SPE 97590

Selection and Qualification of Materials for HPHT Wells

J.K. Brownlee, P.E. SPE, K.O. Flesner, P.E., and K.R. Riggs P.E., PhD, Stress Engineering Services, Inc.; B. P. Miglin,
Shell Global Solutions US Inc.

Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE High Pressure-High Temperature Sour
Well Design Applied Technology Workshop held in The Woodlands, Texas, U.S.A., 17-19 May
2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Interest in sour, high-pressure high-temperature (HPHT) wells
and in ultra-HPHT wells, i.e. those with bottom hole
temperatures greater than about 300 F (150 C) and wellhead
pressures greater than about 10,000 psig (690 bar), is
increasing worldwide. Due to the desire to monetize reserves
more rapidly and due to the aggressiveness of sour, HPHT and
ultra-HPHT environments, these wells are likely be completed
using large diameter casing and tubing that is manufactured
from solid, high-strength corrosion resistant alloys (CRAs).
Wellheads will likely be manufactured from high strength low
alloy steel that is clad internally with CRAs.
The combination of corrosion resistance and strength offered
by solid CRAs and CRA-clad steels has spurred decisions to
produce otherwise uneconomic sour, HPHT and ultra-HPHT
wells around the world for several decades now. However,
current levels of conservatism in materials selection and
evaluation and in design of HPHT well equipment is not likely
to be sustainable in the future. Thus, this paper provides a
review of the knowledge gained from previous HPHT
developments with the dual aims of extending the safe and
successful development record of the E&P industry related to
HPHT wells and improving the cost-effectiveness of future
CRA completion designs.
Increasingly aggressive conditions are beginning to expose
limitations in current design methodologies for tubing and
casing strings, connections, seals, downhole jewelry, and
valves. Linear elastic design methodologies are likely to be
supplanted by elastic-plastic, fatigue, and fracture mechanics
based methodologies in the near future, and this will likely
result in a need for detailed data related to CRA materials
properties including flow stress, fracture toughness, and lowcycle fatigue resistance, data that is largely nonexistent at

present. Therefore, this review also examines the limitations

of current CRA test methods and identifies gaps in materials
property data that is likely to be required if advanced design
methods for critical well equipment are to be successful.
High bottomhole pressures in HPHT wells are likely to result
in a need to use large-diameter, heavy-wall tubing strings.
Thick, large diameter CRA tubes are generally limited to short
lengths, which results in an economic trade off between the
increased gas production that can be achieved by using large
diameter tubing and greater completion costs that result from
more connections and longer completion times. Thus, this
paper will also examine size and strength ranges of CRA
tubulars that are currently available, and these ranges will be
compared with the anticipated needs of HPHT well owners
and operators to identify whether critical gaps exist in current
CRA manufacturing technology.
Introduction
Figure 1(1) shows some of the high pressure, high temperature
(HPHT) and ultra-HPHT fields that have been exploited since
the mid 1980s. In addition to prodigious amounts of natural
gas, crude oil, and condensates produced by these fields, many
of the wells in these fields produced or continue to produce
significant concentrations of acid gases carbon dioxide (CO2)
and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and concentrated chloride brines.
As a result, many HPHT produced fluids can be highly
corrosive or aggressive, and this trend is expected to continue
and possibly to increase into the future. Therefore, as they did
in the past, decisions to drill, complete, and produce HPHT
wells are likely to bring about a renewed need to evaluate
equipment that is manufactured from solid corrosion resistant
alloys (CRAs) or low alloy steels that are clad with CRA.
The need for HPHT equipment with higher working pressure
and temperature ranges is expected to have significant impact
in the areas of equipment design and operation; and some of
these impacts are discussed in a sister paper(2). To briefly
summarize that paper, the linear elastic design verification
required by industry standards such as API 6A, 16A, 16C,and
17D, use the methodologies of the ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 2 (ASME VIII-2)(3). The
design verification methods currently in these standards are
not suited for HPHT equipment. That paper recommends that
the design verification of HPHT equipment be done by the
fracture mechanics-based methods of Section VIII, Division 3
of the Code (ASME VIII-3)(4), which were developed to

