SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS OF AIME PAPER

6200 North Central Expressway HUliffiER SPE 5 19 5

Dallas, Texas 75206
TillS IS A PREPRINT --- SUBJECT TO CORRECTIOH

Hydrogen Sulfide Embrittlement In

Oi I Country Tubular Goods
By

J.A. Casner and E.J. Schneider, Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co.

©Copyright 1974
American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical. and Petroleum Engineers. Inc.
This pa~er was prepared for the Symposium on Sour Gas and Crude of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers of AIME to be held in Tyler, Tex., Nov. 11-12, 1974. Permission to copy
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper is presented.
Publication elsewhere after pUblication in the JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY or the SOCIETY
OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL is usually 'granted upon request to the Editor of the appropriate
journal provided agreement to give praper credit is made.

Discussion of this paper is invited. Three capies of any discussion should be sent to
the Society of Petroleum Engineers office'. Such discussion may be presented at the above .
meeting and, with the paper, may be considered for publication in one of the two SPE magazlnes.

ABSTRACT

The background of research on the hydrogen
and hydrogen sulfide embrittlement of steels is
reviewed. The factors required for embrittle-
ment and the probability of their occurrence in
field conditions are discussed.
A laboratory program to evaluate the
relative susceptibility of various steels to
hydrogen sulfide embrittlement in a simulated
sour well condition was designed. Samples of
oil country tubular grades ranging from J-55 to
V-180 as well as laboratory heats of steel
designed to measure the effect of yield strength
tensile strength and heat treatment on hydrogen
sulfide embrittlement were tested. The most
significant factor observed was the strength of
the steel.
The results of these tests and other data
are described and reviewed from the standpoint
of a designer of casing, tubing and drill pipe
strings. Available grades are sorted into three
groups: (a) those grades which are unlikely to
fail even in a severe environment; (b) those
grades which are unlikely to fail in a mild
environment; and (c) those grades which would be
expected to fail even in a mild environment.
The data and the discussion of the results
of these tests presented herein are not to be
construed as a warranty of Youngstown's pipe or
tubular goods for a particular service.
INTRODUCTION
Hydrogen and hydrogen sulfide embrittle-
ment of steels is a phenomenon which has
received an extraordinary amount of attention
during the past Z5 years. Must of the early
attention to hydrogen embrittlementwas promoted
by failures in military aircraft landing gear
assemblies fabricated from high-strength steels.
In addition, as sour oil and gas wells were
encountered, the specific problem of hydrogen
sulfide embrittlement became more and more
significant, particularly as wells were drilled
deeper and stresses in the drill pipe, casing
and tubing increased.
Despite the time and money devoted to
studying HZ and HZS embrittlement, a complete
understanding of the process does not exist.
Several theories of the mechanism have been
proposed, but general agreement as to how hydro-
gen affects the performance of steel remains

References and illustrations at end of paper.

