Paper No.

01455
CORROSION 2001
GENERAL CORROSION EFFECTS OF COATED AND UNCOATED NON-FERROUS
ALLOYS FOR NAVAL SERVICE

J. R. Martin
GEO-CENTERS, INC
Naval Research Laboratory
Marine Corrosion Facility
Key West, FL 33041-1739

K. E. Lucas and A. A. Webb

Naval Research Laboratory
Center for Corrosion Science and Engineering
Washington D.C.

ABSTRACT

The U.S. Navy is considering several stainless steel alloys and other non-ferrous alloys
for use in specific marine structures. The objective of this study was to find an environmentally
acceptable anti-corrosion coating system suitable for these marine structures and for
application to the alloys for which they were to be applied. In addition to the anti-corrosion
coating system, these materials must be coated with a suitable anti-fouling topcoat.
Historically, many corrosion resistant alloys have remained un-coated in-service, because they
have inherent corrosion resistant properties that preclude the use of a protective coating.
While these materials will be cathodically protected in-service, the necessity of incorporating
an antifouling coating presents several significant requirements associated with proper anti-
corrosion coating selection, application and performance on these alloys. Therefore, it is
important to determine how these alloys and coatings will perform in seawater, both uncoated
and coated with candidate anti-corrosive coating systems.
Copyright
2001 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole must be in writing to NACE
International, Publications Division, 1440 South Creek Drive, Houston, Texas 77084-4906. The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are
Keywords:
solely duplex
those of the author(s) and stainless steel,bycrevice
not necessarily endorsed corrosion,
the Association. galvanic corrosion, natural seawater,
Printed in U.S.A.
titanium, primers, zinc-rich epoxy, coatings, alternate immersion, accelerated exposure,
adhesion strength, freely corroding, organic zinc, inorganic zinc.

Publication Right
Government work published by NACE International with permission of the author(s). Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part
or in whole must be made in writing to NACE International, Publications Division, 1440 South Creek Drive, Houston, Texas 77084-4906. The material
presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and not necessarily endorsed by the Association. Printed in U.S.A.
 INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Navy is currently investigating the use of non-ferrous, low magnetic alloys for
use in the marine environment for which corrosion and biological fouling is prevalent. In order
to meet the requirements, these alloys must possess suitable properties for welding,
fabricating, mechanical strength and corrosion resistance in seawater. In addition, these
materials must also be coated to both minimize the effective surface area requiring cathodic
protection in seawater and to support an anti-fouling (A/F) coatings system. In practice,
stainless steels have, by and large, been left uncoated due to their ability to resist corrosion
attack under many environmental conditions, however many of these alloys are known to
suffer from crevice attack and may also be affected by galvanic corrosion. Where organic or
barrier coating systems have been applied, the result has often been poor coating adhesion
and rapid system failure.

A successful coating application involves much more than just selection of the proper
system. Where these materials have been successfully coated in the past, many of the
products fail to meet current EPA standards and cannot be utilized by the Navy. For this
reason, the coatings process must be readdressed and new products tested. To accomplish
this, good baseline data on the uncoated materials corrosion properties must be known along
with the technology necessary to adequately prepare the surface for use with new anti-
corrosion coatings systems.

This paper will discuss the evaluation of a number of commonly used corrosion resistant
alloys, using 316L stainless steels as a control. Other metals of interest in naval platforms,
such as Ni-AI Bronze (NAB) and Ni-based alloys were included, to evaluate the performance of
the these relative to the performance of the stainless steel alloy. All of this is overshadowed by
the fact that the U.S. Navy must remain in compliance with regard to its painting activities and
is pro-active in efforts to bring new, safe, compliant technology into use.

