Damage Control Column - Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) Detection

6/14/22, 3:19 PM Damage Control Column: Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) Detection
INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL
Damage Control: Stress Corrosion Cracking Detection

By Phillip E. Prueter, Principal Engineer II and Team Leader – Materials & Corrosion at The Equity Engineering
Group, Inc. This article appears in the March/April 2022 issue of Inspectioneering Journal.
This article is part 1 of a 3-part series on Stress Corrosion Cracking.

Part 1 | Parts 2 & 3 coming soon
Editor’s Note: This regular column offers practical insights into various damage mechanisms
affecting equipment in the O&G, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, and related
industries. Readers are encouraged to send us suggestions for future topics, comments on the
current article, and raise issues of concern. All submissions will be reviewed and used to pick
topics and guide the direction of this column. We will treat all submissions as strictly confidential.
Only Inspectioneering and the author will know the names and identities of those who submit.
Please send your inputs to the author at damagecontrol@inspectioneering.com.
Introduction
In general terms, stress corrosion cracking (SCC) is defined as a metallurgical damage
mechanism characterized by the presence of sub-critical cracking under sustained loads
(applied or residual), occurring most commonly in liquid environments, but sometimes
gaseous environments [1]. Furthermore, there are numerous forms of SCC that typically
afflict oil refining, petrochemical, and related pressure equipment, including but not
limited to the following:
Amine SCC
Ammonia SCC
Carbonate SCC
Caustic SCC
Chloride SCC
Polythionic Acid SCC
https://inspectioneering.com/journal/2022-04-28/10095/damage-control-stress-corrosion-cracking-detection 1/26
The propensity for these different types of SCC in pressure equipment is dependent on
many specific fabrication and process operating variables, such as material properties
and chemistry, weld procedures, weld geometry, weld deposit and heat affected zone
(HAZ) hardness/microstructure, original heat treatment, external environmental
conditions, process stream composition, pH, temperature, operating stress level, and
proximity to local stress concentrations. In general, the often-confounding influence of
these different variables on SCC susceptibility and on markedly unpredictable crack
propagation rates, makes the above forms of SCC notably complex and difficult to
manage in aging components [2,3]. Consequently, equipment failures due to SCC
continue to plague numerous industries, highlighting an overall lack of understanding
and awareness of these complicated damage mechanisms in many cases.
This installment of Damage Control provides an overview of some of the more common
forms of SCC (listed above) that can detrimentally influence the long-term reliability of
process equipment and create a notable reliability and maintenance burden for plant
personnel. Furthermore, particular focus herein is placed on detecting these forms of
cracking, and commentary on effective inspection methods is offered. In this article,
sub-critical cracking of steels due to gaseous hydrogen or sulfide stress cracking (SSC)
are generally considered to be related to hydrogen embrittlement (HE) or the presence
of wet H2S, where hydrogen permeation of steel is at the root of these damage
mechanisms [4,5]. For this reason, these types of cracking are not covered in detail in
this article. Additionally, sub-critical cracking due to liquid-metal environments (e.g.,
zinc or mercury) is also normally treated as a separate damage mechanism phenomenon
from SCC and is designated as liquid-metal embrittlement (LME) [6]. To this end, LME
is not covered in detail in this article, but it, along with SSC and HE, should be well-
understood by engineers and inspectors such that proper delineation of any identified
cracking-related damage can be accomplished in the field.
Different Forms of Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC)
As discussed herein, the damage morphologies of different SCC mechanisms are

frequently similar in nature (with common crack driving forces such as tensile weld
residual and applied stresses), even though the underlying cracking susceptibility may
be a function of metallurgy and is propelled by different process environments and
governing chemical reactions. Being able to successfully identify the common
characteristics of SCC is an essential first step in reasonably managing the risk
associated with a potential in-service leak or even a sudden catastrophic fracture or
rupture scenario for pressure equipment. The descriptions below highlight some of the
key damage characteristics and critical factors that can dramatically increase the
propensity for damage and, ultimately, failure for some of the different forms of SCC.
Amine SCC
Amine SCC, sometimes referred to more generally as alkaline SCC, is a cracking

mechanism caused by the combined effects of an aqueous alkanolamine solution
(typically used to absorb H2S and/or CO2 from gaseous or liquid hydrocarbon process
streams) and the presence of tensile stress (applied or residual) [7-9]. The cracking is
typically branched and intergranular in nature with the potential for being oxide-filled.
An example of amine SCC near a weld that was not subject to post-weld heat treatment
(PWHT) is shown in Figure 1. As highlighted in Figure 1, amine SCC usually occurs
near welds in carbon and low-alloy steels, especially in equipment that was not subject
to stress relief. It can also appear in highly cold-worked components (with residual
stresses being the primary crack driving force). While cracking can occur in the weld
deposit or heat affected zone (HAZ), it most often manifests adjacent to weld HAZs in
the base metal, where tensile weld residual stresses are regularly most severe.
The general mode of cracking involves local anodic dissolution of iron at the surface due
to breaches in the normally protective sulfide film [9]. Characteristically, cracking
usually develops parallel to welds, but in the weld itself, cracking can be either
longitudinal or transverse. Specifically for set-on nozzles, cracking usually propagates
radially from the inside bore of the nozzle. Contrarily, for set-in nozzles, cracks are
usually parallel to the nozzle attachment weld. Furthermore, cracking generally initiates
on the inside surface of the steel that is exposed to the process environment. It is worth
noting that cracking can initiate on the inside surface where external attachment welds
are present on the outside surface because of the presence of through-wall weld residual
stresses (that represent a significant crack driving force). The appearance of amine
cracks can be quite similar to wet H2S-driven SSC or carbonate SCC (discussed below),
and as such, these damage mechanisms are often confused with one another. In general,
amine unit equipment such as contactors, regenerators, absorbers, strippers, heat
exchangers, filters, and piping should be routinely scrutinized and inspected for in-
service amine SCC, especially if these components are not stress relieved.
Figure 1. Example of Amine SCC adjacent to a non-PWHT Weld in a

