Role of Martensite Structural Characteristics on Corrosion Features in Ni-Advanced Dual-Phase Low-Alloy Steels

doi:10.1007/s40195-020-01145-6

Abstract

Abstract:

The relationship between the corrosion resistance and martensite structure of Ni-advanced dual-phase weathering steel was studied using transmission electron microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, electrochemical analysis, and atomic force microscopy. The investigations indicate that the final microstructure of the dual-phase weathering steel was composed of a large amount of low-carbon lath martensite distributed in the ferrite matrix. The potential of the martensite phase is higher than that of ferrite, which acts as a microcathode. As the martensite volume fraction in the Ni-advanced dual-phase weathering steel increased, the corrosion rate increased owing to the greater galvanic couple formed between the ferrite and martensite from the increasing ratio of the cathode area to the anode area. In addition, this work provides a method to obtain advanced weathering steel with improved mechanical properties and corrosion resistance.

Key words: Weathering steel, Corrosion, Martensite, Dual phase, Galvanic couple

Chao Hai, Xuequn Cheng, Cuiwei Du, Xiaogang Li. Role of Martensite Structural Characteristics on Corrosion Features in Ni-Advanced Dual-Phase Low-Alloy Steels[J]. Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters), 2021, 34(6): 802-812.

Figures/Tables 13

Fig. 1 Schematic representation of the applied thermal cycles

Table 1 Parameters for the cycle corrosion test

Cycle time (min)	Immersion time (min)	Drying time (min)	Solution temperature (°C)	Sample surface temperature (°C)	Relative humidity	Test period (h)
60	15	45	40	40 ± 2	40 ± 2	72

Table 2 Hardness of the DP WSs formed with different heat treatments

Heat temp.	Microstructure	MVF (%)	Hardness (HRC)
880 °C for 30 min, then normalizing	Ferrite + pearlite	6.7 (the volume fraction of pearlite)	17.8
820 °C for 30 min, then oil quenching	Ferrite + lath Martensite + RA	59.02	22.8
850 °C for 30 min, then oil quenching	Ferrite + lath Martensite + RA	74.11	27.5
880 °C for 30 min, then oil quenching	Martensite + RA	≈ 100	32.5

Fig. 2 TEM images of the DP WSs treated with different heat treatments: a 59.02% martensite, b 74.11% martensite, c, d 100% martensite

Fig. 3 AFM results of the WS with 59.02% martensite: a surface topography, b surface potential distribution map, c analysis results of line A, d analysis results of line B, e analysis results of line C, f statistical results of the potential differences between different phases (V1 is the average potential difference between martensite and ferrite, V2 is the potential difference between the slats, and V3 is the potential difference between the ferrite grain boundary and the ferrite)

Fig. 4 AFM results of the WS with almost 100% martensite: a surface topography, b surface potential distribution map, c analysis results of line A, d analysis results of line B

Fig. 5 Polarization curves of WSs after different heat treatments

Fig. 6 EIS results of the DP WSs: a Nyquist, b Bode plots

Table 3 Electrochemical impedance spectrum fitting data

Heat temp.	R_s (Ω cm²)	Cdl	R_ct (Ω cm²)
None Martensite	6.17	6.985 × 10^-4	1877
59.02% martensite	5.75	9.246 × 10^-4	1486
74.11% martensite	6.45	9.551 × 10^-4	1154
100% martensite	6.77	7.752 × 10^-4	1228

Fig. 7 SEM micrographs of corroded samples after polarization testing: a none martensite, b 59.02% martensite, c 74.11% martensite, d 100% martensite

Fig. 8 Corrosion rate of the treated specimens

Fig. 9 Surface morphologies of WSs after immersion for 30 d in a 3.5% NaCl solution: a none martensite, b 59.02% martensite, c 74.11% martensite, d 100% martensite

Fig. 10 Raman results of the WSs after immersion for 30 d in a 3.5% NaCl solution: a none martensite, b 59.02% martensite, c 74.11% martensite, d 100% martensite

