pH of the 11T6 bottoms solution form 4 to 7 lowered the corrosion rate about 25%, from 15.5 mpy to 11.9 mpy.

The simulated sour water solutions mixed in the laboratory were far more corrosive than any of the plant solution samples. This suggests that plant solutions are either significantly lower in sulfur-based acids than the near-saturated laboratory solution, or that there are organic compounds in the plant solutions which act as natural inhibitors to some extent.

Raising the pH of the simulated sour water solutions from 3.5 to 4.5 lowered the corrosion rate slightly, from 360 mpy to 335 mpy.

It was noted that the corrosion rate produced on the carbon steel samples tested in as-received plant solutions was largely dependent on temperature rather than the location at which the sample was drawn. Corrosion rates in the 11T6 bottoms, drawn from the desalter at the head of the system, were not significantly different from the rates in the 11T5 outlet solution, which is downstream of all other operations in this area. This suggests that the concentration of corrosive species remains relatively constant from the desalter through the 11T5 column, and that local rates of meal loss will vary most significantly with temperature and flow rate.

No evidence of stress-corrosion cracking was observed on the u-bends of 304 stainless steel exposed in the autoclave tests, and 304 stainless coupons showed no significant weight loss corrosion in either the glassware or autoclave experiments. No significant pits were detected on any of the 304 stainless steel coupons. However, crevice corrosion under the stressing-bolt's washer occurred on one of the U-bends in the 20 psig 11E2 outlet solution autoclave test, and on one U-bend in the autoclave test 11E2 inlet solution acidified to pH = 3.

The depth of attack on the U-bend immersed in the as-received 11E2 outlet condensate indicated a crevice corrosion rate of 12.3 mpy in this solution. On the U-bend in the acidified 11E2 inlet solution the calculated crevice corrosion rate was 71 mpy.

The classic defense against localized corrosion as seen on the two U-bends is, of course, the use of molybdenum-bearing stainless steels such as type 316.

Conclusions

The test results presented herein led to the following conclusions:

  1. The corrosivity of the sour water itself does not change significantly between the 11T6 desalter and the 11T5 column.

  2. Corrosion of carbon steel in the sour water is relatively insensitive to pH. In the range pH = 3.5 to pH = 7.0, corrosion rates go down with increasing pH but only about 25 percent.

  3. Corrosion rates of carbon steel in the sour water are directly proportional to temperature, increasing 640 percent from 110 F to 250 F.

  4. Additions of 250 ppm of IPC 2625 inhibitor were ineffective at reducing corrosion rate of carbon steel in 11T4 bottoms and 11E2 inlet solutions. Observed corrosion rates in the "inhibited" solutions were actually greater than those from comparable non-inhibited solutions.

  5. Air leaking into the 11T4 column could increase the general corrosion rate of carbon steel 400 percent due, apparently, to increase polythionic acid formation.

  6. Type 304 stainless steel showed low general corrosion rates and no stress corrosion cracking in all solutions to which it was exposed. However, crevice corrosion was observed on U-bends in the autoclave tests, suggesting the need for molybdenum bearing stainless steels for these applications.
TABLE 1
Test Solutions
* as received
** 250 ppm IPC 2625 inhibitor added
+ air sparged throughout test
++ pH adjusted with HC1
# pH adjusted with HAC or NaOH, as necessary

TABLE 2

Test Results
* as received
+ air sparged throughout test
++ pH adjusted with HC1
# pH adjusted with HAc or NaOH, as necessary



1  Top