Industrial Applications

Allan Perkins I

P U R P O S E AND IMPORTANCE OF IN-PLANT TESTING

THERE ARE A CONSIDERABLE n u m b e r of sources of material testing data that have been accumulated over the years and are available to process plant designers to assess the most suitable materials selection for a particular plant and operating conditions. However, m a n y of the factors involved in the selection of an optimum choice are subject to variability, and this makes the selection process more complex. The ranking of the most valuable corrosion data for plant designers is generally understood to be as follows: 1. Operating experience on full-scale equipment u n d e r the actual process environment. 2. Operating experience on a pilot plant with similar feedstock and operating conditions. 3. Sample tests in the field, corrosion test specimens, electrical resistance (ER) probes, or stressed samples exposed to the process environment. 4. Laboratory evaluations in "actual" plant fluids, or simulated environments. 5. Materials and Corrosion Database. It should also be recognized that the economics of the various material selection choices is not constant. A decision that makes economic sense at the design time, or at the materials selection time, may not make sense by the time the plant is actually built or operating. In addition, the economics of plant shutdowns due to failure can depend on the market for the product being generated by the plant, although these costs are generally ever upward. The choice must be made between the use of more expensive corrosion-resistant alloys, and the use of a less expensive, less corrosion-resistant alloys protected by chemical treatment. Changes in the raw material costs of chromium, nickel, and other constituents in corrosion-resistant alloys affect the initial construction costs. A less expensive material, that would otherwise be unacceptable due to low corrosion resistance, can still be the best choice when used with chemical corrosion inhibitors, or other protection methods such as anodic or cathodic protection. In some process applications, the material selection may have been the optimum choice for the specified operating conditions.

However, unintended minor changes in the operating conditions may have a major influence on corrosion rates. For these reasons, periodic and continuous in-plant corrosion monitoring is frequently used for materials evaluation. The main uses for corrosion monitoring are summarized in Table 1. A range of material evaluation tools is available for in-plant use. Some of these may be classified as inspection methods, and some of them as on-line continuous corrosion monitoring methods. The difference between the two is the sensitivity and, consequently, the frequency with which measurements are taken. The lower-sensitivity measurement methods may be useful for long-term life prediction. Short-term continuous online methods may be used more for corrosion prevention, by allowing changes to the inhibitor injection rates or operating conditions before significant damage occurs.

M E A S U R E M E N T TECHNOLOGIES
There is a considerable n u m b e r of technologies available for assessment of material degradation, each with its own benefits and limitations. Corrosion is rarely uniform throughout a plant, or even in a localized area, and it is preferable to use more than one method of assessment. An alternate measurement technology will improve confidence levels in the resuks obtained and avoid unrepresentative resuks. The various types of measurement technologies for assessment of corrosion may be summarized as shown in Tables 2 to 5. These techniques cover both laboratory and field use. However, many of the direct methods, particularly the electrochemical methods of potentiodynamic polarization and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) are generally more suited to laboratory evaluation. In the laboratory, test conditions are clean and more controlled. Consequently, more sophisticated measurement electrode systems can be used that take advantage of their more sophisticated measurements technologies. In the field, practicalities of changing process conditions, high flow rates, debris, electrical noise, and electrical safety limit their use.
TABLE 1--Main objectives of in-plant monitoring. Predict behavior of materials in full scale plant from a pilot plant. Assess choices of materials for plant replacement in an operating plant. Assess the corrosion penalty of uprating the maximum process capacity, or otherwise increase operating parameters. Assess the effectiveness and to optimize the costs of various corrosion inhibitors, or modified operating conditions. 187

1Rohrback Cosasco Systems, Sante Fe Springs, CA 90670.

188

C O R R O S I O N TESTS AND S T A N D A R D S MANUAL

TABLE 2--Direct intrusive measurement methods.

Physical Methods Electrochemical Methods

Corrosion test specimens Electrical resistance Linear polarization resistance Potentiodynamic polarization Galvanic (Zero Resistance Ammetry) Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) Electrochemical noise

ensure location of severely corroded areas. Correspondingly, measurements on a test specimen to determine the corrosiveness of the process should be taken at representative locations, namely at the points of most severe corrosion.