SPE 97590

ensure the safety of pressure vessels that operate at pressures

greater than 10,000 psig (690 bar) with no upper limit on
pressure.
ASME VIII-3 is based on the fact that true high pressure
vessels usually fail as a result of cyclic loading, which causes
propagation of cracks from existing defects or discontinuities
leading to eventual fracture. Thus, designers who utilize
ASME VIII-3 will need to possess detailed knowledge of
materials properties such as yield strength, fracture toughness,
and fatigue resistance in the environments of interest.
Although there are exceptions, in large measure, the
methodologies that are currently used to select and qualify
CRAs do not address these issues. Neither do current test
methods provide designers and materials engineers with the
data they need. Therefore, the need for HPHT equipment is
also likely to spur new developments in materials selection,
testing, and qualification.
Basic Materials Selection
Despite criticisms aimed at the expense and conservatism of
many past HPHT and ultra-HPHT completions, the reliability
and safety provided to operators by the materials that were
selected for these applications is such that a conservative
approach to materials selection is largely validated. However,
due to the potential of relatively small recovered volumes
from many recently discovered HPHT fields, the current level
of conservatism may not be economically sustainable in the
future. Therefore, additional attention will have to be paid to
life-cycle cost analysis to ensure that capital is not expended
unnecessarily.
Generally, materials selection by life cycle cost analysis
involves developing a list of materials that are available to
manufacturers and fabricators in the required product forms
and that are likely to perform acceptably in a given application
or environment. See documents such as NACE MR0175/ISO
15156(5) for more information. This step will be followed by
selecting the most cost effective alternative based upon
estimates of life cycle cost. Life cycle cost estimating may
include consideration of risk by the individual or management.
No matter how complex or simple the materials selection
process, if it is improperly carried out mistakes in application,
misunderstandings about alloy performance, and service
failures can result. Therefore, continuing to use a conservative
approach is recommended. Testing is indicated when the
anticipated service conditions approach or exceed the limits of
our current knowledge base.
Properly selected CRAs are either fully resistant to general
(weight loss) corrosion or their general corrosion rates are
sufficiently low in the environment of interest that significant
corrosion cannot occur over the intended service life of the
well or field. However, in order to justify their cost and to
keep the probability of unexpected failures acceptably low,
CRAs are also required (or expected) to be resistant to:

Pitting corrosion,
Crevice corrosion, and

Environmentally-assisted cracking (EAC)

(As used herein, the term EAC includes sulfide stress cracking
(SSC), stress corrosion cracking (SCC), and other cracking
phenomena.)
Table 1 shows a partial listing of the CRAs that have been
successfully used for existing HPHT and ultra-HPHT wells.
These same materials are likely to be used in future HPHT
wells. Furthermore, industrys experience with these alloys,
which is largely embodied in NACE MR0175/ISO 15156(6)
indicates that their performance in new HPHT wells will
continue to be governed by:

The in situ pH and chloride concentration of the

produced water phase,
The H2S, elemental sulfur (S0), and CO2
concentrations of the produced fluids, and the
The temperature of the produced fluids.

(If any dissolved oxygen that is introduced into the well as by

injected water or chemicals is not reduced completely
downhole, it may also significantly affect the performance of
CRAs.)
Table 1. Partial Listing of CRAs for Sour HPHT Wells
Tubing and Casing
13Cr
Super 13Cr
15Cr
22Cr Duplex
25Cr Duplex
Alloy 28
Alloy 825
Alloy 2535
Alloy 2550
Alloy G3
Alloy G50
Alloy C276