EXPERIMENTAL

The overall test plan for this program consisted of the following:

a) Materials Evaluation - to access the basic corrosion properties of the candidate

alloys
1. freely corroding properties
2. galvanic corrosion behavior
3. crevice corrosion behavior

b) Coated Materials
1. Coating physical properties
2. Environmental test chamber evaluation (ASTM B117)
3. Seawater Immersion testing

Candidate materials
Two grades of stainless steels were chosen as candidate materials, they were duplex
stainless steels UNS N08367 and UNS $20910. Austenitic 316L (UNS $31603), being a more
common form, was used as the control. Duplex stainless steels have a mixed structure of
BCC ferrite and FCC austenite, with the exact amount of each phase determined by alloying
and heat treatments. The duplex stainless steels are similar to basic austenitic stainless steels
such as 316L, however with various alloying elements, properties such as the corrosion
resistance, tensile strength, yield strengths and resistance to stress corrosion cracking/pitting
corrosion [1] can be varied. Table 1 gives the chemical makeup of the two candidate alloys
and the 316L control. In addition to the candidate materials, the other non-ferrous alloys
included in this work were, Ni-AI Bronze (C95800), nickel based alloys (UNS N06625 and
N05500 respectively), and CP 2 titanium (UNS R50400). Table 2 gives the nominal chemical
composition of the additional alloys evaluated in this program.

The evaluation began with preparing the surfaces of all candidate alloys to a set of
conditions typical of an accepted shipyard production environment. Surface preparation
consisted of abrasive blast cleaning all sample materials to SSPC - SP10. The goal was to
achieve a profile of 2.3 to 3.5 mils. SP-10 was chosen, as it offers the best overall substrate
condition for the types of primers used in this study [2]. All test specimens, whether coated or
uncoated received the same surface profile. The procedure consisted of abrasive blast
cleaning of the candidate materials surfaces with virgin aluminum oxide at 60 pounds per
square inch (psi), under controlled temperature and humidity conditions. Any contaminants, if
present, were then cleaned from surfaces using Methanol.

Materials evaluation

Freely corrodin.q
The freely corroding sample test consisted of immersing a series of coupons in natural
seawater for a period of 431 days. The purpose of this test was to evaluate how the candidate
materials reacted in natural seawater and to establish a baseline for characterizing the
performance of these materials when coated or galvanically coupled, as discussed in the
following sections. The titanium and UNS 31603 samples were cut from sheet material into
3"x6"x1/16" pieces. UNS N08367 and UNS $20910 were cut from sheet material into
3"x6"x1/8" pieces. One-eighth inch holes were drilled through the top center of each test panel
to suspend the sample using high strength Aramid TM fiber string. Initial weight measurements
were taken before all the samples were immersed. At the conclusion of testing, each sample
will be re-weighed to determine how much material has been lost due to a freely corroding
condition.

Galvanic Corrosion
Figure 1 shows the general wiring schematic for the galvanic couple evaluation. This
effort was included to determine how each of the candidate materials would react when
coupled with another metal. ASTM standard G82-83 was used as a guide for test preparation
[3]. The test specimens used in this evaluation were cut from sheet material into 3"x3"x1/8"
pieces. Each specimen received a surface profile as previously described. One-eighth inch
holes were drilled for the mechanical connection that would connect the specimens electrically.
Electrical leads were soldiered to each coupon and with an additional shunt resistor of 0.1
ohm, the voltage drop was read across the couple and calculated into current demand. At the
mechanical connections, MIL-P-24441 epoxy coating was applied to prevent seawater
intrusion and unwanted galvanic influence. The area was also covered with silicone RTV
sealant to further enhance protection of the connection. Current readings were taken between
samples using the shunt resistor and a digital measurement device. Mixed potential readings
were taken using a silver/silver chloride (Ag/AgCI) reference cell coupled to the candidate
materials through a data logger/voltmeter combination. Samples were mounted in PVC racks
to minimize the chance of intermittent contact between specimens and to isolate movement.

Experimental set up and design incorporated data taken from mixed potential and
current readings. Weights of each sample were taken before and after exposure to determine
weight loss..