INSTALLATION OF MONITORING DEVICES

Ultrasonic and radiographic inspection techniques are used for long-term evaluations because of their lower sensitivity. The advantages of these techniques are that they are nonintrusive and do not normally require special mounting equipm e n t or access to the process. The c o m m o n intrusive techniques of corrosion test specimens, electrical resistance, and linear polarization probes require exposure to the process. Corrosion test specimens in particular, and electrical resistance or linear polarization probes to a lesser extent, need to be removed and replaced, or inspected at intervals. These intervals most probably will not coincide with plant shutdowns. Probes and corrosion test specimens that are mounted rigidly in the process by some form of fixed mounting do not allow removal online. This may suit some applications but may be inconvenientwhere shutdowns are not made except for emergencies or major planned overhauls at one, two, or even five year intervals. For these applications, removal of probes and corrosion test specimens under operating conditions may be achieved by various insertion and retrieval systems. Evaluation of alternate materials of construction is often undertaken in operating plants with multiple corrosion test specimen holders of various types, typically over months or years. This type of test is useful for assessing alternate alloys that may be used for replacement of those already used. The tests may comprise simple unstressed immersion tests of various alloys, or specially strained or notched specimens to evaluate stress corrosion cracking (SCC) properties. Since a relatively large n u m b e r of specimens are frequently used, with multiple specimens of each alloy that permit successive removal of the corrosion test specimens, these racks and fixtures can be quite bulky. Consequently, these racks are most commonly installed within vessels or sometimes in large pipe sections. Care must be taken in the latter case to avoid excessive restriction due to the bulk of the corrosion test specimen rack or assembly. Because of the size of the test rack, these assemblies are generally only removable at plant shutdown. The key features of corrosion test specimens support structures are strength and durability of the corrosion test specimen support structure and electrical isolation of the corrosion test specimens from the rack and each other. Positioning of the rack is also critical to make the corrosion test specimens a good representation of the required test conditions. This should consider the phases that are present, the separation of phases, the velocity of the phase or phases in multiphase flow, and the velocity changes due to the test rack itself. Even greater care is required with m o u n t i n g and construction of stressed specimens to ensure that the applied stresses are held constant by the stressing mechanism. The other more c o m m o n aspect of material evaluation is to monitor the ongoing performance of the existing plant alloys, or a few alternate materials, through changes in feedstock, operating conditions, various inhibitors, and inhibitor feed rates.

TABLE 3--Direct nonintrusive measurement methods. Physical Methods Ultrasonic thickness measurement for Metal Loss Radiography Surface activation and gamma radiometry Direct electrical resistance

TABLE 4--Indirect intrusive measurement methods.

Corrosion By-products Electrochemical Methods Water Chemistry Fluid Dynamics Process Parameters Dewpoint Deposition Monitoring Failure Analysis

Hydrogen probes Corrosion potential pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, redox potential (ORP) Flow regime, flow velocity Pressure, temperature Fouling

TABLE 5--Indirect nonintrusive measurement methods. Alkalinity Metal Ion Analysis Concentration of Dissolved Solids Gas Analysis Residual Oxidant Microbiological Analysis Residual Inhibitor Chemical Analysis

In general, the most widely used field technologies for inspection are ultrasonic thickness measurement, while for online methods they are corrosion test specimens, electrical resistance, and linear polarization probes. Both of the inspection methods and the first two online methods measure metal loss. The last method measures corrosion rate, but only in a sufficiently conductive process environment, normally water. Measurement sensitivity divides the metal loss methods. Ultrasonics and radiography are usually considered as inspection methods. Typically, ultrasonics has a measurement resolution of around 50 ~tm (0.002 in.), and radiography 250 ~tm (0.010 in.). Consequently, these types of measurements are typically made annually. Corrosion test specimens (coupons) assess metal loss typically over a one to three m o n t h interval. Electrical resistance probes, as an "automatic coupon," assess metal loss typically over a few hours to a few weeks. It should also be noted that there is a difference between measurements made directly on the plant material compared to measurements made on a test specimen. The methods for the former are generally less sensitive than the latter. Hence, to be effective, overall inspection methods on the plant material should be as comprehensive as possible to

CHAPTER 1 5 - - I N D U S T R I A L APPLICATIONS
Retractable corrosion test specimen holders allow removal under process operating conditions without process shutdown. The requirement for assessing only one or possibly two alloys permits a more compact construction. This assists the design of the retractable mechanism and permits more flexibility in positioning the corrosion test specimen correctly, to pick up the corrosive water phase in the bottom of an oil/ water pipeline, for example. Electrical resistance and linear polarization probes generally monitor a single alloy at a time, but permit much more rapid responses to dynamic corrosion rate changes that occur. Most commonly the probes are retrievable to allow replacement at required intervals or for inspection of probe elements.

