Failures of Chemical Injection Points in Upstream Facilities

Authors: Ahmad S. Al-Omari, Khalid M. Al-Nabulsi and Ali F. Al-Marri

ABSTRACT
Chemicals play an important role in the enhancement of oil and gas production and processing. They control corrosion, prevent organic and inorganic deposits, aid in phase separation and control microbial problems. Several factors can have significant impact on the safety, maintenance, operation, and service life of the chemical injection point. Failures encountered in the high-pressure retrievable chemical injection points are presented. This article also provides guidelines for materials selection and the design of chemical injection points in upstream facilities.

INTRODUCTION
Management of corrosion, scale formation, oxygen content and microbial populations, are essential in oil and gas production and processing systems. In addition, a demulsifier chemical is used in the Gas Oil Separation Plants (GOSPs) to assist in water-oil emulsion breaking/separation. The injection of the inhibitor is a standard practice to control internal corrosion and scale build up in carbon steel equipment and piping. This strategy has been shown to be very successful and cost-effective. Chemical injection is considered one of several corrosion mitigation methods such as coating, material selection, cathodic protection, process control, use of Corrosion Resistant Alloys (CRAs), etc. Chemicals can be applied through a variety of mechanisms. There are three typical configurations of injection systems

used in hydrocarbon production and processing: retrievable (high-pressure), retractable (low-pressure) and fixed (high- or low-pressure). The oil and gas production industry from the wellhead through the GOSP generally employs retrievable injection systems, Fig. 1, that operate with high-pressure access fittings. The unit assembly consists of an access fitting, a solid plug, an injection nut, and an injection tube (quill, cross head or perpendicular spray nozzle). The retrievable system allows operators to undertake injection, retrieve, inspect and maintain equipment while the system is under full operating conditions. The following factors can have significant impact on the safety, maintenance, operation, and service life of the chemical injection system1: Chemical solution being injected. Concentration (both of the chemical being injected and the mixed chemical/process stream). Flow rates (both the stream receiving the injection and the product injected). Viscosity. Chemical hazard. Materials of construction. This article identifies some key features of upstream chemical injection points from the design and materials selection point of view, and illustrates potential failure modes by examining four specific failures.

BACKGROUND
Standard 2 high-pressure access fittings and injection quills are commonly used in GOSPs and oil and gas processing facilities for injecting typical oil field treatment chemicals. High-pressure access fittings are designed to permit safe, relatively easy insertion and retrieval of injection quills as well as other devices (such as coupons or monitoring equipment) while under full operating pressure. This type of injection quill can be removed for cleaning while the system is under pressure2.

CASE STUDIES
Fig. 1. Retrievable type injection system.

Four cases of upstream chemical injection point failures are described in the following sections. These case studies have

68

SPRING 2009

SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY

been selected among several cases to represent a wide variety of challenges that other oil and gas processing facilities worldwide may face due to several factors including incorrect materials and improper design.
Case #1: Fatigue Failure of Stainless Steel Chemical Injection Quill

This injection quill was installed on a 30 main header, upstream of the High-Pressure Production Trap (HPPT) on one of the GOSPs. The quill continuously injected 5 to 6 parts per million (ppm) of corrosion inhibitor into the crude oil header to protect it against internal corrosion. As part of the annual On-Stream Inspection (OSI), a complete Ultrasonic (UT) scanning of the 4 to 8 oclock position was performed on this 30 oil inlet header. This survey revealed substantial localized metal loss at the 6 oclock position. As a consequence, the corroded portion was removed, revealing the failed injection quill lying at the pipe bottom of this header section. This quill was made of stainless steel 316 pipe material with a length of approximately 24, indicating that the quill was extended into the lower center third of the 30 header. Figure 2 shows the failed chemical injection quill in the as-received condition; the length of the quill can be read from the reference scale at the bottom. Figure 3 is a close-up image showing the plane of maximum bending, the moment at which the fracture took place. Examination of the quill using the Texas-Nuclear analyzer confirmed that the material of construction to be 316 austenitic stainless steel. Dye penetrate inspection of the threaded portions of the quill

close to the fracture plane showed no cracks present on the outer diameter. Figures 4 and 5 clearly show the crack initiation site where the effect of cyclic loading is seen as a bright region on the fracture surface. A metallographic sample from the area close to the fracture showed normal stainless steel microstructure, Fig. 6. Figure 7 is a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) image showing fatigue striation marks close to the crack initiation site on the matching fracture surface. Careful examination of the broken quill suggested that damage began at the interface between the quill and the access fitting. The damage, in the form of a crack, started at a thread root on the outside diameter and propagated inwards. Due to geometrical factors, the crack originated at a point of highest stress level, where it is well documented in literature that the geometry of a thread root acts as a stress riser. In addition, the length of the injection quill exerted maximum bending moment on the crack initiation site, intensifying stresses at an already stressed location; thus, the combined effect of geometry and bending stresses led to the crack formation and propagation. Microscopic investigation of the fracture surface

