DAMAGE MECHANISMS AFFECTING FIXED EQUIPMENT IN THE REFINING INDUSTRY 9
3 Damage Mechanisms
This section describes the damage mechanisms found in refinery equipment. It includes low- and elevated-
temperature corrosion, metallurgical and mechanical damage, environment-assisted cracking, and a few
mechanisms that do not necessarily fit into any of these categories.
Section 4 contains PFDs for process units commonly found in refining. These PFDs show the location in the unit
where specific damage mechanisms are most likely to be found.
3.1 885 °F (475 °C) Embrittlement
3.1.1 Description of Damage
885 °F (475 °C) embrittlement is a loss of ductility and fracture toughness due to a metallurgical change that can
occur in stainless steels containing a ferrite phase as the result of exposure in the temperature range 600 °F to
1000 °F (315 °C to 540 °C). The embrittlement can lead to cracking failure.
3.1.2 Affected Materials
a) 400 series SS (e.g. 405, 409, 410, 410S, 430, and 446).
b) Duplex stainless steels such as Alloys 2205, 2304, and 2507.
c) Austenitic (300 series) stainless steel weld metals, which normally contain up to about 10 % ferrite phase to
prevent hot cracking during welding.
3.1.3 Critical Factors
a) The alloy composition, particularly chromium content, amount of ferrite phase, and operating temperature
are critical factors.
b) The lower-chromium alloys (e.g. 405, 409, 410, and 410S) are less susceptible to embrittlement. The higher
chromium ferritic stainless steels [e.g. 430 (16 % to 18 % Cr) and 446 (23 % to 27 % Cr)] and duplex stainless
steels (22 % to 25 % Cr) are much more susceptible.
Although it has not yet been shown in all 300 series SS weld metals, Charpy impact testing of Type 308
and Type 347H SS weld metal aged in approximately the 850 °F to 885 °F (455 °C to 475 °C)
temperature range has found evidence of 885 °F (475 °C) embrittlement, with individual sample results
in some cases being less than 15 ft-lb (20 J) at ambient temperatures. However, 885 °F (475 °C)
embrittlement of austenitic stainless steel weld metal historically has not been found to be a significant
concern in typical refining applications.
c) Increasing amounts of ferrite phase in duplex stainless steels increase susceptibility to damage when
operating in the high-temperature range of concern. A dramatic increase in the ductile-to-brittle transition
temperature will occur. Duplex stainless steels also need to be cooled rapidly after welding to avoid formation
of embrittling phases.
d) High-temperature exposure is required for embrittlement. A primary consideration is operating time at
temperature within the critical temperature range. Damage is cumulative and results from the formation of an
embrittling ordered metallic phase (alpha prime phase) that occurs most readily at approximately 885 °F
(475 °C). Additional time is required to reach maximum embrittlement at temperatures above or below 885 °F
(475 °C). For example, many thousands of hours may be required to cause embrittlement at 600 °F (315 °C).
e) As a practical matter, since equipment is typically in service for years, it is often assumed that susceptible
materials that have been exposed to temperatures in the 600 °F to 1000 °F (370 °C to 540 °C) range are
affected.
f) The effect on toughness is not pronounced at the operating temperature but is significant at lower
temperatures experienced during plant shutdowns, start-ups, or upsets.
10 API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 571
g) Embrittlement can also result from heat treatment if the material is held within or cooled slowly through the
embrittlement range.
3.1.4 Affected Units or Equipment
a) 885 °F (475 °C) embrittlement can be found in any unit where susceptible alloys are exposed to the
embrittling temperature range.
b) Most refining companies limit the use of ferritic stainless steels to non-pressure-boundary applications
because of this damage mechanism.
c) Common examples include fractionator trays and internals in high-temperature vessels used in crude,
vacuum, fluid catalytic cracker (FCC), and coker units. Typical failures include cracking when attempting to
weld or to straighten bent, upset tower trays made of Type 409 and 410 SS. (This occurs often with vacuum
tower trays of this material.)
d) Other examples include duplex stainless steel heat exchanger tubes and other components exposed to
temperatures above 600 °F (315 °C) for extended time periods. Duplex stainless steels are normally limited
to a maximum service temperature of 600 °F (315 °C).
