CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION

Aspects of Testing and Selecting Stainless Steels for Seawater Applications

U. Steinsmo, T. Rogne, and J. Drugli*

ABSTRACT
Relatively recent failures in seawater systems of highly alloyed (i.e., pitting resistance equivalent [PREN] > 40) stainless steels (SS) have highlighted the issue of corrosion testing and safe-use limits. Three aspects of testing and selection of SS for seawater application were reviewed: relevancy of the electrochemical test methods, the quality control system, and the importance of repassivation. A potentiostatic test for assessment of critical pitting (CPT) and crevice (CCT) temperatures was analyzed with respect to its ability to generate data relevant to chlorinated seawater systems. CPT seemed valid as safe-use limits, but the CCT determined were too high. A modified test approach was proposed. Generally, significant scatter in CCT and CPT values was registered, focusing on the importance of statistical experimental approach and data analyses. Recommendations were made on use of the ASTM G 48 test as a quality control method. The validity of critical pitting and crevice indices was analyzed. Even though rolled materials could be ranked according to the indices, the effect of heat treatment and product form may be far more important than minor variations in chemical composition. Repassivation phenomena were studied, and repassivation properties were suggested as the basis for material selection and corrosion control. KEY WORDS: crevice corrosion, critical crevice temperature, critical pitting temperature, heat treatment, material selection, potentiostatic testing, quality control, repassivation, seawater, stainless steel

INTRODUCTION
Since 1980, highly alloyed stainless steels (SS), those with a pitting resistance equivalent (PREN) > 40, have been in wide use in chlorinated seawater systems in the Norwegian offshore industry.1 The 6% Mo steels mainly have been used, but the highly alloyed duplex steels have been used to some extent. Recently, however, failures have been reported in the form of severe crevice corrosion on flanges in the cooling water system at Hydro Oseberg and crevice corrosion at the threaded cast and forged joints in the fire water system at the Snorre Platform.2-3 These failures highlight the issue of corrosion testing and safe-use limits for highly alloyed SS in seawater systems. The objective of the present work was to review three aspects regarding testing and selection of highly alloyed SS for seawater applications: Electrochemical test methods commonly used for corrosion testing of SS and their ability to generate data reflecting true corrosion susceptibility under actual service conditions were evaluated. Secondly, the quality control system was considered, including the ASTM G 48A test.4 A seawater pipe system implies use of different product forms and components: forged, rolled, cast, and welded. Quality of the material will vary depending upon chemical composition, production process, and heat treatment. In the quality control systems used, the main focus with respect to corrosion properties has been the chemical composition of the base material and quality of the weldments of tubes. The importance of crevices in connection with cast flanges and

Submitted for publication October 1995; in revised form, January 1997. Presented in part as paper no. 492 at CORROSION/94, March 1994, Baltimore, MD. * SINTEF Corrosion and Surface Technology, N-7034, Trondheim, Norway.

CORROSIONVol. 53, No.12

0010-9312/97/000215/$5.00+$0.50/0 1997, NACE International

955

CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION

temporary high-service temperature or chlorination level in a chlorinated seawater system may initiate corrosion attack that continues to propagate even though normal service conditions are reestablished. In the Norwegian offshore sector, this corresponds to a temperature of 30C and a residual chlorine (Cl2) concentration of 0.5 ppm in chlorinated seawater systems.