Crevice Corrosion
Stainless steel alloys have shown a high probability of localized attack or crevice
corrosion when immersed in seawater. Crevice attack is most evident at tight interfaces or
faying surfaces, such as those between flanges, under o-rings and gaskets, as well as, under
tightly adhered coatings, such as epoxies and polyurethanes. To create a baseline for the
candidate alloys, three separate crevice geometries were evaluated. Each of these
geometries remained uncoated.

The first geometry consisted of a 3"x3"x1/8" plate with a 1/2" hole drilled through the
center. A piece of 1/8" nitrile rubber gasket material was sandwiched between the candidate
material and a 1/~,, PVC plate roughly the same dimensions as the candidate material. Y2"
fiberglass bolts were installed through the hole and tightened to a torque of 125 in-lbs to
provide crevice pressure. Three samples of each candidate material and titanium were tested
totaling twelve samples of this type. Figure 2 shows this crevice geometry and provides the
sequence in which the pieces were assembled.

The second geometry consisted of a standard crevice former (SCF) made from a
polymeric material. ASTM G78-89 was used as a guide for standard crevice former
specifications [4]. Again test specimens were cut to 3"x3"x1/8" pieces with V2" diameter hole in
the center. Twelve total samples were assembled from the same materials previously
mentioned for geometry one. Two crevice formers were used on each specimen, one on the
front and one on the back. They were held tightly together with a fiberglass bolt with the same
torque as geometry one. Figure 3 shows the second crevice geometry used, indicating the
orientations of the standard crevice formers and bolt.

The third geometry consisted of a metal to metal crevice. Candidate materials were
interfaced with one another using 3"x3"x1/8" specimens. Each of the couples were held
together with a fiberglass bolt tightened to the same torque. The metal to metal plates
consisted of the following couples six types of metal couples. Two couples each of the
following:
1) $31603 / R50400
2) $20910 / $31603
3) $20910 / R50400
4) N08367 / $31603
5) N08367 / R50400
6) $20910 / N08367
This test was selected to determine the relative strength of various galvanic couples and to
gauge the possible effects on the initiation of crevice attack. Figure 4 illustrates the third
crevice geometry tested.
Coatings evaluation

Candidate primers
Eight primer coatings were chosen and evaluated on candidate materials. The eight
primers consisted of three inorganic zinc silicates, four organic zinc rich epoxies, and one
organic zinc rich moisture cured urethane. Each primer was applied to the surface of the
3"x6"x1/8" candidate materials for testing under the circumstances described below. The
coatings were applied per manufacturer specification and typically had a dry film thickness
ranging from 1.5 to 4.0 mils. To eliminate the influence of edge thinning of the primer coat
where corrosion could initiate, the edges of the samples were coated with an epoxy overcoat.
The coatings evaluation consisted of a series of both scribed and unscribed test panels
subsequently exposed either in immersion or in the environmental cabinet. The scribed panels
were evaluated in accordance with ASTM D1654-92 [5] to measure the degree of undercutting.

Adhesion tests
Adhesion tests where performed in accordance with ASTM D4541 - 95 [6], methods for
evaluating the pull-off strength. The type IV test method was implemented using F-2 and F-4
adhesion dollies. Surfaces were scuffed and cleaned of debris, then a test button was applied
using an amine cured high strength epoxy adhesive. The adhesive was allowed to sit for 7
days to ensure complete curing and development of optimal adhesion strength. Adhesion
strengths were measured prior to exposure in B117 and again after 1000 hours exposure.

ASTM B117 - 90 salt spray method [7]

This procedure consisted of evaluating a total of 64 panels, 32 of which were scribed
and 32 of which were un-scribed. The coated panels were placed in the cabinet and inspected
every 250 hours for corrosion damage. At 1000 hours the scribed samples were removed and
tested for adhesion strength. Each panel was also photo-documented for future reference.