Downhole Jewelry
F6NM
Alloy 718
Alloy 925
Alloy 725
Alloy 625PH

Springs
MP35N
Elgiloy

Several additional compilations of articles dealing solely or

partly with corrosion and cracking of CRAs in HPHT
environments have been assembled. (7-11). The available data
indicates that, in general, the corrosion rates of most CRAs
apparently go up and cracking resistance goes down as the
temperature increases, as the in-situ pH decreases, and as the
chloride concentration of the produced brine increases. Thus,
the corrosion and cracking resistance of CRAs at one
temperature is not necessarily indicative of their resistance to
corrosion or cracking at another temperature. Therefore care
must be taken, even when using a conservative approach to
alloy selection, to ensure that results from tests conducted at
one set of conditions are applicable at another set of
conditions. Extrapolating results from low to high temperature
should always be avoided.
Comments on Specific CRA Families
Martensitic Stainless Steels
The corrosion and cracking resistance of 13Cr martensitc
stainless steels has been thoroughtly reviewed (12). It would
appear that although they hold promise for sweet HPHT wells,

SPE 97590

the 13Cr steels are not likely to be used in sour HPHT wells
due to their demonstrated propensities for pitting corrosion,
crevice corrosion at high temperatures and EAC at relatively
low H2S partial pressures.
However, there remains
controversy over the H2S and temperature limits to which
these alloys, particularly the super 13Cr steels, can be
exposed without cracking. Manufacturers of these alloys
generally publish recommended chloride and temperature
temperature limits for their alloys. Additional conservative
limits for martensitic stainless steels in H2S may be found in
NACEMR0175/ISO 15156.
Duplex Stainless Steels
The duplex stainless steels, including the 22Cr, 25Cr, and
25Cr + W classes, exhibit considerably more resistance to
pitting, crevice corrosion, and cracking than the martensitic
steels at all temperatures(13). However, they remain susceptible
to localized corrosion and cracking in relatively small amounts
of H2S. These materials also show a marked influence of
chloride ion concentration on their resistance to cracking,
making interpretation and extrapolation from published test
data difficult. Although guidelines for the use of duplex steels
in HPHT conditions exist, acceptance of these guidelines is
not universal; and the final decision of whether to use duplex
steels in a given environment is left to the end user.
The duplex steels must be cold worked for strengthening,
which does not appreciably affect their resistance to corrosion
in CO2/brine solutions. However, cold working can have a
considerable detrimental effect on their cracking resistance in
H2S, and the effects of cold work on the cracking resistance of
duplex steels should be considered carefully before a final
selection is made. This is particularly true for duplex steels
with yield strengths above about 135 ksi.
Nickel-Based Alloys
The super austenitic stainless steels and the family of nickelbase alloys represent a large group of materials that have
proved useful in sour HPHT and sour ultra-HPHT
environments. Both the cold-worked alloys (e.g. 825, G-3, C276) and the precipitation-hardened varieties (e.g. 718, 725,
925) exhibit increased resistance to all forms of corrosion and
cracking at higher temperatures and H2S concentrations than
the duplex and martensitic stainless steels.
High nickel alloys are generally immune to all concentrations
of CO2 and, therefore, are limited only by H2S, temperature
and the presence of elemental sulfur. Additionally, they are
not very sensitive to chloride concentration except at quite
high levels (> 100,000 ppm). Thus, the effects of different
chloride levels, which can vary significantly from the bottom
to the top of wells due to water condensation, should always
be explored carefully before final selection of one of these
alloys is made. Additionally alloys such as C-276 and 625 in
the heavily cold-worked condition may be susceptible to aging
at temperatures around 600 F (315 C)(14). Therefore, for
such applications, the ageing behavior of these and similar
solid solution strengthened Ni-base alloys should be checked
before a final selection is made.