ELECTROCHEMICAL TEST METHODS

Pitting Corrosion
Determination of critical pitting potentials (CPP), critical crevice potentials (CCP), critical pitting temperatures (CPT), and critical crevice temperatures (CCT) are common electrochemical test methods used to assess corrosion properties of SS.5-7 A characteristic temperature-vs-current plot is shown in Figure 1.8 Initiation of corrosion is characterized by a sharp increase in the current. However, there is significant scatter in the data presented in the literature regarding critical temperatures for initiation of pitting corrosion, as illustrated by the data in Figure 2 for UNS S31254.9-10,(1) The temperature difference in this case was ~ 30C. The differences found in the electrochemical tests were not related to different weld methods nor composition since the ASTM G 48A results were similar. For the duplex SS UNS S31803, CPT at 600 mVSCE in a 3% NaCl electrolyte equal to 25C and 66C have been reported.7,11 This scatter reflects that results obtained using electrochemical test methods not only depend upon material quality but also on the test procedure, including factors such as pretreatment, sweep rate, polarization potential, etc. High sweep rates, for example, have been found to give higher CPP and less defined pitting initiation, as there is a continuous rather than a sharp increase in current.12 CPP/CPT diagrams, in contrast, can be used as design tools for material selection if the data are relevant. CPP/CPT data for rolled and welded UNS S31803, respectively, are shown in Figure 3(a).7 Data were obtained at constant temperature with a potential increase of 25 mV/8 h.7 Potentiostatic measurements with a temperature increase of 4C/24 h gave similar results.7 Open-circuit potentials (OCP) in natural seawater and in chlorinated seawater are shown in Figure 3(b). Data given were for UNS S31254, but were also relevant for noncorroding (passive) UNS S31803. Combining the OCP and the CPP/CPT diagram, it was evident that a potential level of 600 mVSCE corresponded to critical temperatures of ~ 30C and 22C for rolled and welded UNS S31803, respectively. Data obtained by this approach were not affected significantly by a pH variation from 1.5 to 8.2, a variation in oxygen (O2) concentration from < 5 ppb to saturation, and a partial pressure of CO2 (PCO2) up to 10 bar

FIGURE 1. Anodic current density vs temperature for 6% Mo steel polarized to 600 mVSCE (crevice: metal gasket; electrolyte: airsaturated 3% NaCl; temperature increase/decrease: 4C/24 h after free exposure at 20.0C 0.5C for 24 h.8

FIGURE 2. CPT vs potential for UNS S31254 welds: () long-term test, 4C/24 h, gas metal arc welding (GMAW weld);9 and () shortterm tests, 20 mV/min, shielded metal arc welding (SMAW weld).10

threaded joints or the quality of weldments in connection with joining of cast and rolled material has received less attention. Third, importance of the repassivation properties of the material was addressed. Studies have shown that, even though a high temperature is necessary to initiate crevice corrosion, repassivation takes place at far lower temperatures. Hence, a
(1)

UNS numbers are listed in Metals and Alloys in the Unified Numbering System, published by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and cosponsored by ASTM.

956

CORROSIONDECEMBER 1997

CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION

(1 MPa).13 The partial pressure of hydrogen sulfide (PH2S) during these tests was zero. Hence, the data can be used for material selection in a range of environments if the concentration of halides and the H2S level are the same. The CPP of UNS S31803 at 60C increased ~ 250 mVSCE when the chloride concentration was reduced from 3% to 0.1% sodium chloride (NaCl).7 The presence of H2S also was important: 0.021 bar (0.002 MPa) H2S was found to lower the CPP of a superduplex UNS S32760 ~ 100 mV at 150C.14 A comparison between the electrochemical test method and loop tests was made. The CPT for 11 welded, highly alloyed SS were determined using a temperature increase rate of 4C/24 h and potentiostatic polarization to 600 mVSCE, simulating steady-state conditions in chlorinated seawater. In the loop tests, spool pieces of 2-in (0.05-m) pipes including 12 flanges and 12 welds of each material were tested in chlorinated seawater at 30C with 0.5 ppm and 1.5 ppm residual Cl2, respectively. Data are summarized in Table 1.15 Maximum and minimum critical temperatures are given. Since the temperature steps are 4C, the real CPTmin and CCTmin values could have been up to 4C below the temperature given. For each material, four specimens were tested. In the loop tests, none of the welds for the austenitic materials were attacked (Table 1). This was in accordance with results from the pitting tests. Three of the duplex materials (8D, 7D, and 3D), however, were attacked despite CPTmin values > 30C. For all welds attacked in the loop tests, flanges were welded to pipes. For the laboratory tests, pipes were welded to pipes. This meant the materials in the two tests were produced differently and, therefore, may have been of different quality. CPTmin values for the duplex materials (6D, 6D2) not attacked during the loop tests were 40C and 32C, respectively. In this case, the materials tested in the loop test and the laboratory test were the same.

(a)

(b)

Crevice Corrosion
While determination of CPT using a long-term potentiostatic test method seem to give practical relevant test results, the same approach gave too high CCT values. This was illustrated by comparison of the CCT for 11 highly alloyed SS and results from the loop tests. Results are summarized in Table 2. CCT was determined using the same procedure as for CPT (i.e., polarizing to a constant potential equal to 600 mVSCE to simulate conditions in chlorinated seawater and increasing the temperature by 4C/24 h).8 Despite CCT 36C, crevice corrosion of the flanges was observed for six of the 11 materials tested at 0.5 ppm residual Cl2 and for 10 of the 11 materials tested at 1.5 ppm residual Cl2 and 30C. The lack of correlation between the laboratory test

FIGURE 3. (a) CPP vs temperature for rolled and welded UNS S31803:6 (electrolyte: 3% NaCl at 2.5 bar CO2; potential increase: 25 mV/8 h at constant temperature); and (b) OCP for UNS S31254 as a function of temperature after mininum of 3 weeks of exposure in chlorinated and natural seawater.19-20 (Flow rate > 0.5 m/s; chlorinated seawater = > 1 ppm residual Cl2.

and the loop tests may not have resulted only from the test method, but may have been related to the different product forms tested. In the laboratory test, rolled plate materials were used except for Materials 6A, 6D, and 6D2. In the loop tests, forged and cast materials were tested. CCT determined by the potentiostatic test were far higher than CCT reported for the ASTM G 48B

CORROSIONVol. 53, No.12

957

CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION

TABLE 1 CPTmax and CPTmin for SS Welds Determined by Potentiostatic Polarization in 3% NaCl and Number of Welds Attacked in Two Loop Tests with Chlorinated Seawater at 30C and 0.5 ppm and 1.5 ppm Residual Cl215
Electrochemical Test CPTmax CPTmin (C) (C) 56 68 68 68 60 56 40 44 36 52 44 52 52 64 60 60 56 56 40 40 32 48 32 52 Welds Attacked in Loop Tests (of 12) 0.5 1.5 ppm Cl2 ppm Cl2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 1

Material No.(A) 1A 2A 3A 4A 5A(1) 6A 3D 6D 6D2 7D 8D1 8D2

(A) (B)

UNS S31254 N08367 N08932 N08925 N08925 S32550

CPT S(B) (C) 54 65 65 65 58 56 40 42 35 51 37 52 1.2 1.2 1.9 1.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 3.0 1.2

CPI(C) 42.46 44.24 46.04 43.68 42.31 45.93 38.67 45.37 36.91 39.99 40.69 40.69

S32760 S32750 S32750

A = austenitic; D = duplex. Four replicates, S = standard deviation. (C) CPI = % Cr + 3.3% Mo + 13% N.16

TABLE 2 CCTmax and CCTmin for SS Crevices Determined by Potentiostatic Polarization in 3% NaCl and Number of Welds and Flanges Attacked in Two Loop Tests with Chlorinated Seawater at 30C and 0.5 ppm and 1.5 ppm Residual Cl28
Electrochemical Test Material No.(A) 1A 2A 3A 4A 5A(1) 5A(2) 6A 3D 6D 6D2 7D 8D
(A) (B)

Flanges Attacked in Loop Tests (of 12) CCI(C) 50.7 51.52 50.26 52.08 50.58 51.94 52.96 44.40 52.89 43.07 46.54 46.82 0.5 ppm Cl2 0 1 3 8 0 5 3 0 7 0 0 1.5 ppm Cl2 3 2 1 8 3 7 2 0 6 3 4

CCT + S(B) (C) 62.0 1.4 70.0 3.1 58.7 0.84 63.3 2.4 52.0 1.1 71.3 2.2 45.3 0.85 57.3 0.84 58.6 2.5 44.7 1.2 61.3 1.3 72.0 1.5

CCTmax (C) 64 80 60 72 56 76 48 60 64 48 64 76

CCTmin (C) 56 60 56 56 48 64 44 56 52 40 56 68

A = austenitic; D = duplex. Six replicates, S = standard deviation. (C) CCl = % Cr + 4.1% Mo + 27% N.16

ferric chloride (FeCl3) test. For the 6% FeCl3 test, CCT for this group of materials are ~ 30C lower.16 Studies indicate this difference is related to the effect of the rate of potential change on CCT. This has not been found to have any effect on CPT.9 The effect of the rate of potential change on the initiation of crevice corrosion is shown in Figure 4.17 A fast change in the potential lowered CCT. During the fast scan (120 mV/h), crevice corrosion initiated at 35C but did not initiate during the slow scan (40 mV/h); that

is, anodic current < 1 A/cm2. This implies that a test method that gives relevant CCT will be complex. The test method has to be modified to take into consideration the potential levels and changes in potential for each specific environment. The rate of potential increase and the potential level in a seawater pipeline will depend on the amount of Cl2 added if any, the temperature, the flow rate, and the material properties. Cast materials, for example, have a higher passive current, which implies a lower poten-