Alternate Immersion
Sixty-four panels, 32 of which were scribed and 32 un-scribed, were placed in an
alternate immersion seawater tank. The panels were placed in PVC racks, which kept them
isolated from one another during testing. The tank used once-through natural seawater and
cycled once every 24 hours, with 12 hours full and 12 hours empty. While the trough was
empty, the panels were exposed to humid air ranging from 75 to 96% RH. At intervals of 250,
500, and 1000 hours each, the panels were inspected.

Other tests performed

To characterize the primer behavior, a series of quantitative tests were performed but
will not be discussed in detail since this testing is ongoing. These tests included application
characteristics, dry time, sag-index (ASTM D4400-89a) [8], fineness of grind, viscosity (ASTM
D562-81) [9], and pot life. Results of these performance tests will be reported at a later date.
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Materials evaluations

Table 3 presents the results to-date for freely corroding and galvanic test specimens.
These samples were in test for one year. Material testing and characterization is underway
and the information contained within this paper represent preliminary results based on
observations thus far. Under freely corroding conditions, visual examination only (to date) has
shown that only the UNS $31603 and UNS $20910 appear to have corrosion attack. While
the corrosion was minimal, it provides a basis from which measurements of weight loss and
corrosion susceptibility can be expected and evaluated for future performance. Under galvanic
conditions, as expected, the candidate materials were generally anodic with respect to alloys
UNS R50400 and N006625 and generally suffered some crevice attack when coupled to the
titanium. The N08367 performed the best of the three alloys and only had minimal attack
when coupled to Ti and none when coupled to the N066625. When cathodic with respect to
the couple, the candidate materials fouled slightly, as would be expected for these materials
when protected. The weight values given in Table 3 represent the net weight loss of the
corroding alloy of the couple, with net weight loss only shown where the candidate alloys
suffered attack.

Table 4 summarizes the results from visual inspections performed over the duration of
the testing, while figure 5 shows the corrosion attack observed on select candidate materials in
the three crevice geometries. Corrosion product is evident at the various interfaces and is
indicative of internal crevice corrosion activity. The crevice samples were exposed to
constantly refreshed natural seawater for over a year. To date, crevice corrosion has been
observed on numerous samples and of the three candidate alloys, all showed some sign of
crevice corrosion. Figure 6 shows some affects on the three candidate materials with respect
to galvanic effects. UNS R20910 and UNS $31603 visually show indications of crevice
corrosion initiation in all the three crevice geometries. UNS N08367 has indications of crevice
corrosion only in a metal/metal crevice coupled with titanium, to date. Since samples are still
undergoing immersion testing, a final conclusion as to the degree of crevice corrosion and
other types of possible corrosion will be forthcoming.

Galvanic effects have yielded results indicating the duplex stainless steels are cathodic
to all alloys tested with the exception of titanium. When used as the structural material, it is
expected that additional materials used for through structure penetrations, will corrode or
damage coatings rapidly due to high cathode/anode ratio and thus cathodic protection will be
required to minimize corrosion/coatings damage.

Coatings Evaluation

Before any coating is applied, the surface must be prepared in a manner to insure
proper adhesion and application of the coating. Standard recommended practice suggests
that a surface profile of 3.0 to 5.0 mils be achieved in order to insure good anchor tooth within
the profile. Even though this can easily be achieved on basic steel, it is much more difficult to
acquire on duplex stainless steels and titanium since both materials have harder surfaces than
carbon steel and blasting may cause work hardening of these surfaces. Using virgin aluminum
oxide blasting materials at 60 psi., the surface profiles measured ranged between 1.0 to 3.0
mils. The surface was measured using X-course and coarse surface profile tape. Even
though the desired profile was not achieved, the selection of primer materials and
specifications indicated that the coatings would exhibit adhesion performance requisite to the
program goals. Figure 7 shows a sample of surface profile as measured after preparation.

