Economic Factors in Materials Selection

Engineering Encyclopedia
Saudi Aramco DeskTop Standards
ECONOMIC FACTORS
IN MATERIALS SELECTION
Note: The source of the technical material in this volume is the Professional
Engineering Development Program (PEDP) of Engineering Services.
Warning: The material contained in this document was developed for Saudi
Aramco and is intended for the exclusive use of Saudi Aramco’s employees.
Any material contained in this document which is not already in the public
domain may not be copied, reproduced, sold, given, or disclosed to third
parties, or otherwise used in whole, or in part, without the written permission
of the Vice President, Engineering Services, Saudi Aramco.
Chapter : Corrosion For additional information on this subject, contact

File Reference: COE-110.04 PEDD Coordinator on 874-6556
Engineering Encyclopedia Materials Selection and Failure Analysis
Economic Factors in Materials Selection
Section Page
MAJOR DESIGN FACTORS IN THE SELECTION

OF COST-EFFECTIVE MATERIALS ............................................................................. 2
Design Life........................................................................................................... 2
Quality Level........................................................................................................ 3
Corrosion Allowance (General Corrosion) ........................................................... 5
National and Local Codes......................................................................... 5
EFFECTS OF COST AND AVAILABILITY ON MATERIAL SELECTION....................... 6
Economic Considerations .................................................................................... 6
Piping Costs ........................................................................................................ 7
Heat Exchanger Tubing Costs............................................................................. 9
Pressure Vessel Cost Considerations ............................................................... 10
Alloy vs More Economical Material With a Heavier Corrosion Allowance.......... 13
Alloy vs More Frequent Replacement of More Economical Materials................ 14
Alloy vs Inhibitors, Protective Coatings and/or

Cathodic Protection to Allow the Use of More Economical Materials ................ 14
Material Availability............................................................................................ 16
EFFECTS OF SAFETY, RELIABILITY, ENVIRONMENT, AND

STRENGTH-TO-WEIGHT RATIO ON MATERIAL SELECTION.................................. 17
Safety and Reliability ......................................................................................... 17
Environmental Factors....................................................................................... 18
Strength-to-Weight Ratio ................................................................................... 18
Saudi Aramco DeskTop Standards i

MAJOR DESIGN FACTORS IN THE SELECTION OF COST-EFFECTIVE

MATERIALS
In this module the major factors involved in the selection of the

most cost-effective material for a given service are reviewed. A
simulation exercise will provide the Participants with an
opportunity to integrate and apply the information from prior
modules with the new information, and to choose the most
appropriate material for a given situation.
Design Life
Design life is an important factor when constructing new plants

or units. The design life may be based on a specified number of
years or the time required to recover investment and operating
costs plus a reasonable profit margin. Alternatively, the design
life may be based on the obsolescence of the product or
process. An example of an obsolescent product is tetraethyl
lead, a motor gasoline additive. Tetraethyl lead has been
replaced by methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and tertiary amyl
methyl ether (TAME). Twenty years ago the design life of a
tetraethyl lead plant might have been twenty years. Five years
ago the design life should not have been greater
than ten years. Fixed bed catalytic naphtha reforming is
an example of an obsolete process. Fixed bed catalytic
reformers require periodic in-situ catalyst regeneration. Today’s
standard continuous catalytic reforming (CCR) units have a
design life exceeding ten years.
Design life is also an important factor when maintaining units

and equipment. The remaining service life of the unit or facility
must be considered when assigning a design life to a
replacement pressure vessel or piping component. For
example, a fixed bed catalytic naphtha reformer built in 1980
with a design life of 20 years is scheduled to be replaced in
1998 with a CCR having a 15 year design life. In order to
increase unit throughput in 1993, a new larger heat exchanger
with larger diameter inlet and outlet piping will be installed in
1993. Since the remaining service life of the unit in 1993 is five
years, the design life assigned to the heat exchanger and piping
components should be five years.
Saudi Aramco DeskTop Standards 2

