Case Studies in Engineering Failure Analysis 9 (2017) 71–77

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/csefa

Short communication

Analysis of a failed pipe elbow in geothermal production facility

T
a,b,⁎ a,b
Kusmono , Khasani
a
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
b
Research Center for Geothermal, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

AR TI CLE I NF O AB S T R A CT

Keywords: Failure of a pipe elbow used in geothermal production facility was reported to occur after 2
Pipe elbow months in service. A leak was found to form at the bottom of elbow of horizontal pipe. The main
Failure analysis cause of failure was investigated through conducting standard failure analysis including visual
Wall thinning examination, chemical analysis, mechanical characterization, metallurgical examinations using
Erosion-corrosion
optical microscopy in combination with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) equipped with
energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) analysis and corrosion test using a three-electrode potential
technique. Results of this investigation indicated that the failure of elbow was caused by an
erosion-corrosion with the presence of wall thinning in leak area. The failure mechanism was
discussed in this paper.

1. Introduction

Geothermal steam contains corrosive species such as hydrogen sulphide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2), ammonia (NH3), chloride
(Cl−), and sulphate (SO42−) [1]. Thus materials that are subjected to the steam containing these corrosive agents can experience
corrosion, which can result in high costs associated with maintenance, materials and loss in production [2]. Pipeline and elbow are
critical equipment used in the geothermal production facilities.
An elbow is a pipe fitting installed between two lengths of pipe or tubing to allow a change of direction, usually a 90° or 45° angle.
Elbow is an important component of most practical pipe configurations for oil and gas transportations including steam in geothermal
systems. The flow pattern in a 90° elbow is subject to great changes in flow direction and flow velocity, thus leading to significant
difference in corrosion behavior at different locations of elbow [3,4]. Due to the sudden change in flow pattern, the wall thinning by
flow accelerated corrosion (FAC) is exacerbated at elbow. The flow accelerated corrosion is also referred to erosion-corrosion when
there are particles in the solution. Erosion-corrosion is a form of tribo-corrosion material loss mechanism caused by flowing fluid (in
the presence or absence of solid particles) damaging both the surface layers (e.g. passive films or corrosion products) and the base
metal. Erosion-corrosion at elbow is rather serious among the damages of pipelines [5,6]. The flow induced corrosion can also occur
at the horizontal pipeline near elbow in the subsea oil pipeline as previous study [7]. Tawancy et al. [8] reported the failure in form of
pinhole occurred at elbow as a result of localized corrosion involving a sequential chlorination and sulfidation reactions.
A leakage was encountered in the 90° elbow in the pipe system of geothermal production facility after 2 weeks in service.
According to design specifications, the elbow was made of API 5L gr B sch 40 carbons steel. The main cause of failure is discussed in
this work. The investigations include visual examination, material chemical analysis, mechanical properties evaluation, scanning
electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS).

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
E-mail address: kusmono@ugm.ac.id (Kusmono).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csefa.2017.08.001
Received 9 April 2017; Received in revised form 5 August 2017; Accepted 9 August 2017
Available online 14 August 2017
2213-2902/ © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
Kusmono, Khasani Case Studies in Engineering Failure Analysis 9 (2017) 71–77

Fig. 1. Photographs illustrating the elbow section of the pipe where the leak was found.
a. A photograph of the pipe showing the elbow section.
b. A photograph illustrating the location of the leak at outside.
c. A photograph of the elbow section showing wall thinning and corrosion product at the inner surface.

2. Experimental details

The failed elbow was subjected to in this investigation. The chemical composition of the elbow material was analyzed using a
standard spectrometer. The chemical analysis of corrosion product taken from the inner surface of elbow was performed using x-ray
diffraction (XRD). The evaluation of mechanical properties of the failed elbow was conducted through tensile, hardness, and impact
tests. Microstructural examination was performed using optical microscopy whereas scanning electron microscopy (SEM) equipped
with energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectrometer was employed to study the fractured surface and corrosion product inside the inner
elbow. The corrosion rate of the elbow material was measured using a three-electrode cell with saturated calomel electrode (SCE) as
the reference electrode.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Visual examination

