CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION
Application of the Modified Electrochemical
Potentiodynamic Reactivation Method
to Evaluate Intergranular Corrosion Susceptibility
of Stainless Steels
Z. Fang,* Y.S. Wu, L. Zhang, and J.Q. Li**
ABSTRACT
A new activator was proposed to evaluate the susceptibility
of type 304L (UNS S30403) stainless steel (SS) to intergranu-
lar corrosion (IGC) using the electrochemical potentiodynamic
reactivation (EPR) technique. Thioacetamide (CH3CSNH2) was
proven to be more suitable as an activator than other com-
pounds containing sulfur. Use of the modified EPR test with
the new activator was investigated on types 304L SS and
308L SS (UNS S30800) and on weld buildup type 308L SS.
Results showed the modified EPR test differentiated the
degree of sensitization (DOS) of steel mildly, slightly, or en-
tirely free of sensitization. DOS of type 304L SS sensitized at
650°C for various time periods as determined by the modi-
fied EPR test with CH3CSNH2 was compared to the
traditional EPR test with potassium thiocyanate (KSCN) as
the activator and to the copper-accelerated Strauss test. The
modified EPR test was more sensitive to detect sensitization
than the traditional EPR test and was more capable of de-
tecting and quantifying mild sensitization than the traditional
EPR test and the Strauss test. DOS of type 308L SS of vari-
ous sensitizations as measured by the modified EPR test
correlated well with the Huey test.
Submitted for publication February 1996; in revised form, April
1997.
* Department of Surface Science and Corrosion Engineering,
University of Science and Techology-Beijing, Beijing, 100083,
China. Present address: Corrosion Research Center, Department
of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of
Minnesota, 221 Church St.. Minneapolis, MN 55455.
** Department of Surface Science and Corrosion Engineering,
University of Science and Techology-Beijing, Beijing, 100083,
China.
(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.
0010-9312/98/000075/$5.00+$0.50/0
CORROSION–Vol. 54, No. 5 © 1998, NACE International
KEY WORDS: activator, electrochemical potentiodynamic
reactivation, intergranular corrosion, sensitization, stainless
steel
INTRODUCTION
In the mid 1970s, serious intergranular stress corro-
sion cracking (IGSCC) problems appeared in the
heat-affected zones (HAZ) of type 304 (UNS S30400)(1)
stainless steel (SS) welding piping used in boiling-
water reactors (BWR).1 In 1978, the electrochemical
potentiodynamic reactivation (EPR) technique was
used to measure sensitization in welded and weld-
able types 304 and 304L SS (UNS S30403) piping for
use in BWR.2-3 The presence of chromium carbide
precipitates with their chromium-depleted zones at
the grain boundaries of austenitic SS (i.e., sensitiza-
tion) has been shown to make piping subject to
IGSCC in high-temperature (289°C) water. This
created the need for a rapid, quantitative, and non-
destructive method of detecting sensitization of
austenitic SS.
Five methods for detecting susceptibility to inter-
granular corrosion (IGC) in austenitic SS have been
standardized by ASTM and are described in ASTM
Recommended Practice A 262.4 However, none of
these tests meet the dual requirements of providing a
quantitative and nondestructive method. The oxalic
acid (HOOCCOOH) etch test (ASTM A 262, Practice A)
is rapid and nondestructive, but not quantitative.4
The other four tests are quantitative but require test-
ing a specimen in hot, concentrated acids for periods
from 4 h to 240 h. To meet the requirements of a
339
CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