189

specimens are not suitable for determining the timing or magnitude of corrosion upsets within the exposure period.

Electrical Resistance Probes

Electrical resistance probes are essentially "automatic" coupons, since they m a y be measured without removal from the system. The physical loss of material is measured by the increase in electrical resistance that is created in the test specimen as it corrodes. The resistance of the test specimen is c o m p a r e d to a reference specimen of the same material that does not corrode, since it is protected from the corrosive environment. This method of m e a s u r e m e n t compensates to a first order for resistance changes due to temperature. This technique is the most widely used system for automatic monitoring on a continuous basis. It is the only method of this type capable of use in virtually all environments--gases, liquids, or solids--whether conductive or nonconductive. It is not dependent on the variability of factors that apply to electrochemical methods. Changing the thickness of the element varies the sensitivity of the measurement. Probe span is typically half of the m e a s u r e m e n t element thickness. Measurement resolution of electrical resistance systems is typically 1 part in 1000 of the probe element span when using conventional electronic systems. With more recently developed high-resolution probes and electronic systems, this resolution has been increased to as much as 1 part in 262,144 (18 bit). Corrosion rate changes are detected by changes in the slope of the graph of metal loss against time [see Fig. 1, taken from ASTM G 96, Guide for On-Line Monitoring of Corrosion in Plant Equipment (Electrical and Electrochemical Methods)]. Changes in corrosion rate are detected typically in a period of a few hours to a few days with conventional electrical resistance systems, and in minutes to an h o u r or two for high-resolution systems. The response time to detect corrosion rate changes is inversely proportional to the probe element thickness. Temperature transients can cause second order noise on the measurement that can increase the time required to detect a corrosion upset. The sensitivity of electrical resistance systems is well-suited to detect quickly the loss of corrosion inhibitor, changes in corrosion caused by changes in operating conditions, or for adjustment of inhibitor treatment frequency.
Maximum Corrosion R a t e
...... op,ot
~,

SPECIMENS
Any specimen used in a plant evaluation, whether it is a test specimen or a probe, has certain limitations that must be recognized: 1. It is a small sample c o m p a r e d to the plant equipment. 2. The sample may differ from the actual plant material in composition, preparation, orientation to the process, previous history, and exposure to the process. Where corrosion test specimens are used, care is required in the preparation, identification, cleaning, and evaluation to ensure reasonable reliability and accuracy of the data. These requirements are well detailed in ASTM G 4, Guide for Conducting Corrosion Tests in Field Applications. Corrosion test specimens are used to evaluate average corrosion rate over the exposure period and are also useful for assessment of crevice corrosion, pitting, and end grain attack, and m a y be used for metallographic examination of the corrosion test specimen or analysis of any deposits. Special corrosion test specimens m a y be prepared with welds to assess corrosion problems particular to weld material or heat affected zones. SCC m a y be monitored with specially mounted and loaded corrosion test specimens. Identification of the corrosion test specimens is achieved by using low-stress stamping of an identification n u m b e r directly on the corrosion test specimen surface. Signs of preferential attack on the stamped area can indicate susceptibility to corrosion when cold worked, and it m a y also be possible to detect stress corrosion cracking. However, tests for such problems of corrosion on cold worked areas and stress corrosion cracking should be m a d e on specimens designed specifically for this purpose. On electrical resistance probe elements and linear polarization probe electrodes, the element alloy is identified on the probe body, thereby avoiding any stressing or damaging of the element material.

\/
\

E &

/ . . . . /

//

'\

~ Averoge Corrosion Rote

O e TotalTimeP ro vr ei d

TESTING APPROACHES
Corrosion Test Specimens (Coupons)
Corrosion test specimens are convenient for determining average corrosion rates over periods of typically one to three months. They are also a relatively economical way of comparing various alloys for extended periods. Corrosion test

B
i i

//'/

/"
~ , . ~ _ ~ ~ Corrosion Rote Non-Upset Conditions

.-z~-J

"'~,, j t ~,j

/
Time (Days)

FIG. lmTypical plot of metal loss versus time (reprinted from ASTM G 96).

