14/9/2010 CorrView Corrosion Testing

Product Overview Corrosion Threat Testing Order CorrView Coupon Failures Advantages Product Applications Home
Product Overview Corrosion Threat Testing Order CorrView Coupon Failures Advantages Product Applications Home
What Is CorrView?

What Is CorrView?

Background

Background

How It Works

How It Works

Product Video

Product Video

Product Testing Studies

Product Testing Studies

Physical Specifications

Physical Specifications

Options

Options

Product Selection

Product Selection

Order CorrView

Order CorrView

The Corrosion Threat

The Corrosion Threat

Corrosion Types

Corrosion Types

Water Treatment

Water Treatment

Corrosion Coupons

Corrosion Coupons

Piping Differences

Piping Differences

Corrosion Photo Gallery

Corrosion Photo Gallery

Piping Systems Photo Gallery

Piping Systems Photo Gallery

Pressure Testing
Pressure Testing
Corrosion Testing
Corrosion Testing
Series 1 Pressure Testing
Series 1 Pressure Testing
Series 2 Pressure Testing
Series 2 Pressure Testing
Product Options
Product Options
Pricing
Pricing
Request A Quote
Request A Quote
Place Your Order

http://www.corrview.com/testing_02.htm 1/7
14/9/2010 CorrView Corrosion Testing
Place Your Order
Order Online
Order Online
Order A Sample
Order A Sample
Affiliate Partners
Affiliate Partners

Overview

Overview

Case Histories

Case Histories

CorrView Advantages
CorrView Advantages
CorrView Limitations
CorrView Limitations
Product Testing Studies
Product Testing Studies
General Piping Problems
General Piping Problems
Fire Sprinkler
Fire Sprinkler
Office Buildings
Office Buildings
Water Treatment
Water Treatment
New Construction
New Construction
Utilities
Utilities
Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater Treatment

Comparison testing was performed to measure the relative corrosion rate of the most commonly used CorrView ® models in 1-
1/2 in. and 3/4 in. ASTM 1018 steel, and commercially available ASTM 1010 and 1018 corrosion coupons typically used in coupon
racks to estimate pipe wall losses.

In addition, comparison was simultaneously made against the most commonly installed pipe for HVAC and process water
systems - ASTM A53, A106, and A795. Testing was performed by the accelerated salt spray method.

In order to provide a more formal and better recognized evaluation of CorrView ® against standard coupons and mild carbon
steel pipe, a salt spray test booth was constructed. Design of the test booth substantially followed ASTM Designation B 117 - 95:
Standard Practice for Operating Salt Spray (Fog) Apparatus.

Coupons of ASTM 1010 and 1018 mild carbon steel, typically used in the corrosion rate evaluation of HVAC piping systems,
were purchased from Metal Samples. Samples of actual ASTM A53, A106, and A795 pipe were also acquired on the open market,

http://www.corrview.com/testing_02.htm 2/7
14/9/2010 CorrView Corrosion Testing
and fabricated into the approximate length and width of the corrosion coupons. Weights of the individual samples were not recorded,
since an ultrasonic measurement of true wall loss would be used as the basis for corrosion rate, rather than weight loss.

Side View Of Test Assembly

The wall thickness of one end of each corrosion coupon and pipe sample coupon was measured ultrasonically at 15 individual
locations according to a standard grid pattern of specific dimension. Both CorrView ® models were similarly measured according to
a specified grid at 15 individual locations at its center. All wall thickness data was recorded into a spreadsheet to establish a
baseline.

A glass enclosure was constructed to house the metal test specimens. All specimens were positioned on a wooden base for
isolation and placed into the fog chamber. Specimens were physically arranged at an angle to the fog spray according to the
requirements of ASTM B 117 - 95.

A 5% salt spray solution was introduced into the test chamber via ultrasonic atomization and an overhead header configured to
provide uniform and indirect introduction of the salt fog. Our corrosion simulation procedure took exception to maintaining a test
chamber temperature of 95 ° F or to maintain pH, as the purpose of the test was to make a side by side comparison of different
metal types rather than produce a standardized corrosion rate environment. All test subjects were exposed to the same conditions
during its entire test period.

