Influence of Sn and Mo on corrosion behavior of ferrite-pearlite steel in the simulated bottom plate environment of cargo oil tank

doi:10.1016/j.jmst.2018.11.012

摘要/Abstract

Abstract:

This work investigated the influence of Sn and Mo on corrosion behavior of ferrite-pearlite steel in the simulated bottom plate environment of cargo oil tank. The results indicate that the corrosion rate of three ferrite-pearlite steels increased with extending the immersion time due to the continuous accumulation of the residual Fe₃C. However, the addition of Sn or the combined addition of Sn and Mo could reduce the corrosion rate of Sn containing steel and Sn-Mo containing steel to 37.5% and 20% of that of carbon steel, respectively. Moreover, the cathodic reaction of Sn containing steel and Sn-Mo containing steel was always controlled by the charge transfer step during the whole immersion test, while that of carbon steel was gradually transformed into the diffusion-controlled process. These results were mainly related with the deposition of metallic Sn and Mo on the steel surface. The metallic Sn and Mo with uniform distribution restrained the galvanic effect through suppressing both the anodic dissolution of ferrite and cathodic hydrogen evolution reaction on the residual Fe₃C.

Key words: Sn, Mo, SEM, EPMA, EIS

. [J]. 材料科学与技术, 2019, 35(5): 799-811.

Xuehui Hao, Junhua Dong, Xin Mu, Jie Wei, Changgang Wang, Wei Ke. Influence of Sn and Mo on corrosion behavior of ferrite-pearlite steel in the simulated bottom plate environment of cargo oil tank[J]. J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2019, 35(5): 799-811.

图/表 17

Table 1 Chemical compositions of three rolled steel plates (wt.%).

Material	C	Si	Mn	P	S	Sn	Mo	Fe
Steel A	0.070	0.35	1.12	0.009	0.012	-	-	balance
Steel B	0.074	0.15	1.21	0.008	0.002	0.074	-	balance
Steel C	0.074	0.17	1.23	0.008	0.003	0.074	0.06	balance

Fig. 1 Metallographic photos and SEM images of three kinds of steel (a, a') Steel A; (b, b') Steel B; (c, c') Steel C.

Fig. 2 The thickness loss (a) and average corrosion rate (b) of three kinds of steel in an acidic chloride solution containing 10?wt.% NaCl with pH?=?0.85 at 30?±?2?°C as a function of immersion time.

Table 2 The number (m) of dissolved grain layers and projected area fraction (Ac, m) of the residual Fe3C on the surface of Steel A, B and C after immersion in the acidic chloride solution of 10?wt.% NaCl with pH?=?0.85 at 30?±?2?°C for different time.

t h	Steel A		Steel B		Steel C
t h	m	A_c_{, m}, %	m	A_c_{, m}, %	m	A_c_{, m}, %
0	0	0	0	0	0	0
24	0	0	0	0	0	0
48	1	8	0	0	0	0
72	2	15.4	1	8	0	0
144	4	28.4	2	15.4	1	8
216	6	39.4	4	28.4	2	15.4
288	8	48.7	5	34.1	3	22.1

Fig. 3 Surface SEM images, the corresponding EDS results and the cross-sectional morphologies of three kinds of steel after immersion for 288?h in an acidic chloride solution containing 10?wt.% NaCl with pH?=?0.85 at 30?±?2?°C (a, a' (spot 1), a”) Steel A; (b, b' (spot 2), b”) Steel B; (c, c' (spot 3), c”) Steel C.

Fig. 4 The elemental mappings of the surface of Steels A, B and C after immersion for 288?h in an acidic chloride solution containing 10?wt.% NaCl with pH?=?0.85 at 30?±?2?°C (a) Steel A; (b) Steel B; (c) Steel C.

Fig. 5 XPS spectra of Sn and Mo elements on the surface of the samples after immersion for 288?h in an acidic chloride solution containing 10?wt.% NaCl with pH?=?0.85 at 30?±?2?°C.

Fig. 6 XRD patterns of three kinds of steel after immersion for 288?h in an acidic chloride solution containing 10?wt.% NaCl with pH?=?0.85 at 30?±?2?°C (a) Steel A; (b) Steel B; (c) Steel C.

Fig. 7 The OCP vs. immersion time of three kinds of steel immersed in the acidic chloride solution containing 10?wt.% NaCl with pH?=?0.85 at 30?±?2?°C. The green arrow represents the time node when each EIS measurement was carried out.