190

C O R R O S I O N TESTS AND S T A N D A R D S MANUAL

water systems. They cannot be applied to gases and solids unless the water phase completely covers and connects the measurement electrodes. For a practical guide on the operating range of such probes see Fig. 2, taken from ASTM G 96. In addition, electrochemical measurements require a critical conversion factor between the measured electrical current and the corrosion rate of the alloy. These conversion factors are variable. The factor depends on the valency of the corrosion reaction, on how each element that makes up an alloy corrodes individually in the environment, and on the empirically determined Tafel slope for the corrosion mechanism (see ASTM G 102, Practice for Calculation of Corrosion Rates and Related Information from Electrochemical Measurements). For a given situation, such as a controlled laboratory environment, these factors may be more constant and more easily measured. In the laboratory, electrical noise can be minimized and a higher sensitivity achieved with short leads, special reference electrodes, and clean solutions. In the real world of operating plant conditions, damage of electrodes, screening of the electrodes by oil or other n o n c o n d u c t i v e

In the same way as mass loss on corrosion test specimens, resistance measurements on electrical resistance probes indicate metal loss by general corrosion. Pitting is generally not noticeable until near the end of probe life, where the effect of pitting becomes "runaway" on the resistance measurement. The measured resistance of these elements is very tow so that noise interference can be significant from thermal effects, and electrical noise if the probes are not well designed. Some deposits such as iron sulfide are sufficiently conductive to provide some apparent reduction in the corrosion rate, and a few molten ionic salts may have sufficient bulk conductivity to prevent the use of these probes.

Electrochemical Probes
Any electrochemical method of corrosion measurement has the advantage of determining corrosion rates generally over a few minutes. For field methods, the primary electrochemical method is linear polarization resistance (LPR). Electrochemical methods can only be used in sufficiently conductive media. This essentially means sufficiently conductive

-=!

100

i ~'6ol "'~,~

= =i

wu imHll i

=. ilmlll i ILII

;ill I

|
=~

1,0o0
10

UlI[II] l~lllllIl
~ij~.d. i ilJlB~"] ~
Illlllli ~

llllillll
I

llillIIIl
,

lfllIllll
Reaon

lflll
i

i:iill i i i i:;:N0n':Pel'iing :

IIIIIIll~J;;;;;;

,,oo ~lJlliJ r , l l l l l l l l I N I ~ I I Ihiu,, I ll~,I,I , ItrN Btiiii:: iii;siii iiim::-.~ ::::;:iii iiiiJJ
" "% I'lL ~I~IHII ; IIIIHII I

lllll iiiii

10 ~ i i l i
0.1

~t!JiJ I llHlilI~',IHil$1' i'~I0

: :<:;]:~ ~ : = ; ; . . ;

=L-:r-J

IHIIll I Illll
;;;L':I i
. . . . .

9
i~i'iiii

Re ion
~]ii',l Illlllll ; I l;',lil',; l It111111 I

I,hHlll-, llllll i
i

ii

I~i

lilliill',i~
=;;; i i i ,,,,,,,~i-.,,,,, i i i Itlllll I ' L 1#~11 t l l Z--"~;

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0.01

o.1 Iillltll I IIIIIIII i IIIlilll I IIIIIIII I',I1111111 INI~ lli

100K

;;',l;',;;l Ifllllli I

ll',l;',~tl IIIIII1 I ' k

l
0.1

10K

1K

100

10

co.au=u~ty O,~h=,/=m)
1 ~ 2 3 ........ 2 electrod~ probe with high ~ u e n c y ompensotJorl for tmlution reslstonce Ct~o =paced 3 electrode probe 2 electrode probe Or 3 electrode p.mbe with roferoncl e l t c t x ~ eClUillpoct t'rom the t ~ t and awdla~ electrode=

NOTE 1 - - S e a A p p e n d i x X1 for derivation of c u r v e s and T a b l e X1.1 for description of points A, B, C and D. NOTE 2 - - - O p e r a t i n g limits are based on 2 0 % e r r o r in m e a s u r e m e n t of polarization resistance equivalent circuit (see Fig. 1). NOTE 3 - - I n the S t e r n - G e a r y equations, an empirical value of B = 27.5 m V has been used on the ordinate axis of the graph for =typical corrosion rate of carbon steel".