78 HYDROGEN SULFIDE EMBRITTLEMENT IN OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS
elusive. However, certain characteristics of HZ
!HZS embrittlement are well documented and can
serve as a basis for discussion. These charac-
teristics are:
1. Delayed failure. Failure occurs under
load after a period of time during which
the structure performs normally. A static
load produces failure; cyclic loading is
not required as in fatigue.
Z. Strain rate sensitivity. Brown et.aL 1
showed that as the strain rate (i) de-
creases, hydrogen embrittlement becomes
more severe. Static loading (€ = 0),
therefore, produced conditions under which
hydrogen embrittlement is most severe.
3. Temperature sensitivity. Brown et.al. l
also showed that embrittlement is most
severe in intermediate temperature ranges.
Samples tested at cryogenic temperatures
(-ZOO°F) or elevated temperatures (>ZOO°F)
displayed less severe embrittlement.
The severity of HZ!HZS embrittlement is
also related to the type of material under con-
sideration. If only steels are considered, the
following relationships have been noted:
1. Structure. Austenitic steels (face cen-
tered cubic) are least susceptible to HZ!
HZS embrittlement. Ferritic steels (body
centered cubic) show varying degrees of
susceptibility depending on the method of
producing the final strength level.
Tempered martensite (quench and tempered)
products have been reported more resistant
than normalized and tempered of normalized
products.
Z. Composition. The effects of composition
on HZ!HZS embrittlement are confused by
the variations in structure and strength
produced by varying compositions. For
example, Snape Z reports that increasing
carbon increases embrittlement suscepti-
bility. On the other hand, Johnson et.al~
reports no effect of carbon on the em-
brittlement of lZ heats of 4340 steel, and
Fraser et.al. 4 and work in Youngstown
Sheet and Tube Company's laboratories
suggested that higher carbon steels have
less tendency to embrittle than lower
carbon steels.
3. Strength level. As the strength level of
a given steel increases, its susceptibil-
ity to hydrogen embrittlement increases.
From the standpoint of the user, this
relationship is most important. In the
SPE 5195
case of static loading, the ability of
a structure to support a load will be
significantly decreased by HZ!HZS
embrittlement, and the useful. strength
of a "high-strength" material may be less
than that of a "low strength" materiaL
The extreme sensitivity of HZ/HZS em-
brittlement susceptibility to the
strength level of the steel has made
determination of the influence of other
factors (such as composition) extremely
difficult •
The mechanism of hydrogen embrittlement
and hydrogen sulfideembrittlement, as noted
above', is a subject of considerable discussion.
Considering first only hydrogen embrittlement,
numerous theories of the mechanism have been
proposed. Troian0 5 categorizes the the
theories as follows:
1. Development of hydrogen pressure in voids
as proposed by Zapffe. 6 The pressure is
developed by precipitation of molecular
hydrogen from the lattice and results in
the formation and growth of cracks.
z. Adsorption of hydrogen on the surface of
a crack or lattice imperfection which
lowers the fracture stress in the vicinit
and permits a crack to grow. 7
3. Migration of hydrogen to this triaxial
stress region in front of a crack; this
permits the formation of a new crack
which can then propagate. 8
The "pressure" theory (1) has been sup-
planted by the latter two theories in recent
years.
The characteristics of hydrogen embrittle-
ment noted here are based on experiments in
which hydrogen was deliberately added to the
specimen; testing is generally done in air.
When considering hydrogen sulfide
embrittlement, the environment of the test (or
of the part in service) becomes significant.
Concentration of hydrogen sulfide, concentra-
tion of COZ, the pH of the solution and test
temperatures are all significant. Briefly,
these factors influence the occurrence of HZ!
HZS embrittlement in the following qualitative
manner:
1. HZS - higher concentrations of HZS in-
crease susceptibility to cracking. Effects
have been reported at HZS concentrations
as low as 1 ppm. 9
SPE 5195 J. A. CASNER AND E. J. SCHNEIDER
2. C02 - presence of C02 (300 psi) increases
susceptibility to cracking. 9 ,lb
3. pH - lower pH increases susceptibility~,lO
Severe embrittlement was reported at pH
below 6.
4. Temperature - increasing temperatures
decrease susceptibility. Dvoracek ll
reports doubling the resistance of Q&T
steels to H2S embrittlement at 300°F.
Hydrogen sulfide embrittlement, as dis-
tinguished from hydrogen embrittlement, is more
complex in nature because of the additional
chemical reactions which occur. The actual
mechanism has been discussed from the standpoint
of hydrogen embrittlement and stress corrosion
cracking. It appears from the characteristics
of the occurrence of H2S embrittlement that the
most logical explanation of the phenomenon is
that of the mechanism of hydrogen embrittlement,
to which is added the presence of H2S as a
vehicle for providing hydrogen to the steel and
stress corrosion cracks which serve as localized
stress raisers. Similar proposals have been
advanced by such authors as Fraser et.al. 12
Regardless of the subtle distinctions made
between the various theories, enough is known to
establish the conditions for reducing the
occurrence of H2/HZS embrittlement.
1. Hydrogen in the steel can cause delayed
failure; therefore, hydrogen must not be
permitted to enter.
2. If hydrogen is unavoidable, materials less
susceptible to embrittlement must be used.
3. If hydrogen is present and selection of
materials is limited, stresses (either
residual or applied) must be low enough to
preclude crack growth.
4. Since high temperatures (>200°F) tend to
decrease the susceptibility of steels to
H2/H2S embrittlement, control of tempera-
ture, or taking advantage of the presence
of elevated temperatures, can reduce the
severity of the environment.
The technique selected for reducing the
occurrence of failures is, of course, an eco-
nomic one, and must be based not only on the
cost of the technique but also on the proba-
bility of success. Unfortunately, no simple
answers are available.
Prevention of hydrogen entry is an
aggressive environment would have to rely on
coatings which are impermeable to hydrogen.
While such metals as cadmium have been shown
to be effective barriers under certain con-
ditions,13 the continuous availability of
hydrogen in a sour well and the fact that hy-
drogen can diffuse, even slowly, through all
metals suggests that such approaches would
only serve to increase the time to failure;
this time would be short in relation to the
expected life of the well. Likewise, organic
coatings would probably only delay (not pre-
vent) failure. Coupled with this, the costs
of applying such coatings would be high
compared to the protection achieved.
Selection of non-susceptible steels
offers some possibilities, although the cost
of the most promising materials (austenitic
stainless steels) is prohibitive. As will be
shown below, certain grades of available steel
will provide some relief.
It was with this latter fact in mind that
a program to evaluate the H2S embrittlement
susceptibility of Youngstown's oil country