The high nickel alloys are more difficult to cast and are more
prone to casting defects such as hot tears, cracking and
porosity than steels and other CRAs (14). Their corrosion
resistance may not be equal to wrought alloys with the same
trade name (14). Therefore end users should develop stringent
specifications for cast nickel-base alloy components and work
closely with the foundry to ensure that casting integrity is
maintained.
Comments on Specific Environments
Elemental Sulfur
Elemental sulfur has been found to cause severe pitting and
catastrophic cracking in many CRAs(15). Alloy C-276, a coldworked, nickel-base alloy containing nominally 65Ni, 15Cr,
and 16 Mo, is by far the CRA with the most resistance to
corrosion and cracking in environments that contain elemental
sulfur; however, even C-276 is not immune to its effects(11). If
elemental sulfur is expected in a well, testing of all candidate
alloys is highly recommended.
CO2
At high partial pressures of CO2, where the in situ pH is below
4, pitting may initiate on 13Cr and some super-13Cr
materials(12). The CO2 concentration or partial pressure has not
proven to be critical to the performance duplex, and nickelbase CRAs in non-HPHT, sour wells(11). However, it is
possible that certain of these alloys with relatively low pitting
resistance equivalent numbers (PREN 35) may not be able
to form or maintain their passive films in sour HPHT wells.
Thus, current ranking systems that allow use of low-PREN
CRAs in sour wells without regard to CO2 partial pressure
may have to be modified for use under HPHT conditions.
Production Chemicals
In addition to produced fluids, candidate alloys for HPHT
wells will be required to resist corrosion and cracking caused
by the other fluids to which they may be exposed during
production operations. These may be natural fluids (such as
seawater), manufactured chemicals (such as brines and
mineral acids), or combinations of these. While the majority of
these fluids have a history of successful use with CRAs in
non-HPHT wells, in many cases their compatibility with
CRAs under HPHT or sour HPHT conditions is not well
known and requires further study and review. The effects of
most or even all the fluids listed in Section 6.3 of European
Federation of Corrosion (EFC) No. 17(16) may need to be
assessed for certain HPHT wells.
Fortunately, exposure times for CRAs to the fluids listed in
Section 6.3 of EFC No. 17 are generally short. Therefore,
accelerated tests are not required and the duration of corrosion
and cracking tests may approximate the anticipated service
exposure. However, it should be recognized that these fluids
may be used in combination or sequentially; and highly
aggressive produced species may be present in significant
concentrations, e.g., H2S in low pH acid returns. Therefore,
care should be taken when defining worst-case exposure
scenarios. As noted in European Federation of Corrosion
(EFC) No. 17, the consequences of ignoring potential
incompatibilities of CRAs with non-produced fluids and

SPE 97590

secondary environments can be severe.

Advanced Material Selection and Qualification
In order to select appropriate materials for production tubing
and casing and other HPHT well equipment, the well designer
should first have relatively complete and accurate information
concerning the composition, temperature, and pressure of the
production stream that will be handled by the well tubulars.
Now, it is economically desirable in many instances to try to
obtain this information from reservoir tests made on adjacent
wells. However, there are numerous instances where estimates
of H2S in HPHT and ultra-HPHT wells have been off by more
than two orders of magnitude. Errors this large are likely to
have significant effects on final material selection, especially
if martensitic stainless steels, duplex steels, or some of the
lesser alloyed austentic CRAs are considered to be candidate
materials for a given well. Therefore, whenever possible, the
information
concerning
the
anticipated
production
environment should come from actual tests of the well in
question.
There is a considerable variety of ways that individuals and
companies select CRAs for anticipated well conditions. A
recent review of CRA selection guidelines by Craig (11) lists
the following methods that end users have used in the past:
1.

2.

3.

4.

The company may chose to select a CRA simply because

it is readily available or most economical (based on
initial cost).
The company may chose to review the literature (and any
available applicable field data) and select a candidate
CRA based solely on this review.
Companies with adequate research facilities and
capabilities may initiate a detailed test program designed
to identify the best alloy from a group that is expected to
perform satisfactorily in the particular part of a field
environment that is under study (i.e., downhole versus
wellhead).
After review of available literature and other sources, a
company may, instead, choose to run a limited test
program of a few candidate CRAs.