Adhesion strengths were measured prior to initiation of corrosion testing. Table 5

shows the values obtained from adhesion strength measurements with no exposure and again
after 1000 hours of exposure in an accelerated salt fog chamber using the ASTM Bl17
method. The average change in adhesion strength was more than half of the original
measurement. These results were consistent with all eight of the primers. Pull tests resulted
in failures generally within the glue/primer interface. After 1000 hours the majority of failures
occurred within the glue/primer interface. Before exposure, however, failure was split between
the glue/primer interface and within the primer itself. The chart in figure 8 depicts the drop in
adhesion strength after 1000 hours of exposure in ASTM B117.

It could deduced from the chart in figure 8 that if one were looking for a primer and
substrate combination, the most likely candidate would be any material combined with organic
zinc rich moisture cured urethane. This work so far, however, only represents part of the
picture because these primer materials require topcoats, which do not impart the natural
cathodic protection supplied by the zinc rich coatings. Once topcoated, the zinc anodic area is
drastically reduced and the corrosion or protection effect narrowed considerably to only areas
with holidays or damage. Given the nature of the candidate substrates and their natural
resistance to corrosion, the next phase of testing with intermediate and topcoats should give a
true indication of materials/coating performance.

Results in the environmental chamber, running the ASTM B117 test, showed similar net
effect. Given the cathodically protective nature of the coatings involved, there was no
development of under-film corrosion or major failure of the coating systems in over 1000 hours
of exposure. One of the candidate primers did produce blisters on all the candidate materials
but was not removed from test, because it was speculated that a topcoat or a complete coating
system (i.e., primer, intermediate and topcoat) might further prevent this occurrence. As
expected, small levels of oxidation products were seen on the zinc surface of scribed and
unscribed samples. An evaluation of the scribe produced no undercutting or corrosion on the
candidate material surface that was exposed. This good performance was due in part to the
cathodic protection supplied to the crevice by the zinc. Figures 9 and 10 show each of the
eight primers after 1000 hours of exposure to B117. All test panels have been returned to the
environmental chamber and are being tested to failure.

Using natural seawater and simulated wet/dry cycles, the same number of coated
scribed and un-scribed panels were exposed for a period of 10 months. The panels were
immersed in seawater and exposed to air for a total of approximately 3500 hours each
respectively. Figure 11 depicts the flow troughs and sample holders inside the troughs. Like
the B117 tests, no major failures were evident. After 1000 hours, blistering did occur with the
same primer as in the Bl17 testing. A scribe evaluation produced no failures and only
oxidation product is visible on the bare surfaces. Figures 12 and 13 show the 1000 hour test
results from alternate immersion exposure. To date, the alternate immersion testing is
continuing and will continue to failure (i.e., complete coating breakdown).
 Throughout exposure of panels to naturally flowing seawater, the chemistry of the
seawater was recorded for historical purposes. Testing was performed at the Naval Research
Laboratory, Marine Corrosion Facility for the 1999 calendar year. The average values
respectively were salinity, 36 ppt, temperature, 26C, PH, 8.02, dissolved oxygen, 6.18 mg/L or
91.26%, resistively, 18.1 ohm-cm.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

All the candidate materials exhibited some degree of crevice corrosion susceptibility,
although, so far, the corrosion observed on UNS N08367 has been minimal. Both pitting and
crevice corrosion were observed on UNS 31603, which was the control material. Some
crevice corrosion was observed on UNS $20910 under the mechanical connection and coated
regions surrounding the connections. Based on these observations to date, UNS N08367
performed the best out of all the candidate materials. There was no evidence of crevice
corrosion on samples that were connected to non-metallic crevice geometries. When coupled
to UNS R50400, minor galvanic attack was noted within the creviced area. During galvanic
testing, very little corrosion was seen on bare alloy surfaces. On freely corroding specimens
there was no observed corrosion. Because of the possibility of crevice attack in each of the
candidate alloys, cathodic protection is recommended for prolonged exposure under
immersion conditions, especially where galvanic materials may be utilized.

