Effect of Alloying Tin on the Corrosion Characteristics of Austenitic Stainless Steel in Sulfuric Acid and Sodium Chloride Solutions

doi:10.1007/s40195-015-0299-4

Abstract

Abstract:

The effect of tin on general and pitting corrosion behaviors of the austenitic stainless steel in sulfuric acid and sodium chloride solutions was investigated by potentiostatic critical pitting temperature, cyclic potentiodynamic polarization, electrochemical impedance spectroscopy, and scanning electron microscopy. The results showed that there is an optimal tin addition which is around (0.062-0.1) wt%, and the general corrosion resistance of B316LX with 0.08 wt% tin addition in boiling H₂SO₄ increased remarkably with a corrosion rate of an order of magnitude lower than that of 316L. Hydrolyzation of tin ions induces more metastable pit occurrence on the material surface. However, the pitting resistance of B316LX increases because tin oxides improve the density and uniformity of the passive film, and hydroxide and oxide of tin inhabit the process of pit growing. The effect of tin on pitting corrosion process is illustrated schematically.

Key words: Stainless steel, Corrosion resistance, Passivation, Pitting corrosion

Min Sun, Ming Luo, Chao Lu, Tian-Wei Liu, Yan-Ping Wu, Lai-Zhu Jiang, Jin Li. Effect of Alloying Tin on the Corrosion Characteristics of Austenitic Stainless Steel in Sulfuric Acid and Sodium Chloride Solutions[J]. Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters), 2015, 28(9): 1089-1096.

Figures/Tables 10

Table 1 Chemical composition of tin addition austenitic stainless steel (wt%)

Materials	C	Si	Mn	S	P	Cr	Ni	Cu	Mo	N	Sn
Sample 1	0.024	0.52	1.41	0.003	0.007	16.12	10.05	0.21	2.03	0.025	0
Sample 2	0.021	0.54	1.42	0.004	0.007	16.15	10.06	0.23	2.01	0.031	0.062
Sample 3	0.018	0.51	1.35	0.006	0.007	15.95	10.07	0.20	2.03	0.033	0.1
Sample 4	0.02	0.47	1.38	0.004	0.006	15.90	9.92	0.25	2.03	0.027	0.229
316L	0.0149	0.49	1.41	0.002	0.022	16.16	10.4	0.09	2.05	0.030	-
B316LX	0.0188	0.50	1.43	0.002	0.024	16.14	10.27	0.15	2.01	0.027	0.08
317L	0.0171	0.43	1.52	0.001	0.023	18.07	13.41	0.11	3.06	0.0415	-

Fig. 1 Corrosion rates of tin addition austenitic stainless steel with different tin contents in 5 wt% boiling sulfuric acid solution.

Fig. 2 Corrosion rates of 316L, B316LX and 317L in 1, 5, 10, 20 wt% boiling sulfuric acid solutions.

Fig. 3 SEM morphologies of corrosion products deposited on 316L a, B316LX b, 317L c in 5 wt% boiling sulfuric acid solution after 6 h.

Fig. 4 Typical curves of current density versus temperature for 316L, B316LX and 317L at 700 mV versus SCE during CPT test in 1 mol/L NaCl solution.

Fig. 5 EIS plots and equivalent circuit diagram of 316L, B316LX, 317L in 3.5 wt% NaCl solution at 30 °C.

Table 2 Values of impedance parameters determined for 316L, B316LX and 317L in 3.5 wt% NaCl solution at 30 °C

	R _f (Ω cm²)	Y _f Ω^-1 s ⁿ cm²	n	R _f (Ω cm²)	Y _dl Ω^-1 s ⁿ cm²	n	R _ct (Ω cm²)
316L	8.04	0.00051	0.86	1.19 × 10⁴	0.00015	0.84	817.5
B316LX	8.44	0.00035	0.82	1.96 × 10⁴	0.00019	0.84	2162
317L	7.85	0.00021	0.81	3.05 × 10⁴	0.00024	0.80	8147

Fig. 6 CPP curves of 316L, B316LX, and 317L in 3.5 wt% NaCl solution at 30 °C.