Piping System [7].
For amine SCC, the primary critical factors influencing the propensity for damage
include the following:
Process Stream Composition - In general, amine SCC is more likely to occur in

lean amine environments and is more prevalent in monoethanolamine (MEA) and
diethanolamine (DEA) services, although it can also occur in other amine services
such as methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) and diisopropanolmine (DIPA). In rich
amine service environments, the formation of iron sulfide scale usually impedes
amine SCC, and damage in these cases is more often due to wet-H2S damage
mechanisms such as SSC [5]. Unlike SSC, amine SCC is not believed to be heavily
influenced by steel/weld properties or weld hardness. Furthermore, amine
concentration is not believed to significantly influence damage proclivity. It is
important to note that amine cracking can occur due to short-term steam out events
or occasional amine carryover from upstream equipment.
Operating Temperature - The higher the process temperature, generally the
higher the susceptibility to cracking, although amine SCC has been known to occur
as low as ambient temperatures in MEA service [8].
Stress Level (Applied or Residual) - Intuitively, the higher the tensile stress,
the more predisposed a specific region is to amine SCC. Aside from elevated weld
residual stress, local stress concentrations (e.g., nozzle-to-shell junctions or
attachment welds) are distinctly prone to crack initiation simply due to stress risers
associated with geometric effects. To this end, sharp corners, discontinuities, and
weld toes are the most common places cracks tend to initiate.
Ammonia SCC
Ammonia SCC is most prevalent in carbon steel (especially high-strength steel)

equipment in anhydrous ammonia service or in copper-zinc alloys, such as admiralty
brass or aluminum brass, in aqueous ammonia environments (or process conditions
that contain ammoniated chemical compounds). In general, cracking can either be
transgranular or intergranular in copper alloys and is usually more intergranular in
nature for carbon steels, with potential oxide-filled crevices. An example of ammonia
SCC in a carbon steel ammonia storage tank is shown in Figure 2, which depicts both
ID surface views and through-thickness views of the cracking morphology (note the
oxide-filled cracking regions on the micrographs). In this case, the cracks tips are
relatively blunt, and it is believed that overall crack propagation was occurring at a
relatively slow rate.
Figure 2. Example of Ammonia SCC in an Ammonia Storage Vessel.
In carbon steels, the following critical factors generally influence ammonia SCC
susceptibility and damage progression in anhydrous ammonia service [7,8,10]:
Operating Temperature – Crack initiation and propagation typically intensifies

with increasing temperature. Initiation of ammonia SCC at low temperatures (e.g.,
less than -27°F (-33°C)) is unlikely; however, growth of existing cracks has been
observed at these temperatures, although at significantly slower rates.
Water Content – Anhydrous ammonia with less than 0.2% water has been known
to cause cracking, and this is an often-cited threshold for damage concern. To this
end, water acts as an inhibitor to ammonia SCC, and most literature suggests
ammonia must meet this minimum water content threshold to effectively inhibit
damage progression.
Oxygen Concentration – Oxygen contamination from air exposure contributes
to the onset and acceleration of ammonia SCC damage. Even oxygen concentrations
below 5 ppm have been known to lead to cracking under certain conditions,
possibly even as low as 1 ppm [8,10].
Weld Residual Stress – Ammonia SCC typically appears as surface breaking
cracks near welds and HAZs. Non-PWHT welds are distinctly prone to damage
given the typically elevated weld residual stresses, and original fabrication defects
can serve as SCC initiation sites. It is worth noting that even equipment subject to
PWHT can still experience ammonia SCC under the appropriate conditions [11].
Material Strength – In general, high-strength carbon steels are more prone to
ammonia SCC than lower strength materials – a common minimum tensile
strength threshold used to quantify vulnerability is 70 ksi (483 MPa).
Weld Hardness – In general, high-hardness welds promote crack initiation and
can lead to accelerated ammonia SCC. PWHT offers a means to temper (soften)
welds in addition to relaxing residual stresses.
To highlight the overall dependency of ammonia SCC on both operating temperature