Fig. 2. As received fractured chemical injection quill.

Fig. 4. A top view image showing the quill fracture surface.

Fig. 3. A close-up image showing the fracture location, at the fitting quill interface.

Fig. 5. The crack originated at a thread root where stress concentration is highest.
SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY SPRING 2009

69

Fig. 6. A photomicrograph showing the microstructure at the location of damage.

Upon visual examination of the failed nipple, it was apparent that the nipple had most likely failed due to fatigue. Figure 8 shows the parts in as received condition, and Fig. 9 shows an initial view of the fracture. The fracture occurred across the first thread of the nipple, and the fracture surface was fairly flat, with little apparent macroscopic ductility, Fig. 10. The fracture was ultrasonically cleaned, then examined in the SEM. Parts of the fracture had been damaged, probably due to rubbing, during the alternate opening and closing of the crack surfaces. Ratchet marks were observed, and finescale striation features were found at higher magnification, indicating a high cycle bending fatigue failure as shown in Fig. 11. The origin of failure was approximately at the 12 oclock installed position. The 316 stainless line was not rigid, and, if not adequately supported, this piping could easily vibrate significantly. The fatigue had propagated across about 95% of the total cross section before final failure occurred, showing that the applied stress was relatively small. In this case study, the anti-vibration supports were installed on the inhibitor line piping, which solved the vibration problem. As a lesson learned from this case and to prevent reoccurrence in the future, it is highly recommended to inspect

Fig. 7. A Scanning Electron Microscope image showing fatigue striations on the fracture surface close to the crack initiation site.

made it possible to locate the crack initiation site where faint beach marks were noticed. Examination of the mating fracture surface using the SEM revealed the presence of striation marks indicative of cyclic loading. This type of damage is caused by bending stresses induced by the effect of flow rate fluctuations and quill vibration. It can be concluded that this chemical injection quill failed due to fatigue. Damage was caused by the effect of flow rate fluctuations, fluid viscosity and the material natural frequency of the quill. To avoid such incidents in the future, stress calculations should be performed to determine the optimum injection quill insertion length prior to the quill system installation and commissioning.
Case #2: Fractured Nipple from Chemical Inhibitor Injection Line

Fig. 8. Broken nipple, as received.

A rupture happened at a corrosion inhibitor injection point at one of the GOSP 24 production headers, which led to leakage of crude oil. The injection line was 316 stainless steel, and the fracture occurred at a nipple just upstream of the isolation valve of the 2 access fitting.
70
SPRING 2009 SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY

Fig. 9. Flat fracture across first nipple thread.

similar installations for vibration and to install supports, as necessary. Also, to consider installing in-line check valves in similar installations to prevent possible leakage of crude oil, should any more fatigue incidents occur.
Case #3: Severe Internal Corrosion of Three-Way Injection Scale Inhibitor Valve

This three-way injection scale inhibitor valve, Fig. 12, was installed on a production header on one of the GOSPs. As part of the annual OSI, a radiographic inspection, Fig. 13, was performed on this three-way valve. Severe internal corrosion was revealed at the upstream side nipple of the union. Accordingly, the valve was removed for further inspection during a plant shutdown. This valve was in service for 20 years and it was utilized to inject scale inhibitor into the production header.

After sectioning the valve body as shown in Fig. 14, scale like deposit was found in the valve, Fig. 15. Some of that scale was collected, and further X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) analysis was conducted to identify its nature. Analysis results showed that the scale is mainly iron sulfide with a minor quantity of iron oxide. Presence of the sulfur compound in the valve was mainly from the production header. Moreover, the material of the valve body was carbon steel, and the attached piping system was made out of stainless

Fig. 12. As received 3/4 three-way valve.

Fig. 13. Radiographic result showing the internal severe corrosion.

