Influence of cementite spheroidization on relieving the micro-galvanic effect of ferrite-pearlite steel in acidic chloride environment

doi:10.1016/j.jmst.2020.05.031

Abstract

Abstract:

The corrosion behavior of the as-received steel and the spheroidized steel in acidic chloride environment was investigated. The results indicate the corrosion mode and corrosion rate of two steels are diverse due to their difference in microstructure. For as-received steel with ferrite-pearlite microstructure, severe localized corrosion happens on the pearlite regions, and plenty of cathodic cementite remains in the pits, further strengthening the micro-galvanic effect and accelerating the corrosion rate. While for spheroidized steel with tempered martensite microstructure, the nanosized cementite particles evenly distributed on the ferrite substrate are easy to fall off, which can significantly reduce the cementite accumulation on the steel surface, relieving the acceleration effect of micro-galvanic corrosion.

Key words: Ferrite-pearlite steel, Acidic chloride environment, Granular cementite, Micro-galvanic corrosion

Hu Liu, Jie Wei, Junhua Dong, Yiqing Chen, Yumin Wu, Yangtao Zhou, Subedi Dhruba Babu, Wei Ke. Influence of cementite spheroidization on relieving the micro-galvanic effect of ferrite-pearlite steel in acidic chloride environment[J]. J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2021, 61: 234-246.

Figures/Tables 22

Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of spheroidization process.

Fig. 2. Layout of corrosion evaluation experiment.

Fig. 3. The microstructures of as-received (a, c, e) and spheroidized (b, d, f) steels before corrosion. (a, b) are optical microscope photos, (c, d) are SEM images, (e, f) are bright field TEM micrographs.

Fig. 4. EBSD-inverse pole figures (IPFs) + band contrast (BC) maps of as-received (a) and spheroidized (b) steels.

Fig. 5. EBSD-(a, b) grain size distribution and (a1, b1) misorientation angle distribution plots of the steel: (a, a1) as-received steel, (b, b1) spheroidized steel.

Fig. 6. XRD patterns of as-received (a) and spheroidized (b) steels before immersion and after120 h of immersion in simulated solution.

Fig. 7. The EPMA mapping analysis of as-received (a) and spheroidized (b) steels after 72 h of immersion.

Fig. 8. The macroscopic corrosion morphologies of as-received (a) and spheroidized (b) steels after rust removal with 216 h of immersion.

Fig. 9. The optical photos (taken by SM) of as-received steel after 12 h (a), 24 h (b) and 48 h (c) of immersion in simulated solution. (d, e, f) are the corresponding 3D LSCM maps while (h, i, j) are the corresponding depth profile.

Fig. 10. The optical photos of spheroidized steel after 12 h (a), 24 h (b) and 48 h (c) of immersion in simulated solution. (d, e, f) are the corresponding 3D LSCM maps.

Fig. 11. The SEM images of rust-removed as-received steel with 6 h (a), 9 h (b) and 12 h (c) of immersion.

Fig. 12. The SEM pictures of corroded surface morphology of as-received (a, b, c) and spheroidized (d, e, f) steels after 24 h, 120 h and 216 h of corrosion.

Fig. 13. The cross-section morphologies of as-received (a, b, c) and spheroidized (d, e, f) steels after 24 h, 120 h and 216 h of corrosion.

Fig. 14. The annual corrosion rate of as-received and spheroidized steels as a function of time.

Fig. 15. The potentiodynamic polarization behaviors of as-received (a) and spheroidized (b) steels for different time of corrosion.

Fig. 16. Rp-t and Icorr-t plots of as-received and spheroidized steels.

Fig. 17. The bode plots of as-received (a, b) and spheroidized (c, d) steels after immersion for different time.

Fig. 18. The equivalent circuits of as-received (a, a’) and spheroidized (b) steels after corrosion for different time. (a) 24 h-72 h, (a’) 120 h-216 h.

Table 1 The fitting parameters of as-received steel after different time of corrosion.

t(h)	L₁×10⁷ (H cm²)	R_s (Ω cm²)	Y_c×10³ (Ω^-1 cm^-2 sⁿ)	n_c	R_c (Ω cm²)	L₂ (H cm²)	R₀ (Ω cm²)	Y_a×10³ (Ω^-1 cm^-2 sⁿ)	n_a	R_a (Ω cm²)	Chi-squared, x²
24	4.566	4.439	0.4558	0.9406	84.20	-	-	1.873	0.7682	86.91	1.617 × 10^-4
48	5.677	4.084	0.6104	0.9048	47.45	-	-	1.936	0.8378	45.60	6.522 × 10^-5
72	5.264	4.225	0.8828	0.8047	21.43	-	-	8.158	0.8132	22.30	3.200 × 10^-4
120	7.542	3.681	2.552	0.7839	13.16	410.4	4.022	6.620	0.6606	10.24	4.776 × 10^-4
216	4.065	4.075	4.234	0.7353	3.277	167.8	3.580	65.98	0.6609	4.980	7.592 × 10^-4

