4.7 Article

Predicting the mechanisms and crack growth rates of pipelines undergoing stress corrosion cracking at high pH

Journal

CORROSION SCIENCE
Volume 51, Issue 11, Pages 2657-2674

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.corsci.2009.06.051

Keywords

Steel pipeline; Modeling studies; Stress corrosion cracking; Life prediction; Crack growth rate

Funding

  1. Southwest Research Institute

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A fundamentally based mathematical model was developed with the goal to predict, as a first step, the crack growth rate (CGR) of high pH stress corrosion cracking (SCC) of buried steel pipelines. Two methods were used to predict CGRs and for both methods the model has included the film rupture and repassivation mechanism. The two methods are distinguished by the expression used to determine the active anodic current density at the crack tip. In the first method, this current density is expressed by the anodic polarization curve with a large peak current density and the prediction tends to yield a larger CGR and a lower pH at the crack tip. By contrast, when the Butler-Volmer equation is used to express the crack tip anodic current density, with a predicted low CGR the chemistry at the tip does not appear to have any significant change due to the high buffer of the solution. The predicted mechanism responsible for the steady-state crack growth is shown to be the balance between the increasing stress intensity factor as the crack grows, which tends to increase the crack tip strain rate and thus the CGR, and the change of the crack tip condition, which, for large CGRs, is the significant shift in the more negative direction of the crack tip potential, and for low CGRs, the increase of ferrous ion concentration, and either tends to decrease CGR. Limitations currently existing in the model and proposal for further development of the model are discussed. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available