Fig. 8 E-pH diagrams for Sn-H2O system (a) and Fe-Mo-H2O system (b) at 25 °C. The concentrations of the anions and cations are taken as 10-6 mol/L. The pink line indicates the state of Sn2+ and Mo3+ in the first 24?h, while the blue line indicates the state of metallic Sn and Mo in the duration of 24-288?h.

Fig. 9 Potentiodynamic polarization curves of three kinds of steel after immersion in an acidic chloride solution containing 10?wt.% NaCl with pH?=?0.85 at 30?±?2?°C for different time (a) Steel A; (b) Steel B; (c) Steel C.

Fig. 10 Comparison of potentiodynamic polarization curves of three kinds of steel after immersion in the acidic chloride solution containing 10?wt.% NaCl with pH?=?0.85 at 30?±?2?°C for (a) 0?h, (b) 72?h and (c) 288?h.

Fig. 11 EIS plots for three kinds of steel in the acidic chloride solution containing 10?wt.% NaCl with pH?=?0.85 at 30?±?2?°C (a, a') Steel A; (b, b') Steel B; (c, c') Steel C.

Fig. 12 The equivalent circuit (EC) applied to simulate EIS data of three kinds of steel.

Table 3 The impedance parameters obtained by using the EC to fit the EIS spectra of Steel A after immersion in the acidic chloride solution containing 10?wt.% NaCl with pH?=?0.85 at 30?±?2?°C for different time.

th	L’×10⁷H?cm²	R_sΩ?cm²	Y₀₁-Q₁×10⁴Ω^-1?cm^-2?s^-n	n₁	R₁Ω?cm²	C₂×10⁵F?cm^-2	R₂Ω?cm²	Y₀₃-Q₃×10³Ω^-1?cm^-2?s^-n	n₃	R₃Ω?cm²	L H?cm^-2	R_L Ω?cm²	Chi-squared x²
0	3.787	0.9607	1.213	0.9071	4.453	2.081	44.7	0.1212	0.8773	56.79	1856	372.8	5.78?×?10^-4
24	2.606	1.827	1.839	0.8755	2.846	2.479	42.31	0.5431	0.814	51.49	871.5	307.1	2.83?×?10^-4
48	2.648	1.82	2.192	0.8663	2.113	3.047	41.16	0.8383	0.7889	50.97	619	281.8	8.79?×?10^-4
72	2.916	1.843	2.928	0.8545	1.252	4.825	39.36	2.417	0.6291	50.5	510.8	221.5	4.01?×?10^-4
144	2.272	1.94	4.149	0.8479	0.7759	7.052	17.05	2.731	0.5275	45.14	-	-	2.33?×?10^-4
216	1.918	1.842	6.293	0.8158	0.5637	9.775	2.948	5.217	0.3541	36.28	-	-	4.77?×?10^-4
288	2.26	1.829	8.151	0.7658	0.1015	11.17	1.671	14.24	0.3931	23.82	-	-	3.42?×?10^-4

Table 4 The impedance parameters obtained by using the EC to fit the EIS spectra of Steel B after immersion in the acidic chloride solution containing 10?wt.% NaCl with pH?=?0.85 at 30?±?2?°C for different time.

th	L’×10⁷H?cm²	R_sΩ?cm²	Y₀₁-Q₁×10⁵Ω^-1?cm^-2?s^-n	n₁	R₁Ω?cm²	C₂×10³ F?cm^-2	R₂Ω?cm²	Y₀₃-Q₃×10³Ω^-1?cm^-2?s^-n	n₃	R₃Ω?cm²	LH?cm^-2	R_LΩ?cm²	Chi-squaredx²
0	2.197	1.765	10.77	0.8645	1.357	13.47	5.336	0.185	0.7083	39.26	2.597?×?10⁵	95.81	5.67?×?10^-4
24	-	1.668	15.05	0.8087	145.6	0.6429	159.6	0.0049	1	436.4	8.20?×?10⁴	122.3	5.19?×?10^-4
48	-	1.053	2.215	1	2.875	2.579	41.54	0.12	0.7914	69.25	2.19?×?10⁴	93.08	9.72?×?10^-4
72	-	1.628	4.161	0.9044	69.69	2.5	59.86	3.161	0.6128	155.4	1.43?×?10⁴	91.1	7.78?×?10^-4
144	-	1.866	3.504	0.8982	40.08	26.16	53.18	3.606	0.7818	150.8	1.22?×?10⁴	81.1	1.11?×?10^-3
216	-	1.872	3.934	0.8995	30.87	28.63	23.34	8.016	0.7311	138.5	8764	22.69	6.39?×?10^-4
288	2.82	1.643	8.706	0.8937	42.42	53.83	18.35	12.95	0.8132	97.24	-	-	3.71?×?10^-4

