Crevice Corrosion Performance of 436 Ferritic Stainless Steel Studied by Different Electrochemical Techniques in Sodium Chloride Solutions with Sulfate Addition

doi:10.1007/s40195-018-0720-x

Abstract

Abstract:

The crevice corrosion behaviors of 436 stainless steels in chloride-containing solutions with sulfate addition were studied using potentiodynamic, galvanostatic and repassivation potential measurements. The results of these electrochemical tests were compared and discussed. Galvanostatic test was proved to be the most powerful technique in detecting the crevice corrosion of 436 stainless steels, while the repassivation potential measurement was the most time-saving method in this study. Sulfate ions have inhibited the crevice corrosion of 436 stainless steels in chloride-containing solution, which may result from the effects of competitive adsorption and the IR drop mechanism.

Key words: Crevice corrosion, Ferritic stainless steels, Electrochemical techniques, Sulfate ions, Competitive adsorption, IR drop mechanism

Jia-Ming Wang, Sheng-Sheng Qian, Yuan-Yuan Liu, Yang-Ting Sun, Yi-Ming Jiang, Jin Li. Crevice Corrosion Performance of 436 Ferritic Stainless Steel Studied by Different Electrochemical Techniques in Sodium Chloride Solutions with Sulfate Addition[J]. Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters), 2018, 31(8): 815-822.

Figures/Tables 10

Table 1 Chemical composition (wt%) of the tested 436 ferritic stainless steel

C	Mn	Si	Cr	P	S	Mo	Nb	Fe
0.01	0.28	0.51	17.66	0.023	0.001	0.87	< 0.01	Bal.

Fig. 1 Crevice former and specimens used in the test (dimensions in millimeters)

Fig. 2 Process diagram of repassivation potential measurements

Fig. 3 Polarization curves of creviced 436 stainless steel specimens at 30 °C in 0.01, 0.1 and 1 M sodium chloride solutions

Fig. 4 Optical images of 436 specimens after potentiodynamic polarization tests stopped at a0.1 mA in 0.01 M sodium chloride b 0.1 mA in 0.1 M sodium chloride c 1 mA in 0.1 M sodium chloride d 0.1 mA in 1 M sodium chloride e 1 mA in 1 M sodium chloride

Fig. 5 E-t curve of the creviced 436 specimens in 1 M sodium chloride and 0.2 M sodium sulfate solutions for 7200 s galvanostatic test at 30 °C

Fig. 6 Optical images of 436 specimens after the galvanostatic tests in 1 M sodium chloride and 0.2 M sodium sulfate solutions for a 2500 s, b 4000 s and c 5500 s, d after the potentiodynamic polarization test in 1 M sodium chloride solution

Fig. 7 Critical breakdown potentials and repassive potentials of creviced 436 stainless steel specimens in 0.01, 0.1 and 1 M sodium chloride solutions

Fig. 8 Potentiodynamic polarization curves of 436 stainless steels in different solutions: a 0.1 M sodium chloride with different sulfate ions, b 1 M sodium chloride with different sulfate ions

Fig. 9 SEM image of 436 stainless steels after potentiodynamic polarization test in 1 M sodium chloride with 0.1 M sodium sulfate solution

References

[1]	J.W. Oldfield, W.H. Sutton, Brit. Corros. J. 13, 13(1978)
[2]	J.W. Oldfield, W.H. Sutton, Brit. Corros. J. 13, 104(1978)
[3]	H.W. Pickering, R.P. Frankenthal, J. Electrochem. Soc. 119, 1297(1972)
[4]	F. Bocher, R. Huang, J.R. Scully, Corrosion 66, 055002 (2010)
[5]	J.R. Hayes, J.J. Gray, A.W. Szmodis, C.A. Orme, Corrosion 62, 491 (2006)
[6]	B.A. Kehler, J.R. Scully, Corrosion 61, 665 (2005)
[7]	B.A. Kehler, G.O. Ilevbare, J.R. Scully, Corrosion 57, 1042 (2001)
[8]	F. Bocher, F. Presuel-Moreno, J.R. Scully, J. Electrochem. Soc. C 155, 256 (2008)
[9]	X. He, B. Brettmann, H. Jung, Corrosion 65, 449 (2009)
[10]	K.J. Evans, A. Yilmaz, S.D. Day, L.L. Wong, J.C. Estill, R.B. Rebak, JOM 57, 56 (2005)
[11]	A.K. Mishra, G.S. Frankel, Corrosion 64, 836 (2008)
[12]	G.O. Ilevbare, K.J. King, S.R. Gordon, H.A. Elayat, G.E. Gdowski, T. Gdowski, J. Electrochem. Soc. B 152, 547 (2005)
[13]	D.D. Macdonald, A.C. Scott, P. Wentrcek, J. Electrochem. Soc. 126, 1618(1979)
[14]	A. Anderko, N. Sridhar, D.S. Dunn, Corros. Sci. 46, 1583(2004)
[15]	M. Rincón Ortiz, R.M. Carranza, M.A. Rodríguez, J. Phys: Conf. Ser. 786, 012034(2017)
[16]	Y. Zuo, H. Du, J.P. Xiong, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 16, 286(2000)
[17]	Y. Zuo, H.T. Wang, J.M. Zhao, J.P. Xiong, Corros. Sci. 44, 13(2002)
[18]	Y.L. Chou, Y.C. Wang, J.W. Yeh, H.C. Shih, Corros. Sci. 52, 3481(2010)
[19]	Y.Y. Chen, L.B. Chou, H.C. Shih, Mater. Chem. Phys. 97, 37(2006)
[20]	L. Niu, K. Nakada, Corros. Sci. 96, 171(2015)
[21]	L. Niu, H. Kato, K. Shiokawa, K. Nakamura, M. Yamashita, Y. Sakai, Mater. Trans. 54, 2225(2013)
[22]	ASTM G48-03, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, vol. 03.05(ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005)
[23]	Z. Szklarska-Smialowska, J. Mankowski, Corros. Sci. 11, 953(1978)
[24]	M.A.M. Mater. Chem. Phys. 115, 80(2009)
[25]	Q. Yang, J.L. Luo, Electrochim. Acta 46, 851 (2001)
[26]	M.A. Ameer, A.M. Fekry, F.E. Heakal, Electrochim. Acta 50, 43 (2004)
[27]	S.S. J. Appl. Electrochem. 34, 1153(2004)
[28]	E. Meguid, N.A. Mahmoud, S. Rehim, Mater. Chem. Phys. 63, 67(2000)
[29]	Q. Hu, G. Zhang, Y. Qiu, X. Guo, Corros. Sci. 53, 4065(2011)
[30]	T. Aoyama, Y. Sugawara, I. Muto, N. Hara, Corros. Sci. 127, 131(2017)
[31]	C.S. Brossia, R.G. Kelly, Corrosion 54, 145 (1998)
[32]	T. Aoyama, Y. Sugawara, I. Muto, N. Hara, Corros. Sci. 127, 131(2017)