TABLE 1 The solution for the EPR test proposed by Clark,

Chemical Composition of the SS Tested (wt%) et al., was 0.5 M sulfuric acid (H2SO4) + 0.01 M po-
tassium thiocyanate (KSCN).2-3,5 KSCN, simply stated,
Type Type Weld Buildup
Element 304L SS 308L SS Type 308L SS is as an activator or depassivator, but its role in the
polarization process is vague. Furthermore, KSCN is
C 0.03 ≤ 0.02 0.011 aggressive to less corrosion-resistant SS. This will
Cr 17.80 19.5 to 20.5 20.87 affect collection of data from the breakdown of sensi-
Ni 9.42 9.5 to 10.5 10.85
Mn 0.870 1.00 to 2.50 0.90
tized grain boundaries in the EPR test.
S 0.001 0.015 0.006 To overcome this problem, a new activator was
P 0.024 0.020 0.010 selected from among various amides and sulfur-
Si 0.340 ≤ 0.060 0.25 bearing additives. Test parameters for the double-
V – – 0.005 loop (DL) EPR technique were optimized to minimize
Cu – 0.05 0.02
Co – 0.05 0.04 breakdown of the passive film at any area other than
B – 0.003 0.003 the passive film on the sensitized grain boundaries in
N – 0.040 – the previous investigation.12 In the present study, the
modified EPR method was applied to detect the
degree of sensitization (DOS) of types 304L, 308L
TABLE 2 (UNS S30800), and weld buildup 308L SS of various
Details of Sensitization sensitizations and compared with the traditional
Temperature Duration EPR test with activator KSCN, the copper-accelerated
Material (°C) (h) Strauss test, and the Huey test to determine its
adaptability.
Type 304L SS 650 0, 0.5, 1, 5, 10
Type 308L SS 550 0, 0.5, 1, 5, 10, 50
600 0, 0.5, 1, 5, 10, 50 EXPERIMENTAL
650 1, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 5, 10, 50
700 0, 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 5, 10, 50 Materials
750 0, 0.1, 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 5, The materials studied were types 304L, 308L,
10, 50
and weld buildup 308L SS (Table 1). A wide range of
Weld Type 308L SS 650 0, 1, 5, 35, 100
sensitization was produced in the three alloys by
heating in a furnace with an argon atmosphere
(Table 2). Before sensitization, the materials were
TABLE 3 solution-annealed (SA) at 1,050°C for 0.5 h in
EPR Test Conditions
vacuum, followed by water quenching.
Electrolyte 0.5 M H2SO4 +10–3 M activator
Temperature 25°C ± 1°C DL-EPR Tests
Surface preparation No. 800 emery paper The DL-EPR technique was used. In the single-
Scan rate 100 mV/min loop (SL) technique, only a reactivation scan is
Passivation potential/time 300 mVSCE/2 min
performed, and any reactivation charge occurring
during this process is taken as a measure of DOS. In
the DL-EPR technique, however, the reactivation
rapid, quantitative, and nondestructive test method scan from the potential in the passive state is pre-
that could be applied in the field, Clark, et al.,2-3,5 ceded by an anodic scan from the open-circuit
selected the EPR technique proposed by Cihal, et al.,6 potential. Therefore, it is independent of surface
and Prazak7 and developed by Novak, et al.,8 and finish and the presence of random pitting or metallic
others.9-11 inclusions because of the cleaning effect on the
The EPR test is dependent upon preferential specimen surface during the forward anodic scan.13-14
breakdown of the passive film on the sensitized grain This advantage is particularly important for field use.
boundaries, where chromium is depleted during a The EPR test conditions are given in Table 3.
controlled potential sweep from the passive to active For each test, a fresh solution of 0.5 M H2SO4
regions. Breakdown of the passive film over the sen- with 10–3 M activator was used. Specimens were
sitized grain boundaries causes an increase in mounted using epoxy resin. Only the working area
current density. The test is based upon the assump- (1 cm2 [1.08 x 10–3 ft2]) was exposed. Specimens were
tion that only sensitized grain boundaries become polished, degreased, rinsed in distilled water, and
active, while grain bodies and unsensitized grain dried before the experiment. A 2.5-cm2 (2.69 x
boundaries remain passive. Thus, more highly sensi- 10–3 ft2) platinum flat auxiliary electrode (AE) and a
tized materials should show a greater increase in saturated calomel electrode (SCE) completed the cell.
current density than less sensitized or unsensitized The test was started by immersing the specimen in
materials. the test solution for ~ 5 min to determine its corro-

340 CORROSION–MAY 1998

 CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

sion potential (Ecorr), which was ~ –400 mVSCE. Speci-

mens then were polarized anodically to a potential
of 300 mVSCE in the passive range at a scanning rate
of 100 mV/min and held at this potential for
2 min. After this, the potential scanning direction
was reversed to the original Ecorr at the same scan-
ning rate. The reactivation ratio (Ir:Ia), where Ir is the
maximum reactivation current of reverse scanning
and Ia is the maximum anodic current, was used to
evaluate the susceptibility to IGC or DOS (Figure 1).
After the DL-EPR tests, the corroded surface was
examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM).