Table 5 The impedance parameters obtained by using the EC to fit the EIS spectra of Steel C after immersion in the acidic chloride solution containing 10?wt.% NaCl with pH?=?0.85 at 30?±?2?°C for different time.

th	L’×10⁷H?cm²	R_sΩ?cm²	Y₀₁-Q₁×10⁵Ω^-1?cm^-2?s^-n	n₁	R₁Ω?cm²	C₂×10³F?cm^-2	R₂Ω?cm²	Y₀₃-Q₃×10³Ω^-1?cm^-2?s^-n	n₃	R₃Ω?cm²	LH?cm^-2	R_LΩ?cm²	Chi-squaredx²
0	2.147	1.922	16.65	0.8989	5.665	11.35	46.05	0.056	0.8171	57.1	-	-	1.11?×?10^-4
24	-	2.145	8.192	0.8759	152.7	0.3841	169.5	0.037	0.7145	196.6	3.296?×?10⁴	3907	5.52?×?10^-4
48	2.962	1.005	5.542	0.9129	4.227	2.337	43.58	0.062	0.8259	66.95	2.596?×?10⁴	3878	1.06?×?10^-3
72	1.164	0.8746	7.208	0.8915	149.8	3.982	76.26	0.910	0.7088	186.0	1.981?×?10⁴	1950	1.39?×?10^-3
144	2.797	1.859	6.856	0.8663	148.6	9.81	75.2	1.839	0.8994	184.7	1.73?×?10⁴	1840	5.77?×?10^-4
216	2.263	1.848	4.529	0.8884	32.31	12.62	23.58	9.094	0.7313	139.3	9232	288.2	6.13?×?10^-4
288	3.349	1.148	6.356	0.8814	12.4	85.73	9.477	16.07	0.6096	96.85	4218	207.4	4.10?×?10^-4