Fig. 1 shows photographs of the piping system in geothermal production equipment and the elbow section of the pipe where the
leak was found (Fig. 1a and b). The leak was mainly observed at the outside of elbow. The leak was nucleated locally at the 9 o’clock
position in the form of grooves which elongated parallel to the fluid flow direction. It can be seen that the wall thinning in the vicinity
of the leak was also observed in the inner surface of elbow (Fig. 1c). The presence of wall thinning shows the characteristic of erosion-
corrosion. This supports hypothesis that the leak is resulted in from the combined effect of electrochemical corrosion and fluid flow.
The preliminary analysis needs to be verified by more detailed characterization as shown later. The corrosion product in the form of
rust is observed at the inner surface of elbow as further discussed later.

3.2. Analysis of the elbow material

The chemical composition of the failed elbow material and the corresponding standard is shown in Table 1. It can be seen that the
elbow material is closely similar to API 5L gr B sch 40. Based on the carbon content, the elbow is made of low carbon steel. Fig. 2

Table 1
Chemical composition of the elbow under this study and standard.

Material Composition (wt%)

C Si S P Mn Ni Cr Mo Cu Al V Fe

Elbow 0.102 0.171 0.033 0.019 0.311 0.020 0.054 0.002 0.016 0.0010 0.004 bal.
API 5L gr B sch 40 0.30 max 0.1 min 0.058 max 0.05 max 0.29–1.06 0.40 max 0.40 max 0.15 max 0.40 max – 0.08 max bal.

72
Kusmono, Khasani Case Studies in Engineering Failure Analysis 9 (2017) 71–77

Fig. 2. Microstructure of the elbow under study.

demonstrates the microstructure of the failed elbow taken from a cross-section of the elbow. It can be observed that the micro-
structure is composed of ferrite (bright-etched phase) and pearlite (dark-etched phase) with the mainly ferrite phase as commonly
seen in low carbon steel. This microstructure is consistent with its chemical composition. The mechanical properties of the elbow
material and the corresponding standard are summarized in Table 2. The yield and tensile strength of the failed elbow are 293 and
396 MPa, respectively. The yield strength fulfills the minimum stress but the tensile strength is lower than the minimum tensile
strength specified by API 5L gr B sch 40. It indicates that there is degradation in tensile strength due to corrosion during service. For
the elongation, hardness and impact energy values, there is no limited values in accordance to API 5L gr B sch 40.

3.3. Analysis of the geothermal brine

The chemical composition of the geothermal brine under this study is presented in Table 3. It can be seen that main corrosive
agents detected are hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas and sulfate (SO42−) ion and low amount of silica as solid particle. In addition, the
geothermal brine is identified to have pH of 3.89 or acid condition. This is attributed to high H2S content resulting in acid condition.
It was reported a previous study that the presence of high H2S content in the sour water resulted in severe damage of erosion-
corrosion at the pipe elbow [9].

3.4. Analysis of the corrosion product

Fig. 3 shows the XRD pattern of the corrosion product removed from the inner surface of the elbow. It can be observed that the
sharp peak at 2θ = 35° corresponds to Fe2O3 phase indicating the corrosion product formed is Fe2O3 or hematite. Additionally, this
could indicate the presence of dissolved oxygen in the geothermal fluids. The evidence of hematite corrosion product will also be
confirmed by using EDX analysis. The different types of corrosion products are not identified from the XRD results.

3.5. Fractography and analysis of inner-side corrosion deposits

Fig. 4 shows an inner surface profile of the elbow taken from longitudinal section of the teardrop-shaped pits. Based on the surface
profile, it seems that the flow of multiphase geothermal fluids containing steam, water, and solid particles produces undercutting in
the downstream direction probably due to the presence of turbulence as indicated by an arrow. The turbulent flow can thin the
protective film locally and produce downstream undercutting. Due to the sudden change in flow pattern in elbow is believed to be
responsible for the turbulent.
Fig. 5a and b show the photograph of the inner surface elbow and SEM image of magnified region marked by a circle, respectively.
Furthermore, the SEM image of corrosion product at the inner surface around leak is analyzed using EDX spectrometer as shown in
Fig. 6. The region marked A in Fig. 6a is the inner layer of corrosion product where this layer is directly in contact with the steel
elbow surface. The EDX analysis taken from this region reveals elements mainly Fe and O suggesting the corrosion product is in the
form FeO (Fig. 6b). FeO is one of metastable corrosion product forms which can oxidize continuously to form stable corrosion product

Table 2
Mechanical properties of the elbow under this study and standard.