and oxygen concentration, Figure 3 shows experimental test results that quantify crack
depth as a function of time for varying oxygen concentrations, with data points at 64°F
(18°C) and -27°F (-33°C). These tests were carried out at a crack tip stress intensity
factor (K) of 73-77 ksi(in.1/2) [80-85 MPa(m1/2)]. These correlations intuitively confirm
that ammonia crack growth rates are more severe for higher temperatures; that is,
measured crack depths at -27°F (-33°C) were approximately 1/3 the depth of cracks at
64°F (18°C). While there is some scatter in data points relative to oxygen concentration,
further investigation into the individual specimen test results indicated ammonia SCC
susceptibility with 0.5-10 ppm oxygen at -33°C is highest at about 10 ppm oxygen and
50 ppm water. A similar trend was observed for ambient temperature tests. An
important conclusion from this study is that crack initiation can occur even with 0.5-1
ppm oxygen and up to 100 ppm water at -27°F (-33 °C), although the overall propensity
for cracking is much weaker than at higher oxygen concentrations [12].
Figure 3. Maximum Crack Depth as a Function of Time (and

Temperature) for Varying Levels of Oxygen in Carbon Steel [12].
In general, ammonia storage tanks, piping, and related components in ammonia

refrigeration units are prone to ammonia SCC damage. Additionally, some lube-oil
refining processes may also introduce risk for ammonia SCC. It is important to consider
that in pressurized ammonia storage tanks or vessels, if there is a vapor zone present
above the liquid level, this region of the pressure boundary can be susceptible to
ammonia SCC because of condensation of the ammonia vapor (with no water) on the
inside surface [10]. For this region, the vapor space (above the liquid line) can be
damage-prone in ammonia storage equipment and may require special attention
pertaining to inspection strategies and long-term maintenance plans.
For copper-zinc alloys, zinc content of brasses heavily influences damage prevalence.
Specifically, zinc content above 15% generally promotes ammonia SCC, and a water
phase with ammonia must be present. Furthermore, trace amounts of oxygen can be
adequate to cause cracking at any temperature, and pH usually needs to exceed 8.5 to
create an environment conducive to damage. Residual stresses from fabrication (e.g., the
rolling process for heat exchanger tubes) also tend to promote ammonia SCC. It is
possible for surface-breaking cracks in copper-zinc alloys to exhibit a bluish tint due to
the presence of corrosion products. Furthermore, ammonia may be present in cooling
water or steam condensate in boiler feedwater systems due to chemical treatments, and
it may be present in certain process streams either as a contaminant or an acid
neutralizer [7,8]. This highlights the importance of fully understanding process stream
constituents when evaluating equipment susceptibility to ammonia SCC.
Carbonate SCC
Carbonate SCC, often just called carbonate cracking, is a form of alkaline SCC that
typically occurs in oil refinery fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) units and sour water
stripper (SWS) units. It has been reported in refineries since the early 1980s [13].
Specifically, the FCC main fractionator overhead condensing and reflux systems, as well
as downstream wet gas compression and sour water storage systems (piping and
vessels), are notably prone to this type of cracking. Additionally, in SWS units, top
pump-around sections, highly cold-worked components such as u-bends in condenser
tubes, and ammonia acid gas knockout sections are usually the regions of highest
concern for damage. The cracking mechanism itself occurs in carbon and low-alloy
steels in process environments containing a free water phase with carbonate ions and
where some amount of H2S is present. Typical damage morphology of carbonate SCC
involves surface breaking cracks, often characterized by small, spider-web type cracking
that often initiates at weld defects. Crack propagation is often parallel to welds in the
HAZ or in the base metal directly adjacent to the HAZ, although there have been a
limited number of reported cases in the weld deposit itself [13]. Damage appearance is
usually an intergranular network of interconnected, branched cracks that are often
oxide-filled [7-9]. An example of carbonate SCC is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Example of Carbonate SCC (Initiating at an ID Surface

Corrosion Pit) [7].
A summary of some of the critical factors influencing carbonate SCC damage

susceptibility is offered in the list below [7,8,13]:
Carbonate Ion Concentration – Industry experience suggests that carbonate

ion levels above 100 ppmw can cause cracking damage (depending on the pH),
although this threshold should not be treated as absolute given a lack of available
supporting data.
pH – It is believed carbonate SCC does not occur below a pH of 7. pH in the range
of 7.5 – 11 is known to facilitate damage, but the most aggressive cracking has
occurred in the pH range of 8 – 10, with a trend of increased damage propensity as
pH increases. In general, the presence of ammonia in sour water increases the pH
and in turn, can increase the risk for carbonate SCC.
Presence of Water – A liquid water phase in the process stream is believed to be
a requirement to cause carbonate SCC. The presence of H2S is also believed to
contribute to damage, although no industry-accepted threshold level for H2S has
been established.
Sulfide-to-Carbonate Ratio – Low sulfide-to-carbonate ratios are understood to
degrade protective sulfide scales on the steel surface. In general, this can increase
the likelihood of carbonate SCC. Degradation of other beneficial surface scales such
as iron oxides or iron carbonate can also promote cracking.
Residual Stress – Carbonate SCC has been observed in regions of relatively low
residual stress, but in general, non-PWHT welds are noticeably prone to damage
initiation. Highly cold-worked fittings such as elbows and reducers have also
experienced carbonate SCC due to the presence of elevated residual stresses.
FCC unit feed quality and overall unit operation can influence damage susceptibility.
While not discussed in detail herein, process conditions such as nitrogen and sulfur
content in the feed along with other operating practices can increase overall risk. In
general, carbonate SCC is often confused with SSC or stress-oriented hydrogen induced
cracking (SOHIC). One delineating factor associated with carbonate SCC is that it
typically initiates further away from the toes of welds and exhibits multiple parallel
cracks relative to SSC or SOHIC.
Caustic SCC
Caustic SCC is sometimes referred to as caustic embrittlement, although it is not

