Microbial corrosion resistance of a novel Cu-bearing pipeline steel

doi:10.1016/j.jmst.2018.05.020

Abstract

Abstract:

Microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) is becoming a serious problem for buried pipelines. Developing environmentally friendly strategies for MIC control is increasingly urgent in oil/gas pipeline industry. Copper (Cu) in steels can not only provide aging precipitation strengthening, but also kill bacterium, offering a special biofunction to steels. Based on the chemical composition of traditional X80 pipeline steel, two Cu-bearing pipeline steels (1% Cu and 2% Cu) were fabricated in this study. The microstructure, mechanical properties and antibacterial property against sulphate-reducing bacteria (SRB) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) were studied. It was found that the novel pipeline steel alloyed by 1%Cu exhibited acicular ferrite microstructure with nano-sized Cu-rich precipitates distribution in the matrix, resulting in better mechanical properties than the traditional X80 steel, and showed good MIC resistance as well. The pitting corrosion resistance of 1% Cu steel in as-aged condition was significantly better than that of X80 steel. A possible antibacterial mechanism of the Cu-bearing pipeline steel was proposed.

Key words: Pipeline steel, Cu alloying, Cu-rich nano-precipitation, Microbiologically influenced corrosion, Pitting corrosion

Xianbo Shi, Wei Yan, Dake Xu, Maocheng Yan, Chunguang Yang, Yiyin Shan, Ke Yang. Microbial corrosion resistance of a novel Cu-bearing pipeline steel[J]. J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2018, 34(12): 2480-2491.

Figures/Tables 18

Table 1 Chemical compositions of experimental steels (wt%).

Steel	C	Cu	Mn	Mo	Si	Ni	Cr	Nb?+?V?+?Ti	S	P	Fe
1.0Cu	0.031	1.06	1.09	0.31	0.13	0.32	0.32	0.05	0.0011	0.005	Bal.
2.0Cu	0.023	2.00	1.06	0.30	0.14	0.30	0.30	0.05	0.0010	0.005	Bal.
X80	0.050	0.02	1.77	0.30	0.16	0.29	0.30	0.10	0.0010	0.005	Bal.

Table 2 Procedure of thermo-mechanical control process (TMCP) for Cu-bearing pipeline steels.

Steel	Interpass reduction in thickness (mm) and rolling temperature (°C)							Accelerated cooling
	78?→?62	62?→?45	45?→?30	30?→?24	24?→?16	16?→?11	11?→?8	Water cooling rate (°C/s)
1.0Cu	1086	1037	969	915	^a	^a	819	>30
2.0Cu	1069	1021	975	925	^a	^a	834	>30

Fig. 1. OM (a, c, e) and TEM (b, d, f) images of as-rolled X80 (a, b), 1.0Cu (c, d) and 2.0Cu (e, f).

Fig. 2. OM (a, c, e) and TEM (b, d, f) images of as-aged X80 (a, b), 1.0Cu (c, d) and 2.0Cu (e, f).

Table 3 Yield strength (YS), ultimate tensile strength (UTS), elongation (EL) and Charpy V-notch absorbed energy (CVN) of experimental steels.

Steel	YS (MPa)	UTS (MPa)	EL (%)	CVN (J)
1.0Cu as-rolled	552	741	24.9	125
2.0Cu as-rolled	634	783	21.3	41
X80 as-rolled	657	729	23.5	116
1.0Cu as-aged	692	745	22.1	120
2.0Cu as-aged	860	923	16.5	24

Fig. 3. Room-temperature tensile stress-strain curves and impact fractured specimens (inset) for as-aged 1.0Cu and X80 pipeline steels.

Fig. 4. Variation of open circuit potentials with exposure time for X80 and 1.0Cu steels (A1.0Cu and R1.0Cu) in NS4 solution with SRB.

Fig. 5. Variation of linear polarization resistance with exposure time for X80 and 1.0Cu steels (A1.0Cu and R1.0Cu) in NS4 solution with SRB.

Fig. 6. Morphologies of corrosion products on surfaces for R1.0Cu (a, b), A1.0Cu (c, d) and X80 (e, f) exposed to NS4 solution with SRB for 60 d at low (a, c, e) and high (b, d, f) magnification.

Fig. 7. Cross-section morphologies and EDS analyses of A1.0Cu (a) and X80 (b) steels after 60 d exposure in SRB-inoculated NS4 solution.

