Quantitative Modeling for Corrosion Behavior in Complex Coupled Environment by Response Surface Methodology

doi:10.1007/s40195-015-0286-9

Abstract

Abstract:

Response surface methodology (RSM) is introduced into corrosion research as a tool to assess the effects of environmental factors and their interactions on corrosion behavior and establish a model for corrosion prediction in complex coupled environment (CCE). In this study, a typical CCE, that is, the corrosion environment of pipelines in gas field is taken as an example. The effects of environmental factors such as chloride concentration, pH value and pressure as well as their interactions on critical pitting temperature (CPT) were evaluated, and a quadratic polynomial model was developed for corrosion prediction by RSM. The results showed that the model was excellent in corrosion prediction with R ² = 0.9949. CPT was mostly affected by single environmental factor rather than interaction, and among the whole factors, chloride concentration was the most influential factor of CPT.

Key words: Response surface methodology, Quantitative modeling 316L, Stainless steel, Critical pitting temperature

Jing Liu, Tao Zhang, Wei Zhang, Yan-Ge Yang, Ya-Wei Shao, Guo-Zhe Meng, Fu-Hui Wang. Quantitative Modeling for Corrosion Behavior in Complex Coupled Environment by Response Surface Methodology[J]. Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters), 2015, 28(8): 994-1001.

Figures/Tables 10

Table 1 Experimental variables and levels

Variable	Symbol	Low		Center		High
Variable	Symbol	Coded	Uncoded	Coded	Uncoded	Coded	Uncoded
NaCl (mol·L^-1)	X ₁	-1	1	0	3.5	+1	6
pH value	X ₂	-1	4	0	7	+1	10
Pressure (MPa)	X ₃	-1	0.1	0	4.1	+1	8.1

Table 2 Box-Behnken design matrix for three factors together with CPT results

Run	x ₁ for (NaCl)	x ₂ for pH value	x ₃ for pressure	CPT (°C)
1	-1	-1	0	8.0
2	+1	-1	0	3.3
3	0	-1	-1	7.1
4	-1	0	+1	7.5
5	-1	+1	0	7.4
6	0	-1	+1	5.0
7	+1	0	+1	3.8
8	+1	+1	0	2.5
9	0	+1	-1	5.5
10	-1	0	-1	9.8
11	0	+1	+1	4.0
12	+1	0	-1	5.4
13	0	0	0	7.9
14	0	0	0	8.1
15	0	0	0	8.0

Fig. 1 a Potentiodynamic polarization curves under different temperatures at the condition of 3.5 mol/L NaCl, pH value at 4 and 0.1 MPa pressure; b Plot of breakdown potential versus temperature obtained from the curves in a

Fig. 2 Plot of predicted values versus actual values of CPT

Table 3 Analysis of variance for the developed quadratic polynomial model

Source of variation	Sum of squares	Degree of freedom	Mean square	F value	p value
Model	68.92	9	7.66	108.62	<0.0001
x ₁ (NaCl)	45.60	1	45.60	646.83	<0.0001
x ₂ (pH value)	2.00	1	2.00	28.37	0.0031
x ₃ (pressure)	4.65	1	4.65	65.98	0.0005
x ₁ x ₂ (NaCl-pH value)	0.010	1	0.010	0.14	0.7219
x ₁ x ₃ (NaCl-pressure)	1.10	1	1.10	15.64	0.0108
x ₂ x ₃ (pH value-pressure)	0.090	1	0.090	1.28	0.3098
x ₁ ² (NaCl-NaCl)	3.07	1	3.07	43.61	0.0012
x ₂ ² (pH value-pH value)	11.80	1	11.80	167.34	<0.0001
x ₃ ² (pressure-pressure)	2.44	1	2.44	34.57	0.0020
Residual	0.35	5	0.070	/	/
Total	69.27	14	/	/	/

Fig. 3 Pareto histogram for weighing the effect of each of the environmental factors on CPT

Fig. 4 a Variation of CPT with NaCl concentration and pH value (pressure is 4.1 MPa); b variation of CPT with NaCl concentration and pressure (pH value is 7); c variation of CPT with pH and pressure (NaCl concentration is 3.5 mol/L)

Fig. 5 Comparison between the current predicted CPT of 316L SS under different NaCl concentrations and other results from literature [22, 23]