Quality Level
The quality level assigned to an item of fabricated equipment is

a way to indicate the required level of testing, inspection,
record-keeping, redundancy of controls, and equipment. More
testing and inspection results in improved weld quality and
workmanship, but also higher construction and fabrication costs.
A quality level should be assigned to the construction or
fabrication that is consistent with design, reliability, and safety
requirements. One definition of quality is “Fitness for Purpose.”
The materials engineer uses this definition when making
materials selections for processing equipment.
A good example is the ordering of a carbon steel pressure

vessel to be designed, fabricated, and inspected in accordance
with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section VIII,
Div. 1. The materials engineer knows that the Code will ensure
a satisfactory quality level because it mandates that certain
precautions be taken. These are:
• Fabricators must possess the appropriate code stamp.
• The vessel must be designed using formulas based on the

maximum allowable working stresses for the various
carbon steel product forms as a function of temperature.
• All welding must be performed using ASME Code qualified

welding procedures and welders.
• Welds must be inspected using radiographic, ultrasonic,

magnetic particle, or liquid penetrant techniques as
required by the Code.
• The completed vessel must be hydrostatically proof tested.
• An authorized code inspector must perform a third party

inspection audit to ensure that all Code requirements have
been met.

It is important to note that the Code only ensures quality from a

mechanical design and fabrication standpoint. If additional
inspections or heat treatments are required due to process or
corrosion considerations, these must be specified by the
Materials Engineer. For example, if the vessel is in caustic or
wet H2S service, a PWHT is usually specified to reduce residual
stresses and weld hardness.
Another example of quality level is the degree of nondestructive

examination required for castings. Castings in water or low-
pressure steam service are usually commercial grade
and purchased without any extensive nondestructive
examination. However, castings in high-pressure, high-
temperature hydrocarbon or hydrogen services, cyclic or
extremely corrosive services must be radiographed to ensure
that no significant internal discontinuities are present.
In addition to quality level, it’s important that a quality assurance

and quality control program be instituted and enforced
throughout the equipment design and fabrication phases.
Quality assurance objectives for petroleum and petrochemical
facilities are:
• Provide for the safety of plant personnel and members of

the general public by ensuring that the facility operates
safely and reliably.
• Achieve the performance and reliability requirements for

each individual item of equipment.
• Protect the environment.
• Provide protection to public and corporate assets.
• Minimize new construction and maintenance costs by

reducing engineering and fabrication errors, rework, and
repairs.
The purpose of quality control programs is to ensure that the

fabricated equipment meets all applicable requirements
contained in the ASME Code, Saudi Aramco Standards, and
any other applicable industry or government standards.

Corrosion Allowance (General Corrosion)
Previous modules discussed the use of various information

resources or periodic thickness measurements to determine
corrosion rates for carbon steel equipment. Corrosion rate,
along with design life, govern the corrosion allowance
calculation. Carbon steel is a very cost-effective material that is
often specified for use in relatively corrosive services, even in
situations where an alloy material would perform better. The
philosophy is to assign a large nominal corrosion allowance to
the component, monitor wall thickness, and replace it when
necessary. However, it should be noted that carbon steel with a
large corrosion allowance may not always be an acceptable
material. This is especially true when corrosion products could
result in a high pressure drop across a catalyst bed
(necessitating a shutdown for cleaning), fouling, a loss of
exchanger heat transfer efficiency, or product quality problems.
National and Local

Codes
Another important factor that influences materials selection is
the adoption and use of Codes and Standards by national or
local jurisdictions. These documents contain criteria that govern
the fabrication and inspection of new equipment, as well as
repairs and modifications to existing equipment. In some cases,
organizations have adopted certain Codes or used them as
guidelines for new construction and maintenance. Although the
Codes do not normally recommend specific materials or
corrosion allowances they do contain information on acceptable
materials and specify minimum material, mechanical, welding,
and inspection requirements. The materials engineer must
determine the applicable jurisdictional or company requirements
on Codes and Standards (and materials requirements in the
Codes and Standards) as part of the materials selection process
for new construction and/or maintenance.