tubular goods was initiated to provide guidance
to designers of oil well strings in the selec-
tion of materials. Youngstown Sheet and Tube
Oil Country Tubular Goods are produced to API
specifications and are representative of
steels available to the oil industry.
TEST PROCEDURE
Based on experience and a study of the
literature, it was decided that the most sen-
sitive method of evaluating steels for H2/H2S
embrittlement sensitivity would be axial
static loading of a notched sample in a H2 /H 2S
environment. This test provides a time to
failure for samples at a given load; by testing
a number of samples, a "static fatigue curve"
can be generated and the static fatigue pro-
perties of various materials compared. Although
static load tests required a long time to
accomplish, and the axial loading requires more
complex equipment than bent beam tests, it was
felt the use of a zero strain rate test to
provide for greatest sensitivity and the ease
of calculating and reproducing stress levels
in axial loading were worth the added time and
expense.
Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of the
testing apparatus. A lever system was employed
to load the specimens held in grips contained
in a stainless steel beaker. Axial loading was
maintained by use of universal joints between
the specimen grips and the loading apparatus.
A general view of the test apparatus is shown
in Figure 2. Figure 3 is the test sample con-
80 HYDROGEN SULFIDE EMBRITTLEMENT IN OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS
figuration. A 50%, (i.e. 50% of original area)
60° notch, having a notch radius of .010" was
machined into the stra ight sided, threaded
specimen.
The stainless steel beaker for the con-
tainment of the environmental solution was
covered with a Lucite cap through which a gas
inlet tube and an exhaust tube permitted con-
stant gas flow. H2 S gas was bubbled in the
solution through a coarse frit dispersion tube.
Tests were carried out in a 3% NaCl solu-
tion saturated with H2S, Flow of H2S was
continued in the solution throughout the dura-
tion of the test, giving an equilibrium H2S
concentration of approximately 3,000 ppm. The
pH of the NaCl solution saturated with H2S was
4.3 to 5.0. All testing was performed at room
temperature.
Testing was continued until failure of the
specimen occurred or until 1000 hours had
elapsed. The combination,of high H2S level,
room temperature testing and dead loading of a
nO,tched sample represents a test condition which
is very severe.
MATERIALS
Steels for this inve~tigation were
obtained from two sources: Random samples of
seamless tubes taken from production runs and
50 lb. laboratory prepared heats, hot forged and
hot rolled in the laboratory. Composition and
grade of these materials tested are listed in
Table I and treatments and mechanical properties
are listed in Table II.
TEST RESULTS
Time to fa ilure for samp les loaded in the
H2S environment was plotted against applied
stress. The result was a "static fatigue curve";
a typical curve is shown in Figure 4. At
applied stresses below the notched tensile
strength of the samples, failure occurred after
loading times generally between 1 and 100 hours.
Below a certain applied stress, called the
"static fatigue limit" (SFL) no failure
occurred after 1000 hours. The static fatigue
limit was considered to be a measure of the
susceptibility of the steel to H2S embrittlement
Values of the experimentally determined SFL are
listed in Table II.
Experimentally determined values of the
SFL were then plotted against the yield strength
(Fig. 5) and the ultimate tensile strength (Fig.
6). The most striking feature of these curves
is the rapid decrease in SFL with increasing
SPE 5195
strength. In attempting to distinguish among
various grades, both Figures 5 and 6 may be
considered.
Some superiority in the quench and
tempered grades as compared to the normalized
grades can be noted when the yield strength
(Fig. 5) of this material is selected as the
parameter for comparison. However, when the
tensile strength alone is used as the cri-
terion for comparison, (Fig. 6) the advantage
of the que,nchand temper grades disappears.
In comparing the SFt to the 0.2% offset
yield strength (Table II), the lower strength
standard grades exhibit SFL's in excess of the
yield strength (J-55 and C-75). Stronger
grades have SFL's equal to or less than the
yield strength. Therefore, under the condi-
tions represented by the test environment, the
lower strength steels would be capable of
supporting a load equal to the yield strength;
loading higher strength steels near the yield
strength could be expected to result in
failure, and very high strength steels would
fail at even lower loads.
If the ultimate tensile strength of the
steel is now considered (rather than the yield
strength), it may be seen that steels having
tensile strengths be low some threshold 1eve 1
(in the case of the test conditions used here,
approximately 125,000 psi), the full yield
strength may be utilized. This effect may be
seen by examining the data for the three N-80
samples. The specimens having a tensile
strength of 130,000 psi had SFL's below the
yield strength while the sample having a
tensile strength of 105,000 psi had aSFL
above the yield strength.
These relationships appear to be valid
for standard grades, but not forexperimenta 1
steels. The P-110 sample having a Ti and B
addition (PllOB); the Ni-Cu-Cb sample and most
of the laboratory-prepared heats had SFL's
less than the yield strength regardless of
the tensile strength.
The relation between yield strength,
tensile strength and static fatigue limit is
strictly empirical. No explanation can be
put forward at this time for the effect.
However, the results, coupled with field
experience, can provide some guidance in the
selection of materials.
The indicated SFL values are presented as
a tool for comparing the various susceptibil-
ities of the various grades of pipe under the
specified conditions. The absolute SFL values
SPE 5195 J. A. CASNER AND E. J. SCHNEIDER
should not be used to directly estimate the
maximum stresses which can be sustained by a
string of pipe under all field conditions which
may be encountered.
DISCUSSION
When the designer of a casing, tubing, or
drill pipe string selects pipe to avoid hydro-
gen embrittlement, he must consider the total
environment, the stress, and the strength of
the steeL
The total embrittling environment is
defined by the combined effects of chemical
factors (especially the concentration of H2S
and CO 2 and the pH) and the temperature.
The strength of the steel is defined by
the actual yield strength and the actual ten-
sile strength (not by the minimum or maximums
in the applicable specifications).
Review of experimental data indicates that
there is a "thresho ld" strength leve 1 which
distinguishes between steels which are suscep-
tible to hydrogen embrittlement, and those
which are not. Steels with actual tensile
strengths which are less than the "threshold"
tensile strength are not susceptible. These
steels will not embrittle even if the environ-
ment is very severe, and the stress is very
high. These steels may be described as SAFE.
It has been noted that this strength is approx-
imately 125,000 psi, under severe test condi-
tions.
Steels with actual tensile strengths just