Fig. 6 CPT of 316L SS under the conditions with different pH values, NaCl concentration of 1 mol/L and pressure of 0.1 MPa, in comparison with the data of 254 SMO SS from Ref. [17]

Fig. 7 Predicted CPT of 316L SS under different pressures at the condition of 1 mol/L NaCl and pH of 7

References 29

[1]	Z.Y. Cui, X.G. Li, K. Xiao, C.F. Dong, Corros. Sci. 76, 243(2013)
[2]	Y.G. Yang, T. Zhang, Y.W. Shao, G.Z. Meng, F.H. Wang, Corros. Sci. 52, 2697(2010)
[3]	T. Zhang, Y.G. Yang, Y.W. Shao, G.Z. Meng, F.H. Wang, Electrochim. Acta 54, 3915 (2009)
[4]	M.N. Ilman, Case Stud. Eng. Fail Anal. 2, 1(2014)
[5]	N. Souissi, E. Triki, Corros. Sci. 50, 231(2008)
[6]	D. Bingöl, S. Zor, Corrosion 69, 462 (2013)
[7]	G. Luciano, P. Traverso, P. Letardi, Corros. Sci. 52, 2750(2010)
[8]	K. Polikreti, V. Argyropoulos, D. Charalambous, A. Vossou, V. Perdikatsis, C. Apostolaki, Corros. Sci. 51, 2416(2009)
[9]	S. Pintos, N.V. Queipo, O.T. Rincón, A. Rincón, M. Morcillo, Corros. Sci. 42, 35(2000)
[10]	J.E. Fernández, M.R. Fernández, R.V. Diaz, R.T. Navarro, Wear 255, 38 (2003)
[11]	L. Dong, Y.D. Sun, D.J. Li, Surf. Coat. Technol. 205, S422(2010)
[12]	I.A.W. Tan, A.L. Ahmad, B.H. Hameed,Chem. Eng. J. 137, 462(2008)
[13]	K.W. Chou, I. Norli, A. Anees, Bioresour. Technol. 101, 8616(2010)
[14]	R.F. Wang, P. Chen, F. Jia, J. Tang, F. Ma, Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 50, 331(2012)
[15]	K.H. Goh, T.T. Lim, P.C. Chui, Corros. Sci. 50, 918(2008)
[16]	T.B. Gu, Z.J. Chen, X.H. Jiang, L.M. Zhou, Y.W. Liao, M. Duan, H. Wang, Q. Pu, Corros. Sci. 90, 118(2015)
[17]	R. Qvarfort, Corros. Sci. 29, 987(1989)
[18]	B. Deng, Y.M. Jiang, J.X. Liao, Y.W. Hao, C. Zhong, J. Li, Appl. Surf. Sci. 253, 7369(2007)
[19]	J.H. Jo, D.S. Lee, D. Park, W.S. Choe, J.M. Park, Bioresour. Technol. 99, 2061(2008 )
[20]	K. Anupam, S. Dutta, C. Bhattacharjee, S. Datta, Chem. Eng. J. 173, 135(2011)
[21]	W.C. Lee, S. Yusof, N.S.A. Hamid, B.S. Baharin, J. Food Eng. 73, 55(2006)
[22]	P. Ernst, R.C. Newman, Corros. Sci. 49, 3705(2007)
[23]	N.J. Laycock, M.H. Moayed, R.C. Newman, J. Electrochem. Soc. 145, 2622(1998)
[24]	P.C. Pistorius, G.T. Burstein, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 341, 531(1992)
[25]	A.M. Beccaria, G. Poggi, G. Castello, Br. Corros. J. 30, 283(1995)
[26]	K. Asami, K. Hashimoto, S. Shimodaira, Corros. Sci. 18, 151(1978)
[27]	B. Liu, T. Zhang, Y.W. Shao, G.Z. Meng, J.T. Liu, F.H. Wang, Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 7, 1864(2012)
[28]	A.M. Beccaria, G. Poggi, D. Gingaud, P. Castello, Br. Corros. J. 29, 65(1994)
[29]	Y.G. Yang, T. Zhang, Y.W. Shao, G.Z. Meng, F.H. Wang, Corros. Sci. 73, 250(2013)