Materials Yield strength (MPa) Tensile strength (MPa) Elongation (%) Brinell hardness number, BHN (kg/mm2) Impact energy (J)

Elbow 293 ± 10 396 ± 12 6 115 66

API 5L grade B sch 40 241 min 414 min – – –

73
Kusmono, Khasani Case Studies in Engineering Failure Analysis 9 (2017) 71–77

Table 3
Chemical composition of the geothermal brine.

Parameter Unit Value

pH – 3.89
H2S ppm 123
Sulphate (SO42−) ppm 37
SiO2 ppm 1.7

Fig. 3. X-ray diffraction pattern of corrosion product.

Fig. 4. Surface profile of the elbow along the flow direction.

such as hydrous ferrous oxide Fe2O3.nH2O or ferrous hydroxide Fe(OH)2. Fig. 6c shows the EDX spectra of region marked B in Fig. 6a.
It can be seen that the mainly elements such as Si, Al, and O were observed indicating probably in the form of SiO2 and Al2O3. This
confirms the presence of sand particles in the geothermal fluids. This is also as evidence that the geothermal fluids consist of
multiphase namely steam, water, and solid particles.

3.6. Corrosion rate and erosion-corrosion mechanism

The corrosion rate of the elbow material was measured using a three-electrode cell with saturated calomel electrode (SCE) as the
reference electrode. To simulate actual corrosion process, the water phase extracted from geothermal fluid was used as the elec-
trolyte. The water consists of 123 ppm of H2S and 37 ppm of HSO42− ion. The high content of H2S gas and HSO42− ion dissolved in
the geothermal fluids results in the low pH of 3.89. The corrosion rate was found to be 61.75 mpy (1.57 mm/year) indicating the
failed elbow material has a poor corrosion resistance. It can be understood that there is very large degradation due to erosion-
corrosion as confirmed the reduced tensile strength.

74
Kusmono, Khasani Case Studies in Engineering Failure Analysis 9 (2017) 71–77

Fig. 5. a. Photograph of elbow b. SEM image of magnified region outlined by a circle of elbow.

Fig. 6. a. SEM image of corrosion product at the inner surface around leak. b–c. EDX-spectra taken from regions marked A and B, respectively.

Fig. 7 shows the proposed mechanism of erosion-corrosion occurs in the elbow. Erosion corrosion is the cumulative damage
induced by electrochemical corrosion reactions and mechanical effects from relative motion between the electrolyte and the cor-
roding surface. Erosion corrosion is defined as accelerated degradation in the presence of this relative motion. From EDX analysis, it is
found that the geothermal fluids under this study consist of steam, water, and solid particles (silica and alumina as detected on the
EDS results in Fig. 6). When the fluid flow direction sudden changes in a 90° elbow, the fluids containing solid particles with high
velocity will impinge the inner surface of elbow material and can destroy the passive film of elbow. At the same time, the geothermal
fluid is in acid condition that will accelerate the corrosion process due to breakdown of protective film. The Fe element in carbon steel
of elbow is oxidized to produce Fe2+ and release electron. From the analysis of geothermal fluids, it can be found that the fluids
consist of H2S and water with dissolved O2. At other part of the elbow occurs the reduction reaction where O2 will react with H2O and
electron to produce OH− ion. Furthermore, Fe2+ ion reacts with OH− ion to produce Fe(OH)2 as corrosion product. The erosion-
corrosion was also reported occurred at elbow in sour water containing H2S and NH3 [9]. H2S and NH3 would find gas-liquid
equilibrium in the sour water and the concentration of NH4HS causes erosion-corrosion as a result of high shear stress in the pipeline.
Fig. 8 shows the results of simulation of the flow pattern of fluids (steam and solid particle). The solid particles in this study are
silica. This simulation is performed using the Solid Work software. This is used to determine the location of maximum erosion-

75
Kusmono, Khasani Case Studies in Engineering Failure Analysis 9 (2017) 71–77

Fig. 7. Proposed mechanism of erosion corrosion in the elbow.