above the "threshold" strength are only
slightly susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement.
They will not fail unless the environment is
very severe and the stress is very high. As
tensile strengths increase above the "threshold'
strength, steels become more susceptible.
Finally, a tensile strength is reached at
which steels are so susceptible to embrittle-
ment that they will fail even at a very low
stress even when the environment is mild. This
tensile strength might be described as the
"critical" strength. The stress required to
cause failure in even a mild embrittling
environment is so low that even modest residual
stresses will cause failure. For all practical
purposes, steels of this strength level are so
susceptible that further increase in tensile
strength does not increase susceptibility to
embrittlement.
Steels with tensile strengths above the
"critical" strength cannot be used even in the
81
mildest embrittling environment. They can
only be classified as UNSAFE.
Steels with tensile strengths between
the "threshold" strength and the "critical"
strength can be classified as INTERMEDIATE,
they can only be used when the embrittling
environment is mild.
An important consideration in the
classification of steels is the fact that the
yield/tensile ratio for quenched and tempered
steels is higher than for normalized or
tempered steels. As a consequence, quenched
and tempered N-80 steels will have an actual
tensile strength which is about 10,000 to
15,000 psi lower than normalized or normalized
and tempered N-80 steels when the yield
strengths are the same.
Review of field experience as distin-
guished from laboratory data indicates that
the "threshold" tensile strength for steels
produced with regular mill practices and which
will have a relatively uniform structure will
be about 125,000 to 130,000 psi.
Experimental data and field experience
indicates that the "critical" tensile strength
is about 150,000 psi.
CLASSIFICATION OF STEELS
Considering all of these details, we can
classify casing and tubing steels as follows:
• All H-40, J-55, K-55, C-75 and L-80~'( which
meet the maximum yield strength limits of
API specifications are SAFE. High side
heats of J-55 which were produced before
API adopted maximum yield strengths limits
may have tensile strengths above the
"threshold" strength, and would be in the
INTERMEDIATE range.
• Normalized or normalized and tempered N-80
with yield strengths in the lower third of
the yield strength range, and quenched and
tempered N-80 with yield strengths in the
lower and intermediate portion of the yield
strength range would also be classified as
SAFE.
• Normalized or normalized and tempered N-80
with yield strengths in the intermediate
and high side of the API yield strength
range, quenched and tempered N-80 with yield
strengths in the high side of the API yield
strength range, all C-95 and quenched and
tempered p-105 with yield strengths in the
lower quarter of the API yield strength
range should be classified as INTERMEDIATE.
* A new proposed API grade.
82 HYDROGEN SULFIDE EMBRITTLEMENT IN OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS
• Quenched and tempered P-l05 with yield
strengths above the lower quarter of the
API yie ld strength range ,a 11 norma lized
and tempered P-l05, all P-llO, and all
higher grade material (regardle.ss of heat
treating method) should be classified as
UNSAFE.
Classification of drill pipe is an en-
tirely different matter. Although grade E
drill pipe with yield strengths in the upper
half of the yield strength range, and all X-95
drill pipe have tensile strengths which are
above the "threshold" strength, they are still
less .susceptible than the tool joints and will
not fail due to embrittlement in any environ-
ment in which the tool joints will perform.
The use of drill pipe grades higher than X-95
should be avoided if hydrogen sulfide is anti-
cipated.
The regular grades of casing and tubing
which have been classified as SAFE are not
strong enough to complete many deep high-
pressure wells. When the chemical environment
of deep wells is embritt ling , the designer has
several options.
Since tensile tests tend to measure
average properties, the "threshold" strength of
pipe which does not have uniform properties
must be lower than for a steel with very uni-
form properties to prevent the premature and
unexpectedembrittlement failures in the local
areas of higher than average physicals. Special
grades to which have more closely controlled
heat treatment and more frequent testing have
been applied will, therefore, have a slightly
higher "threshold" strength than the regular
grades of pipe. These specific grades may be
used at higher stresses. The special grade of
C-90 pipe which Shell Oil Company uses is an
example of these materials.
Steels which would ordinarily be con-
sidered as INTERMEDIATE or UNSAFE may be used
at elevated temperatures in a chemical environ-
ment that would be embrittling at room tempera-
tures. Bottom hole temperatures of most deep
wells are usually elevated, commonly ranging
from 250 OF to 450 of. The use of INTERMEDIATE
steels at the bottom of deep wells, or the use
of UNSAFE steels at the bottom of very deep
wells, with INTERMEDIATE steels at the middle
of the string of very deep wells will probably
satisfy the strength requirements at the
bottom of deep wells. The use of the thinner
wall INTERMEDIATE and UNSAFE steels in the
bottom of these strings will also reduce the
tension load at the top of these strings,
thereby reducing the strength of the pipe which
must be used where temperatures are not high
enough to allow the use of anything but steels
which have been classified as SAFE.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The environment may be classified as
mild, intermediate, or severe based on
the concentration of H2S and CO 2 , the
pH and the temperature.
2. Steels may be classified for H2S service
as SAFE, INTERMEDIATE and UNSAFE.
3. SAFE steels may be used in all environ-
ments. INTERMEDIATE steels may only be
used in mild environments. UNSAFE
steels should not be used in any H2S
environment, except as noted below.
4. Gas and oil streams containing H S that
2
would be classified as an intermediate
or severe embrittling environments at
room temperature are mild or even "not
embrittling" at elevated temperatures.
Consequently, INTERMEDIATE and UNSAFE
steels m1:\Y be used in the bottom portion
of deep wells which have high bottom
hole temperatures.
REFERENCES
1. Brown, J.T. and Baldwin, W.M., Jr.,
"Hydrogen Embritt lement of $tee Is",
Trans. AlME V. 200, 1954, pp. 298-304.
2. Snape, E., "Sulfide Stress Corrosion of
Some Medium and Low Alloy Steels",
Corrosion, June 1967, pp. 154-172.
3. Johnson, H.H.; Johnson, R.D.; Fromberg,
R.P. and Troiano, A.R., "Static Fatigue
in Twelve Heats of 4340 Steel Embrittled
with Hydrogen", WADC TN55-306, August
1955.
4. Fraser, J.R.and Treseder,R.S., "Resis-
tance of Tubular Materials to Sulfide
Corrosion Cracking", ';rrans. ASME, V. 17,
August 1955, pp. 817-828.
5. Troiano, A.R., '~he Role of Hydrogen and
Other Interstitia1s in the Mechanical
Behavior of Metals", Trans. ASME, Vol.
LII, 1960, pp. 54-80.
6. Zapffe, C., Discussion of 'Metal Arc
Welding of Steel", by S. A. Herres,
Trans. ASM, Vol. 39, 1947, pp. 191-192.
SPE 5195 J. A. CASNER AND E. J. SCHNEIDER 83