technically an embrittlement damage mechanism and therefore terming it as
embrittlement is antiquated. It is characterized by surface-breaking crack-like flaws that
most often occur adjacent to non-PWHT welds in pressure equipment exposed to caustic
(e.g., caustic soda or caustic potash). Carbon, low-alloy, and 300 series stainless steels
are susceptible. Nickel base alloys are generally more resistant but are not strictly
immune. Early cases of caustic SCC occurred in steam boilers (riveted), where cracks
initiated at rivet hole locations that experienced elevated local stress [14]. Most modern
cases of caustic SCC are observed in carbon steel equipment near non-PWHT welds (in
the HAZ or base metal directly adjacent to the HAZ). Cracking in carbon steels is usually
intergranular, although in rare cases, it can be transgranular, and it tends to exhibit
multiple, oxide-filled cracks. In 300 series stainless steels, cracking is most often
transgranular, and it can be difficult to distinguish from chloride SCC; however, one
potential identifier of caustic SCC is a black magnetite layer on the crack surface. An
example of caustic SCC is provided in Figure 5. The following three factors tend to have
the largest overall impact on caustic SCC susceptibility [7,8,14]:
Caustic Strength - In general, caustic concentrations greater than 5 wt% in the

aqueous phase can lead to SCC in carbon steels, although cracking can also occur in
process environments with lower concentrations (e.g., 50-100 ppm in the bulk
solution) due to local concentration effects. These local caustic deposits can develop
by departure from nucleate boiling, evaporation, depositing of salts, or cycling
between wet and dry conditions.
Metal Temperature – Caustic SCC propagation rates tend to increase rapidly
with increasing temperature, and in extreme cases, (e.g., during a temperature
excursion or steam out event), damage propagation can be severe, potentially
leading to through-wall cracking in a matter of hours (especially if concentrated
caustic deposits are present). Given this behavior, local hot spots can also be
problematic. Generally, cracking can occur between 115°F (46°C) and boiling
temperatures.
Stress Level – Weld residual stresses contribute heavily as a crack driving force.
Residual stresses from cold working may also be of concern. Additionally, applied
stresses (e.g., from internal pressure loading) can also contribute to cracking, so
geometric stress concentrations (e.g., attachment locations or sharp notches),
especially near welds, can be highly vulnerable.
Figure 5. Example of Caustic SCC (Initiating on the ID Surface at a

Socket Weld) [7].
Aside from the above factors, process stream contaminants such as sulfides can increase
the likelihood of cracking. Typical sources of caustic include additives in boiler feed
water, additives to neutralize acids, or as a reactant to remove sulfur or chlorides.
Typical locations in common refining units to monitor for caustic SCC include:
Hydrofluoric and Sulfuric Acid Alkylation Units

Crude Units
Merox (Mercaptan Oxidation) Units
Sour Water Stripper Units
Boilers with Inadequate Water Chemistry Controls
Improperly Heat Traced Piping
It is noted that in boiler feed water systems, even trace amounts of caustic can become
concentrated in boiler tubes due to wet-dry cycling, and this can lead to tube failures.
Cracking can also initiate at rolled tube-to-tubesheet junctions in boilers where caustic
concentration may also take place. Caustic may be present in other downstream units
(e.g., steam condensate piping) because of unintended caustic carryover. Lastly, the
Caustic Service Chart (see Figure 6) is commonly used to determine caustic soda
(NaOH) concentration thresholds (by weight) for carbon steels as a function of heat
treatment and operating (metal) temperature [7-9,14].
Figure 6. Caustic Service Chart for Carbon Steels [7].
Chloride SCC
Chloride SCC is characterized as a surface-initiated cracking mechanism in austenitic

and duplex stainless steels (and some nickel base alloys) under the combined action of
tensile stress, temperature, and an aqueous chloride environment. It is inherently
caused by inorganic chloride ions. Organic chlorides don’t directly cause SCC, but they
can produce ionic, inorganic chlorides via hydrolysis or pyrolysis. Exposure to chlorides
can occur in-service or during hydrotest. Chlorides leaching out of insulation can lead to
external SCC, especially when moisture accumulates on the surface of the steel
substrate. Specifically, for austenitic and duplex stainless steels, the damage morphology
is usually characterized by brittle-looking surface cracks that have many branches and
may be visually detectable by a craze-cracked appearance of the surface. Additionally,
the material usually shows no visible signs of corrosion, although this is not always
strictly true. Cracking is usually transgranular, but in sensitized 300 series stainless
steels, cracking can be intergranular. Examples of chloride SCC in 300 series stainless
steel are shown in Figure 7. Some critical factors influencing damage susceptibility are
summarized below [7,8].
Presence of Oxygen - In general, the presence of dissolved oxygen increases