Craig(11) indicates that the first two approaches introduce large

chances for errors to be made because certain critical factors
that are not known will have to be assumed. Moreover, he
continues that incorrect assumptions can lead to CRA failures
or using a more expensive CRA than is required. Additionally,
the third approach can easily require years to accomplish, at
considerable expense. Finally, then, he states that last
approach would appear to be the most cost effective for new
HPHT applications.
Since conservative tests of candidate materials are desired,
selection of specific materials to test is important. The
selection of the heats/lots of material to test entails review of
both the chemical compositions and the mechanical
properties. In a given grade of material, the chemical
compositions are reviewed so that those heats/lots with the

lowest PREN can be identified. These materials are of

interest since the localized corrosion processes for CRAs are
often initiated from pits. Also, the materials with the highest
strength levels in a given grade are of interest since the risk of
cracking are greater for the higher strength, higher hardness
materials. Thus, it is thus most desirable to identify the
highest strength materials with the lowest pitting resistance in
a given grade to be those that are used in qualification tests.
Once an alloy that will be resistant to corrosion and cracking
has been identified by testing, the initial reservoir gas/fluid
data should be used used along with experience and/or thermal
and flow simulation models to develop a set of maximum
anticipated load conditions that the well materials of
construction can be expected to experience during their lives.
The maximum load conditions for each component are then
used, in conjunction with their mechanical/physical properties
(at environmental conditions) to determine the optimum
dimensions that will satisfy ASME VIII-3 or other appropriate
design requirements for the equipment.
The well production parameters that appear to be most
significant in this process are:

Temperature,

Partial pressures of H2S and CO2,

In situ pH of produced brine/water,

Chloride content of produced water, and the

Presence of elemental sulfur.

In addition, the following may also significantly affect the

observed corrosion/cracking performance of CRAs:

Corrosion damage
operations,

Damage to passive layers on the I.D. surfaces due to

running of wire line tools,

Cracking/corrosion in completion fluids (in the

production tubing production casing annulus),

Contamination of the well by oxygen (e.g., during

gas lift operations),

Pitting and/or crevice corrosion (e.g., in or adjacent

to connections in the tubulars).

initiated

during

acidizing

The preceeding indicates then, that selection of candidate

CRAs for use in HPHT or ultra-HPHT conditions requires
extensive knowledge of materials behavior in a number of
diverse environments. The range of possible environments
indicates that qualification for HPHT and ultra-HPHT wells
will involve extensive laboratory testing. Moreover, the
transition from linear elastic stress analysis to elastic-plastic

SPE 97590

and fracture mechanics analyses will require additional

information about elevated temperature yield and tensile
strengths, fatigue strength, and fracture toughness.

of environmental evaluation for all these systems is a

combination of reviews of published data from laboratory tests
and actual field failure experiences.

Current test methods for qualification of CRAs such as those

found in EFC No. 17, NACE TM0177 (17), NACE
TM0198 (18), and other industry standards do not address these
latter issues directly. Therefore, the push to produce HPHT
wells is likely to require expansion of the existing database of
knowledge concerning CRA behavior in HPHT conditions to
include the effects of higher temperatures and cyclic loading
on the initiation and growth of cracks in these materials. Due
to the expense involved, it is likely that this can be
accomplished only through cooperation between the major
CRA manufacturers and end users.

One of these systems, Socrates by InterCorr, selects CRAs

through evaluations at five major hierarchical levels:

Published Aids for Materials Selection

Craig(11) has presented a series of data plots designed to assist
the reader in making preliminary, conservative selections of
candidate alloys for HPHT and ultra-HPHT wells. The data
covers nine typical alloys, ranging from 13 Cr (UNS
S42000) to C276 (UNS N10276), temperatures up to 300 C,
and H2S partial pressures up to 10,000 psi. The guidelines
reportedly show conditions where corrosion rates are
manageably small (< 2 mpy) and where analysis of the data
indicates that the alloys are not likely to suffer either SSC or
SCC. The guidelines apparently do not apply to brines
containing elemental sulfur or dissolved oxygen contents
greater than ~ 10 ppb.
A number of manufacturers and end users have also developed
guidelines for the use of CRA materials in various production
environments that include HPHT and in some cases ultra
HPHT conditions. Figures 2 through 5 show some of the
manufacturers guidelines, which are remarkably similar
concerning the H2S, chloride, and temperature limitations that
are currently placed on the various alloy families. While the
manufacturers guidelines usually represent conservative
estimates of where corrosion or EAC was observed or is
considered possible for the various classes of CRAs based
upon the temperature and H2S content of the test environment,
it is recommended that detailed discussions be held with the
appropriate manufacturer prior to the selection and use of one
of their materials.
Some end users have published proprietary materials selection
guides for use within their companies. Unlike manufacturers
guidelines, end user guidelines typically reflect usage
information and field failures that have been experienced by
the particular developer or company. Many times they also
reflect, if only indirectly, the risk tolerance of the company.
One such set of guidelines is shown in Figure 6(19). This
example reflects the fact that both static and dynamic tests as
well as input from materials behavior experts may be required
to fully qualify some CRAs for HPHT service.
CRA Expert Systems
At least two organizations have developed computer based
Expert Systems that are intended to assist end users when
selecting CRAs for use in aggressive environments. The basis