7. Petch, N.J., and Stables, P., l~e1ayed
Fracture of Metals Under Static Load",
Nature, Vol. 169, May 17, 1952, pp. 842-
843.
8. Mor1et, J.G., Johnson, H.H., and Troiano,
A.R., '~New Concept of Hydrogen Embrittle
ment in Steel", JISI, V. 189, 1958,
pp. 37-41.
9. Hudgins, C.M.; McGlasson, R.L.; Mehdizadeh
P.; and Rosborough, W.M., "Hydrogen Su1fid
Cracking of Carbon and Alloy Steels",
Corrosion, V. 22, 1966, pp. 238-251.
10. Fraser, J.P., Eldredge, G.G., and Trese-
der, R.S., "Laboratory and Field Methods
for Quantitative Study of Sulfide Corro-
sion Cracking", Corrosion, V. 14, 1958,
pp. 517t-523t.
11. Dvoracek, L.M., "Sulfide Stress Corrosion
Cracking of Steels", Corrosion, V. 26,
1970, pp. 177-188.
12. Fraser, J.P. and Treseder, R.S., 'tracking
of High-Strength Steels in Hydrogen
Sulfide Solutions", Corrosion, V. 8, 1952,
pp. 342-350.
13. Johnson, H.H.; Schneider, E.J.; and
Troiano, A.R., 'New Technique Rids Plated
Steel of Hydrogen Embrittlement:, ~
Age, V. 182, 1958, pp. 47-50.