Of the candidate primers tested, the poorest performer was the zinc-rich epoxy
polyamide, which was a problem due to blistering. The moderate performers were the
inorganic zinc systems, primarily because they had the largest reduction in adhesion during
exposure. The best performers varied according to the candidate materials. Zinc-rich epoxy
was determined to be the most suitable for UNS N08367, while zinc-rich moisture cured
urethanes accommodated UNS $20910 best. All the candidate primers suffered from
discoloration, which indicates that the coatings are active and that the zinc is corroding to
prevent crevice corrosion of the base material. This was especially evident in the scribed
specimens, as no scribe undercutting was observed and thus the zinc coatings were exhibiting
sacrificial properties.

This effort reports only the first phases of testing and does not completely address the
coating properties and corrosion performance of the alloys where a full coating system is
applied. Continuing work will address the performance of the system and make
recommendations as to the optimal coating system and anticipated corrosion protection
requirements.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

NRL would like to acknowledge support for this work by the Naval Sea Systems Command
(SEA 05M) and by the Office of Naval Research (J. Sedriks).
 REFERENCES

. ASM Specialty Handbook of Stainless Steels, p.32-34, 1994 ASM International.

2. C.G. Munger, Corrosion Prevention by Protective Coatings, p.222 NACE 1984.

3. ASTM G82-83, Standard Guide for Development and Use of a Galvanic Series for
Predicting Galvanic Corrosion, Annual Book of ASTM Standards vol. 03.02.

. ASTM G78-89, Standard Guide for Crevice Corrosion Testing of Iron-Based and
Nickel-Based Stainless Alloys in Seawater and Other Chloride-Containing Aqueous
Environments, Annual Book of ASTM Standards vol. 03.02.

. ASTM D1654-92, Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Painted or Coated

Specimens Subjected to Corrosive Environments, Annual Book of ASTM Standards
vol. 06.01.

. ASTM D4541-95, Standard Test Method for Pull-Off Strength of Coatings Using
Portable Adhesion Testers, Annual Book of ASTM Standards vol. 06.02.

. ASTM B117-90, Standard Test Method of Salt Spray (Fog) Testing, Annual Book of
ASTM Standards vol. 03.02.

. ASTM D4400-89a, Standard Test Method for Sag Resistance of Paints Using a
Multinotch Applicator, Annual Book of ASTM Standards vol. 06.02.

. ASTM D562-81, Standard Test Method for Consistency of Paints Using the Stormer
Viscometer, Annual Book of ASTM Standards vol. 06.01.

TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1
Candidate Material Composition

Candidate Material Fe Ni Cr Mo Mn
UNS S20910 BAL 12.24 21.23 2.14 5.24
UNS N08367 BAL 23.96 20.48 6.29 0.5
UNS S31603 BAL 10.34 16.95 2.11 1.27
 Table 2
Associated Material Composition

Other Material Fe Ni Cr Mo Mn AI Cu Ti
UNS R50400 99.73
UNS, C95800 5.52 5.17 1.48 8.93 BAL
UNS N06625 4.26 BAL 21.55 8.83 0.31 0.17
UNS N05500 0.6 BAL 0.7 3.1 29 0.5

Table 3
Freely Corroding and Galvanic Test Results

Potential vs Ag/AgCI (mY)

Candidate Cathodic or Weight
Material Couple I Initial I Final Anodic Loss (g)
UNS $20910 Open Circuit
NAB, CDA955 -272.59 -225.71 Cathodic
UNS N05500 -179.55 -131.54 Cathodic
UNS R50400 -156.4 -106.17 Anodic 0.66
UNS N06625 -167.34 -38.84 Anodic 0.66
UNS N08367 Open Circuit
NAB, CDA 955 -255.91 -222.12 Cathodic
UNS N05500 -174.83 -159.14 Cathodic
UNS R50400 -178.93 -38.98 Anodic 0.05
UNS N06625 -174.59 -193.54 Anodic
UNS 31603 Open Circuit
NAB, CDA955 -260.45 -226.48 Cathodic
UNS N05500 -178.34 -138.68 Cathodic
UNS R50400 -171.7 -149.06 Anodic 5.79
UNS N06625 -176.02 -135.52 Anodic 4.55

