Effect of oxide scale on corrosion behavior of HP-13Cr stainless steel during well completion process

doi:10.1016/j.jmst.2019.10.009

Abstract

Abstract:

The well completion process in oil and gas industry, aiming to build effective exploitation, is divided into acidizing and formation water production process. Oxide scale (OS) formed on the inner wall of the HP-13Cr stainless steel tubes during the hot extrusion process changes the surface roughness. The effects of OS on the corrosion of HP-13Cr stainless steel during well completion process were studied by corrosion measurement, spectra analysis, microscopic observation and numerical simulation. The results indicate that the OS make no change of phase distribution and element composition of corrosion scale, while the increasing OS roughness is the dominant factor for accelerating corrosion rate during the well completion process. In acidizing process, the greater surface roughness OS of HP-13Cr stainless steel increases the corrosion rate obviously due to a larger interfacial area in contact with the aggressive environment. During subsequent formation water production process, the turbulence eddy, formed at locations characterized with greater surface roughness OS, can deteriorate the corrosion scale and accelerate the mass transfer of the corrosive species, resulting in more serious corrosion.

Key words: Stainless steel, Oxide scale, Roughness, Interfacial area, Turbulence eddy

Wenlong Qi, Jidong Wang, Xuanpeng Li, Yanan Cui, Yang Zhao, Junfeng Xie, Guanxin Zeng, Qiuying Gao, Tao Zhang, Fuhui Wang. Effect of oxide scale on corrosion behavior of HP-13Cr stainless steel during well completion process[J]. J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2021, 64: 153-164.

Figures/Tables 19

Fig. 1. Morphologies and structure of OS. (a) Surface morphology by SEM, (b) Cross-sectional morphology by SEM, (c) Cross-sectional morphology by TEM and (d) Electron diffraction by TEM.

Table 1 Composition of testing solutions and productive processes.

	Composition	HCl	HF		HAc	TG201 inhibitor
						A		B
LA	(vol.%)	12	1.5		3	3		1.5
LA	Time (h)	6
SA	Composition	Add CaCO₃ to LA until the pH value is 3.8.
SA	Time (h)	72
FW	Composition	HCO₃^-	Cl^-	SO₄^2-	Ca²⁺	Mg²⁺	K⁺	Na⁺
	(mg/L)	189	128000	430	8310	561	6620	76500
	Time (h)	720
	Rotating rate (rpm)	670

Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of samples (50 mm × 5 mm × 3 mm) with OS (a) and without OS (b).

Fig. 3. Corrosion rates of HP-13Cr SS during LA, SA, LA + SA, LA + SA + FW process: (a) 95 °C/2.8 MPa, (b) 120 °C/3.2 MPa.

Fig. 4. Potentiodynamic polarization curves of HP-13Cr SS in FW: (a) after LA + SA process, (b) after LA + SA + FW process.

Table 2 Electrochemical parameters for HP-13Cr SS in FW.

	T (°C)/P (MPa)	Samples	E_corr (mV)	i_corr (μA/cm²)
LA + SA	95/2.8	HP-13Cr SS (OS)	-242 ± 3	72 ± 2
	95/2.8	HP-13Cr SS	-236 ± 6	50 ± 2
	120/3.2	HP-13Cr SS (OS)	-259 ± 7	180 ± 4
	120/3.2	HP-13Cr SS	-241 ± 5	52 ± 4
LA + SA + FW	95/2.8	HP-13Cr SS (OS)	-245 ± 4	48 ± 3
	95/2.8	HP-13Cr SS	-230 ± 4	45 ± 6
	120/3.2	HP-13Cr SS (OS)	-259 ± 4	82 ± 2
	120/3.2	HP-13Cr SS	-213 ± 3	45 ± 3

Fig. 5. Surface morphologies after LA process: (a) HP-13Cr SS (OS) at 95 °C/2.8 MPa, (b) HP-13Cr SS at 95 °C/2.8 MPa, (c) HP-13Cr SS (OS) at 120 °C/3.2 MPa, (d) HP-13Cr SS at 120 °C/3.2 MPa.

Fig. 6. Surface morphologies after SA process: (a) HP-13Cr SS (OS) at 95 °C/2.8 MPa, (b) HP-13Cr SS at 95 °C/2.8 MPa, (c) HP-13Cr SS (OS) at 120 °C/3.2 MPa, (d) HP-13Cr SS at 120 °C/3.2 MPa.

Fig. 7. Surface morphologies after LA + SA process: (a) HP-13Cr SS (OS) at 95 °C/2.8 MPa, (b) HP-13Cr SS at 95 °C/2.8 MPa, (c) HP-13Cr SS (OS) at 120 °C/3.2 MPa, (d) HP-13Cr SS at 120 °C/3.2 MPa.