Fig. 8. Flow pattern simulation for fluid containing steam and silica.

corrosion based on the pressure value. From the results of simulation, it can be seen that the highest pressure value is observed at the
area marked by ellipse or at the outer wall of elbow. This suggests that the maximum erosion-corrosion occurs in this area and it is
consistent with the location of leakage in the elbow. This may be attributed to the higher solid particles concentration and secondary
flow effect, and then frequent impact of solid particles. The presence of solid particles in the flow field exacerbates the turbulence of
fluid and thus enhances the mass transport process, and then promotes the corrosion process [10]. Moreover, the solid particles in the
flow can destroy the passive film of the elbow wall surface exposed to the corrosion environment, aggravate the erosion of surface
films and also increase erosion-corrosion [11]. The higher erosion-corrosion on the outside of elbow in the sour water containing H2S
and NH3 was also reported by Zhu et al. [9].

4. Conclusions and recommendations

1. The failure of elbow was caused by the erosion-corrosion related to the multi-phase fluids containing steam, water, and solid
particles
2. The damage prevention options are suggested such as reducing the flow rate of fluid, elimination the turbulence by increasing
elbow diameters, increasing the wall thickness at the affected areas of elbow and using harder and more corrosion resistant
materials. In addition, controls by ultrasonic waves for every week can be recommended to monitor the evolution of corrosion in
pipelines and the related wall thinning in the framework of maintenance operations.

76
Kusmono, Khasani Case Studies in Engineering Failure Analysis 9 (2017) 71–77

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Community Resilience and Economic Development (CaRED) Program Universitas Gadjah
Mada (UGM) - New Zealand Aid (NZAid) for financial support. The authors also thank Mr. W. R. Hidayat for his help in this work.

References

[1] Conover M, Ellis P, Curzon A. Material selection guidelines for geothermal power systems—an overview. Casper LA, Pinchback TR, editors. Geothermal scaling
and corrosion, vol. 717. ASTM Special Technical Publication; 2017. p. 24–40.
[2] Karlsdottir SN. Corrosion, scaling and materials selection in geothermal energy production. Sayigh A, editor. Comprehensive renewable energy, vol. 7. Elsevier
Publishing; 2017. p. 239–58.
[3] El-Gammal M, Mazhar H, Cotton JS. The hydrodynamic effects of single-phase flow on flow accelerated corrosion in a 90-degree elbow. Nucl Eng Des
2010;240:1589–98.
[4] Neville A, Hu X. Mechanical and electrochemical interactions during liquid–solid impingement on high-alloy stainless steels. Wear 2001;251:1284–94.
[5] Takashi K, Tsunoi S, Hara T, Ueno T, Mikami A, Takada H, et al. Experimental study of low-cycle fatigue of pipe elbows with local wall thinning and life. Int J
Press Vessels Pip 2010;87:211–9.
[6] Chen X, McLaury BS, Shiraz SA. Numerical and experimental investigation of the relative erosion severity between plugged tees and elbows in dilute gas/solid
two-phase flow. Wear 2010;261:715–29.
[7] Ilman MN. Kusmono analysis of internal corrosion in subsea oil pipeline. Case Stud Eng Fail Anal 2014;2:1–8.
[8] Tawancy HM, Al-Hadhrami LM, Al-Yousef FK. Analysis of corroded elbow section of carbon steel piping system of an oil-gas separator vessel. Case Stud Eng Fail
Anal 2013;1:6–14.
[9] Zhu M, Sun L, Ou G, Wang Kai, Wang K, Sun Y. Erosion corrosion failure analysis of the elbow in sour water stripper overhead condensing reflux system. Eng Fail
Anal 2016;62:93–102.
[10] Guo HX, Lu BT, Luo JL. Interaction of mechanical and electrochemical factors in erosion–corrosion of carbon steel. Electrochim Acta 2005;51:315–23.
[11] Zeng I, Zhang GA, Guo XP. Erosion-corrosion at different locations of X65 carbon steel elbow. Corros Sci 2014;85:318–30.

77