Copper-Accelerated Strauss Tests

According to ASTM A 262-86, Practice E4, speci-
mens were immersed in the boiling solution of
100 mL H2SO4 + 100 g copper sulfate (CuSO4) diluted
with distilled water to 1,000 mL and were in contact
with copper metal for one 24-h period. After the test,
specimens were bent 180° from the middle. The
maximum attack depth in the cross section was
used to evaluate DOS.
Huey Test
According to ASTM A 262-86, Practice C4, speci-
mens were exposed in the boiling solution of 65%
nitric acid (HNO3) for 144 h (3 h x 48 h). Average
weight loss of the specimens was used to evaluate
DOS of the specimens.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Modified EPR Technique
EPR tests were conducted in 0.5 M H2SO4 +
10–3 M additives to select a more suitable activator
that would attack only the passive film on sensitized
grain boundaries. The additives were KSCN, sodium
thiosulfate (Na2S2O3), carbamide (H2NCONH2),
sulfocarbamide (H2NCSNH2), acetamide (CH3CONH2),
thioacetamide (CH3CSNH2), aminothiourea
(H2NHNCSNH2), and ally thiourea
(H2C=CHCH2HNCSNH2).
FIGURE 1. Schematic of DL-EPR test.
Table 4 gives results for the sensitized type 304L
SS (650°C, 5 h) in Electrolytes A through H. Since
CH3CSNH2 would start decomposing in an acidic
media after 1 h, it was added to H2SO4 solution just
before the test started. Results obtained in 0.5 M
H2SO4 containing 10–3 M CH3CSNH2 within 1 h were
reproducible. As shown in Table 4, values for Ir, Ia,
and Ir:Ia measured in Electrolyte B were larger than
in Electrolyte A. Similarly in Electrolyte D, values for
Ir, Ia, and Ir:Ia increased by factors of ≈ 9, 150, and
180, as compared to values in Electrolyte C. There-
fore, sulfur in H2NCSNH2 and CH3CSNH2 promoted
dissolution of SS.
Comparing EPR test results conducted in 0.5 M
H2SO4 containing the sulfur-bearing additives KSCN
(Electrolyte E), Na2S2O3 (Electrolyte F), H2NHNCSNH2
(Electrolyte G), H2C=CHCH2HNCSNH2 (Electrolyte H),
H2NCSNH2 (Electrolyte B), and CH3CSNH2 (Electrolyte
D), it was found that Ir:Ia values measured in Electro-
lytes D, F, and E (0.433, 0.379, and 0.249, respec-
tively) were larger than in other mediums. The
additive Na2S2O3 (Electrolyte F) caused severe pitting
and general corrosion, and thus, it could not be used
as an activator for the EPR test. Comparing test re-
sults obtained in Electrolytes F and D, CH3CSNH2 as

TABLE 4
EPR Test Results for Sensitized (650°C, 5 h) Type 304L SS
in 0.5 M H2SO4 + 10–3 M S- or O-Bearing Additives(A)
Electrolyte Ia (mA) Ir (mA) Ir:Ia

A 0.5 M H2SO4 + 10–3 M H2NCONH2 3.38 0.57 0.169

B 0.5 M H2SO4 + 10–3 M H2NCSNH2 93.3 19.8 0.212
C 0.5 M H2SO4 + 10–3 M CH3CONH2 11.0 0.26 0.024
D 0.5 M H2SO4 + 10–3 M CH3CSNH2 90.0 39.0 0.433
E 0.5 M H2SO4 + 10–3 M KSCN 48.9 12.2 0.249
F 0.5 M H2SO4 + 10–3 M Na2S2O3 109.5 40.6 0.379
G 0.5 M H2SO4 + 10–3 M H2NHNCSNH2 72.5 9.9 0.138
H 0.5 M H2SO4 + 10–3 M H2C=CHCH2HNCSNH2 9.3 0.8 0.086

(A)
Vertex potential = 300 mVSCE, scanning rate = 100 mV/min.