Fig. 8. Surface morphologies after LA + SA + FW process: (a) HP-13Cr SS (OS) at 95 °C/2.8 MPa, (b) HP-13Cr SS at 95 °C/2.8 MPa, (c) HP-13Cr SS (OS) at 120 °C/3.2 MPa, (d) HP-13Cr SS at 120 °C/3.2 MPa.

Fig. 9. Cross-sectional morphologies after LA process: (a) HP-13Cr SS (OS) at 95 °C/2.8 MPa, (b) HP-13Cr SS at 95 °C/2.8 MPa, (c) HP-13Cr SS (OS) at 120 °C/3.2 MPa, (d) HP-13Cr SS at 120 °C/3.2 MPa.

Fig. 10. Cross-sectional morphologies after SA process: (a) HP-13Cr SS (OS) at 95 °C/2.8 MPa, (b) HP-13Cr SS at 95 °C/2.8 MPa, (c) HP-13Cr SS (OS) at 120 °C/3.2 MPa, (d) HP-13Cr SS at 120 °C/3.2 MPa.

Fig. 11. Cross-sectional morphologies after LA + SA process: (a) HP-13Cr SS (OS) at 95 °C/2.8 MPa, (b) HP-13Cr SS at 95 °C/2.8 MPa, (c) HP-13Cr SS (OS) at 120 °C/3.2 MPa, (d) HP-13Cr SS at 120 °C/3.2 MPa.

Fig. 12. Cross-sectional morphologies after LA + SA + FW process: (a) HP-13Cr SS (OS) at 95 °C/2.8 MPa, (b) HP-13Cr SS at 95 °C/2.8 MPa, (c) HP-13Cr SS (OS) at 120 °C/3.2 MPa, (d) HP-13Cr SS at 120 °C/3.2 MPa.

Fig. 13. XRD spectra of corrosion scales: (a) 95 °C/2.8 MPa, (b) 120 °C/3.2 MPa.

Fig. 14. Element analysis of corrosion scales after LA process: (a) HP-13Cr SS (OS) at 95 °C/2.8 MPa, (b) HP-13Cr SS at 95 °C/2.8 MPa, (c) HP-13Cr SS (OS) at 120 °C/3.2 MPa, (d) HP-13Cr SS at 120 °C/3.2 MPa.

Fig. 15. Element analysis of corrosion scales after LA + SA process: (a) HP-13Cr SS (OS) at 95 °C/2.8 MPa, (b) HP-13Cr SS at 95 °C/2.8 MPa, (c) HP-13Cr SS (OS) at 120 °C/3.2 MPa, (d) HP-13Cr SS at 120 °C / 3.2 MPa.

Table 3 Roughness of HP-13Cr SS surfaces.

Condition	Roughness after immersion tests (μm)				Roughness after removing corrosion scales (μm)
Condition	95 °C/2.8 MPa		120 °C/3.2 MPa		95 °C/2.8 MPa		120 °C/3.2 MPa
	HP-13Cr (OS)	HP-13Cr	HP-13Cr (OS)	HP-13Cr	HP-13Cr (OS)	HP-13Cr	HP-13Cr (OS)	HP-13Cr
LA	3.2 ± 0.3	2.8 ± 0.2	6.6 ± 0.3	4.4 ± 0.5	1.4 ± 0.2	0.8 ± 0.1	2.9 ± 0.4	1.5 ± 0.2
SA	2.3 ± 0.3	1.8 ± 0.1	2.7 ± 0.4	1.5 ± 0.3	1.1 ± 0.1	0.30 ± 0.05	3.2 ± 0.3	0.10 ± 0.03
LA + SA	4.1 ± 0.5	3.0 ± 0.3	8.8 ± 0.4	4.5 ± 0.3	7.6 ± 0.6	3.9 ± 0.3	7.7 ± 0.1	4.2 ± 0.5
LA + SA + FW	4.9 ± 0.6	2.6 ± 0.4	5.2 ± 0.5	3.0 ± 0.3	4.7 ± 0.3	4.4 ± 0.2	4.8 ± 0.3	4.3 ± 0.5

Fig. 16. Simulation of flow near surface of HP-13Cr SS (OS) during dynamic FW process. (a) Velocity contour of flow near surface, (b) Velocity vector of flow near surface and (c) Streamline of turbulence eddy at local peak-valley position.

