On the localised corrosion of carbon steel induced by the in-situ local damage of porous corrosion products

doi:10.1016/j.jmst.2020.03.041

Abstract

Abstract:

The effect of in-situ local damage of uniform porous corrosion products on the localised corrosion of carbon steel is investigated using the wire beam electrode technique (WBE) combined with morphology characterisation and electrochemical tests. The WBE measurements demonstrate that the localised corrosion is enhanced by the in-situ local removal of porous corrosion products, supported by the morphology characterisation and electrochemical tests. The enhanced localised corrosion does not originate from the damaged wire in WBE where the corrosion products are removed but from the other undamaged wires, which is reported for the first time. A mechanism is proposed that the intensive anodic polarisation effect of the damaged wire on the undamaged wires could account for the enhanced localised corrosion, which is due to the protective corrosion products newly formed on the damaged surface and the increase in the potential of damaged wire.

Key words: Carbon steel, Localised corrosion, Wire beam electrode, Corrosion products

Lin Pang, Zhengbin Wang, Yugui Zheng, Xueming Lai, Xu Han. On the localised corrosion of carbon steel induced by the in-situ local damage of porous corrosion products[J]. J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2020, 54: 95-104.

Figures/Tables 13

Fig. 1. Illustration of the test system with the wire beam electrode.

Fig. 2. XRD spectrum for corrosion products on the coupon sample at the end of 240 h pre-immersion test.

Fig. 3. Detailed XPS spectra of (a) O 1s and (b) Fe 2p3/2 for corrosion products of the coupon sample at the end of 240 h pre-immersion test.

Fig. 4. SEM images of (a) the front view (enlarged picture in (b)) and (c) the cross-section of the coupon sample at the end of 240 h pre-immersion test.

Fig. 5. (a) Potential (E) and (b) galvanic current density (ig) distribution maps of WBE at the end of 240 h pre-immersion test.

Fig. 6. (a-f) Potential and (g-l) galvanic current density distribution maps of WBE at (a, b) 2 h, (c, d) 12 h, (e, f) 24 h, (g, h) 72 h, (i, j) 144 h and (k, l) 240 h after the corrosion products on wire 0905 are in-situ removed.

Fig. 7. Statistical and calculated results of (a) maximum potential Emax and minimum potential Emin, (b) potential difference E between Emax and Emin, (c) maximum galvanic current densities ig,max and (d) localised corrosion intensity index LCII and number of anodes Na obtained from the potential and galvanic current density distribution maps of Fig. 5, Fig. 6.

Fig. 8. SEM front view images of (a) wire 0905 (enlarged picture in (b)) and (c) wire 0703 (enlarged picture in (d)) at 240 h after the corrosion products on wire 0905 are removed.

Fig. 9. (a, c) Representative CLSM images of wires 0905 and 0703 and (b, d) the line scan of Z values of wires 0905 and 0703 along the direction of the arrow at 240 h after the corrosion products on wire 0905 are removed.

Fig. 10. (a, c) Nyquist plots and (b, d) Bode plots of (a, b) wire 0905 and (c, d) wire 0703 after the corrosion products on wire 0905 are in-situ removed. Symbols represent the experimental data and lines represent the fitted data. BRCP means the results before the in-situ removal of corrosion products.

Table 1 Electrochemical parameters obtained by fitting the EIS data in Fig. 10.