EFFECTS OF COST AND AVAILABILITY ON MATERIAL SELECTION
Cost and availability of materials are two very important

considerations for the materials engineer. Both topics are
covered in the following section.
Economic Considerations
Economics is defined as having practical or industrial

significance or uses; affecting natural resources. By using
economical materials of construction the materials engineer can
conserve natural resources and in some cases avoid periodic
unnecessary replacements.
In this module we will briefly review some of the economic

considerations in materials selection:
• Initial cost, such as the cost of materials and labor involved

in fabrication, transportation, and installation.
• Operating costs, such as the continued cost of corrosion

inhibitors and power costs for an impressed current
cathodic protection system.
• Maintenance costs for periodic repairs or replacements.
Economic factors such as present worth, annual cost, effect of

taxes, discounted cash flow (DCF), or return on investment
(ROI) are outside the scope of this course.

Piping Costs
The following review of piping costs is based on new or

replacement piping being designed, fabricated and installed in
accordance with ASME/ANSI B31.3 and on a mid-1991 study of
piping costs.
For quick piping material cost comparisons, it may be assumed

that the initial fabrication cost is approximately 50 % material
and 50 % labor, and that transportation and installation costs
are approximately the same for carbon and alloy steel piping.
Based on these assumptions, the materials engineer can
examine the relative difference in material costs in the materials
selection process.
Page 153 of the Appendix shows the wall thicknesses of steel

pipe. Commonly used wall thicknesses are standard weight
[same as schedule 40 up to 250 mm (10 in) diameter] and extra
strong [same as schedule 80 up to 200 mm (8 in) diameter].
Page 154 shows the cost [$/linear foot (LF)] for ASTM A-106 Gr
B pipe.
For example, as shown in the table, 100 mm (4 in) diameter

carbon steel pipe costs $1.12/LF for schedule 40 and $1.65/LF
for schedule 80. The difference ($0.53/LF) is only an increase
in total cost of about 25 % because the material cost is one-half
of the total cost. The original schedule 40 piping will require
replacement after 4 years of service based on a corrosion rate
of 0.25 mm/yr (10 mpy). Should the replacement piping be
Schedule 80? Using the wall thickness data contained in the
table on page 153 of the Appendix, the increased corrosion
allowance on the Schedule 80 pipe is 2.5 mm (0.100 in). On
this basis, the schedule 80 piping would have an expected
service life of 4 + 10 = 14 years. It appears the replacement
should be made with schedule 80. This will avoid a planned
shutdown every 4 years and the costs associated with pipe
replacement and lost production during each shutdown.

The table on page 155 shows the cost factors for low alloy pipe
materials. These materials are used in elevated temperature
service when superior high-temperature strength and stress-
rupture properties are required. They are also used when
resistance to sulfidation or high-temperature hydrogen damage
is required. If the piping is in high-temperature hydrogen
service, API RP 941 should be consulted to determine the
required low alloy material. It should be noted that under some
process conditions, either 1Cr-Mo or 2Cr-1Mo material could be
used. The final material selection will be made based upon
material and installation costs. It should be noted that in some
situations the more expensive material can be more cost-
effective. A good example is the case of large diameter piping
in high-temperature hydrogen service. Above 538 C (1000°F),
2Cr-1Mo, the more expensive material, might be more cost-
effective than 1Cr-Mo. This is because the 2Cr-1Mo material
has superior high-temperature mechanical properties,
specifically, higher values of allowable stress. This allows the
designer to specify the use of thinner wall thicknesses, resulting
in improved mechanical properties (greater piping flexibility),
and reduced overall costs.
Note: C-1/2 Mo material is generally considered to be no more