Testing was continued and the results observed. On the first cycle of exposure at 15 days, the samples were removed and
allowed to dry, then photographed. Deposits from the measured end of each test sample were then brushed free of rust deposits and
rinsed. Following the removal of this area of deposits, ultrasonic testing was performed at the same area of each sample, and along
the same grid pattern to provide a second set of wall thickness measurements. Wall loss and corrosion rates were calculated for
each test specimen. Additional photographs were taken of the cleaned test samples.

Results showed a general agreement of corrosion rate statistics within what we would consider reasonable limits. The salt spray
environment produced an extremely aggressive attack at all metal surfaces as evidenced by visual inspection of the exposed metals,
and of their underlying surfaces once deposits were removed (shown below). Moderate to high pitting was found in all examples,
requiring the use of "echo to echo" ultrasonic measurement technique in order to accurately measure the base dimension of such
areas.

Corrosion rates of between 19.5 MPY and 33.3 MPY were measured. The highly corrosive environment produced by the salt
spray chamber would be expected to exaggerate minor differences in metal chemistry of the steel samples, and therefore produce a
wider variation in result than under more typical conditions of a 1-3 MPY corrosion rate found at an open cooling tower system. The
differences noted between the steel pipe samples alone help support this position.

?evertheless, this series of tests showed a maximum variance of only 33.8% from the average corrosion rate measured, which
we found reasonable. This highest variance in result was found at sample # 5 of ASTM A53 pipe. The average variance of all
samples tested from the mean corrosion rate was 13.9% - minor in comparison to the large discrepancy often found between
corrosion coupons and true corrosion losses.

Test results for the standard corrosion coupons of ASTM 1010 and ASTM 1018 mild steels showed similar rates of corrosion to
the actual pipe samples measured. Installed in externally located corrosion coupon racks, however, their reported corrosion rates
are typically far below what actually exists at the interior pipe wall - the result of their being isolated from most of the corrosive
effects existing within the actual piping system.

A corrosion rate determination for a condenser water system of 0.5 MPY using coupons, when the actual measured loss of pipe
wall is 0.105 in. over 12 years or 8.75 MPY, is a substantial 1,750 % difference or under reporting of actual wall loss. Such extreme
http://www.corrview.com/testing_02.htm 3/7
14/9/2010 CorrView Corrosion Testing
error, often found to exist between 100% and 1,000% in actual UT testing comparisons, shows the current 33.8 % maximum
variance in corrosion rate results of all samples tested to be nearly insignificant.

The below graph well illustrates the variation in wall loss for the eight test subjects evaluated under this exposure period.

The below set of tables offers a visual and statistical comparison of corrosion rates for the two corrosion coupons, four pipe
sample coupons, and two CorrView ® products tested. Shown at the left is the original metal sample prior to testing, and in its
original form. The center photograph is the exposed and rusted sample as removed from the salt fog booth. The far right photograph
shows the same exposed sample after wire brushing.

Our testing produced an average corrosion rate of 28.7 MPY at the four samples of actual steel pipe - ASTM A106, A795, A53,
and A53, and an average corrosion rate of all eight metals tested of 27.3 MPY. For purposes of this evaluation, we then compared
the corrosion rates of the commercially available steel corrosion coupons and CorrView ® products, finding an average 8.1 % and
12.7 % variance in their corrosion rates from the true pipe samples respectively. Both the corrosion coupons and CorrView ®
products slightly under reported the corrosion rates found at the steel samples.

The percentage of variation in corrosion rate from the average measured value of 28.7 MPY measured at the five steel pipe
samples is also provided below. Further testing is in progress, and those additional results will be presented when available.