Fig. 8. Corrosion attacked surface morphologies (a, c, e) and 3D images (b, d, f) of R1.0Cu (a, b), A1.0Cu (c, d) and X80 (e, f) steels after 60 d exposure in SRB-inoculated NS4 solution.

Table 4 Pit density and pit depth (total 30 pits were measured) of 1.0Cu and X80 steels after 60 d exposure in SRB-inoculated NS4 solution.

Steel	Pit density (No./mm²)	Maxium pit depth (μm)	Average pit depth (μm)
R1.0Cu	170	2.1	1.70?±?0.15
A1.0Cu	34	1.3	0.70?±?0.13
X80	709	2.9	2.20?±?0.28

Fig. 9. Variation of linear polarization resistance (RLPR) (a) and corrosion current density (icorr) (b) with exposure time for A1.0Cu and X80 steels in 2216E medium inoculated with P. aeruginosa.

Fig. 10. Biofilm thickness on experimental steels after exposure to P. aeruginosa for 1, 3 and 5 d.

Fig. 11. CLSM morphologies of surfaces of A1.0Cu (a, c, e) and X80 (b, d, f) after live/dead staining for 1 d (a, b), 3 d (c, d), 5 d (e, f).

Fig. 12. SEM images of P. aeruginosa biofilms on surfaces of A1.0Cu (a) and X80 (b) steels after 14 d immersion.

Fig. 13. Morphologies of pits on surfaces of A1.0Cu (a, b) and X80 (c, d) steels at low (a, c) and high (b, d) magnification after 14 d immersion with P. aeruginosa.

Fig. 14. Schematic illustration of MIC resistance mechanism for Cu-bearing pipeline steel.