References 32

[1]	X.D. Lan, X.X. Lü, Y.M. Zhu, H.F. Yu, J. Nat . Gas Sci. Eng., 22(2015), pp. 633-645.
[2]	Z.D. Cui, S.L. Wu, C.F. Li, S.L. Zhu, X.J. Yang , Mater. Lett., 58(2004), pp. 1035-1040.
[3]	A. Singh, K.R. Ansari, A. Kumar, W.Y. Liu, S.S. Chen, Y.H. Lin, J. Alloys. Compd., 712(2017), pp. 121-133.
[4]	C. Crowe, J. Masmonteil, E. Touboul, R. Thomas , Oilfield Rev., 4(1992), pp. 24-39.
[5]	Y. Zhao, J.F. Xie, G.X. Zeng, T. Zhang, D.K. Xu, F.H. Wang , Electrochim. Acta, 293(2019), pp. 116-127.
[6]	M. Finsgar, J. Jackson , Corrosion Sci., 86(2014), pp. 17-41.
[7]	M.X. Bai, A.Q. Shen, L.D. Meng, J.J. Zhu, K.P. Song, J. Pet. Sci. Eng., 171(2018), pp. 584-591.
[8]	X.P. Li, Y. Zhao, W.L. Qi, J.F. Xie, J.D. Wang, B. Liu, G.X. Zeng, T. Zhang, F.H. Wang , Appl. Surf. Sci., 469(2019), pp. 146-161.
[9]	R.M. Moreira, C.V. Franco, C.J.B.M. Joia, S. Giordana, O.R. Mattos , Corros. Sci., 46(2004), pp. 2987-3003.
[10]	S.D. Zhu, A.Q. Fu, J. Miao, Z.F. Yin, G.S. Zhou, J.F. Wei , Corros. Sci., 53(2011), pp. 3156-3165.
[11]	S. Huizinga, W. Like , Corrosion-Houston Texas, 50(2012), pp. 555-566.
[12]	J. Abel, S. Virtanen , Corros. Sci., 98(2015), pp. 318-326.
[13]	G.A. Zhang, Y.F. Cheng , Corros. Sci., 51(2009), pp. 1589-1595.
[14]	T. Sunaba, T. Ito, Y. Miyata, S. Asakura, T. Shinohara, T. Yakou, Y. Tomoe, H. Honda , Corrosion, 70(2014), pp. 988-999.
[15]	W. Li, B.F.M. Pots, B. Brown, K.E. Kee, S. Nesic, Corros. Sci., 110(2016), pp. 35-45.
[16]	A. Kahyarian, M. Singer, S. Nesic, J. Nat . Gas Sci. Eng., 29(2016), pp. 530-549.
[17]	L. Wei, X.L. Pang, K.W. Gao , Corros. Sci., 136(2018), pp. 339-351.
[18]	L. Wei, X.L. Pang, C. Liu, K.W. Gao , Corros. Sci., 100(2015), pp. 404-420.
[19]	Y. Zhao, X.P. Li, C. Zhang, T. Zhang, J.F. Xie, G.X. Zeng, D.K. Xu, F.H. Wang , Corros. Sci., 145(2018), pp. 307-319.
[20]	B. Evgeny, T. Hughes, D. Eskin , Corros. Sci., 103(2016), pp. 196-205.
[21]	D.D. Macdonald, A.C. Scott, P. Wentrcek, , J. Electrochem. Soc., 126(1979), pp. 908-911.
[22]	J.Z. Wang, J.Q. Wang, H.L. Ming, Z.M. Zhang, E.H. Han, J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 34(2018), pp. 1419-1427.
[23]	E. Barmatov, T. Hughes, J. Geddes, M. Nagl , Research on Corrosion Inhibitors for Acid Stimulation, NACE(2012), C2012-0001573.
[24]	V.C. Patel, M.R. Head, J. Fluid Mech ., 38(1969), pp. 181-201.
[25]	G.A. Schmitt, W. Bücken, R. Fanebust , Corrosion, 48(1992), pp. 431-440.
[26]	D.C. Silverman , Corrosion, 60(2004), pp. 1003-1023.
[27]	G. Schmitt, T. Gudde, E. Strobel-Effertz, Corrosion-Houston Texas, 119 (2) (1996), pp. 164-170.
[28]	S. Nesic , Corros. Sci., 49(2007), pp. 4308-4338.
[29]	V. Ruzic, M. Veidt, S. Nesic , Corrosion, 62(2006), pp. 419-432.
[30]	Y. Zhao, S.Y. Cao, T. Zhang, J.F. Xie, D.K. Xu, F.H. Wang , Acta Metall. Sin.(Engl. Lett.), 32(2019), pp. 944-950.
[31]	K. Wang, X.B. Ma, Y.S. Wang, R.Y. He, , J. Electrochem. Soc., 164(2017), pp. 453-463.
[32]	J.N. Harb, R.C. Alkire, , J. Electrochem. Soc., 138 (1991), pp. 3568-3575.