cm Resistivity (ohm- cm) NOTE 5--Effects of solution resistance are based on a probe geometry with cylindrical test and auxiliary electrodes of 4.75 mm (0.187 in.) diameter, 31.7 mm (1.25 ft) long with their axes spaced 9.53 mm (0.375 in.) apart. Empirical data shows that solution resistance (ohms'cm 2) for this geometry = 0.55 x resistivity (ohms.cm2). NOTE 6 - - A two-electrode probe, or three-electrode probe with the reference electrode equidistant from the test and auxiliary electrode, includes 50 ~o of solution resistance between working and auxiliary electrodes in its measurement of Rp. NOTE 7 - - A close-space reference electrode on a three electrode probe is assumecl to be one that measures 5 % of solution resistance. NOTE 8--In the method for Curve 1, basic polarization resistance measurement determines 2Rp +/:Is (see Fig. 1). High frequency measurement short circuits Caj to measure R,. By subtraction polarization resistance, Rp is determined. The curve is based on high frequency measurement at 834 Hz with Cl of 40 i~F/cm2 on above electrodes and +_.1.5 % accuracy of each of the two measurements. NOTE 9--Curve 1 is limited at high conductivity to approximately 700 mpy by error clue to impedance of Cd~at frequency 834 Hz. At low conductivity it is limited by the error in subtraction of two measurements where difference is small and the measurements large. NOTE 10--Errors increase rapidly beyond the 20 % error line (see Appendix X1, Table X1.1). FIG. 2 - - G u i d e l i n e s on o p e r a t i n g r a n g e for p o l a r i z a t i o n resistance ( r e p r i n t e d f r o m A S T M G 96).

NOTE 4--Conductivity

0~mhos) =

1 000 000

CHAPTER 15--INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS 191

deposits, physical bridging, and dynamic conditions are much more of a practical problem. Careful design of probes, cabling, and electronic equipment manages some of the inevitable compromises, and provides very effective dynamic corrosion monitoring so that the electrochemical methods have become the standard for the cooling water treatment industry. For field use, linear polarization is the most commonly used technique for water-based process streams. For conductive waters, above about 2500 microsiemens the LPR technique may used in its simplest form with an error of less than 20 % (see Fig 2). For a wider range of operation, the error due to solution resistance may be reduced with a closespace reference electrode, or with high-frequency measurements, which are modifications or components of the EIS laboratory technique. Galvanic probes to monitor the effects of galvanic corrosion are much less common. Special care must be taken to consider the effect of relative areas of the different alloys in the plant as compared to those on the probe elements. The other techniques of potenfiodynamic scanning, EIS, harmonic impedance spectroscopy (HIS), and pure electrochemical current and potential noise are primarily laboratory methods that are used only in a limited way in field investigations. This is because of their relative expense, requirement for a low noise measurement environment, and clean and stable process conditions. However, simple qualitative electrochemical noise or pitting indications are used in a simple way in field applications to look at uniform versus n o n u n i f o r m corrosion. Greater fluctuations and instability in the noise measurements are generally indicative of conditions leading to n o n u n i f o r m or pitting corrosion. specimen m o u n t i n g insulation normally provides a suitable crevice against the corrosion test specimen, and crevices may be measured at the time of removal. Some corrosion test specimens are specifically designed for crevice corrosion by having insulators with a variety of crevice gaps. On electrical resistance probes, multiple crevice-forming beads or insulations may be added to create multiple crevice corrosion sites and increase the total metal loss from crevice corrosion so that it can be detected by this "average metal loss" measurement method. Some linear polarization probes incorporate a zero resistance ammeter to compare identical electrodes. O-rings may be added to one electrode to form crevices. Localized attack from crevice corrosion shows as an increase in the current measured between the electrodes in a zero resistance ammeter mode.

Galvanic Corrosion
Galvanic corrosion may be monitored in-situ by placing a zero resistance ammeter in the electrical circuit between the electrodes of the galvanic couple under test. This may be useful as a qualitative measurement to monitor comparative corrosion inhibition treatments against galvanic corrosion. It is difficult to estimate representative plant galvanic corrosion rates. The relative areas of the two alloys in the plant, their geometry, the conductivity of the solution, and the connection path all affect the galvanic current and its consequential metal loss. Metal loss from galvanic corrosion depends on the magnitude of the galvanic current density. Consequently, the metal loss due to the galvanic current on a large area produces a much smaller metal loss per unit area than if the same galvanic current is concentrated in a small area.