3.1.5 Appearance or Morphology of Damage
a) 885 °F (475 °C) embrittlement is a metallurgical change that is not readily apparent with metallography.
b) The existence of 885 °F (475 °C) embrittlement can possibly be identified by an increase in hardness in
affected areas. Failure during bend testing or impact testing of samples removed from service is the most
positive indicator of 885 °F (475 °C) embrittlement. (Figure 3-1-1)
c) Most cases of embrittlement are found in the form of cracking during turnarounds or during start-up or
shutdown when the material is at lower temperature where the effects of embrittlement are most detrimental.
Embrittled 410 SS has been shown to require a temperature of about 350 °F (175 °C) before adequate
toughness has been restored.
3.1.6 Prevention/Mitigation
a) The best way to prevent 885 °F (475 °C) embrittlement is to avoid exposing the susceptible material to the
embrittling range or to use a non-susceptible material. In some cases, users accept the possibility of
embrittlement of non-pressure-containing components, e.g. trays and other internals, and deal with the
possibility or consequences during maintenance.
b) Cracking of embrittled material can often be avoided through temperature controls during start-up and
shutdown.
c) It is possible to minimize the effects of embrittlement through modifications in the chemical composition of
the alloy; however, resistant material may not always be readily available in most commercial forms.
d) 885 °F (475 °C) embrittlement is reversible by heat treatment followed by rapid cooling. The de-embrittling
heat treatment temperature is typically 1100 °F (595 °C) or higher and may not be practical for many
equipment items. If the de-embrittled component is exposed to the same service conditions, it will re-embrittle
faster than it did initially.
3.1.7 Inspection and Monitoring
This damage mechanism is very difficult to find prior to equipment failure. It is also time dependent and may take
a while to develop in service. Online inspection is not applicable. Awareness of susceptible equipment can help
direct inspection planning.
a) The most effective method of detecting or confirming 885 °F (475 °C) embrittlement is removing and impact
or bend testing a sample of the suspect material. Failure during a simple bend test is the most common
DAMAGE MECHANISMS AFFECTING FIXED EQUIPMENT IN THE REFINING INDUSTRY 11
method of confirming 885 °F (475 °C) embrittlement in thin components like tower trays. Metallographic
examination is typically not effective because the embrittlement-causing phase in the microstructure is so
difficult to find or see.
b) Cracking may be visually apparent in certain types of trays and other non-pressure-containing hardware that
have cracked during maintenance or repair activities.
c) Field hardness testing may distinguish embrittled from non-embrittled material, but hardness testing alone is
generally not definitive. Also, the hardness test itself may produce cracking, depending on the degree of
embrittlement.
d) Hammer testing (“field impact testing”) is considered a destructive test. Tapping a suspect component with a
hammer may crack the component, depending on the degree of embrittlement. Hammer testing might
confirm that a component is not badly embrittled, if it does not crack, or that it is embrittled, if it does crack.
3.1.8 Related Mechanisms
Sigma phase embrittlement (3.56).
3.1.9 References
1. High-temperature Characteristics of Stainless Steels, Designers’ Handbook Series, American Iron and Steel
Institute, Washington, DC, 1979.
2. G.E. Moller, “Experiences with 885 °F (475 °C) Embrittlement in Ferritic Stainless Steels,” Materials
Protection, NACE International, May 1966.
3. S.A. David, J.M. Vitek, and D.J. Alexander, “Embrittlement of Austenitic Stainless Steel Welds,” Office of
Scientific and Technical Information Technical Reports, (University of North Texas Libraries Government
Documents Department, https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc741815/), June 1995.
Figure 3-1-1—Sample of cracked material with intergranular cracks
visible in the microstructure, suggesting severe embrittlement.