Fig. 10. Fracture, showing faint beach marks around origin (arrow), 2.4x.

Fig. 11. Fracture appearance, SEM, 1500x.

Fig. 14. 3/4 valve after splitting into two halves, showing corrosion of the carbon steel body and scale deposit.
SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY SPRING 2009

71

Fig. 17. Radiography showing poor thread engagement between the carbon steel plug and the stainless welding boss. Fig. 15. Close-up picture of the scale deposit.

Fig. 16. 2 carbon steel access fitting with 3/4 stainless steel welding boss.

materials as shown in Fig. 14. It was recommended to replace the corroded carbon steel valve with a stainless steel valve since the scale inhibitor does not contain any traces of elemental sulfur or chloride that may affect the stainless materials. This recommendation was made to avoid dissimilar metal couples so as to minimize the risk of galvanic corrosion. A valve body material upgrade will prevent recurrence of this failure in the future.
Case #4: Corroded Short Carbon Steel Plug

Fig. 18. New stainless steel plug (left), corroded short carbon steel plug (right).

galvanic corrosion. If a chemical fitting is not in service, the quill must be removed and a solid stainless steel pipe plug should be installed in its place. This prevents service fluid from migrating up the quill, through the hollow injection nut and contacting, and possibly corroding the threaded nipple installed in the access fitting body tee.

This case addressed galvanic corrosion on a carbon steel plug installed at a carbon steel injection access fitting with a stainless steel welding boss, Fig. 16. This was a nonactive chemical injection point and had been plugged with a solid plug for many years. Radiographic inspection, as shown in Fig. 17, of the access fitting revealed poor thread engagement, with two threads engaged between the carbon steel short plug and the access fitting stainless steel welding boss (nipple) due to corrosion in the plug. This problem was resolved by replacing the damaged carbon steel plug with a new stainless steel solid plug, shown in Fig. 18. As a lesson learned from this case and to prevent reoccurrence in the future, all carbon steel plugs should be eliminated and replaced with stainless steel ones to avoid
72
SPRING 2009 SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY

CHEMICAL INJECTION POINT GUIDELINES

These, and other case studies, show that chemical injection points require proper design, material selection guidelines and installation procedures. These guidelines are necessary to ensure the safety and reliability of the chemical injection points. The following guidelines were developed based on field experience with the chemical injection at several upstream facilities.

MATERIAL SELECTION
Materials of construction for the chemical injection system components should be carefully selected to be compatible with the chemical solution and capable of withstanding maximum

pump discharge line pressure and process main pressure. Concentrated chemicals by themselves can be corrosive until properly diluted by the produced fluids. The injection components, other than the access fitting body, for chemicals identified as oil field treatment chemicals, such as biocides, corrosion inhibitors, scale inhibitors, demulsifiers, and boiler treatment chemicals shall use 316L stainless steel material or better, and shall be suitable for sour service and meet the requirement of NACE MR0175/ISO15156, if injection is required into a sour service process3. Check valves are required immediately upstream of the shut-off valve at the fitting. The shut-off valve should be 316L stainless steel, and after installation onto the nipple, it must be seal welded. Positive shut-off valves are required, such as gate, needle or ball. Short nipples and shutoff valves must be rated for sour service and they should be identifiable (grade and rating). If a chemical injection fitting is not in service, the solid plug, injection nut and quill shall be extracted, the quill must be removed from the injection nut and a solid stainless steel pipe plug installed in its place. This is to prevent such failures as illustrated in case #4. Prior to re-installing the plugged injection assembly into the access fitting, the upper and lower O rings shall be replaced.

Fig. 19. Open end injection tube.

DESIGN
Most of the failures that are related to the injection point have occurred either in the injection point or immediately downstream of the injection quill. Such failures have been attributed to general corrosion attacks of the concentrated product, which attacked the pipe wall prior to the product being diluted by the produced fluids. Consequently, the use of internal injection tubes, such as quills, atomizing nozzles, etc., which direct the product into the process fluids, is required. The design of an injection quill is very critical. The quill should be designed efficiently to disperse injected chemicals into a process stream without allowing the injected chemicals to build up on the interior walls of the pipe and without clogging the injection quill opening. The injection quill must be sized to inject the desired amount of chemical. The injection quill should be capable of injecting the chemical in such a way to effectively and intimately mix the chemical with the process stream. Injection quills should be installed per approved design drawings, and the inspector has to measure the injection quill insertion lengths prior to the installation. The quill design should be evaluated for possible stress, fatigue problems and flow induced vibration to avoid such problems as in cases #1 and #2. Stress calculations must be performed to determine the optimum injection quill insertion length. For any replacement quills, stress calculations must also be performed and provided. Process stream flow rate fluctuations, flow regimes, fluid viscosity and quill natural