Other Corrosion Measurements

Hydrogen Probes
Hydrogen probes may be used to assess susceptibility to hydrogen induced damage. Nascent (or atomic) hydrogen is generated from the cathodic part of the corrosion reaction in acid to neutral solution. This nascent hydrogen can permeate the steel and cause hydrogen embrittlement, hydrogeninduced cracking, and hydrogen blistering. Various types of hydrogen probes are available for detection of the hydrogen from simple pressure types to electrochemical types. While the cause of the hydrogen is the corrosion process, the method is not necessarily a good measure of corrosion rate, since hydrogen is not evolved from the cathode in alkaline environments. In addition, the proportion of evolved hydrogen that passes into the process and into the steel varies depending on contaminants in the process such as hydrogen sulfide, cyanide, or arsenic. Hydrogen measurements must generally be used in a rather qualitative empirical form since even the same grades of steel can behave differently to the same hydrogen flow rates. Separate laboratory tests on the actual plant material are best used to measure susceptibility to hydrogen damage.

Stress Corrosion Cracking

This is a difficult p h e n o m e n o n to monitor online. Mostly investigations are carried out over relatively long-term exposure of stressed corrosion test specimens. Slow strain rate tests that are carried out in laboratory evaluations are difficult to reproduce in the field environment. Techniques such as acoustic emission have been used on-line to detect process conditions that produce SCC, but the data analysis is still relatively lengthy, complex, and in the developmental stage.

Online Monitoring
Online monitoring is most commonly employed to provide feedback for the control and regulation of corrosion within acceptable limits in the dynamic environment of real plant conditions. The use of inhibitors and modification of operating conditions can then be used to achieve control of corrosion. In many batch process systems, online monitoring is used to identify the part of the process causing corrosion problems. This narrows down the field of investigation for laboratory testing or simulations. In some instances, automatic samples are triggered by the m e a s u r e m e n t of high corrosion rates, for subsequent chemical analysis of the process corresponding to these excessive corrosion rates. To be effective the specimens under test must be representative of the worst or most severe operating conditions from a corrosion viewpoint. This means positioning of the probe element or corrosion test specimen in the correct location

Crevice Corrosion
Crevice corrosion sites may be inherent with specimen m o u n t i n g and may also be intentionally created at specimen or probe element locations. For example, a corrosion test

192

C O R R O S I O N T E S T S AND S T A N D A R D S MANUAL

where the corrosion is occurring. This may be more difficult where no previous experience exists. If process simulators or side-streams are used, care must be taken to simulate accurately the process conditions that give rise to the corrosion. This can involve producing the appropriate phase (such as in condensation areas) correct temperatures and pressures, correct flow velocities, and so on.

TABLE 6--Probe locations.

Single Phase Flows Multiphase Flows High flow rate (erosion or cavitation) areas High temperature/low alloy areas Usually monitor the water phase (bottom of line) Points of condensation Where acid gases pass into solution or organic acids are present At the liquid vapor interface Where concentration of contaminants
Occur

Vessels

TESTING PRECAUTIONS
Heat Exchangers Corrosion by its very nature is rarely uniform, even over one area of a plant or even the area of a single test piece, corrosion test specimen, or probe. Considerable care needs to be exercised to ensure that m o n i t o r i n g is carried out effectively in order to measure the most severe conditions. The most effective or appropriate location to m o n i t o r the most severe corrosion conditions with probes or corrosion test specimens may not be the most c o n v e n i e n t or accessible. However, priority should be given to m o n i t o r i n g at the correct location. "Where should we monitor?" is probably the often most commonly asked question. This is where previous plant experience of corrosion problems is extremely important. On an existing plant this can usually be ascertained from experienced maintenance staff. On a new plant, previous experience on a similar plant is usually most helpful. Since the monitoring is being done on a test specimen rather than the actual plant, the probe or corrosion test specimen must be in a "representative" location. General location of probes and corrosion test specimens are listed in Table 6. The combined effects of corrosion and erosion can be particularly severe and special care is required to capture its effect. In processes such as oil production, where sand may be present, erosion along the outside of bends and high velocity areas can be very high, necessitating careful probe or corrosion test specimen location to capture these most critical areas. When corrosion-resistant alloys and their durable passive films are present, this aggravates the difficulty of making accurate measurements. Erosion or cavitation may remove the protective film and then expose the base metal which corrodes at a comparatively high rate as it reforms its protective film. In such situations, small changes in the velocity can produce a very rapid change in metal loss due to this double effect. In these cases, flow around the probe or corrosion test specim e n should be carefully considered to ensure a representative measurement. Frequently in such situations, a flush m o u n t i n g probe or corrosion test specimen will be most effective. Thermal effects may also be a factor in the method of monitoring and the location of monitoring. Higher temperatures can produce a marked increase in corrosion rates. Location of a probe or corrosion test specimen in the highest temperature area with everything else being equal will generally show the higher corrosion rates. For example, on a cooling water system it is normal to measure corrosion rates at the high temperature outlet return to the cooling tower. However, it should be recognized that since the probe or corrosion test specimen is rarely heated to the surface temperature of the heat exchanger, the probe or corrosion test