958

CORROSIONDECEMBER 1997

CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION

(a)

(b)

FIGURE 4. (a) Anodic current densities for crevice samples of UNS S31254 exposed to 3% NaCl solution at 35C. The three samples in the test series were subjected to two potential developments; and (b) a fast (120 mV/h and a slow (40 mV/h) potential rise from 0 mVSCE to 600 mVSCE.17

tial increase rate than for the rolled materials.18 The time of exposure prior to adding the Cl2 (i.e., the prehistory) also is important. To illustrate the variations in potential changes and level, Figure 5 shows the potential as a function of exposure time in natural and chlorinated seawater. The effect of temperature in natural seawater also is shown.19-20

QUALITY CONTROL

Statistics
One fact generally neglected in quality control of SS is the stochastic nature of the pitting and crevice corrosion processes, and the respective variations in test data. Often, only one specimen is tested. Even if more than one specimen is tested, only one critical temperature is reported. The difference in minimum and maximum temperature may be as high as 20C for samples taken from the same charge, as shown for Material 2A in Table 2. Six specimens were tested for each material quality, and the difference in the scatter of the test results for the same charge of a material most probably reflected differences in the homogeneity (Table 2). This demonstrated the importance of testing more than one sample and to report the number of samples tested, mean value, standard deviation, and minimum value. In addition, there may be variation in critical temperatures resulting from variations in composition, fabrication, and production.

FIGURE 5. Potential of UNS S31254 as a function of exposure.19-20

Material Composition, Fabrication, and Production

Critical crevice indices (CCI) and critical pitting indices (CPI) often are used to evaluate the crevice corrosion resistance of a material. The indices are

supposed to reflect the effect of alloying elements on corrosion resistance. Different indices have been proposed for austenitic materials, such as the critical crevice index: CCI = % Cr + 4.1% Mo + 27% N and the critical pitting indices: PREN = % Cr + 3.3% Mo + 16% N for the base material and CCP = % Cr + 3.3% Mo + 13% N for welds.21 Figures 6 and 7 show a plot of CPT and CCT values for 11 highly alloyed SS vs the CPI an CCI, respectively. Figure 6 shows CPI used reflected the relative pitting susceptibility of welded, rolled, duplex, and austenitic steels.

CORROSIONVol. 53, No.12

959

CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION

FIGURE 6. Mean CPT plotted vs CPI for welded rolled, forged (6D2) and cast (6A and 6D) materials.15

showed results similar to the rolled materials while the cast materials (Materials 6A and 6D) also have lower critical temperatures at the same index in this case. Two charges of the same material, 5A(1) and 5A(2), were found to have a difference in mean critical temperature equal to 19.3C. This difference resulted partially from a difference in chemical composition and partly from a difference in heat treatment. Fabrication has another important influence on the corrosion properties. It generally is recognized that all welding operations lead to reduced corrosion resistance.21-24 Welds tested should be similar to welds in actual applications. The basis for design and material selection should be the properties of the worst welds or weld defects accepted. To illustrate the possible variations in weld quality, results from a study of weldments for a process flow line of duplex UNS S318703 are presented in Figure 8.25

Acceptance Criteria
The ASTM G 48A test generally is used for quality control of SS. Interesting aspects regarding the practical relevancy of this test and testing procedures have been discussed earlier.21 The potential level in the FeCl3 is ~ 600 mVSCE, which is in the same range as in chlorinated seawater, and the chloride concentration is not significantly different. This is in contrast to, for example, deoxygenated chloride solutions having far lower OCP. The acceptance criterion for the 6% Mo steels and the highly alloyed duplex steels materials and weldments usually are a CPT in the ASTM G 48A test > 40C. With respect to weldments, this is sufficient if the material is to be used in a chlorinated seawater system at 30C and 0.5 ppm residual Cl2. With respect to the risk of crevice corrosion, the requirement to the base material is not sufficient. This is illustrated by Figure 9, which shows the CPP/CPT diagram for UNS S31254 steel.9,14 The figure shows that the CPT of rolled UNS S31254 at 600 mVSCE is ~ 80C and for cast UNS S31254, of high quality, ~ 70C.9,14 CCT from measured values and field data are shown on the same figure.2-3,26-27 CCT typically are as much as 40 to 60C below the CPT for the rolled material. This indicates that, to avoid crevice corrosion at 30C in chlorinated seawater, the acceptance criteria for the base materials should be at least 60C. Further studies, however, are necessary since the pitting data available are mainly for rolled qualities, while flanges usually are made of forged or cast materials.