frequency are essential variables affecting injection quill design. Natural frequency and wake frequency calculations shall be performed on each quill that will be installed in the field. The purpose of these calculations is to prevent the quill from entering a resonant vibration in which fatigue failure can occur. The wake frequency should be less than 80% of the quills natural frequency to guarantee no resonant harmonic vibration4. The style of the injection quill with an open end has a bevel cut angle with 45 as a minimum and 60 as a maximum, Fig. 19. Angles less than 45 would limit the influence of the scarf cut. The quill must include a slot through a wall of the quill tip. The slot shall not be longer than the length of the bevel. The slot is rectangular and is opposed to the angled end. The above mentioned design of the quill tip is commonly used in upstream facilities. The quill with an angled face utilizes the turbulence created by its design, in conjunction with the natural turbulence within the pipe, to accomplish distribution of the injected chemical into the process stream. The disadvantage of the quill with an angled open end is that at a low process stream flow rate, there tends to be a concentration of the injected chemical at the pipe wall surface below the injection point.

CONCLUSIONS
Four case studies showing failures of upstream chemical injection points were discussed. These failures were related to problems in design and incorrect material selection. Chemical injection points require proper design, material selection guidelines, and installation procedures. These guidelines are necessary to ensure the safety and reliability of the chemical injection points.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank Saudi Aramco for permission to publish this paper. Special thanks are due to Dr. Graham R. Lobley and Abdulaziz Al-Tijani, for their work in two case studies.
SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY SPRING 2009

73

REFERENCES
1. Willmon, J.G. and Edwards, M.A.: Pre-commissioning to Startup: Getting Chemical Injection Right, SPE paper 96144, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October 9-12, 2005. 2. Palmer, J.W., Hedges, W. and Dawson, J.L.: Use of Corrosion Inhibitors in Oil and Gas Production: (EFC 39), Woodhead Publishing, 2004. 3. Baboian, R.: NACE Corrosion Engineers Reference Book, 3rd edition, NACE International, 2002. 4. ASME B31.3, Process Piping.

BIOGRAPHIES
Ahmad S. Al-Omari is a Corrosion Engineer with 7 years of field experience working with Saudi Aramco since November 2001. He received his B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM), Dhahran, Saudi Arabia in 2001. Ahmad is now working with the Khurais Producing Department. He has performed several failure analyses in the areas of metallurgy and corrosion. Khalid M. Al-Nabulsi joined Saudi Aramco in 1996 immediately after graduating from the Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO with a B.S. degree in Metallurgical and Materials Engineering. He worked with the Materials Engineering Unit (MEU) of the Consulting Services Department (CSD) conducting failure analysis, project reviews, incident investigations and material selection. In mid 1997, Khalid joined Berri Gas plant for his 3-year field deployment assignment working with inspection, process, maintenance and projects. Khalid joined the Specialist Development Program (SDP) in 2000 before joining the advanced degree program. In 2003, he received his M.S. degree in Materials Engineering (metals option) from the Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA. Khalids thesis work focused on studying the ductile damage evolution in high strength steels, HSLA 100 vs. HY 100 structural steels. Upon his return to Saudi Aramco in 2003, Khalid returned to work with MEU as a Staff Metallurgist conducting failure analysis investigations, local and international plant surveys, project reviews, material selection and operation support. As part of his development plan, he was assigned to Shaybah Producing Department to work as a Corrosion Engineer for one year. From 2004 to 2007, Khalid was an active committee member in the companys materials standards helping in the revision and update of standards. In 2007, he joined the Materials Performanace Group of the Research and Development Center (R&DC) working on Nanostructured and Metallic Coating Systems for High Temperature Applications. Ali F. Al-Marri is a Corrosion Engineer with 11 years of field experience working with the North Ghawar Producing Department. He received his B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK in 1997. In September 1997. Ali joined Saudi Aramco where he began working as a Plant Engineer in Ain Dar Producing for 4 years, before being assigned to the Corrosion Group in 2002.

74

SPRING 2009 SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY