Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sunday Aribo, Richard Barker, Xinming Hu, Anne Neville: Sciverse Sciencedirect
Sunday Aribo, Richard Barker, Xinming Hu, Anne Neville: Sciverse Sciencedirect
Wear
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wear
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 17 September 2012
Received in revised form
29 November 2012
Accepted 8 December 2012
Available online 20 December 2012
The interaction between corrosion and erosion has often been a subject of debate among scientists and
engineers. The total material degradation when corrosion and erosion interact is often more than the
individual components acting separately. Much effort has been directed towards the study of erosion
corrosion behaviour of carbon steels, standard austenitic and duplex stainless steels, highly alloyed
austenitic and super duplex stainless steels. However, the subject of erosioncorrosion of lean duplex
stainless steels is still rarely reported. This present work studies the erosioncorrosion behaviour of
lean duplex stainless steels UNS S32304 and UNS S32101 in an aerated 3.5% NaCl environment.
The erosioncorrosion behaviour of these alloys is compared with an austenitic stainless steel, UNS
S30403 and a duplex stainless steel, UNS S32205. Sub-surface microstructure modications induced by
work-hardening as a result of the sand impingement were analysed by X-ray Diffraction (XRD) and
Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). Results show that lean duplex stainless steels, UNS S32101 and
UNS S32304, have higher resistance to pure erosion than UNS S30403 and UNS S32205; better erosion
corrosion resistance than UNS S30403 austenitic stainless steel; and equivalent erosioncorrosion
resistance to UNS S32205 duplex stainless steel. Also, erosion with 500 mg/l sand at 15 m/s in
de-aerated tap water was able to cause subsurface deformation, phase transformation and an increase
in hardness on the stainless steels.
& 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Erosioncorrosion
Lean duplex stainless steel
XRD
SEM
1. Introduction
Duplex stainless steels are designed for applications in aggressive oileld and marine environments where both corrosion
resistance and mechanical properties of 300 series austenitic
stainless steels would perhaps be limited [1]. However, high
production costs have always been one major limitation to
selection of these alloys. The recent surge in the prices of nickel
and molybdenum has driven the cost of production of stainless
steels higher. The lean duplex stainless steels with much lower
nickel and molybdenum contents were developed as economic
alternatives to the standard duplex and highly alloyed stainless
steels [24]. These lean duplex alloys have better mechanical
properties and comparable corrosion resistance with the standard
austenitic stainless steels UNS S30403 and UNS S31603 [59].
The lean duplex have competitive price with UNS S31603 [3] and
they become very attractive when the prices of nickel and
molybdenum are unstable [2].
Nevertheless, material degradation becomes more complex
when wear and corrosion interact. Interaction between corrosion
0043-1648/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2012.12.007
1603
Type
Cr
Ni
Mo
Cu
Mn
Fe
Tensile strength
(N/mm2)
Microhardness (HV)500 g
304L/UNS S30403
UNS S32101
UNS S32304
UNS S32205
Austenitic
Lean duplex
Lean duplex
Duplex
0.020
0.019
0.020
0.017
18.20
21.26
23.36
22.43
8.15
1.60
4.80
5.73
0.39
0.24
0.30
3.15
0.33
0.26
0.25
0.24
1.61
4.81
1.32
1.4
0.07
0.23
0.12
0.18
Balance
Balance
Balance
Balance
635
784
745
841
240
480
450
510
170 75
260 75
257 75
278 75
Fig. 1. Microstructure of the stainless steels showing the austenitic phase of UNS S30403 and the duplex (austenite and ferrite) microstructure of UNS S32101 both etched
in glyceregia (15 cc HCl, 10 cc glycerol, 5 cc HNO3).
1604
Volume (%)
Fig. 2. Recirculating jet impingement rig (a) pure erosion (b) erosion-enhanced corrosion.
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Fig. 4. Weight loss measurements from the submerged impingement jet tests at
201C and 501C in N2 sparged solution , 500 mg/l sand and erosioncorrosion in
aerated 3.5% NaCl solution, 500 mg/l sand both at 15 m/s.
instead of
icorr W A T
nF
TWL Eo C o dEC dC E
2
Log i (A/cm2)
0
Potential (mV vs Ag/AgCl)
-50
-100
10
100
UNS S30403
UNS S32304
-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
-400
-450
-500
Erosion-enhanced corrosion
Corrosion-enhanced erosion
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
S32304
S32101
S32205
Alloys
Fig. 6. Erosioncorrosion synergy.
7
6
5
TWL (mg)
S30403
3.5
0.1
1605
4
3
2
1
0
S30403 S32304 S32101 S32205
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
S30403
S32304
S32101
S32205
Fig. 7. Effect of pre-erosion on (a) erosion and (b) TWL under erosioncorrosion conditions.
1606
350
UNS S30403 WH
UNS S32101 WH
UNS S32205 WH
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
15
20
Counts
M+F
1600
1000
M+F
counts
1400
800
Counts
The initial high hardness and yield strength of the lean duplex
stainless steels seem to be one of the reasons why pure erosion and
erosioncorrosion resistance of these alloys are better than the
austenitic stainless steel. Austenitic stainless steel, UNS S30403,
1800
1200
A
600
400
M+F
M+F
M+F
counts
1200
3.5. Discussion
1000
800
M+F
600
200
M+F
400
M+F
200
0
0
40
50
60
70
80
90
2-Theta (Degrees)
100 110
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
2-Theta (degrees)
Fig. 9. (a) XRD pattern of 304L/UNS S30403 as polished. (b) XRD pattern of 304L/UNS S30403 after erosion at 15 m/s and 500 ppm sand for 4 h in a nitrogen purged tap
water.
1800
1800
F+M
F+M
1600
1600
1400
1400
counts
1200
Counts
1200
counts
1607
1000
800
A
600
A
400
F+M
1000
800
A
600
F+M
Counts
A F+M
400
F+M
F+M
F+M
200
200
0
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
2-Theta (Degrees)
2-Theta (Degrees)
Fig. 10. (a) XRD pattern of UNS S32101 as polished. (b) XRD pattern of UNS S32101 after erosion at 15 m/s and 500 ppm sand for 4 h in a nitrogen purged tap water.
Fig. 11. SEM images of the cross section (etched in diluted aqua regia) showing the ne grains near the deformed surface.
4. Conclusions
1. Lean duplex stainless steels, UNS S32101 and UNS S32304,
seem to have better resistance to pure erosion and erosion
corrosion than UNS S30403 austenitic stainless steel from the
data presented. This is still subject to verications by
considering a wider experimental matrix.
2. Lean duplex stainless steels, UNS S32101 and UNS S32304,
have higher resistance to pure erosion and an equivalent
erosioncorrosion resistance to the duplex UNS S32205 at
both 20 1C and 50 1C.
3. Erosion at 20 1C with 500 mg/l silica sand at an impinging
velocity of 15 m/s is able to transfer enough kinetic energy
causing subsurface deformation, phase transformation and
increase in hardness on both austenitic and duplex stainless
steel alloys.
4. Increase in hardness as a result of pre-erosion at 20 1C resulted
in lower weight loss of the alloys after erosion and erosion
corrosion at 50 1C.
Acknowledgements
The Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF) Nigeria
is appreciated for the Ph.D. scholarship awarded Sunday Aribo to
carry out this research. The Federal University of Technology,
1608