Where noncondensiblegases cannot escape On low pressure side of exchanger to detect corrosion leaks At high temperatures, where the product is naturally corrosive

specimen may not corrode at the same rate as the heat exchanger surfaces. Also, since scale will tend to occur at the hot end of the cooling water side of the heat exchanger, this may provide more corrosion protection that may not exist at lower temperatures where scale is not occurring. The most suitable type of corrosion monitoring is dependent on the type of corrosion occurring. For general or localized corrosion, the choices are relatively easy. For cracking, online methods are currently very difficult and experimental.

SUMMARY
Making measurements of corrosion rates and corrosion mechanisms in plant equipment is more complex than is often appreciated. There are many aspects to designing an effective in-plant monitoring program, which we have briefly covered here. A badly designed program, or even one compromised for practical difficulties, such as the correct monitoring location, can render measurements totally unrepresentative and thereby useless. However, dealing with the inherent variability of corrosion in real world application makes the use of in-plant measurements a vital requirement. A well designed corrosion monitoring program operated by skilled personnel can make an exceptionally good return on investment, when integrated into a complete process analysis. Although it sometimes seems difficult to obtain all of the corrosion management data we would like, the existing technologies are well able to make a major contribution to the reduction of the enormous annual worldwide costs of corrosion, when correctly applied. It is regrettable that in many situations, there is a lack of knowledge, or even the existence, of some of these corrosion measurement techniques by management. Automated monitoring systems using these existing techniques can make a major contribution to better asset and risk management with a relatively small investment of time and money.

STANDARDS ASTM Standards

G 1, Practice for Preparing, Cleaning, and Evaluating Corrosion Test Specimens G 4, Guide for Conducting Corrosion Tests in Field Applications

CHAPTER 15--INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS 193

G 16, Guide for Applying Statistics to Analysis of Corrosion Data G 30, Practice for Making and Using U-Bend StressCorrosion Test Specimens G 38, Practice for Making and Using C-Ring StressCorrosion Test Specimens G 39, Practice for Preparation and Use of Bent-Beam Stress-Corrosion Test Specimens G 46, Practice for Examination and Evaluation of Pitting Corrosion G 61, Test Method for Conducting Cyclic Potentiodynamic Polarization Measurements for Localized Corrosion Susceptibility of Iron-, Nickel-, or Cobalt-Based Alloys G 78, Guide for Crevice Corrosion Testing of Iron-Base and Nickel-Base Stainless Steel Alloys in Seawater and Other Chloride-Containing Aqueous Environments G 96, Guide for On-Line Monitoring of Corrosion in Plant Equipment (Electrical and Electrochemical Methods) G 102, Practice for Calculation of Corrosion Rates and Related Information from Electrochemical Measurements

NACE S t a n d a r d s
Test Method TM0169, Laboratory Corrosion Testing of Metals for the Process Industries R e c o m m e n d e d Practice RP0775, Preparation and Installation of Corrosion Coupons and Interpretation of Test Data in Oil Production Practice R e c o m m e n d e d Practice RP0189, On-Line Monitoring of Cooling Waters Standard Material Requirement MR0175, Sulfide Stress Cracking Resistant Metallic Materials for Off Field Equipment Publication 3D170, "Electrical and Electrochemical Methods for Determining Corrosion Rates" (1984 Revision)

Other R e f e r e n c e s

Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook, 6th ed., McGrawHill Book Co., NY, 1984.

Corrosion Monitoring Primer, Rohrback Cosasco Systems,

Sante Fe Springs, CA, 1989.