Table 2 The fitting parameters of spheroidized steel after different time of corrosion.

t(h)	L₁×10⁷ (H cm²)	R_s (Ω cm²)	Y_c×10³ (Ω^-1 cm^-2 sⁿ)	n_c	R_c (Ω cm²)	Y_a×10³ (Ω^-1 cm^-2 sⁿ)	n_a	R_a (Ω cm²)	Chi-squared, x²
24	6.883	3.925	0.6980	0.9281	48.06	2.395	0.8242	48.12	1.921 × 10^-5
48	3.689	4.062	1.168	0.8836	46.10	2.302	0.8417	45.07	4.467 × 10^-5
72	4.436	4.447	0.6646	0.9330	41.60	2.445	0.7725	40.37	4.499 × 10^-5
120	4.695	4.014	1.305	0.8789	36.60	5.303	0.7914	35.61	1.355 × 10^-4
216	4.743	4.836	7.219	0.8550	18.72	2.507	0.7102	18.61	7.965 × 10^-4

Fig. 19. Rc and Ra values of as-received and spheroidized steels as a function of time.

Fig. 20. Schematic diagrams of corrosion mechanism of as-received (a) and spheroidized (b) steels.

References 50

[1]	K. Lu, Science 328 (2010) 319-320. URL PMID
[2]	K.S. Liu, L. Jiang, Nanoscale 3 (2011) 825-838. DOI URL PMID
[3]	A. Atrens, G.L. Song, M. Liu, Z.M. Shi, F.Y. Cao, M.S. Dargusch, Adv. Eng. Mater. 17 (2015) 400-453.
[4]	X.H. Hao, J.H. Dong, X. Mu, J. Wei, C.G. Wang, W. Ke, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 35 (2019) 799-811.
[5]	S. Ahn, K.J. Park, K. Oh, S. Hwang, B. Park, H. Kwon, M. Shon, Met. Mater. Int. 21 (2015) 865-873. DOI URL
[6]	W. Liu, Q. Zhou, L. Li, Z. Wu, F. Cao, Z. Gao, J. Alloys Compd. 598 (2014) 198-204.
[7]	H.E. Townsend, Corrosion 57 (2001) 497-501.
[8]	Y.L. Zhou, J. Chen, Y. Xu, Z.Y. Liu, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 29 (2013) 168-174.
[9]	X.H. Hao, J.H. Dong, J. Wei, I.I.N. Etim, W. Ke, Corros. Sci. 121 (2017) 84-93. DOI URL
[10]	T. Ujiro, S. Satoh, R.W. Staehle, W.H. Smyrl, Corros. Sci. 43 (2001) 2185-2200.
[11]	R.L. Liu, M.F. Hurley, A. Kvryan, G. Williams, J.R. Scully, N. Birbilis, Sci. Rep. 6 (2016) 28747. DOI URL PMID
[12]	L.M. Zhang, S.D. Zhang, A.L. Ma, A.J. Umoh, H.X. Hu, Y.G. Zheng, B.J. Yang, J.Q. Wang, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 35 (2019) 1378-1387.
[13]	Z.M. Li, H.C. Jiang, Y.L. Wang, D. Zhang, D.S. Yan, L.J. Rong, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 34 (2018) 1172-1179. DOI URL
[14]	L. Yang, X.Y. Li, K. Lu, Acta Metall. Sin. 53 (2017) 1413-1417. DOI URL
[15]	K. Lu, L. Lu, S. Suresh, Science 324 (2009) 349-352. DOI URL PMID
[16]	L. Lu, X. Chen, Science 323 (2009) 607-610. URL PMID
[17]	J. Wei, J.H. Dong, W. Ke, X.Y. He, Corrosion 71 (2015) 1467-1480.
[18]	C. Liu, Z.H. Jiang, J.B. Zhao, X.Q. Cheng, Z.Y. Liu, D.W. Zhang, X.G. Li, Corros. Sci. 166 (2020) 108463.
[19]	C. Liu, R.I. Revilla, Z.Y. Liu, D.W. Zhang, X.G. Li, H. Terryn, Corros. Sci. 129 (2017) 82-90.
[20]	C. Liu, R.I. 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 (2018) 96-104.
[21]	C. Liu, X.Q. Cheng, Z.Y. Dai, R. Liu, Z.Y. Li, L.Y. Cui, M.D. Chen, L. Ke, Materials 11 (2018) 2277.