CORROSION–Vol. 54, No. 5 341

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 2. Corrosion morphology of sensitized type 304L SS
after EPR test: (a) 0.5 M H2SO4 + 10–3 M KSCN and (b) 0.5 M H2SO4
+ 10–3 M CH3CSNH2.
an activator seemed much more sensitive to DOS
than KSCN based upon its much higher Ir:Ia value
(0.433) than KSCN (0.249). From the SEM corrosion
morphologies of the sensitized specimens after EPR
tests in Electrolytes D and E (Figure 2), the specimen
suffered more severe pitting in Electrolyte E than in
Electrolyte D. The chromium-depleted zones near
grain boundaries of sensitized specimens were acti-
vated very easily during the reverse scan in Electro-
lyte D and showed high Ir:Ia values. Thus, CH3CSNH2
as an activator was not only more sensitive to DOS
but also more accurate in quantitative evaluation of
sensitization than KSCN.
The additives listed in Table 4 could be classified
into four groups:
— Compounds with >C=O, such as H2NCONH2
and CH3CONH2;
342
TABLE 5
Modified EPR Test with Activator CH3CSNH2
Measurements of Type 304L SS
Specimens Ia (mA) Ir (mA) Ir:Ia
SA 80.0 0.01 0.000
SA + 650°C, 0.5 h 80.1 17.6 0.220
SA + 650°C, 1 h 83.5 24.2 0.290
SA + 650°C, 5 h 90.0 39.0 0.433
SA + 650°C, 24 h 86.0 39.4 0.458
— Compounds with >C=S, such as H2NCSNH2,
H2C=CHCH2HNCSNH2, H2NHNCSNH2, and
CH3CSNH2;
— Compounds with SCN, such as KSCN; and
— Compounds with S2O3 such as Na2S2O3.
The common character of these additives was
that they contained oxygen-bearing or sulfur-bearing
free electron pairs. It is probable that these species
with free electron pairs were adsorbed easily on the
surface of the SS and lowered the M-M bond strength
(where M refers to the metal atom) by forming an
intermediate catalytic species analogous to that of
hydrosulfuryl (HS–) ion formed with nickel,15-16
thereby facilitating the transfer of metal ions into
solution.
The action of >C=O and >C=S was different when
the other components in the compounds were the
same. Oxygen is more electronegative than sulfur. It
was more difficult for the compounds >C=O to pro-
vide free electron pairs than for compounds with
>C=S. Therefore, the compounds with >C=S were
more corrosive than those with >C=O, assuming that
the other components were the same.
The actions of amide (–NH2) and methyl (–CH3)
also were different. Nitrogen was more electronega-
tive than carbon, and it has a strong tendency to
adsorb electrons. Thus, the density of electron clouds
of sulfur in compounds with H2N>C=S was lower than
with CH3>C=S, which could attack the M-M bond and
make the metal dissolve more easily than the com-
pounds with H2N>C=S. Therefore, CH3CSNH2 was
more aggressive than H2NCSNH2, H2NHNCSNH2, and
H2C=CHCH2HNCSNH2.
Some of the additives, such as Na2S2O3 and
KSCN, although they gave high values of Ir:Ia, were
very corrosive and caused severe pitting. These were
ion-bonded compounds and were not the most suit-
able activators for EPR test.
Measurements of DOS on Types 304L,
308L, and Weld Buildup 308L SS
Type 304L SS — Data obtained by the modified
EPR with activator CH3CSNH2 on type 304L SS of
various sensitizations are summarized in Table 5.
The magnitude of Ia (~ 100 mA) was almost indepen-
dent of sensitization. The slight variation observed
CORROSION–MAY 1998
 CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

FIGURE 3. Comparison of DOS of type 304L SS (650°C) measured FIGURE 4. Variance in Ir:Ia with sensitization for type 308L SS.
by the EPR test with activators KSCN and CH3CSNH2 and by the
copper-accelerated Strauss test.