Table 4
Visual Inspection Crevice Test Result

Attack at Bolt, Attack at Delrin

Candidate Material Metal:Metal Washer Attack at Gasket
UNS $20910 YES YES YES
UNS N08367 YES NO NO
UNS S31603 YES YES YES
 Table 5
Adhesion Properties at 1000 Hours of B117 Exposure

Bl17, Pre-lmmersion and 1000 hours exposure including the drop in adhesion
strength in PSI

UNS UNS UNS UNS

N08367 S20910 S31603 R50400
Primer
1000
Coat 0 H r l 0 0 0 H R A 0 Hr HR A 0 Hr 1000 HR A 0 Hr 1000 HR A
98057 998.4 427.5 570.9 1896 437.7 1458 998.4 672.4 326 1100 417.3 682.7
98085 1100 458.1 641.9 1100 703 397 1304 325.5 978.5 1753 580.6 1172
99032 1916 621.4 1295 1855 641.4 1214 1365 570.4 794.6 1712 662.2 1050
99073 1651 570.4 1081 1386 427.5 958.5 1427 611.2 815.8 447.4 509.1 -61.7
99077 1631 713.2 917.8 1631 631.6 999.4 1467 467.8 999.2 1386 672.4 713.6
99081 1835 621.4 1214 1835 754 1081 1263 529.5 733.5 1386 672.4 713.6
99082 1978 876.5 1102 2528 672.4 1856 2202 815.3 1387 1896 621.4 1275
99090 1222 805.1 416.9 1304 815.3 488.7 1059 784.6 274.4 1182 835.7 346.3

0.1 Ohm

Sample #1 Sample #2
Hi Low
Candidate
Materials

Figure 1 - Wiring Schematic for Galvanic Couple

 Candidate Materia~

late

Figure 2 - Crevice Geometry One, MetallNitrilelPVC Plate

e .iee
Former ~:

Figure 3 - Crevice Geometry Two, MetallSCF

 Figure 4 - Crevice Geometry Three, Metal/Metal

Figure 5 - Representative Crevice Geometries and Attack Observed. A, UNS 31063

showing obvious signs of crevice corrosion at bolt and between the nitrile
rubber gasket and metal surface. Photo B indicates the presence of corrosion
product between UNS N08367 and UNS R50400. Finally photo C shows signs of
crevice corrosion between the standard crevice former and metal alloy UNS
S20910.
Figure 6 - Effects of Galvanic Couples on the Candidate Materials. On UNS
$31603, pitting and crevice, far left, On UNS $20910 crevice corrosion at
mechanical connection, middle and on the far right nearly no corrosion was
evident.

Figure 7 - Surface profile on candidate material. Profile seen here is indicative of

1.5 to 3.0 mils.
 BUT l o o o Hour Change in Adhesion Strength

i'

o=

IOZ $ i h o a t t IOZ 6Hi©ate OZR E poxv IOZ $itloat* OZR Epg×V OZR Etpo~y OZR Epe~y OZR U I t t h a n t
P r i m e r Coats Applied

Figure 8 - Changes in adhesion strength

 A

Figure 9 - A S T M Bl17 1000 hour results of inorganic zinc rich primers. Heavy oxidation
of zinc material present on panel A and B,
 )

15

I
(;

.°

~, " . • t ".~"

11

Figure 10 - O r g a n i c zinc rich epoxies from ASTM Bl17 trials. Again oxidation is visible
on surface. Panel E developed blisters.
 Figure 11 - Alternate immersion troughs on left and panels immersed inside troughs.

Figure 12 - Inorganic zinc rich primer, 1000 hour alternate immersion. Heavy oxidation
visible on surface.
Figure 13 - Organic zinc rich primers, 1000 hour alternate immersion.