CRA selection based on mechanical properties, heat

treatment/cold work, and hardness limitations;
CRA selection based upon characterization of
environmental parameters that are input by the user;
CRA selection based upon resistance to EAC;
CRA selection based upon resistance to pitting corrosion,
and;
CRA selection Selection of final candidate materials
based upon application related constraints.

The system also facilitates database searches for materials that

have been used successfully in environmental conditions that
are specified by the user. The system comes with a cost model
that allows users to compare utilization costs for different
alloys.
The Electronic Corrosion Engineer (ECE) from Intetech, LTD
selects materials (makes recommendations) based upon the
laboratory and field experience in both CO2 and H2S
containing environments. For any set of input parameters, the
model interpolates linearly between actual data points on
Craigs(11) three-dimensional surfaces to establish whether an
alloy is acceptable with respect to its corrosion resistance.
Cracking resistance is mostly evaluated from the same
parameters on the basis of algebraic equations fitted to
boundaries between pass or fail data.
It is likely that expert systems will continue to prove useful for
selecting CRA materials for HPHT wells. However, it is not
clear whether future versions of the systems mentioned above
(and similar systems that were not mentioned) will be revised
to address the fatigue and fracture mechanics issues that are
central to HPHT design verification. In the opinion of the
authors all CRA expert systems would benefit from such
changes.
Finally, it is the authors understanding that both the expert
systems described described above may be purchased or,
alternatively, may be used by their developers to supply
analyses on a case-by-case basis.
CRA Test Methods
Both static and dynamic test methods are used to determine
the performance of CRAs in either sour HPHT and ultraHPHT environments(7-10). Excellent discussions of the
limitations of static and dynamic tests for predicting the
behavior of CRAs in sour HPHT environments can be found
in NACE TM0177 and EFC No. 17.
NACE Standard TM0177 and EFC No. 17 both cover static
constant-load and constant-strain tests using reduced-section
tensile specimens, bent-beam specimens, and C-ring

SPE 97590

specimens. In addition, NACE MR0177 covers testing using

double-cantilever beam (DCB) specimens. While EFC No. 17
does not cover DCB testing, it does include slow strain rate
(SSR) testing, which is also covered by NACE TM0198.
Whereas the longer term static tests found in NACE TM0177
and EFC No. 17 are most often used to qualify alloys for
service, SSR tests are better suited for ranking or screening
alloys for HPHT and ultra-HPHT service. Despite their
successful use in the past, none of the test methods mentioned
above measure the effects of cyclic loading. Therefore, the
available test methods may not prove compatible with
emerging design standards such as ASME VIII-3.
EFC No. 17 and Section 7 of NACE TM0177 both provide for
testing at elevated temperatures and pressures. Any of the four
standard test samples may be used for the high
temperature/high pressure testing. The test solution and gas
mixture to be used in the high temperature and/or pressure
testing are set by the user. NACE MR0175/ISO 15156
prescribes minimum test conditions for qualifying new and
existing alloys for different ranges of sour service.
Both NACE TM0177 and Appendix 4 of EFC No. 17
recommend that that application specific testing be
considered. In this regard, EFC No. 17 states materials
should be evaluated under the most severe environmental and
mechanical conditions that are realistically anticipated for the
intended service. The document then goes on further and
identifies solution pH, chloride concentration, temperature and
hydrogen sulfide partial pressure as the primary environmental
test parameters that need to be controlled. Thus,

The test pH should be less than or equal to the

lowest anticipated production pH,

The H2S partial pressure should be equal to or

greater than the expected production partial pressure,

The chloride concentration of the test solution

should be equal to or greater than that expected
during production, and

The oxygen content of the test solution should be

maintained at 10 ppb, or less.