Fig. 7 XPS spectra of Fe3d3/2, Cr3d3/2, Cu3d3/2, Sn3d3/2 for B316LX SS after polarization at 0.4 V versus SCE for 2 h in 3 wt% H2SO4 +0.5 wt%NaCl solutions.

Fig. 8 Schematic diagram of effect of tin on pitting corrosion of austenitic stainless steel in chloride-containing solutions.

References 24

[1]	A. Pardo, M.C. Merino, A.E. Coy, F. Viejo, M. Carboneras, R. Arrabal, Acta Mater. 55, 2239(2007)
[2]	H.S. Klapper, J. Stevens, G. Wiese, Corrosion 69, 1095 (2013)
[3]	A.Q. Lü, Y. Zhang, Y. Li, G. Liu, Q.H. Zang, C.M. Liu, Acta Metall. Sin. (Engl. Lett.) 19, 183(2006)
[4]	J.R. Kish, N.J. Stead, D.L. Singbeil, Corrosion 65, 491 (2009)
[5]	Y. Xuan, C. Zhang, N.Q. Fan, Z.G. Yang, Acta Metall. Sin. (Engl. Lett.) 27, 539(2014)
[6]	A. Pardo, M.C. Merino, M. Carboneras, F. Viejo, R. Arrabal, J. Muñoz, Corros. Sci. 48, 1075(2006)
[7]	N.D. Nam, M.J. Kim, Y.W. Jang, J.G. Kim, Corros. Sci. 52, 14(2010)
[8]	A. Parsapour, S. Khorasani, M.H. Fathi, Acta Metall. Sin. (Engl. Lett.) 26, 409(2013)
[9]	C. Zhong, F. Liu, Y.T. Wu, J.J. Le, L. Liu, M.F. He, J.C. Zhu, W.B. Hu, J. Alloys Compd. 520, 11(2012)
[10]	A. Pardo, M.C. Merino, M. Carboneras, A.E. Coy, R. Arrabal, Corros. Sci. 49, 510(2007)
[11]	D.A. Shirley, Phys. Rev. B 5, 4709 (1972)
[12]	R.M.F. Corrosion 70, 390 (2014)
[13]	L.D. Chen, H. Tan, Z.Y. Wang, J. Li, Y.M. Jiang, Corros. Sci. 58, 168(2012)
[14]	B. Deng, Y.M. Jiang, J.X. Liao, Y.W. Hao, C. Zhong, J. Li, Appl. Surf. Sci. 253, 7369(2007)
[15]	M. Zamanzade, A. Barnoush, Corros. Sci. 78, 223(2014)
[16]	Z.C. Feng, X.Q. Cheng, C.F. Dong, L. Xu, X.G. Li, Corros. Sci. 52, 3646(2010)
[17]	N. Upadhyay, M.G. Pujar, C.R. Das, C. Mallika, U.K. Mudali, Corrosion 70, 781 (2014)
[18]	M. Pourbaix, L.K. Mathieiu, C. Mertens, J. Meunier, C. Vanleugenhaghe, L. Munck, J. Laureys, L. Neelemans, M. Warzee, Corros. Sci. 3, 239(1963)
[19]	A.S. Hamada, L.P. Karjalainen, M.C. Somani, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 431, 211 (2006)
[20]	R. Bandy, J.R. Cahoon, Corrosion 33, 2048 (1977)
[21]	P. Keller, H.H. Strehblow, Corros. Sci. 46, 1939 (2004)
[22]	S.S. Xin, M.C. Li, Corros. Sci. 81, 96(2014)
[23]	X. Zhang, Q. Zhao, J. Guo, Q. Xing, L. Deng, X. Hou, C.F Fang, Acta Metall. Sin. (Engl. Lett.) 26, 345(2013)
[24]	C.I. House, G.H. Kelsall, Electrochim. Acta 29, 1459 (1984)