resistant to hydrogen attack than carbon steel because of
reported instances of hydrogen attack below the C-1/2 Mo
curve. Consequently, this material should not be specified for
high-temperature hydrogen service. However, in nonhydrogen
services such as steam, C-Mo piping is acceptable provided it
meets and is installed in accordance with ASME/ANSI B31.3.
Before specifying the use of this material, current availability
should be checked.
The table on page 156 on the Appendix shows material cost

factors for stainless steel pipe materials. As previous modules
have indicated, these materials are specified for equipment and
piping in a wide variety of services. Some of the more common
services include: nondeaerated demineralized water, extremely
sour hydrocarbons and water, dilute sulfuric acid, hot caustic,
and elevated temperature hydrogen/hydrogen sulfide
environments. A stabilized grade of piping material (Type 321
or 347 SS) is required in hydrotreating or hydrocracking service
where the material is exposed to high temperature
hydrogen/hydrogen sulfide. Type 321 SS would most likely be
selected based on lower material cost.

Heat Exchanger Tubing Costs
Shell and tube heat exchanger costs are based on the

fabrication of new heat exchangers or replacement tube bundles
in accordance with the ASME B&PV Code Section VIII, Div. 1,
and include the results of a mid-1991 study on tubing costs.
In the study, relevant ASTM specifications were identified for the

various types of tubing material, and major suppliers were
contacted for quotations. Quotes were based on one hundred
heat exchanger tubes each with a diameter of 25.4 mm (1 in)
and a length of 6100 mm (20 ft). Prices for carbon steel were
obtained for 12 gage, 2.76 mm (0.109 in) wall thickness tubes.
14 gage, 2.11 mm (0.083 in) wall thickness was selected for the
brass alloys, standard stainless steels, and nickel alloys. The
lighter gage was used for alloy materials because of superior
corrosion and fouling resistance. For welded alloy tubes a 16
gage, 1.65 mm (0.65 in) thickness was used.
The table on page 157 of the Appendix shows the cost ($/ft) for
the various materials. As shown in the table, carbon steel was
the lowest priced material. Note that the price increases as the
alloy content of the tube is increased.
The study also identified the difference in cost between welded

and seamless tubes. The data in the table on page 158 of the
Appendix indicates that welded tubes are less expensive than
seamless tubes for most tubing materials. The exceptions
appear to be Incoloy 800, Incoloy 825, and Carpenters 20Cb3.

As an example, assume that a carbon steel bundle in a catalytic

light ends stabilizer will require replacement in 1992 after three
years service. At NACE T-8, Refining Industry Corrosion
Committee meetings, 300 series stainless steel tubes were
reported to have a 20 year service life. What 300 series
stainless steel tube material should be considered? Should the
tubes be welded or seamless? Either Type 304 or 304L SS
tube materials could be used. Based on the table on page 158,
it appears that a significant cost savings can be realized by
using welded tubes. However, it’s important that welded tubes
be tested in the environment of interest to determine whether
the corrosion resistance of the weld and HAZ is adequate. This
is particularly important in very aggressive environments, such
as sour crude oil, sulfuric acid, and phosphoric acid, that are
known intergranular corrodents.
Pressure Vessel Cost Considerations
Pressure vessels may be fabricated from:
• Carbon steel, low-alloy or solid high alloy steel.
• Carbon steel with a protective coating.
• Carbon or low-alloy steel with an insulating refractory

lining.
• Carbon or low-alloy steel clad with a roll bonded alloy

material.
• Carbon or low-alloy steel clad with an explosion bonded

alloy.
• Carbon or low-alloy steel weld overlayed with corrosion-

resistant material.