propensity for cracking, and other oxidizers such as CO or CO2 can also accelerate
cracking.
Operating Temperatures - Metal temperatures between 140°F (60°C) and
400°F (205°C) are usually most concerning for crack initiation and propagation.
Material of Construction - Austenitic (e.g., 300 series) stainless steels are
generally most prone to cracking. Duplex stainless steels are typically more
resistant, and nickel base alloys are typically highly resistant, but not strictly
immune. Nickel content of the alloy has a notable effect on overall resistance. The
greatest susceptibility is at a nickel content of 8% to 12%. Alloys with nickel
contents above 35% are highly resistant and alloys above 45% are nearly
invulnerable. Carbon steels, low alloy steels, and 400 Series stainless steels are not
susceptible to chloride SCC.
pH – The likelihood of cracking generally increases at lower pH values, but

cracking is usually inhibited below a pH of 2. At very low pH, uniform corrosion can
become a concern.
Chloride Concentration – Higher chloride levels intuitively correlate to
increased cracking susceptibility. Even at very low levels, chlorides can concentrate
due to repetitive wetting/drying or cyclic conditions that vary between steam and
water (e.g., heat exchanger tubes).
Stress Level – Similar to other SCC damage mechanisms, non-PWHT weld
regions are usually the most susceptible to damage due to elevated tensile residual
stresses, and cold worked components such as expansion bellows are also regularly
areas of concern due to residual plastic strains.
Figure 7. Example of Transgranular Chloride SCC in a Failed 300

Series Stainless Steel Agitator Shaft.
Other common locations that tend to exhibit chloride SCC include water-cooled
condensers and crude tower overhead condensers. Stainless steel drains in
hydroprocessing units or boilers are also at risk, particularly during start-up if they are
not purged correctly. Solid stainless steel ring-type joints (RTJs) on flanges (often used
on hydroprocessing reactors or heat exchangers) and instrument tubing are also
common locations of damage. Biofuel/renewable units are also prone to chloride SCC
because of the often-high levels of organic chlorides in feedstocks that get converted to
inorganic chlorides in reactor effluent [7,8]. Lastly, upgrading carbon or low-alloy
components, such as small-bore piping, to 300 series stainless steel to avoid general
external aqueous corrosion associated with corrosion under insulation (CUI) introduces
the potential for chloride SCC [15]. Furthermore, the potential for chloride SCC should
be considered before making this type of metallurgy upgrade, and chemistry controls on
insulation and/or proper coatings may be required to alleviate this concern.
Polythionic Acid SCC
Polythionic Acid SCC (PASCC) is a form of intergranular SCC that usually occurs in
sensitized austenitic stainless steels and some nickel base alloys (e.g., Alloy 600/600H
and 800/800H) when sulfide scale on the steel surface is exposed to air and moisture.
The underlying chemical reaction involves oxygen and water reacting with sulfide
corrosion products or with other oxidizable sulfur species such as sulfur or H2S [16].
PASCC usually occurs during equipment start-ups or shutdowns, and cracking can
propagate rapidly through-wall in a matter of hours under the right conditions. Note
that sensitization is a material composition, time, and temperature dependent
phenomenon that involves the formation of chromium carbides in grain boundaries of
steel in the temperature range of 750°F – 1500°F (400°C – 815°C). Exposure to these
temperatures can occur during equipment fabrication, welding, or high-temperature
service (either long-term or short-term excursions).
The most common source of oxygen is the ingress of air when process equipment is
opened for cleaning, inspection, or maintenance activities during a planned unit outage.
Certain cleaning solutions may also contain oxygen. Additionally, liquid water is also
commonly used during equipment shutdowns (e.g., water washing) and can be produced
from condensing steam used for hydrocarbon removal. Local rainfall in humid
environments may also introduce liquid water into equipment during shutdowns. An
example of PASCC is depicted in Figure 8. The three critical damage factors that
influence PASCC damage susceptibility are outlined below [7,8,16].
Material Properties - Regular and controlled carbon grades of stainless steels,

such as Types 304/304H and 316/316H, are particularly susceptible to sensitizing
in the weld HAZ. Low carbon (L) grades of stainless steel (< 0.03% C) are generally
less susceptible and normally can be welded without sensitizing. L grades normally
will not sensitize provided long-term operating temperatures do not exceed about
750°F (399°C).
Improved resistance to PASCC can be achieved with modified versions of these
alloys containing small amounts of Ti and Nb. These stabilizing elements
exhibit a stronger affinity to form carbides than chromium does. This reduces
the amount of free carbon that reacts with chromium at elevated temperatures,
thus minimizing chromium carbide formation that instigates sensitization.
Chemically stabilized grades of austenitic stainless steel (e.g., Types 321, 347,
347LN, and 316Ti) and nickel base alloys (e.g., Alloys 825 and 625) usually
offer the most resistance to sensitization. Thermal stabilization (after solution
annealing) can enhance resistance to sensitization of chemically stabilized
grades and can be beneficial for welds.
Stress Magnitude – Tensile weld residual or applied stress can drive cracking;
however, non-PWHT welded regions are usually most damage prone.
Environmental Conditions - Equipment most likely to develop a sulfide scale
during operation is most susceptible to damage. As described above, water and
oxygen must also be present to facilitate the chemical reaction that leads to PASCC.
Susceptible refining equipment includes fired heaters burning oil, gas, coke and most
other sources of fuel (containing sulfur), heater tubes, hot feed/effluent exchanger
tubes, and bellows in hydroprocessing units. Crude/vacuum and coker unit piping have
also exhibited PASCC. Severe cases have been found in FCC units (e.g., air rings,
plenums, slide valves, cyclone components, expansion joint bellows and piping). Lastly,
PASCC can be highly localized in some instances and can lead to through-wall leaks near
welds or in base metal before widespread damage can be easily identified. The potential
for rapid PASCC damage progression emphasizes the importance of proper purging,
flushing, and neutralization of sulfur acids during shutdown procedures (before
equipment is opened and subject to oxygen and/or water). Because PASCC can occur
well into a unit shutdown, it can be a particularly challenging damage mechanism to
recognize and manage.
Figure 8. Extensive PASCC Near Welds Identified Using Liquid

Penetrant Testing [7].
General Inspection Considerations for SCC

In general, identifying the specific form of SCC likely to afflict a given piece of
equipment can streamline inspection efforts and reduce downtime during planned
outages because critical areas can be strategically targeted. Additionally, the overall
inspection strategy should consider the consequence of failure and the feasibility of
component repair or replacement. Given the often-unpredictable nature of SCC
propagation rates, establishing inspection intervals can be onerous (this will be
discussed further in the next installment of Damage Control). Because of the

fundamental damage characteristics of SCC described herein (surface breaking cracks
typically near welds), the following inspection methods are commonly employed:
Visual Inspection (VT) – This may be able to identify widespread issues, but
visual inspection alone is often insufficient to detect SCC. Cracking usually must be
relatively significant to visually recognize. Additionally, VT usually requires
cleaning and illumination of the surface in question to expose underlying defects
[17].
Surface Inspection – This is usually the preferred method for discovering
surface damage (cracking), especially near welds, although it usually demands
extensive surface preparation to be effective (e.g., grit blasting, water blasting, and
cleaning).
Wet Fluorescent Magnetic Particle Testing (WFMT) uses fine, wet
ferromagnetic particles applied over the surface, with some of the particles
being collected to form the outline of any cracks when the region is
magnetized. This represents the preferred typical approach used to detect
cracking in carbon and low-alloy steels [18].
Liquid Penetrant Testing (PT) is generally used for austenitic stainless steels
and involves the seepage of liquid penetrants into fine surface-breaking defects
(that often cannot be seen with the unaided eye) via capillary action, thus
rendering cracks discernible [19].
Depending on the specific SCC mechanisms, special surface preparation may
be necessary – for example, flapper disc sanding may be needed to improve PT
sensitivity when looking for PASCC.
Volumetric Inspection – Ultrasonic Testing (UT) is generally the most effective
method for characterizing crack depth, length, orientation, etc., and inspection can
be performed from the OD surface [20]. This can be advantageous in that it doesn’t
require access to internal surfaces, and it eliminates the need for extensive surface
preparation. In summary, UT methods emit beams of acoustic waves that travel
through steel with some amount of energy loss (attenuation). These waves get
reflected and refracted at internal interfaces, and the echoes are then analyzed to
characterize and locate embedded defects.
Widely used ultrasonic volumetric inspection methods include shear wave
(SWUT), phased array (PAUT) techniques, total focusing method (TFM), full
matrix capture (FMC), time of flight diffraction (TOFD), etc.
An alternative volumetric inspection method is radiography (RT), which is
based on the attenuation behavior of penetrating electromagnetic, wavelength,
or particulate radiation (e.g., x-ray, gamma ray, or neutron) [21]. RT is usually
limited to butt-welds and not attachment weld regions such as nozzle-to-shell
junctions. Furthermore, RT may not be capable of accurately distinguishing
small, closely spaced cracks. UT methods are usually better suited for
characterizing defects.
Acoustic Emissions Testing (AET) - May be utilized as an online monitoring
scheme to identify active crack propagation while a component is in service. The
general premise of AET is that the application of applied loads may result in small,
incremental growth of a crack-like flaw that generates noise through the release of
energy (high frequency elastic waves) when the crack extends. These acoustic
emissions in metals are an artifact of the dislocation movement accompanying
plastic deformation/crack growth in a component under stress, and multiple,
strategically spaced piezoelectric transducers are then used to attempt to pick up
this noise [22].
Eddy Current (EC) and Alternating Current Field Measurement (ACFM)
– These electromagnetic-based testing methods can be used to identify surface
breaking cracks. They are based on indirect measurement and correlations between
instrument reading and structural characteristics. Conventional EC inspection is
most often used to detect damage in heat exchanger tubes. ACFM can be leveraged
to identify crack location and even size without the need for extensive surface
preparation.
Summary and Conclusions
There are subtle nuances associated with the different forms of SCC discussed herein. As
elucidated above, while many of the damage characteristics and critical factors
influencing SCC susceptibility are similar, the underlying chemical reactions and
process conditions that promote crack initiation and propagation are distinctly unique.
There are also perceptible material property effects on damage susceptibility and
progression. Understanding these nuances and leveraging appropriate and practical
inspection methods represents a crucial first step in establishing robust mechanical
integrity programs that consider all potential forms of SCC. In general, successfully
managing SCC in aging equipment requires effective collaboration between
materials/corrosion engineers, maintenance/reliability personnel, plant inspectors, and
operators/process engineers. The next installment of Damage Control will focus on
established methods for evaluating the different forms of SCC once cracks have been
identified. Specifically, assessment techniques to quantify damaged equipment for
protection against unstable brittle fracture or ductile tearing will be provided.
Furthermore, using technically based fitness-for-service (FFS) methods to qualify SCC
damage and to estimate equipment remaining life represents an economical and
practical alternative to executing large scale equipment repairs or mandating
replacement.
References
1. Raja, V.S. and Shoji, T., 2011, “Stress Corrosion Cracking – Theory and Practice,”
Woodhead Publishing Limited, Oxford.
2. Papavinasam, S., 2014, “Corrosion Control in the Oil and Gas Industry,” Gulf
Professional Publishing, Waltham, MA.
3. Heidersbach, R., 2018, “Metallurgy and Corrosion Control in Oil and Gas
Production,” 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
4. Osage, D.A., Spring, D.W., Anderson T.L., Kummari, S.R., Prueter, P.E., Wallin, K.,
2017, “Welding Research Council Bulletin 562: Recommendations for Establishing
the Minimum Pressurization Temperature (MPT) for Equipment,” Welding

Research Council (WRC), Shaker Heights, OH.
5. Prueter, P.E., 2022, "A Guide to Wet H2S Damage Management," eBook,
Inspectioneering LLC, The Woodlands, TX.
6. Shchukin, E., Polukarova, Z., and Savenko V., 2018, “Liquid Metal Embrittlement
in Solids: LME-Effect,” LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, Republic of Moldova.
7. Dobis, J.D., Cantwell, J.E., and Prager, M., 2019, “WRC Bulletin 489 (2nd Edition):
Damage Mechanisms Affecting Fixed Equipment in the Refining Industry,”
Welding Research Council (WRC), Shaker Heights, OH.
8. API, 2020, "Recommended Practice 571 – Damage Mechanisms Affecting Fixed
Equipment in the Refining Industry," 3rd Edition, American Petroleum Institute,
Washington, D.C.
9. API, 2003 – Reaffirmed July 2020, "Recommended Practice 945 – Avoiding
Environmental Cracking in Amine Units," 3rd Edition, American Petroleum
Institute, Washington, D.C.
10. NACE, 2004, “Publication 5A192: Integrity of Equipment in Anhydrous Ammonia
Storage and Handling,” NACE International, Houston, TX.
11. Stephens, J.D. and Vidalin, F., 1987, “Stress Corrosion Cracking in Ammonia Field
Storage Tanks,” Proceedings of the AIChE Symposium on Safety in Ammonia
Plants.
12. Nyborg, R. and Lunde, L., 1994, “Life Prediction of Ammonia Storage Tanks Based
on Laboratory Stress Corrosion Crack Data,” Application of Accelerated Corrosion
Tests to Service Life Prediction of Materials, ASTM STP 1194, Gustavo Cragnolino
and Narasi Sridar, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
PA.
13. NACE, 2008, “Publication 34108: Review and Survey of Alkaline Carbonate Stress
Corrosion Cracking in Refinery Sour Waters,” NACE International, Houston, TX.
14. NACE, 2015, “SP0403-2015: Avoiding Caustic Stress Corrosion Cracking of
Refinery Equipment and Piping,” NACE International, Houston, TX.
15. Prueter, P.E., 2021, "A Guide to Corrosion Under Insulation Management," eBook,
https://inspectioneering.com/content/2021-09-30/9844/a-guide-to-corrosion-
under-insulation-management, Inspectioneering LLC, The Woodlands, TX.

16. NACE, 2018, “SP0170-2018: Protection of Austenitic Stainless Steels and Other
Austenitic Alloys from Polythionic Acid Stress Corrosion Cracking During a
Shutdown of Refinery Equipment,” NACE International, Houston, TX.
17. ASNT, 2010, “Nondestructive Testing Handbook – Visual Testing (VT),” Vol. 9, 3rd
Ed., The American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH.
18. ASNT, 2019, “Nondestructive Testing Handbook – Liquid Penetrant Testing,” Vol.
1, 4th Ed., The American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH.
19. ASNT, 2008, “Nondestructive Testing Handbook – Magnetic Testing (MT),” Vol. 8,
3rd Ed., The American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH.
20. ASNT, 2007, “Nondestructive Testing Handbook – Ultrasonic Testing (UT),” Vol. 7,
3rd Ed., The American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH.
21. ASNT, 2019, “Nondestructive Testing Handbook – Radiographic Testing (RT),”
Vol. 3, 4th Ed., The American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH.
22. Grosse, C.U. and Ohtsu, M., 2008, “Acoustic Emission Testing,” Springer-Verlag,
Berlin Heidelberg, Germany.
Did you find this article helpful?
About the Author