[22]	J. Wei, J.H. Dong, Y.T. Zhou, X.Y. He, C.G. Wang, W. Ke, Mater. Charact. 139 (2018) 401-410.
[23]	D. Eaves, G. Williams, H.N. McMurray, Electrochim. Acta 79 (2012) 1-7.
[24]	A. Moteshakker, I. Danaee, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 32 (2016) 282-290.
[25]	M. Schneider, K. Kremmer, C. Lammel, K. Sempf, M. Herrmann, Corros. Sci. 80 (2014) 191-196. DOI URL
[26]	E. Rahimi, A. Rafsanjani-Abbasi, A. Imani, S. Hosseinpour, A. Davoodi, Corros. Sci. 140 (2018) 30-39.
[27]	A.I. Ikeuba, B. Zhang, J.Q. Wang, E.H. Han, W. Ke, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 35 (2019) 1444-1454.
[28]	X. Chen, J. Wu, J. Wang, C. Wang, Cor. Sci. Pro. Tech. 22 (2010) 363-366.
[29]	C. Wang, J. Wu, Q. Li, J. Chin. Soc. Corros. Prot. 30 (2010) 416-420.
[30]	T.K. Ha, C.H. Lee, K.S. Kim, Mater. Sci.Forum 654-656 (2010) 150-153.
[31]	F.M. Al-Abbasi, Mater. Sci. Eng. A Struct.Mater. Prop. Microstruct. Process. 527 (2010) 6904-6916.
[32]	L.W. Wang, C.W. Du, Z.Y. Liu, X.X. Zeng, X.G. Li, Acta Metall. Sin. 47 (2011) 1227-1232.
[33]	X.H. Hao, J.H. Dong, I.-I.N. Etim, J. Wei, W. Ke, Corros. Sci. 110 (2016) 296-304. DOI URL
[34]	C.N. Cao, Principles of Electrochemistry of Corrosion, Chemical Industry Press, Beijing, 2008.
[35]	M. Caruso, S. Godet, Adv. Mater. Res. 89-91 (2010) 79-84.
[36]	A. Mishra, A. Saha, J. Maity, Mater. Charact. 114 (2016) 277-288.
[37]	J. Wei, Y.T. Zhou, J.H. Dong, X.Y. He, W. Ke, Materialia 6 (2019), 100316.
[38]	Z.Q. Lv, B. Wang, Z.H. Wang, S.H. Sun, W.T. Fu, Mater. Sci. Eng. A Struct.Mater. Prop. Microstruct. Process. 574 (2013) 143-148.
[39]	IMO, Proc of the Maritime Safety Committee on Its Eighty-Seventh SessionAnnex 3 MSC. 289 (87), London, 2010.
[40]	ISO.8407:2009, Corrosion of Metals and Alloys - Removal of Corrosion Products From Corrosion Test Specimens, Switzerland, 2009.
[41]	H. Li, F. Chai, C. Yang, H. Su, X. Luo, Iron Steel 52 (2017) 76-82.
[42]	A.V. Syugaev, N.V. Lyalina, S.F. Lomaeva, S.M. Reshetnikov, Prot. Met. Phys. Chem. Surf. 48 (2012) 515-519.
[43]	X.Y. Liao, S.G. Wang, Z.Y. Ma, J.G. Wang, Y.W. Li, H.J. Jiao, J. Mol. Catal. A Chem. 292 (2008) 14-20.
[44]	M. Eder, K. Terakura, J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B 64 (2001), 115426.
[45]	J.K. Norskov, T. Bligaard, A. Logadottir, J.R. Kitchin, J.G. Chen, S. Pandelov, J. Electrochem. Soc. 152 (2005) J23-J26.
[46]	A. Nishikata, Q.J. Zhu, E. Tada, Corros. Sci. 87 (2014) 80-88.
[47]	A. Nishikata, F. Suzuki, T. Tsuru, Corros. Sci. 47 (2005) 2578-2588.
[48]	C. Cao, J. Wang, H. Lin, J. Chin. Soc. Corros. Prot. 9 (1989) 261-270.
[49]	J. Wang, C.N. Cao, H.C. Lin, J. Chin. Soc. Corros. Prot. 9 (1989) 271-279.
[50]	F. Mansfeld, M.W. Kendig, J. Chin. Soc. Corros. Prot. 135 (1988) 828-833.