The selection of one of these approaches is based on:
• The corrosivity of the environment.
• Design and operating temperatures.
• Severity of operation (cyclic service).
• Cost and material availability.
Unlined carbon steel is used in many applications to add

sufficient corrosion allowance to meet the required design life of
the equipment. For example, if the required thickness for
pressure, temperature, wind load, and so on, is 25.4 mm (1 in),
the addition of 3 mm (1/8 in) or 6 mm (1/4 in) corrosion
allowance is a relatively small increase in material and total
cost. However, as indicated previously, this approach cannot
be used if the corrosion products downstream will cause
catalyst bed fouling, heat exchanger fouling, or product quality
problems. For these situations, it is better to specify the use of
stainless or other high-alloy steel. An acceptable alternative for
relatively mild corrosive service is to specify that the vessel be
internally lined. The choice of lining material will depend upon
the severity of the environment. It should be noted that most
linings are limited to a maximum service temperature of 93°C
(200 F).
In certain situations solid alloy materials may be more cost-

effective than carbon or low-alloy steel clad or weld overlayed
with austenitic stainless steel. This is especially true for
pressure vessels operating in corrosive service at relatively low
pressures [pressure & 4137 MPa (60 psi)].
For equipment in high temperature service, the use of insulating

refractory lined carbon or low-alloy steel has been found to be a
cost-effective method of fabrication. The purpose of the internal
lining is to lower the shell temperature to below about 232 °C
(450 °F). This allows the shell to be fabricated from carbon or
low-alloy steel, even if the vessel is in elevated temperature
hydrogen service.

An example of the use of refractory lined steel in high

temperature hydrogen service is the reactor in a catalytic
naphtha reformer. In this reactor, the process temperature is
about 538 °C (1000 °F), but the shell temperature is limited, as
described above. While refractory linings are considered to be
cost-effective, it is important to realize that these linings are
susceptible to degradation. Hot spots, which are susceptible to
high-temperature hydrogen damage, develop on the shell as a
result of lining deterioration. It is important that shell
temperature surveys be performed periodically to minimize the
risk of having undetected hot spots. If hot spots are found,
refractory repairs must be performed at the first available
opportunity. As an interim measure, the hot spots should be
steam or water cooled to ensure that the shell temperature is
maintained below the temperature indicated on the applicable
Nelson Curve.
While internal refractory linings are considered to be cost-

effective from an initial installation cost viewpoint, it is important
to realize that they require considerable maintenance; periodic
internal inspections and frequent repairs are required. It is not
uncommon to replace sections of lining after a relatively short
period of time in service, particularly if the installation contractor
did a poor job.
For corrosive services, carbon or low-alloy steel that is clad (roll

bonded or explosion bonded) or weld overlayed with corrosion-
resistant alloy material may be selected. The cladding and
substrate alloys that are chosen will depend upon the process
conditions, material lead time or availability, current prices, and
competitive market conditions. Types 405 and 410S SS clad
steels are used for sulfidation resistance in many refinery
services. Examples include: coke drums, atmospheric and
vacuum crude towers, and FCC reactors. When processing
crudes that contain a high concentration of naphthenic acids,
Types 316 and 317 SS clad steels are used.

Type 316 SS clad steels are also used in phosphoric acid and
furfural units. Cr-Mo steels clad with Type 321 SS or weld
overlayed with Type 347 SS are used in hydrocracker,
pretreater and CHD reactors, and associated heat exchangers.
These materials are also used in hydrofinishing reactors and
associated equipment. Hard facing materials applied by weld
overlaying are used to resist catalyst erosion in FCC
(regenerator grids and slide valves) and TCC Units (lift pipe,
catalyst piping and lift pot components). Titanium clad steels
are used in sour water stripper overhead condensers, MEA
regenerator overhead exchangers or coolers, and salt water
coolers.
Titanium, tantalum, and zirconium can only be clad by the

explosion bonding process. Monel clad steels are used in
atmospheric crude towers and associated facilities and salt
water coolers.
Alloy vs More Economical Material

With a Heavier Corrosion Allowance
As indicated previously, carbon steel with sufficient corrosion

allowance to meet the required design life is the most widely
used material of construction. However, when the corrosion
rate is very high (for example, about 100 mpy) it is not practical
to provide a 50.8 mm (2 in) corrosion allowance to achieve a
twenty year design life. Under these conditions, the use of a
solid alloy, alloy clad, or corrosion-resistant weld metal overlay
must be considered. The final choice is based on the process
conditions and the costs of the various alternative materials. It
should be noted that weld overlay is almost always specified for
heavy-wall reactors in elevated temperature hydrogen service;
mills have difficulty producing roll bonded clad material in such
heavy thicknesses.