Phillip E. Prueter, Principal Engineer II and Team Leader – Materials & Corrosion at
The Equity Engineering Group, Inc.
Phillip E. Prueter, P.E. is a Principal Engineer II and Team Leader – Materials & Corrosion at The Equity
Engineering Group, Inc. in Shaker Heights, Ohio, where his responsibilities include providing technical
consulting expertise to the refining, petrochemical, specialty chemical, and power generation industries and
managing Nuclear Consulting Services. He specializes in... Read more »
Comments and Discussion
Posted by Wael Ahmed on June 6, 2022
Grateful 🙏
Posted by Rob Salvatore on June 6, 2022
Good helpful article on the topic. Two comments - 1/ We've had an example of what we think was MeOH
SCC in a MeOH CS storage drum, which seems like a rare degradation mechanism. Appreciate any
commentary anyone may have on this mechanism, and 2/ Regarding the caustic SCC chart, it differs from
the chart in NACE SP0403 2015. Has there been an update I'm not aware of? Thanks.
Posted by Gerhard Lombard on June 7, 2022
great article
Posted by Phillip Prueter on June 7, 2022

(Edited on June 7, 2022)
Thank you for the positive feedback. The caustic service chart depicted in this article (from WRC Bulletin
489) is slightly different from what currently appears in NACE SP0403-2015. In general, the curves
delineating Areas A, B, and C are essentially the same, although SP0403 includes an Area D that
represents low caustic soda concentrations, where carbon steel may still be suitable even at temperatures
in Area C. Additionally, it is my understanding that the intent is to add some clarification in SP0403
regarding several aspects of this chart, including clarifying that Area C represents unacceptably high
corrosion rates for carbon steel (approx. 10 mpy or higher), but not necessarily a cracking concern.
Moreover, for properly PWHT carbon steel below code allowable stresses, caustic SCC is not strictly
expected in Area C, but caustic corrosion could still preclude the use of carbon steel. While general
industry experience has been that short-term temperature exposures of PWHT carbon steel into Area C
(e.g., during steam outs) have not usually correlated to an elevated probability of caustic SCC, exposure
above this upper curve may denote conditions of increased caustic SCC risk for atypical applications
(e.g., components with higher-than-normal residual and applied stresses). Lastly, I believe the stainless
steel caustic curves (denoted on a separate figure in SP0403) are also being revisited.
Posted by Stan Guilbaud on June 8, 2022
Great article, very helpful.

Damage Control Column - Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) Detection

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Damage Control Column - Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) Detection

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6/14/22, 3:19 PM Damage Control Column: Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) Detection

Damage Control: Stress Corrosion Cracking Detection

This article is part 1 of a 3-part series on Stress Corrosion Cracking.

Different Forms of Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC)

As discussed herein, the damage morphologies of different SCC mechanisms are

Amine SCC, sometimes referred to more generally as alkaline SCC, is a cracking

Figure 1. Example of Amine SCC adjacent to a non-PWHT Weld in a

Process Stream Composition - In general, amine SCC is more likely to occur in

Ammonia SCC is most prevalent in carbon steel (especially high-strength steel)

Figure 2. Example of Ammonia SCC in an Ammonia Storage Vessel.

Operating Temperature – Crack initiation and propagation typically intensifies

To highlight the overall dependency of ammonia SCC on both operating temperature

Figure 3. Maximum Crack Depth as a Function of Time (and

In general, ammonia storage tanks, piping, and related components in ammonia

Figure 4. Example of Carbonate SCC (Initiating at an ID Surface

A summary of some of the critical factors influencing carbonate SCC damage

Carbonate Ion Concentration – Industry experience suggests that carbonate

Caustic SCC is sometimes referred to as caustic embrittlement, although it is not

Caustic Strength - In general, caustic concentrations greater than 5 wt% in the

Figure 5. Example of Caustic SCC (Initiating on the ID Surface at a

Hydrofluoric and Sulfuric Acid Alkylation Units

Figure 6. Caustic Service Chart for Carbon Steels [7].

Chloride SCC is characterized as a surface-initiated cracking mechanism in austenitic

Presence of Oxygen - In general, the presence of dissolved oxygen increases

pH – The likelihood of cracking generally increases at lower pH values, but

Figure 7. Example of Transgranular Chloride SCC in a Failed 300

Polythionic Acid SCC

Material Properties - Regular and controlled carbon grades of stainless steels,

Figure 8. Extensive PASCC Near Welds Identified Using Liquid

General Inspection Considerations for SCC

discussed further in the next installment of Damage Control). Because of the

Summary and Conclusions

the Minimum Pressurization Temperature (MPT) for Equipment,” Welding

under-insulation-management, Inspectioneering LLC, The Woodlands, TX.

Did you find this article helpful?

About the Author

Comments and Discussion

Posted by Wael Ahmed on June 6, 2022

Posted by Rob Salvatore on June 6, 2022

Posted by Gerhard Lombard on June 7, 2022

Posted by Phillip Prueter on June 7, 2022

Posted by Stan Guilbaud on June 8, 2022

Great article, very helpful.

You might also like