For constant and sustained load tests (e.g., NACE TM0177

Method A) the EFC document recommends a starting test
stress of 90% of the 0.2% offset yield stress. For constant
strain tests (e.g. NACE TM0177 Methods B and C) the EFC
document recommends a test stress of 100% of the 0.2% offset
yield stress. Consideration should be given to using higher
stresses if they can be reasonably expected or if they are
documented through finite element analysis.
Worldwide CRA Manufacturing Capabilities
The high working and bottomhole pressures of HPHT wells
are likely to result in a need to use large-diameter, heavy-wall
tubing strings. Thick, large diameter CRA tubes are generally
limited to short lengths, which results in an economic trade off

between the increased gas production that can be achieved by

using large diameter tubing and greater completion costs that
result from more connections and longer running times.
We discussed CRA manufacturing capabilities with the
following manufacturers: Sumitomo Metals, Inc. (SMI);
Special Metals Corporation (SMC); Dalmine, Mannesmann &
Vallourec (DMV), and Haynes Corporation (HC). We also
discussed the anticipated needs for CRA tubulars with several
influential end users. The following is a summary of the major
findings resulting from those discussions.
There appears to be gap between the capabilities of
manufacturers for producing long, large diameter CRA
tubulars and the anticipated needs of end users. Tubular mills
are effectively at their capacity for size and strength,
particularly with respect to cold-working facilities. Thus,
while incremental improvements may be possible, large
improvements in the size and strength ranges for CRA
tubulars are not expected.
The industry experience and current knowledge on high CRA
alloys indicate they are mature with respect to corrosion
performance. Future advances in this area are expected to be
marginal.
The challenge lies in increasing worldwide
manufacturing capabilities.
A large increase in manufacturing capability will involve a
significant capital investment on the part of manufacturers.
Such a large capital expenditure is not practical for the
manufacturers without significant guarantees for future orders.
Conclusions
1. Industry experience and current knowledge on CRAs is
relatively mature with respect to corrosion performance
and cracking performance in sour HPHT environments.
Future advances in this area are expected to be marginal.
2.

The trend towards using the fatigue and fracture

mechanics-based design verification methods of ASME
VIII-3 will necessarily need to be supported by materials
performance test data in HPHT environments of interest.
Due to the complexity and expense involved in testing in
HPHT conditions, this data will come slowly unless
testing is supported by both end users and manufacturers.

3.

The large capital expenditures required to increase

worldwide capacity for CRA tubulars is not practical for
the manufacturers without significant guarantees for
future orders and/or financial partnership with the end
users.

References
1.

2.

Tom Baird, Robert Drummond, Dave Mathison, Bjorn

Langseth, and Lisa Silipigno, High-Pressure, HighTemperature Well Logging, Perforating and Testing, Oilfield
Review, Summer 1998, pages 50 67.
Kenneth Young, Chris Alexander, Richard Biel, Updated
Design Methods for HPHT Equipment, SPE Paper 97595, 2005
SPE App. Tech. Workshop on High Pressure/ High Temperature
Sour Well Design, Houston, TX, U.S.A., 17-19 May, 2005.

SPE 97590

3.
4.
5.

6.

7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

18.
19.

ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 2,

Pressure Vessels, Alternative Rules, 2004 edition, New York,
NY.
ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 3,
Pressure Vessels, Alternative Rules for Construction of High
Pressure Vessels, 2004 Edition, New York, NY.
NACE MR0175/ISO 15156-1, Petroleum and Natural Gas
Industries Materials for Use in H2S-Containing Environments
in Oil and Gas Production Part 1: General Principals for
Selection of Cracking-Resistant Materials.
NACE MR0175/ISO 15156-3, Petroleum and Natural Gas
Industries Materials for Use in H2S-Containing Environments
in Oil and Gas Production Part 3: Cracking-Resistant CRAs
(Corrosion Resistant Alloys) and Other Alloys.
R. S. Tresader and R. N. Tuttle, Corrosion in Oil and Gas
Production A Compilation of Classic Papers, NACE, 1981.
J. Kolts and S. W. Ciraldi, Corrosion Resistant Alloys for Oil
and Gas Production, Vols. I & II, NACE, 1996
Corrosion Testing and Modeling in Oil and Gas Production
Classic Papers, NACE 1999.
Corrosion Testing and Modeling in Oil and Gas Production
Latest Research: Papers Published Since 1997, NACE, 1999.
Bruce D. Craig, Selection Guidelines for Corrosion Resistant
Alloys in the Oil and Gas Industry, NiDI Technical Series No.
10 073.
A. Turnbull and A. Griffiths, Corrosion and Cracking of
Weldable 13Cr Martensitic Stainless Steels A Review, NPL
Report MATC(A)108.
Robert N. Gunn, Duplex Stainless Steels Microstructure,
Properties and Applications, Abington Publishing, Cambridge,
England, 1997.
NACE International Publication 1F192), Use of CorrosionResistant Alloys in Oilfield Environments, NACE International,
1993.
NACE MR0175, Sulfide Stress Cracking Resistant Metallic
Materials for Oilfield Equipment, NACE International, Houston
TX, 1996.
EFC Publication No. 17, Corrosion Resistant Alloys for Oil
and Gas Production: General Requirements and Test Methods
for H2S Service, 1996.
NACE Standard TM0177-96, Standard Test Method Laboratory
Testing of Metals for Resistance to Specific Forms of
Environmental Cracking in H2S Environments, NACE
International, Houston, TX, 1996.
NACE
TM0198-2002,
askjfa;slkfjas;lfjas;fkjas;,NACE
International, Houston, TX, 2002.
M. Place, Offshore Technology Conference 1991, Paper No.
OTC6603.

Figure 1. Existing HPHT and ultra-HPHT fields. After Baird, et. al.(1).

SPE 97590

Figure 2. Guidelines for materials selection for sour HPHT and ultra-HPHT wells. Published with permission of DMV.

10

Figure 3. Guidelines for tubulars selection for HPHT and ultra-HPHT wells. Published with permission of Haynes.

SPE 97590

SPE 97590

Figure 4. Additional Guidelines for selection of CRAs for HPHT wells. Published with permission of JFE Steel.

11

Figure 5. Guidelines for tubulars selection for HPHT and ultra-HPHT wells. Published with permission of Sumitomo Metals.

SPE 97590

13

(click on red notes for more information)

Recommended Test Temperature by Alloy Class

START

(based upon specific envirionmental cracking failure mechanism)

version 6.1

Obtain
Representative
Material

INDEX to Guide

Note

Alloy Class
Martensitic Stainless Steel
Super Martensitic Stainless Steel
Duplex Stainless Steel
Austenitic Stainless Steel
Nickel Base Alloys

Service

Primary Test
Temperature

Other Test
Temperature

Room Temp.
Room Temp.
190-220F (88-104C)
Maximum operating temp.
Maximum operating temp.

Maximum operating temp.

Maximum operating temp.
Maximum operating temp.

Note

Acidizing &
Completion

Production

Note
PASS

C-ring

Note

C-Ring or
4.p.b

PASS

SSRT

Note

PASS

Note
FAIL

FAIL

Is alloy
>13Cr

YES

FAIL

RSRT

Note
PASS

NO
FAIL

Alloy not Suitable

Alloy Suitable
Figure 6. Example of a proprietary CRA test protocol. After Rhodes, et.al.(19).

Contact
Specialist

> 25Cr SDSS

Tmax > 400F
NO

Note

YES