Alloy vs More Frequent Replacement

of More Economical Materials
To avoid an unscheduled shutdown, or the need to schedule an

extra shutdown, the service life of a component or item of
equipment should be at least equal to the run length of the
facility. For example, piping with a two year design life would
require an extra shutdown on a unit with a four year run length.
Example: A carbon steel (CS) crude preheat line will require

replacement in 1993 after eight years of service. The crude unit
run length is four years. A 5Cr-Mo line in the same service has
a 20 year life. Should the replacement be CS or 5Cr-Mo? By
scheduling the carbon steel replacement every eight years an
extra shutdown can be avoided, but two replacements of the CS
line will be required over the 20 year period.
The 5Cr-Mo line will require only one replacement after twenty
years. The final decision on which material to use should be
based upon piping material costs and the costs incurred to
install two CS lines versus one 5Cr-Mo line.
Alloy vs Inhibitors, Protective Coatings and/or

Cathodic Protection to Allow the Use of More Economical Materials
Corrosion inhibitors are effectively used to protect carbon steel

piping in crude tower overhead systems and in other units.
While the cost of the inhibitor ($/gal) may appear to be low, it is
important to note the inhibitor must be continuously added as
long as the facility is in operation. The cost of the inhibitor over
the design life of the facility and the installation and
maintenance costs of the inhibitor injection equipment must be
added to the installed cost of the carbon steel piping to obtain
the total cost. In practice, these costs can be very high.

Protective coatings are used to provide corrosion protection on

the internal surfaces of carbon steel vessels and tanks in
relatively mild corrosive service at operating temperatures that
do not exceed about 93 °C (200 °F). The limitation on operating
temperature will depend upon the specific coating and
environment. For example, continuous operating temperature
should not exceed about 93 °C (200 °F) for epoxy coatings in
water service. This temperature limit drops to about 80 °C
(175 °F) when the coating is in sour crude oil service. However,
for teflon linings, the upper temperature limit is generally taken
to be within the 200 - 260 °C (400 - 500 °F) temperature range.
To maintain coating integrity, periodic inspections and repairs
must be performed. Usually these are required every two to
three years depending upon the severity of the service. The
costs associated with these activities must be added to the
initial installed cost of the component or item of equipment to
obtain the total cost.
Cathodic protection (CP) is used to prevent corrosion of carbon

steel offshore facilities, tanker docks, barge piers, and the
underside of tank bottoms. Whether the CP consists of
sacrificial anodes or an impressed current system, it should be
noted that there are maintenance costs associated with the
monitoring of the system. Examples of these include:
replacement of anodes in sacrificial anode systems, changing of
rectifier settings in an impressed current system, and repairing
or replacing electrical connections, and so on.
Cost comparisons of alloy vs corrosion inhibitors, protective

coatings, or cathodic protection must be made on the same
basis—the design life of the facility. In addition to the initial
installed cost, the operating and maintenance costs associated
with each approach must be considered to obtain a fair cost
comparison.

Material Availability
Material availability is a very important factor in the materials

selection process. Even though an alloy has performed well in
a unit, or there is ample information on satisfactory operation in
other units, if it is not available in the time required an
acceptable alternative alloy must be specified. It should be
noted that in some situations it may be acceptable to install
carbon steel on a temporary basis and run the unit until the
desired alloy becomes available. However, this approach
requires careful consideration. For example, in elevated
temperature hydrogen service the use of carbon steel as a
temporary measure in lieu of Cr-Mo is discouraged. Carbon
steel is very susceptible to high-temperature hydrogen damage.
The equipment might suffer a rapid, catastrophic failure
depending upon the temperature, hydrogen partial pressure,
and exposure time.
Depending on the application, the material may be required in