Sample	Time (h)	R_s (Ω cm²)	Q_dl (mF cm^-2)	n₁	R_ct (Ω cm²)	Q_f (mF cm^-2)	n₂	R_f (Ω cm²)	χ²
Wire	0	0.8690	0.301	0.951	1301	1.383	0.544	1454	1.02 × 10^-3
0905	2	0.8409	0.467	0.914	374.6	3.969	0.361	383.8	9.44 × 10^-4
	12	0.8612	0.341	0.948	1215	1.462	0.548	1389	1.05 × 10^-3
	24	0.8396	0.332	0.947	1306	1.628	0.607	1149	1.06 × 10^-3
	72	0.8754	0.317	0.951	1471	1.156	0.590	1466	1.05 × 10^-3
	144	0.8148	0.323	0.951	1804	1.068	0.630	1710	9.82 × 10^-4
	240	0.8501	0.329	0.951	1964	0.997	0.632	1965	8.61 × 10^-4
Wire	0	0.8740	0.276	0.934	469.5	1.706	0.465	1554	3.68 × 10^-4
0703	2	0.8696	0.259	0.938	548.9	1.572	0.484	1832	3.77 × 10^-4
	12	0.8829	0.242	0.942	580.5	1.531	0.461	2076	3.76 × 10^-4
	24	0.8581	0.242	0.940	590.1	1.568	0.473	1789	3.74 × 10^-4
	72	0.8763	0.231	0.942	708.3	1.175	0.464	2199	5.59 × 10^-4
	144	0.8701	0.24	0.942	995	0.999	0.483	2148	4.72 × 10^-4
	240	0.8917	0.243	0.947	1070	0.600	0.450	2852	3.54 × 10^-4

Fig. 11. Variation tendency of (a) potential and (b) galvanic current density of wires 0905 and 0703 obtained from the potential and galvanic current density distribution maps of Fig. 5, Fig. 6.

Fig. 12. Schematic diagram of the corrosion mechanism after the in-situ removal of corrosion products on wire 0905.