FIGURE 7. Mean CCT vs CCI for rolled, forged (6D2) and cast (6A and 6D) materials.8

The figure demonstrates, however, that the product form or the heat treatment may be far more important than minor variations in chemical composition. The cast materials were found to have far lower CPT than indicated by the CPI value (Materials 6A and 6D). Two charges of the same material were found to have a difference in the mean CPT equal to 15C (Material 8D). Four samples were tested from each charge, and the standard deviation was 1.2C. The only difference between Charges 1 and 2 of Material 8D was the quench-annealing procedure. Metallographic examination showed sigma precipitation in the base material of Charge 1.15 Figure 7 shows that, despite a lower CCI for the duplex materials, CCT were at the same level as for the austenitic materials. However, it was not possible to obtain a linear fit within each group to the CCT/ CCI data. The forged duplex material (Material 6D2)

REPASSIVATION PROPERTIES
It is necessary to significantly lower the temperature to promote repassivation once crevice corrosion has initiated (Figure 1). Deviations from the normal

960

CORROSIONDECEMBER 1997

CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION

service conditions are not uncommon. A temporary high service temperature may initiate a corrosion attack that continues to propagate even though normal service conditions are reestablished. How serious this is depends upon repassivation properties of the materials. Active corrosion may not necessarily lead to practical corrosion failures (Figure 10). Figure 10 shows the galvanic current between crevice specimens and a SS cathode exposed to natural seawater in a seawater test loop. The cathode:anode area ratio was 300:1. Prior to the transfer to the seawater loop, the crevice specimens were initiated at a high temperature and high potential.28 A schematic of the test setup is shown in Figure 11. Figures 10(a) and (b) show the corrosion attack continued to propagate at low temperatures (15C and 25C). The tendency to repassivation, however, was high. Hence, to determine the rate of crevice corrosion for a given crevice geometry and area ratio, it is not sufficient to determine the weight loss or the depth of the corrosion attack. Also, the period the crevice was active must be known. Table 3 summarizes results from the long-term tests in natural seawater. The data indicated that rolled materials had the lowest corrosion rates, followed by welded and cast materials and, hence. confirmed earlier observations regarding the importance of the production process. Cast UNS S32750 differed from the other materials studied (Table 3). It did not repassivate at 15C and 25C and had deep attacks at the end of the tests. This demonstrated the need for further investigations with respect to repassivation properties. Data on repassivation temperatures and potentials are important with respect to material selection and corrosion control during service. The data in Table 3 also illustrated the importance of cathode:anode ratio with respect to the rate of crevice corrosion. At 15C and 25C, the cathodic current density was high as a result of the effect of microbial activity on cathodic properties of SS.19,29 The propagation of crevice corrosion mainly was limited by the anodic reaction. Average current densities in the active period typically were 70 A/cm2 to 300 A/cm2. At 40C, however, there was no effect of microorganisms, and the propagation of crevice corrosion apparently was limited by the cathodic reaction. The corrosion rate was negligible (i.e., 1 A/cm2 to 6 A/cm2).

FIGURE 8. Scatter in CPT for base materials and different types of welds in UNS S31803 in the ASTM G 48A test. Temperature was increased 4C each 24 h.25

FIGURE 9. CPT and CCT vs potential for UNS S31254 for good weld,8 crevice,27 high-quality cast,14 and rolled.9 In the three later cases, only the values around 400 mVSCE to 600 mVSCE were determined.