References

[1]	C. Huo, Y. Li, L. Ji, Proceedings to the Energy Materials 2014 Conference onDevelopment and Applications of Pipeline Steel in Long-Distance Gas Pipelineof China, 2014.
[2]	F. Xiao, B. Liao, Y. Shan, G. Qiao, Y. Zhong, C. Zhang, K. Yang, Mater. Sci. Eng. A431(2006) 41-52.
[3]	M. Zhao, M. Liu, A. Atrens, Y. Shan, K. Yang, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 478 (2008)43-47.
[4]	X. Shi, W. Yan, W. Wang, L. Zhao, Y. Shan, K. Yang, Acta Metall. Sin.(Engl. Lett.)28(2015) 799-808.
[5]	Y. Zhong, F. Xiao, J. Zhang, Y. Shan, W. Wang, K. Yang, Acta Mater. 54(2006)435-443.
[6]	X. Zhang, H. Gao, X. Zhang, Y. Yang, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 531 (2012) 84-90.
[7]	X. Shi, W. Yan, W. Wang, L. Zhao, Y. Shan, K. Yang, J. Iron Steel Res. Int. 22(2015) 937-942.
[8]	S. Li, Y. Kim, K. Jeon, Y. Kho, Met. Mater. 6(2000) 281-286.
[9]	D. Enning, J. Garrelfs, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 80(2014) 1226-1236.
[10]	S. Abedi, A. Abdolmaleki, N. Adibi, Eng. Fail. Anal. 14(2007) 250-261.
[11]	S. Bhat, B. Kumar, S. Prasad, M. Katarki, Mater. Perform. 50(2011) 50-53.
[12]	A. Gretchen, Mater. Perform. 8(2007) 27-32.
[13]	K. Usher, A. Kaksonen, I. Cole, D. Marney, Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 93(2014) 84-106.
[14]	R. Javaherdashti, London, 2008.
[15]	R. Eckert, Corros. Eng. Sci. Technol. 50(2015) 163-168.
[16]	H. Videla, Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 49(2002) 259-270.
[17]	B. Mishra, D. Apelian, Proceedings to the Energy Materials 2014 Conferenceon Corrosion of Advanced Steels: Challenges in the Oil and Gas Industry, 2014.
[18]	D. Xu, R. Jia, Y. Li, T. Gu, World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 33(2017) 97-106.
[19]	S.J. Jin, L. Ren, K. Yang, J. Mater. Sci.Technol. 32(2016) 835-839.
[20]	L. Nan, G.G. Ren, D.H. Wang, K. Yang, J. Mater. Sci.Technol. 32(2016) 445-451.
[21]	J. Xia, C. Yang, D. Xu, D. Sun, L. Nan, Z. Sun, Q. Li, T. Gu, K. Yang, Biofouling 31(2015) 481-492.
[22]	D. Sun, D. Xu, C. Yang, M.B. Shahzad, Z. Sun, J. Xia, J. Zhao, T. Gu, K. Yang, G.Wang, Sci. Rep. 6(2016) 29244.
[23]	L. Ren, Z. Ma, M. Li, Y. Zhang, W.Q. Liu, Z.H. Liao, K. Yang, J. Mater. Sci.Technol.30(2014) 699-705.
[24]	L. Nan, K. Yang, J. Mater. Sci.Technol. 26(2010) 941-944.
[25]	L. Nan, J.L. Cheng, K. Yang, J. Mater. Sci.Technol. 28(2012) 1067-1070.
[26]	B.A. Szost, R.H. Vegter, P.E.J.Rivera-Díaz-del-Castillo,Mater.Des. 43(2013)499-506.
[27]	W.H. Zhou, H. Guo, Z.J. Xie, C.J. Shang, R.D.K.Misra,Mater. Des. 63(2014)42-49.
[28]	T. Yokoi, M. Takahashi, N. Maruyama, M. Sugiyama, J. Mater. Sci. 36(2001)5757-5765.
[29]	Y.J. Kwon, T. Lee, J. Lee, Y.S. Chun, C.S. Lee, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 40 (2015)7409-7419.
[30]	A. Tomio, M. Sagara, T. Doi, H. Amaya, N. Otsuka, T. Kudo, Corros. Sci. 81(2014) 144-151.
[31]	X. Shi, W. Yan, W. Wang, Y. Shan, K. Yang, Mater. Des. 92(2016) 300-305.
[32]	X. Shi, W. Yan, W. Wang, Z. Yang, Y. Shan, K. Yang, Acta Metall. Sin.(Engl.Lett.) 30(2017) 601-613.
[33]	D. Hejazi, A.J. Hap, N. Yazdipour, D.P. Dunne, A. Calka, F. Barbaro, E.V.Pereloma, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 551 (2012) 40-49.
[34]	W. Wang, Y. Shan, K. Yang, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 502 (2009) 38-44.
[35]	X. Shi, W. Yan, W. Wang, Z. Yang, Y. Shan, K. Yang, ISIJ Int. 56(2016)2284-2289.
[36]	M. Yan, J. Xu, L. Yu, T. Wu, C. Sun, W. Ke, Corros. Sci. 110(2016)23-34.
[37]	M. Zhao, K. Yang, Scr. Mater. 52(2005) 881-886.
[38]	B.J. Little, F.B. Mansfeld, P.J. Arps, J.C. Earthma, Microbiologically influencedcorrosion,in: Encyclopedia of Electrochemistry, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2007.
[39]	T. Wu, J. Xu, M. Yan, C. Sun, C. Yu, W. Ke, Corros. Sci. 83(2014)38-47.
[40]	X. Chen, G. Wang, F. Gao, Y. Wang, C. He, Corros. Sci. 101(2015)1-11.
[41]	T. Wu, J. Xu, C. Sun, M. Yan, C. Yu, W. Ke, Corros. Sci. 88(2014)291-305.
[42]	F.M.AlAbbas, C.Williamson, S.M. Bhola, J.R. Spear, D.L. Olson, B. Mishra, A.E.Kakpovbia,Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 78(2013) 34-42.
[43]	I.T. Hong, C.H. Koo, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 393 (2005) 213-222.
[44]	Y. Lou, L. Lin, D. Xu, S. Zhao, C. Yang, J. Liu, Y. Zhao, T. Gu, K. Yang, Int.Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 110(2016) 199-205.
[45]	D. Xu, T. Gu, Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 91(2014) 74-81.
[46]	O. Akhavan, E. Ghaderi, Surf. Coat. Technol. 205(2010)219-223.
[47]	L. Ren, L. Nan, K. Yang, Mater. Des. 32(2011) 2374-2379.
[48]	J. O’Gorman, H. Humphreys, J. Hosp. Infect. 81(2012) 217-223.
[49]	C.E. Santo, E.W. Lam, C.G. Elowsky, D. Quaranta, D.W. Domaille, C.J. Chang, G.Grass, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 77(2011) 794-802.
[50]	O. Akhavan, E. Ghaderi, J. Mater. Chem. 21(2011) 12935-12940.
[51]	M. Paschoalino, N.C. Guedes, W. Jardim, E. Mielczarski, J.A. Mielczarski, P.Bowen, J. Kiwi, J. Photochem. Photobiol. A 199 (2008) 105-111.