many different product forms. For example, piping can require
pipe, elbows, tees, flanges, reducers, couplings, and welding
consumables. In addition, a pressure vessel may required solid
or clad plate. A heat exchanger will require welded or seamless
tubing.
When a new facility or unit is to be built, the project engineering

team can usually schedule enough lead time for the fabricators
to order and obtain the materials in the required product forms.
However, during unit shutdown or turnarounds, the materials

may be required on a quick delivery basis. Although many alloy
producers and distributors stock many materials, they may not
be the product forms that are required. In some cases, higher
or lower alloy materials may have to be substituted. Although
this can be satisfactory from the corrosion resistance and
mechanical strength standpoints, it should be emphasized again
that substitutions should only be made after careful review and
approval. While 2Cr-1Mo could be substituted for 1Cr-Mo in
high temperature hydrogen service, the reverse substitution
should only be made after reviewing the requirements contained
in API RP 941.

EFFECTS OF SAFETY, RELIABILITY, ENVIRONMENT, AND

STRENGTH-TO-WEIGHT RATIO ON MATERIAL SELECTION
Additional considerations that should be taken into account by

the materials engineer are described in the following sections.
Safety and Reliability
Safety and reliability are two very important factors in the

materials selection process. Proper materials of construction for
new construction or maintenance are required to ensure the
safe and reliable operation of the facilities. In addition, the
safety of plant personnel, contractors, visitors, and the local
community are essential. Also, safe and reliable operations are
required to meet output requirements, product specifications,
and to produce a reasonable profit. It should be emphasized
that each unit in a refinery or petrochemical facility and each
item of equipment in a unit must exhibit satisfactory reliability. If
one unit undergoes an unscheduled shutdown or is producing
off-specification product, the downstream unit’s operations can
also be adversely affected. This in turn may affect the output of
the entire unit or facility.
By proper materials selection, the materials engineer improves

safety and reliability by eliminating potential fire and explosion
hazards and by preventing corrosion, brittle fractures, and
mechanical failures. In addition, the release of toxic, noxious, or
hazardous materials is minimized, except through properly
designed facilities, such as scrubbers or flares.

Environmental Factors
Proper materials selection is also very important to preserve air

quality, to prevent potable water contamination, and to prevent
the release of corrosive, toxic, or hazardous materials.
In many countries, national and local authorities have developed

environmental protection requirements and enforcement
agencies. Accidental release or leakage of oil and other
materials can and has resulted in very substantial fines.
Repetitive leakage results in rapidly increasing fines.
Environmental concerns, when added to concerns about safety
and reliability, have in some cases led to the decision to use
alloy materials. These materials ensure long service life and
minimize the risk of accidental releases of material to the
environment.
Strength-to-Weight Ratio
On offshore platforms, additional weight can impose extra

structural requirements for legs, bracing, etc. As specified in
Aramco Engineering Standard AES-L-032, 254 SMO stainless
steel is used for the fire water control (seawater) piping. By
taking advantage of this material’s excellent corrosion
resistance, it is possible to specify the use of thinner wall pipe,
which results in a significant weight savings.
The jacket and many of the structural components on the

topsides of offshore platforms are constructed of high-strength,
low-alloy (HSLA) steels. The use of these high strength-to-
weight ratio materials results in a significant weight savings due
to thinner structural members. For example, the use of a 345
MPa (50 ksi) yield strength HSLA steel instead of a 260 MPa
(38 ksi) yield strength plain carbon steel for a structural member
will reduce wall thickness by about 30%. In addition to weight
savings, overall fabrication and installation will also be more
cost-effective.

Economic Factors in Materials Selection

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Economic Factors in Materials Selection

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Engineering Encyclopedia

Saudi Aramco DeskTop Standards

Chapter : Corrosion For additional information on this subject, contact