CONCLUSIONS
y Determination of CPT using a potentiostatic test method and a low temperature increase rate (4C/24 h) gave practical relevant test data. y Determination of CCT using a potentiostatic test method and a low temperature increase rate

(4C/24 h) gave CCT too high. The test method must be modified to include the effect of changes in potential in a pipe system during startup. y The difference between CCTmin and CCTmax for the same charge of a material may be as high as 20C. This demonstrates the importance of testing more than one sample and to report data as number of samples tested, mean value, standard deviation, and minimum value. y The CCI and CPI can be used to rank similar materials, such as rolled SS. With respect to pitting

CORROSIONVol. 53, No.12

961

CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

FIGURE 10. Galvanic current density in natural seawater between crevice specimens of UNS S31254 (each with an area of 5.5 cm2[0.85 in.2]) and a 5,000-cm2 (775-in.2) cathode: (a) rolled and welded, 15C; (b) rolled, 25C; (c) rolled, 40C; and (d) through (f) potential of the galvanic coupling as a function of time. The ratio between cathodic and anodic areas was 300 to 1.27

962

CORROSIONDECEMBER 1997

CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION

TABLE 3 Largest Average Current Density, Longest Time to Repassivation, and Maximum Average Corrosion Attack of Three Parallel Specimens from Results of Long-Duration Experiments with Galvanic Coupling 28
Temp. 15C Material(A) UNS S31254 UNS S32750 Welded Cast Welded Cast Rolled Welded Cast Rolled Welded Cast Rolled Welded Cast Rolled Welded Cast iavg (A/cm2) 86 91 68 71 118 283 218 68 71 343 3.7 2.2 6.0 1.7 3.0 5.1 Timeavg (days) 22(B) 118 > 195 > 195 30 41 73 69 153 224 15 10 15 16 12 18 Depthavg (m) 60 310 360 260 100 330 450 130 300 2,000 2.3(C) 2.0(C) 2.0(C) 1.0(C) 2.4(C) 3.5(C)

25C

UNS S31254

UNS S32750

(a)
40C UNS S31254

UNS S32750

(A)

Welded = welded plate. Specimen repassivated because of a temporary temperature drop to 9C. (C) 50% to 70 % of the attacks were due to corrosion during the initiation phase.
(B)

(b)
FIGURE 11. Schematic of the experimental setup: (a) crevice assembly and (b) galvanic coupling of crevice assemblies and SS cathode.

tion temperature. Repassivation properties of a material, therefore, are important with respect to material selection and corrosion control.
REFERENCES
1. R. Johnsen, Stainless Steels in Seawater Systems, NITO Conf., Norwegian Society of Engineers and Nickel Development Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Feb. 7-8, 1990 (1990). 2. A. Dahlheim, Experience with Stainless Steel for Process and Seawater Systems (Trondheim, Norway: NIF, 1993). 3. R. Mollan, Materials Engineering Experiences Snorre Project (Trondheim, Norway, NIF, 1993). 4. ASTM G 48-92, Standard Test Method for Pitting and Corrosion Resistance of Stainless Steels and Related Alloys by Use of Ferric Chloride Solutions (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 1992). 5. S. Tsujikawa, A New Test Method for Predicting Pitting Corrosion Resistance of CRA in Sour Environments, CORROSION/ 88, paper no. 64 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1988). 6. R.J. Brigham, F.W. Tozer, Corrosion 29, 1 (1973): p. 23. 7. J.M. Drugli, T. Rogne, S. Valen, R. Johnsen, S. Olsen, Corrosion Test Methods for Evaluating Stainless Steels for Well Flow Applications, CORROSION/90, paper no. 270 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1990). 8. U. Steinsmo, T. Rogne, J.M. Drugli, P.O. Gartland, Corrosion 53, 1 (1997): p. 26. 9. J.M. Drugli, T. Rogne, R. Johnsen, S. Olsen, Corrosion Testing of Stainless Steel Weldments in Seawater, NaCl, and FeCl3 Solutions, CORROSION/88, paper no. 410 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1988). 10. B. Wallen, M. Liljas, P. Stenvall, AVESTA 654 SMO A New High-Molybdenum High-Nitrogen Stainless Steel, Avesta Sheffield Corrosion Management and Application Engineering, ACOM No. 2 (Avesta Sheffield AB, Sweden: 1992). 11. S. Bernhardson, Corrosion Resistance of Duplex Stainless Steels, Proc. Duplex Stainless Steels 91, vol. 1 (1991), p. 185.