References 34

[1]	X.G. Li, D.W. Zhang, Z.Y. Liu, C.W. Du, C.F. Dong, Nature 1, 441 (2015)
[2]	W. Wu, X.Q. Cheng, H.X. Hou, B. Liu, X.G. Li, Appl. Surf. Sci. 436, 80 (2018) DOI URL
[3]	X.Q. Cheng, Y.W. Tian, X.G. Li, C. Zhou, Mater. Corros. 65, 1033 (2014)
[4]	L. Bhagavathi, G. Chaudhari, S. Nath, Mater. Des. 32, 433 (2011) DOI URL
[5]	X.Q. Cheng, Z. Jin, M. Liu, X.G. Li, Corros. Sci. 115, 135 (2017) DOI URL
[6]	T. Kamimura, S. Hara, H. Miyuki, M. Yamashita, H. Uchida, Corros. Sci. 48, 2799 (2006) DOI URL
[7]	X.L. Gao, G.Q. Fu, M.Y. Zhu, Acta Metall. Sin. (Engl. Lett.) 25, 295 (2012)
[8]	X.H. Chen, J.H. Dong, E.H. Han, W. Ke, Mater. Lett. 61, 4050 (2007) DOI URL
[9]	M. Kimura, T. Suzuki, G. Shigesato, H. Kihira, S. Suzuki, ISIJ Int. 42, 1534 (2002) DOI URL
[10]	X.H. Chen, J.H. Dong, E.H. Han, W. Ke, Can. Metall. Quart. 46, 195 (2007) DOI URL
[11]	B. Mintz, Int. Mater. Rev. 46, 169 (2001) DOI URL
[12]	O. Keleştemur, S. Yıldız, Constr. Build. Mate. 23, 78 (2009) DOI URL
[13]	H.F. Lan, X.H. Liu, L.X. Du, Acta Metall Sin. (Engl. Lett.) 25, 443 (2012)
[14]	T. Hsu, Z. Xu, Mater. Sci. Forum 561-565, 2283(2007)
[15]	H. Hofmann, D. Mattissen, T.W. Schaumann, Steel Res. Int. 37, 715 (2006)
[16]	O. Bouaziz, H. Zurob, M. Huang, Seel Res. Int. 84, 937 (2013)
[17]	C.W. Zheng, D. Raabe, Acta. Mate. 61, 5504 (2013) DOI URL
[18]	S. Kuang, Y.L. Kang, H. Yu, R.D. Liu, Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mate. 16, 159 (2009)
[19]	C.L. Zhang, D.Y. Cai, B. Liao, T.Z. Zhao, Y.C. Fan, Mater. Lett. 58, 1524 (2004) DOI URL
[20]	T. Allam, M. Abbas, Steel Res. Int. 86, 231 (2015) DOI URL
[21]	Z.G. Liu, X.H. Gao, L.X. Du, J.P. Li, Y. Kuang, B. Wu, Appl. Surf. Sci. 351, 610 (2015) DOI URL
[22]	P. Sarkar, P. Kumar, M. Manna, P. Chakraborti, Mater. Lett. 59, 2488 (2005) DOI URL
[23]	A. Davoodi, J. Pan, C. Leygraf, S. Norgren, Electrochim. Acta 52, 7697 (2007)
[24]	P.G. Ulyanov, D.Y. Usachov, A.V. Fedorov, Appl. Surf. Sci. 267, 216 (2013) DOI URL
[25]	C. Liu, R. Revilla, Z.Y. Liu, D.W. Zhang, X.G. Li, H. Terryn, Corros. Sci. 129, 82 (2017) DOI URL
[26]	J. Wei, J.H. Dong, W. Ke, X.Y. He, Corros. Sci. Sec. 21, 1467 (2015)
[27]	C. Liu, R. Revilla, D.W. Zhang, Z.Y. Liu, A. Lutz, F. Zhang, T.L. Zhao, H.C. Ma, X.G. Li, H. Terryn, Corros. Sci. 138, 96 (2018) DOI URL
[28]	L. Cheng, Q.W. Cai, J.L. Lv, W. Yu, H. Miura, J. Alloy. Compd. 746, 482 (2018) DOI URL
[29]	K.S. Park, K.T. Park, D.L. Lee, C.S. Lee, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 449-451, 1135(2007)
[30]	Q.F. Xu, K.W. Gao, Y.B. Wang, X.L. Pang, Appl. Surf. Sci. 345, 10 (2015) DOI URL
[31]	Y.G. Yang, T. Zhang, Y.W. Shao, G.Z. Meng, F.H. Wang, Corros. Sci. 71, 62 (2013) DOI URL
[32]	Z.Y. Cui, X.G. Li, C. Man, K. Xiao, C.F. Dong, X. Wang, Z.Y. Liu J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 24, 2885 (2015) DOI URL
[33]	C. Thee, L. Hao, J.H. Dong, X. Mu, W. Ke, Acta Metall. Sin. (Engl. Lett.) 28, 261 (2015) DOI URL
[34]	C.Y. Zhang, T. Zhang, Y.Q. Wang, F.F. Wei, Y.W. Shao, G.Z. Meng, F.H. Wang, K. Wu, J. Electrochem. Soc. 162, 754 (2015)