J O U R N A L OF M A T E R I A L S S C I E N C E L E T T E R S 8 (1989) 887-890
Effect of surface roughness on anodic protection parameters of 316
stainless steel in sulphuric acid
S. M. MORSY*, M. R. EL-SOUROUGY*, H. DIAB*
*Metallurgy Department and CHot Lab Centre, Atomic Energy Authority, Atomic Energy Post Office,
Cairo, Egypt
The development of anodic protection to prevent the
corrosion of stainless steel in sulphuric acid dates back
to 1954 and is attributed to Edeleanu, who made use
of polarization curves to determine the optimum con-
ditions for protection and demonstrated the practica-
bility of the technique in a pilot plant [1]. It is based
on the fact that under a certain range of potentials
a metal or alloy becomes passive, resulting in the
lowering or prevention of corrosion. The mechanism
of protection thus lies in the fact of applying a certain
potential r a n g e in which no corrosion takes place.
This potential range depends on both metallurgical
and environmental factors [2-5].
A factor in determining the corrosion behaviour of
a given alloy-environment system is the surface finish
of the metal. Although the effect of surface condition
on the corrosion behaviour of stainless steel has been
studied [6-I0], nevertheless, further work is still
needed to help understand the relation between the
corrosion resistance and surface roughness.
The purpose of the present work is to study the
effect of surface roughness on the anodic protection
parameters and passivation characteristics of type 316
stainless steel in 98% H z S O 4 a t 25C. The material
used was AISI 316 austenitic stainless steel. The
chemical composition is illustrated in Table I.
3 m m thick specimen were cut transversely from
12.7mm diameter rod and the surfaces of the test
specimens were treated with the aim of producing
various degrees of roughness by mechanical polishing,
using different grades of emery paper (120, 220, 320,
400, 800 and 4000 grit).
The four groups of test specimens are listed in
Table II together with the kind of surface treatment
and the value of the roughness parameter R a (the
arithmetical average of the departures of the profile
above the reference line throughout the prescribed
sampling length). A Talysurf 10 was used for measur-
ing Ra.
All anodic polarization tests were carried out using
an advanced computerized corrosion measuring sys-
tem (EG & G P A R C Model 350A). Before corrosion
testing, the specimens were cleaned in distilled water
and dried. Weight loss measurement was under a
protection current of 5 # A c m 2, using a direct-
T A B L E I Chemical composition (wt %)
C Cr Ni Mo Mn Si
0.075 17.4 11.0 2-3 1.56 0.50
0261-8028/89 $03.00 + .12 1989 Chapman and Hall Ltd.
current powder supply; the current was measured by
a zero-current ammeter.
As soon as the duration of the corrosion test had
ended, the specimens were removed from the cor-
rosion cell, then immersed in 20% a m m o n i u m citrate
for 2 min and washed with distilled water to remove
corrosion products. The weight loss was measured by
using a microbalance.
A typical polarization curve showing the principles
of anodic protection is shown in Fig. 1. The major
features are
(a) the corrosion potential Eo.... which is the poten-
tial at zero applied current;
(b) the critical current density for passivation, icrit;
(C) the metal dissolution rate in the passive state,
/pass ;
(d) the critical potential for passivation, Epp;
(e) the applied anodic protection potential EAp,
preferably in the middle of the passive range.
For successful application of the anodic protection
system, it should meet the following requirements
(i) a low critical current density for passivation
(icri~);
(ii) a low corrosion rate in the passive state, /pass;
(iii) a more negative passivation potential Epp,
(iv) a wide passive range (the range of potential
over which the metal exhibits passivity should be as
wide as possible).
The effect of surface roughness on the anodic pol-
arization behaviour of stainless steel in H2 SO4 at 25 C
is shown in Fig. 2. With increasing surface roughness
the critical current density for complete protection
increases; this means that as the surface roughness
increases, the efficiency of the anodic protection
TABLE II Treatment and range of roughness parameter Ra of
the investigated specimens
Specimen Surfacetreatment Range of roughness
group (mechanical polishing) parameter, Ra (~m)
D Rubbing with emery 0.596 to 0.982
paper 120
C Rubbing with emery 0.220 to 0.338
papers 120 and 220
B Rubbing with emery 0.068 to 0.108
papers 120, 220, 320,
400 and 800
Fe
A Rubbing with emery 0.32 to 0.054
papers 120, 220, 320,
balance 400, 800 and 4000
887
 Noble Figure 1 Polarization curve showing principles of
anodic protection.