TABLE 1 - COMPOSITION OF TESTED MATERIALS

MILL SAMPLES

Grade C ..l:lli.- _P- S .2.L ..BL liL ...QL. Mo ...AL Other

J-55 .50 1.28 .028 .035 .065 .06 .10 .16 .021 .024
C-75 .46 1.64 .012 .040 .26 .04 .04 .08 .16 .020
N-80 .49 1.48 .013 .026 .27 .03 .09 .07 .18 .036
X-105 .38 1.53 .013 .037 .23 .05 .03 .95 .26 .026 .015 V
P-110 (A) .35 1.68 .013 .037 .32 .035 .04 .24 .16 .035 .012 V
P-110 (B) .33 1.37 .006 .027 .27 .05 .03 .02 .030 .040 Ti +B
X-135 (A) .28 1.54 .010 .025 .24 .08 .06 .53 .29 .042 .012 V
X-135 (B) .29 1.49 .012 .025 .26 .08 .06 .52 .28 .042 .012 V
X-135 (C) .27 1.49 .010 .026 .26 .08 .06 .52 .28 .042 .012 V
X-135 (D) .33 1.46 .014 .031 .26 .08 .06 .51 .28 .037 .012 V
X-135 (E) .35 1.57 .012 .031 .26 .08 .07 .51 .29 .035 .012 V
V-180 .36 1.48 .010 .033 .30 .05 .03 .57 .54 .030 .092 V
Ni-Cu-Cb .03 .65 .006 .018 .31 1.06 .77 .05 .012 .022 Cb

LAB SAMPLES

C-Mn .44 1.32 .003 .021 .28 .03 .02 .03 .042
Cr-Mo .09 1.46 .008 .022 .31 .04 .02 1.23 .48 .040
1 .15 1.42 .006 .018 .27 .06 .01 .05 .0015 B
2 .21 1.43 .007 .026 .32 .03 .01 .05 .0016 B
3 .32 1.42 .005 .023 .22 .03 .01 .04 .0015 B
4 .37 1.42 .006 .024 .31 .02 .01 .05 .0016 B
5 .45 1.42 .006 .025 .30 .03 .01 .04 .0014 B
 TABLE 2 - PROCESSING AND PROPERTIES OF TEST MATERIALS