References 46

[1]	A. Benamor, A.G. Talkhan, M. Nasser, I. Hussein, P.C. Okonkwo, J. Electroanal. Chem. 808 (2018) 218-227.
[2]	Q.L. Cheng, B. Tao, L.Y. Song, W.H. Zhang, X.Y. Liu, W.H. Li, B.R. Hou, Q.Z. Liu, Corros. Sci. 111 (2016) 61-71.
[3]	H. Mansoori, B. Brown, D. Young, S. Nešić, M. Singer, Corrosion 75 (2019) 1434-1449.
[4]	Y.Z. Xu, Y. Huang, L.M. He, F. Yang, X. Wang, Anti-Corros. Methods Mater. 64 (2017) 148-161.
[5]	Y.N. Zhang, T.L. Wang, X. Han, Z.M. Wang, J. Zhang, Corros. Sci. 105 (2016) 190-201.
[6]	M. Liu, J. Wang, W. Ke, E.H. Han, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 30 (2014) 504-510.
[7]	Y.J. Tan, Y. Fwu, K. Bhardwaj, Corros. Sci. 53 (2011) 1254-1261.
[8]	T.Q. Ansari, J.L. Luo, S.Q. Shi, npj Mater.Degrad. 3 (2019) 1-12.
[9]	H.G. Xiao, W. Ye, X.P. Song, Y.T. Ma, Y. Li, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 34 (2018) 1387-1396.
[10]	X. Wang, R.E. Melchers, J. Loss Prev, Process Ind. 45 (2017) 29-42.
[11]	J.W. Wu, X.G. Li, C.W. Du, S. Wang, Y.Q. Song, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 21 (2005) 28-32.
[12]	E.M. Suarez, L.L. Machuca, B. Kinsella, K. Lepkova, Corrosion 75 (2019) 1118-1127.
[13]	Y. Huang, Y. Xu, B. Li, L. Ying, F. Yang, X. Wang, Corros. Eng. Sci. Technol. 51 (2016) 211-222.
[14]	J. Huang, The University of Manchester, 2013.
[15]	G.A. Zhang, N. Yu, L.Y. Yang, X.P. Guo, Corros. Sci. 86 (2014) 202-212.
[16]	G.Z. Meng, C. Zhang, Y.F. Cheng, Corros. Sci. 50 (2008) 3116-3122.
[17]	R. Barker, D. Burkle, T. Charpentier, H. Thompson, A. Neville, Corros. Sci. 142 (2018) 312-341.
[18]	D.P. Burkle, The University ofManchester, 2017.
[19]	G.A. Zhang, Y.F. Cheng, Electrochim. Acta 56 (2011) 1676-1685.
[20]	S.L. Lu, W. Liu, S.A. Shi, X.L. Qi, X.G. Li, X.M. Wang, Acta Metall. Sin.-Engl. Lett. 30 (2017) 1055-1066.
[21]	L.M. He, Y.Z. Xu, X.N. Wang, Y. Huang, Corrosion 75 (2019) 1487-1501.
[22]	Y.Z. Xu, Y. Huang, L. Ying, F. Yang, B. Li, X.N. Wang, Acta Metall. Sin. 52 (2016) 320-330 (in Chinese).
[23]	G. Peng, L.P.E. Callagon, W. Bu, C. Xin, B. Magdalena, B. Mathieu, S. Gaurav, Sci .Rep. 8 (2018), 7990-7802. URL PMID
[24]	F. Xue, X. Wei, J.H. Dong, C.G. Wang, W. Ke, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 35 (2019) 596-603.
[25]	X. Jiang, Y.G. Zheng, D.R. Qu, W. Ke, Corros. Sci. 48 (2006) 3091-3108. DOI URL
[26]	D.A. Lopez, W.H. Schreiner, S.R. De Sánchez, S.N. Simison, Appl. Surf. Sci. 207 (2003) 69-85.
[27]	K.W. Gao, F. Yu, X.L. Pang, G.A. Zhang, L.J. Qiao, W.Y. Chu, M.X. Lu, Corros. Sci. 50 (2008) 2796-2803.
[28]	D. Han, R.J. Jiang, Y.F. Cheng, Electrochim. Acta 114 (2013) 403-408.
[29]	Y.J. Tan, N.N. Aung, T. Liu, Corros. Sci. 63 (2012) 379-386.
[30]	Y.J. Tan, Corros. Sci. 53 (2011) 1145-1155. DOI URL
[31]	Y.J. Tan, J. Electrochem. Soc. 156 (2009) C195-C208.
[32]	Y.J. Tan, N.N. Aung, T. Liu, Corros. Sci. 48 (2006) 23-38.
[33]	Q.L. Thu, G. Bonnet, C. Compere, H.L. Trong, S. Touzain, Prog. Org. Coat. 52 (2005) 118-125.
[34]	Y.J. Tan, S. Bailey, B. Kinsella, Corros. Sci. 43 (2001) 1905-1918.
[35]	M. Mullet, V. Khare, C. Ruby, Surf. Interface Anal. 40 (2008) 323-328.
[36]	A.P. Grosvenor, B.A. Kobe, M.C. Biesinger, N.S. Mcintyre, Surf. Interface Anal. 36 (2004) 1564-1574.
[37]	Y.J. Tan, N.N. Aung, Mater. Corros. 65 (2014) 457-465.
[38]	Z.B. Wang, H.X. Hu, Y.G. Zheng, Corros. Sci. 103 (2016) 50-65.
[39]	Z.B. Wang, H.X. Hu, Y.G. Zheng, J. Solid State Electrochem. 20 (2016) 3459-3471.
[40]	C.N. Cao, Principles of Electrochemistry of Corrosion, 3rd ed., Chemical Industry Press, Beijing, 2008.
[41]	Y. Zhu, Y. Xu, K. Li, X. Wang, G. Liu, Y. Huang, Measurement 138 (2019) 8-24.
[42]	Y. Zhu, Y. Xu, M. Wang, X. Wang, G. Liu, Y. Huang, Ocean Eng. 189 (2019), 106351. DOI URL
[43]	J. Stoulil, J. Kaňok, M. Kouřil, H. Parschová, P. Novák, J. Nucl. Mater. 443 (2013) 20-25.
[44]	T. Tanupabrungsun, B. Brown, S. Nesic, Corrosion Effect of pH on CO₂ Corrosion of Mild Steel at Elevated Temperatures, in: Proceedings of the NACE International Corrosion 2013, 17-21 March, Orlando, Florida, 2013, p. 2348.
[45]	M.H. Nazari, S.R. Allahkaram, M.B. Kermani, Mater. Des. 31 (2010) 3559-3563.
[46]	K. Mabuchi, Y. Horn, H. Takahashi, M. Nagayama, Corrosion 47 (1991) 500-508.