Metal Sample # 1 - Corrosion Coupon 1010 Steel

Specimen - Standard corrosion coupon from Metal Samples. ASTM 1010 mild carbon steel.
Exposure - 15 Days
Original Wall Thickness - 0.066 in.
Wall Loss - 0.0023 in. at two surfaces / Corrosion Rate - 28.0 MPY
Percent Variation From Mean Pipe Corrosion Rate - 12.4 %

http://www.corrview.com/testing_02.htm 4/7
14/9/2010 CorrView Corrosion Testing

Metal Sample # 2 - Corrosion Coupon 1018 Steel

Specimen - Standard corrosion coupon from Metal Samples. ASTM 1018 mild carbon steel.
Exposure - 15 Days
Original Wall Thickness - 0.063 in.
Wall Loss - 0.0025 in. at two surfaces / Corrosion Rate - 30.4 MPY
Percent Variation From Mean Pipe Corrosion Rate - 3.9 %

Metal Sample # 3 - Steel Pipe ASTM A106

Specimen - 2 in. ASTM A106 Grade B mild carbon steel pipe, schedule 10.
Exposure - 15 Days
Original Wall Thickness - 0.100 in.
Wall Loss - 0.0023 in. at two surfaces / Corrosion Rate - 28.0 MPY
Percent Variation From Mean Pipe Corrosion Rate - 10.3 %

Metal Sample # 4 - Steel Pipe ASTM A795

Specimen - 1-1/2 in. ASTM A795 Grade A mild carbon steel pipe, schedule 10.
Exposure - 15 Days
Original Wall Thickness - 0.104 in.
Wall Loss - 0.0025 in. at two surfaces / Corrosion Rate - 30.4 MPY
Percent Variation From Mean Pipe Corrosion Rate - 15.9 %

http://www.corrview.com/testing_02.htm 5/7
14/9/2010 CorrView Corrosion Testing

Metal Sample # 5 - Steel Pipe ASTM A53

Specimen - 1-1/4 in. ASTM A53 Grade B mild carbon steel pipe, schedule 40.
Exposure - 15 Days
Original Wall Thickness - 0.130 in.
Wall Loss - 0.0016 in. at two surfaces / Corrosion Rate - 19.5 MPY
Percent Variation From Mean Pipe Corrosion Rate - 32.5 %

Metal Sample # 6 - Steel Pipe ASTM A53

Specimen - 2 in. ASTM A53 Grade B mild carbon steel pipe, schedule 40.
Exposure - 15 Days
Original Wall Thickness - 0.151 in.
Wall Loss - 0.0025 in. at two surfaces / Corrosion Rate - 30.4 MPY
Percent Variation From Mean Pipe Corrosion Rate - 6.0 %

Metal Sample # 7 - 1-1/2 in. ?PT CorrView Monitor

Specimen - CorrView ® Model # P3S1-?F1-BC, 1-1/2 in. ?PT, 1018 mild carbon steel
Front Wear Thickness - 0.050 in.
Exposure - 15 Days
Original Wall Thickness - 0.099 in.
http://www.corrview.com/testing_02.htm 6/7
14/9/2010 CorrView Corrosion Testing
Wall Loss - 0.0009 in. at one surface / Corrosion Rate - 21.9 MPY
Percent Variation From Mean Pipe Corrosion Rate - 23.7 %

Metal Sample # 8 - 3/4 in. ?PT CorrView Monitor

Specimen - CorrView ® Model # P1S2-?F1-BC, 3/4 in. ?PT, 1018 mild carbon steel.
Front Wear Thickness - 0.100 in.
Exposure - 15 Days
Original Wall Thickness - 0.052 in.
Wall Loss - 0.0012 in. at one surface / Corrosion Rate - 29.2 MPY
Percent Variation From Mean Pipe Corrosion Rate - 1.8 %

Additional corrosion rate comparison testing is presented on this Internet site under the above Testing heading, and is currently
underway. A duplicate of this testing procedure has been commissioned to an independent laboratory. Results will be presented here
as soon as it is available. A second set of results from this group of test samples will be available on approximately 10/1/04.

© Copyright

http://www.corrview.com/testing_02.htm 7/7