MILL SAMPLES

0.2% Offset Static Fatigue

Grade Processing* Yield - ksi UTS (ksi) Limit 'ksi)

J-55 As Rolled (M) 66.7 123.8 73.2

C-75 N &T (M) 81.7 118.9 92.0
N~80 (A) N (M) 93.0 130.0 48.3
N-80 (B) Q &T (1) 114.8 130.2 77 .4
N-80 (C) Q &T (1) 84.8 105.8 84.2
X-lOS N &T (M) 114.2 142.1 19.0
P~110 (A) Q & T (M) 123.6 138.2 21.1
P~110 (B) Q & 2T (M) 105.2 117.9 68.2
X-135 (A) Q &T (M) 157.6 173.2 14.9
X~135 (B) Q &T (M) 170.4 181.1 14.9
X-US (C) Q &T (M) 147.9 157.9 22.4
X-135 (D) Q &T (M) 131.2 143.7 31.4
X-135 (E) Q &T (M/1) 111.0 128.2 51.8
V-180 Q & 2T (MIL) 160.1 170.7 24.8
Ni-Cu-Cb Aged -1050 of (1) 98.2 110.9 31.7

LAB SAMP1ES

C-Mn Q &T (1) 97.7 119.2 88.3

Cr-Mo Q &T (L) 110.2 119.1 71.1
1 Q &T (1) 112.5 121.9 36.0
2 (A) Q &T (1) 95.1 106.4 77 .4
2 (B) Q& T (L) 94.1 107.3 75.4
3 (A) Q &T (1) 108.9 121.6 53.0
3 (B) Q &T (1) 108.5 124.6 53.5
3 (C) Q &T (1) 96.8 109.7 92.9
3 (D) Q &T (1) 94.1 108.7 91.3
4 (A) Q &T (1) 110.5 125.1 54.2
4 (B) Q &T (1) 110.5 125.1 52.5
5 Q & 2T (1) 107.7 124.6 51.5

*N ~
Normalized
Q ~

Quenched
T - Tempered
2T ~
Double Tempered
(M) - Mill Heat Treatment
(1) ~
1ab Heat Treatment
(M/1) - Mill Heat Treatment and 1ab Heat Treatment
 UNIVERSAL

ENVIRONMENTAL
SOLUTION

BEAM
jI

LOA D 1------1

Fig. 1 - Schematic diagram of loading system.

 Fig. 2 - General view of test apparatus.

t J,
,
II II .312" ~ .220"
, II II
~

-IE
+ 3%"
T

....

Fig. 3 - Specimen configuration.

 220

200

180

160

140
iii
Q..
~
I 120 000
V)
V)
w o 0 0
c.::
l- 100 _~~T.!.C-f~!.!.'tU!.!:.!~I.!.__ -D_, ~
V)

80 ~

60

40

0.1

TIME TO FAILURE~HOURS

Fig. 4 - Typical static fatigue curve.

0 QUENCH AND TEMPERED

120
/i. NORMALIZED AND TEMPERED
X AS-ROLLED
100

iii A
Q.. \
~ \
I
80 0
I-
\ 0
~ X \
::::A \ 0
w .\
::> \
C) 60 \
i=
...u
<C \
/i. ,
i= \
<C 40 \
I-
\
,,
V)
/i.
0
20 "- 0 0
/i. ....
0 0

0
60 80 140 160 180

YIELD STRENGTH-KPSI

Fig. 5 - Static fatigue

lim it vs yield strength.
 120 0 QUENCH AND TEMPERED
A NORMALIZED AND TEMPERED

100 • AS-ROLLED

0 A
0
Vi 0
a.. 0
~
....
I
0 0
i::::i
w
0
0
0
•
~
60
~
i=
«
LL.
00:0
o A
u
i= 40
«
.... 0
V)
A
0
20
0 0

01..-_ _...1...-_ _- ' - -_ _--a..._ _- - I_ _---.I

80 100 120 140 160 180

ULTIMATE TENSILE STRENGTH-KPSI

Fig. 6 - Static fatigue I imit VB U.T.S.