Passive range
EAp
R

Active - passive
E-p p .................. --~ transition

' 'Active
Ecorr -4 ....... ~ ............. ~'I . . . . . .
i I
i i I
i

Active : i
/pass /cart /crit
Log (current density)

A B C D

0.8 --

0.6

0.~

0.2

0.0

--0.2 -

--O.L -

--0,6 -

-- 0.8 --
Figure 2 The effect of surface
roughness on the polarization
current of type 316 stainless steel
in 98% H2SO 4 at 25 C. R a = (A) --1.0 I [ I [
0.032#m, (B) 0.068#m, (C) 10 10 2 103 104 105
0.320#m, (D) 0.980/tin. C~rrent density (~A crn-2)

888
 Figure 3 Current density against time at
18[- constant protection potential of 0.4V
(against SCE) at various surface roughness
values in 98% H 2 S O 4 a t 25C. R a = (A)
0.034#m, (B) 0.076#m, (C) 0.362#m, (D)
16
0.920/~m.

1/..

'Eu 12

...,-[

~10
=

8
(_

~3

~D
~C
B
.,-e A

0 f 1 I I I I I I
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (rain)

system decreases. The anodic polarization curves would decrease the surface active sites, and conse-
show that the different degrees of mechanical polish- quently the probability of passivation increased with
ing cause a noticeable change in the passive range. It the degree of mechanical polishing, as shown in Fig. 2.
is proposed that increasing the surface roughness The smoothest surface has a wide passive range. For

180

160

t/.0

120 -

~' 100

~-
~n 8O

3e

60--

/.0 --

Figure 4 Corrosion of 316 stainless steel

20 --
in 98% H 2 S O 4 at 25C at different values
of surface roughness. R~ = (A) 0.038#m, C,D
(B) 0.078#m, (C) 0.34#m, (D) 0.943#m.
(~--O) without anodic protection, 0 A'BT T "T T
(o - - O) with anodic protection (current 0 2 /* 6 8
density 5 #Acm-2). Time (h)

889
practical application the anodic potential is about References
0.4V and the protection current ranges from 2 to l. A. J. SEDRIKS, "Corrosion of Stainless Steels" (Elec-
7/~A cm 2. trochemical Society, Princeton, New Jersey, 1979) p. 52.
2. H. H. U H L I G , J. Electrochem. Soe. 108 (1961) 327.
Fig. 3 shows the current density against time at a 3. N. T O M A S H O V , Corrosion 14 (1958) 299.
protection potential of 0.4 V (against SCE) at various 4. R. C. S C R A B E R R Y , D.L. GRAVER and C.D.
values of surface roughness. It is seen that an increase STEPHENS, Mater. Prot. (54) (1967) 6.
in surface roughness increases the critical current den- 5. M. H. BROWN, "Handbook of Stainless Steels"
(McGraw-Hill, New York, 1977). p. 38.
sity for passivation. The smoothest surface has a value
6. H. M. Z A K A R I A , MSc thesis, Zagazig University, Egypt
of 2/~A cm 2, while the roughest surface has a value of (1985).
4 etA cm 2. 7. O. S T E E N S L A N , Corros. Prevention Control 15 (1968) 25.
The results of this work were supported by weight 8. J. H O R V A T H and H. U H L I G , J. Electrochem. Soc. 115
loss measurement as shown in Fig. 4. This shows that (I968) 791.
9. M. A. STR1ECHER, ibid. 103 (1956) 375.
the corrosion resistance of stainless steel in sulphuric
10. R. F. S T E I G E R W A L D , Corrosion 22 (1966)107.
acid increases as the surface roughness decreases;
complete protection was achieved by applying an
anodic protection current (5/tAcm z) for a smooth Received 13 December 1988
surface. and accepted 22 February 1989

890