corrosion, the same index apparently can be used for duplex and austenitic SS. With respect to crevice corrosion, different indices must be used. y Differences in heat treatment and product form can be far more important than minor variations in chemical composition. Cast materials, in general, had reduced corrosion resistance compared to forged and rolled materials. Obviously, surface analyses are necessary. y The acceptance criteria for the base materials in the ASTM G 48A test for determination of CPT should be at least 60C to avoid crevice corrosion in chlorinated seawater at 30C and 0.5 ppm residual Cl2. y To determine the rate of crevice corrosion for a given crevice geometry and cathode:anode area ratio, not only the weight loss and the depth of the corrosion attack should be determined, but also the period of active corrosion. y Crevice corrosion of highly alloyed SS (PREN > 40) exposed to natural seawater, once initiated, can propagate at temperatures far lower than the initia-

CORROSIONVol. 53, No.12

963

CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION

12. T. Rogne, J.M. Drugli, R. Johnsen, MP Sept. 26 (1987). 13. T. Rogne, J.M. Drugli, T. Wenn, R. Johnsen, S. Olsen, Influence of Some Environmental Factors on Corrosion of Stainless Steel Weldments in Simulated Well Flow, CORROSION/89, paper no. 470 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1989). 14. T. Rogne, J.M. Drugli, R. Johnsen, MP 26, 9 (1987). 15. J.M. Drugli, U. Steinsmo, P.O. Gartland, T. Rogne, HighAlloyed Stainless Steels for Chlorinated Seawater Applications Testing for Critical Pitting Temperature, CORROSION/93, paper no. 645 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1993). 16. N. Suutala, M. Kurkela, Localized Corrosion Resistance of High-Alloy Stainless Steels and Welds, Stainless Steel/84, Gothenburg, Sweden (London, England: Institute of Metals, 1985). 17. P.O. Gartland, Aspects of Testing Stainless Steels for Sea Water Applications, Working Party Report on Marine Corrosion of Stainless Steels: Chlorination and Microbial Effects, European Federation of Corrosion Publications, no. 10 (London, England: Institute of Materials, 1993), p. 134. 18. T. Rogne, J.M. Drugli, Corrosion Properties of 22% Cr Duplex Stainless Steels in CO2 Brine Containing Small Amounts of Oxygen, CORROSION/93, paper no. 644 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1993). 19. R. Holthe, E. Bardal, P.O. Gartland, MP 28, 6 (1989): p. 16. 20. P.O. Gartland, S.I. Valen, Crevice Corrosion of High-Alloyed Stainless Steels in Chlorinated Seawater; Part II Aspects of the Mechanism, CORROSION/91, paper no. 511 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1991).

21. T. Rogne, J.M. Drugli, S. Valen, Corrosion 48, 10 (1992): p. 864. 22. A. Garner, Weld. J., January (1983): p. 27-34. 23. A. Poznansky, E.A. Lizlows, Corrosion Resistance of Several Welded and Unwelded Stainless Steels and Nickel-Based Alloys in a Simulated Pulp and Paper Industry Environment, CORROSION/84, paper no. 242 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1984). 24. R.A. Walter, T.G. Gooch, Brit. Corros. J. 26 (1991): p. 1. 25. J.M. Drugli, T. Rogne, Corrosion Testing and Evaluation of Required Weld Quality for Duplex Stainless Steels for Transport of Oil and Gas, Stainless Steels 92, Stockholm, Sweden, vol. 1 (1992), p. 315-325. 26. T.G. Eggen, Long-Duration Exposure of Seawater Pumps and Components of 254 SMO in Seawater, SINTEF Report STF34 F90106 (1990). 27. S. Valen, P.O. Gartland, U. Steinsmo, Effect of Temperature in Initiation, Repassivation, and Propagation of Crevice Corrosion of High-Alloyed Stainless Steels in Natural Sea Water, Working Party Report on Marine Corrosion of Stainless Steels: Chlorination and Microbial Effects, European Federation of Corrosion Publications, no. 10 (London, England: Institute of Materials, 1993), p. 114. 28. U. Steinsmo, S. Valen, P.O. Gartland, E. Bardal, Effect of Temperature on Propagation of Crevice Corrosion of HighAlloyed Stainless Steels in Natural Seawater, 10th Europ. Corr. Cong., paper no. 244 (Barcelona, Spain: BRP, Edificio Layetana, 1993). 29. A. Mollica, A. Trevis, G. Ventura, G. De Carolis, R. Dellepiane, Corrosion 45, 1 (1989): p. 48.

964

CORROSIONDECEMBER 1997