参考文献

[1]	J.P. Han, Y. Li, Z.H. Jiang, Y.C. Yang, X.X. Wang, L. Wang, K.T. Li, Adv. Mater. Res.773(2013) 406-411.
[2]	S.H. Song, Z.X. Yuan, J. Jia, D.D. Shen, A.M. Guo, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 34(2003) 1611-1616.
[3]	H.B. Peng, W.Q. Chen, W.L. Chen, D. Guo, High Temp. Mater. Process. 33 (2)(2014) 179-185.
[4]	M.S. Geng, X.H. Wang, J.M. Zhang, W.J. Wang, J.G. Xiao, Int. J. Miner. Metall.Mater. 31(2009) 434-439.
[5]	D. Itzhak, S. Harush, Corros. Sci. 25(1985) 883-888.
[6]	H.X. Li, H. Yu, T. Zhou, B.L. Yi, S.J. Yin, Y.L. Zhang, Mater. Des. 84(2015) 1-9.
[7]	A. Pardo, M.C. Merino, M. Carboneras, F. Viejo, R. Arrabal, J. Mu?noz, Corros. Sci.48(2006) 1075-1092.
[8]	K. Takizawa, Y. Nakayama, K. Kurokawa, E. Hirai, H. Imai, Corros. Eng. 39(1990) 3-9.
[9]	A. Pardo, M.C. Merino, M. Carboneras, A.E. Coy, R. Arrabal, Corros. Sci. 49(2007) 510-525.
[10]	N.D. Nam, M.J. Kim, Y.W. Jang, J.G. Kim, Corros. Sci. 52(2010) 14-20.
[11]	K. Sugimoto, Y. Sawada, Corros. Sci. 17(1977) 425-445.
[12]	C.R. Clayton, Y.C. Lu, J. Electrochem.Soc. 133(1986) 2465-2473.
[13]	L. Hao, S.X. Zhang, J.H. Dong, W. Ke, Corros. Sci. 54(2012) 244-250.
[14]	M. Ray, V.B. Singh, J. Electrochem.Soc. 158(2011) 359-368.
[15]	W. Yang, R.C. Ni, H.Z. Hua, A. Pourbaix, Corros. Sci. 24(1984) 691-707.
[16]	K. Hashimoto, K. Asami, A. Kawashima, H. Habazaki, E. Akiyama, Corros. Sci.49(2007) 42-52.
[17]	A. Pardo, M.C. Merino, A.E. Coy, F. Viejo, R. Arrabal, E. Matykina, Corros. Sci. 50(2008) 780-794.
[18]	W.Y. Lai, W.Z. Zhao, Z.F. Yin, J. Zhang, Surf. Interface Anal. 44(2012) 505-512.
[19]	J.B. Sun, G.A. Zhang, W. Liu, M.X. Liu, Corros. Sci. 57(2012) 131-138.
[20]	J.W. Tang, Y.W. Shao, J.B. Guo, T. Zhang, G.Z. Meng, F.H. Wang, Corros. Sci. 52(2010) 2050-2058.
[21]	X.H. Hao, J.H. Dong, I.N. Etim, J. Wei, W. Ke, Corros. Sci. 110(2016) 296-304.
[22]	GB/T17848-1999, Quality Carbon Structural Steels, China Standard Press,Beijing, 1999.
[23]	IMO,Resolut. MSC 289 (87) (2010).
[24]	ASTM G1-03, Standard Practice for Preparing, Cleaning,EvaluatingCorrosion Test Specimens, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,2011.
[25]	ISO 14250, Steel-Metallographic Characterization of Duplex Grain Size andDistributions, International Standards Organization, Geneva, 2000.
[26]	ASTM E1245-03, Standard practice for determining the inclusion orsecond-phase constituent content of metals by automatic image analysis,ASTM International,WestConshohocken,PA, 2016.
[27]	K.D. Ralston, N. Birbilis, Corrosion 66 (2010), 075005-075005-13.
[28]	M.F. Montemore, A.M.P. Simoes, M.G.S. Ferreira, M. Da Cunha Belo, Corros. Sci.41(1999) 17-34.
[29]	M. Anwar, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 21 (2007) 1027-1042.
[30]	D.M. Cui, Z. Zheng, X. Peng, T. Li, T.T. Sun, L.J. Yuan, J. Power Sources 362(2017) 20-26.
[31]	T.J. Mesquita, E. Chauveau, M. Mamtel, R.P. Nogueira, Appl. Surf. Sci. 270(2013) 90-97.
[32]	T.J. Morley, L. Penner, P. Schaffer, T.J. Ruth, F. Bénard, E. Asselin, Electrochem.Commun. 15(2012) 78-80.
[33]	H. Luo, C.F. Dong, K. Xiao, X.G. Li, Appl. Surf. Sci. 258(2011) 631-639.
[34]	E. Deltombe, D. de Zoubov, C. Vanleugenhaghe,M. Pourbaix, in: M. Pourbaix(Ed.), Atlas of Electrochemical Equilibria in Aqueous Solutions, PergamonPress, New York, 1974, pp. 475-484.
[35]	W. Yang, R.C. Ni, H.Z. Hua, Corros. Sci. 24(1984) 691-707.
[36]	C.I. House, G.H. Kelsall, Electrochim. Acta 29 (1984) 1459-1464.
[37]	J.B. Lee, Corrosion 37 (1981) 467-481.
[38]	P.M. Wang, L.L. Wilson, D.J. Wesolowski, J. Rosenqvist, A. Anderko, Corros. Sci.52(2010) 1625-1634.
[39]	A. Kolmakov, Y.X. Zhang, M. Moskovits, Nano Lett. 3(2003) 1125-1129.
[40]	R.O. Ansell, T. Dickinson, A.F. Povey, P.M.A. Sherwood, J. Electroanal. Chem.Interfacial Electrochem. 98(1979) 79-89.
[41]	S. Trasatti, J. Electroanal.Chem. 39(1972) 163-184.
[42]	T. Baldhoff, A.T. Marshall, J. Electrochem.Soc. 164(2017) 46-53.
[43]	T.A. Vida, A. Conde, E.S. Freitas, M.A. Arenas, N. Cheung, C. Brito, J.Damborenea, A. Garciaa, J. AlloysCompd. 723(2017) 536-547.