largely resulted from variation in the exposed area of

the specimens. The magnitude of Ir, however, varied
significantly with the different sensitizations. It was
very small (≈ 10–2 mA for SA specimens) but in-
creased to values as high as 39 mA for severely
sensitized specimens.
DOS obtained from the modified test with
activator CH 3CSNH2 for type 304L SS of various
sensitization was compared with values from
EPR measurements with activator KSCN and
maximum attack depth of the copper-accelerated
Strauss test (Figure 3). Ir:Ia values from both EPR
tests with activators CH 3CSNH2 and KSCN and the
maximum attack depth from the copper-acceler- FIGURE 5. Corrosion rate measured by the Huey test varied with
sensitization for type 308L SS.
ated Strauss test increased with sensitization
duration at 650°C. Ir:Ia values measured by the
modified EPR test with activator CH3CSNH2 were
higher than those with KSCN for various sensitiza-
tion durations at 650°C. In addition, Ir:I a values
measured with activator CH3CSNH2 increased more
sharply than with KSCN with short sensitization
(650°C, 1 h), which indicated CH3CSNH2 was a
more sensitive activator to detect sensitization than
KSCN. CH3CSNH2 had more capacity to differenti-
ate and quantify DOS of lightly sensitized SS than
KSCN. I r:I a values for severely sensitized SS
measured by both activators were very close. Com-
paring DOS measured by both EPR tests to that by
the copper-accelerated Strauss test, the copper-
accelerated Strauss test was not as sensitive in
detecting and quantifying the lightly sensitized SS
(650°C, < 1 h) as the EPR tests. The modified FIGURE 6. Variances in Ir:Ia with sensitization time at 650°C for weld
EPR test with activator CH 3CSNH2 was weaker in buildup type 308L SS.
differentiating DOS of highly sensitized SS (650°C,
> 5 h) than activator KSCN and the copper-
accelerated Strauss test. chromium-depletion mechanism for sensitization. In
The increase of reactivation ratio with sensitiza- the EPR test, during the reactivation process, attack
tion duration measured by the modified EPR test for occurred in those regions depleted in chromium
type 304L SS could be explained based upon the below a particular level. The width of this chromium-

CORROSION–Vol. 54, No. 5 343

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION
(a)
(c)
FIGURE 7. SEM micrographs of weld buildup type 308L SS after EPR test: (a) SA; (b) SA + 650°C, 1 h; (c) SA + 650°C,
35 h; and (d) weld buildup.
depleted zone decreased with time.17 Both the in-
crease in the width of the depleted zone and the
decrease in minimum chromium content increased
the reactivation ratio in the EPR tests. However,
when the sensitization duration was long enough for
desensitization to occur, the minimum chromium
content in the depleted zone increased because of
increased diffusion from the matrix. This resulted in
a reduction in the volume depleted below the critical
value. In this case, EPR reactivation ratio did not
increase correspondingly.
Type 308L SS — DOS (Ir:Ia value ) as measured
by the modified EPR test with activator CH3CSNH2 of
type 308L SS sensitized at 550°C, 600°C, 650°C,
700°C, and 750°C for different durations are shown
in Figure 4. The reactivation ratio was found to
increase with sensitization duration at a certain tem-
344
(b)
(d)
perature and sensitization temperature except for
sensitization at 750°C. The reactivation ratio de-
creased when its duration exceeded 5 h at 750°C.
Measurements of DOS of type 308L SS sensitized at
550°C, 650°C, and 750°C for different durations in
boiling 65% HNO3 were conducted for comparison
with the modified EPR test (Figure 5). At 550°C, DOS
determined from both tests correlated very well
within durations of 5 h. Ir:Ia values from the modified
EPR test tended to become stable, while the corro-
sion rate from the boiling 65% HNO3 test still
increased gradually when the sensitization duration
exceeded 10 h. Ir:Ia increased more obviously than
corrosion rate while the sensitization duration
changed from 5 h to 10 h. At 650°C and 750°C, DOS
measured from the modified EPR tests were consis-
tent with those from boiling 65% HNO3 tests.
CORROSION–MAY 1998
 CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

Weld Buildup Type 308L SS — The modified EPR TABLE 6

technique also was used to evaluate DOS of weld EPR Measurements for Weld Buildup Type 308L SS
buildup type 308L SS with various sensitizations:
Specimens Ia (mA) Ir (mA) Ir:Ia
SA, SA + 650°C for 1 h, SA + 650°C for 5 h, SA +
650°C for 35 h, SA + 650°C for 100 h, original weld SA (1,050°C, 0.5 h) 64.87 077 1.18 x 10–5
buildup state, and stress relief treatment at 650°C SA + 650°C, 1 h 68.18 20.33 2.98 x 10–4
for 35 h without preceding SA. EPR test results are SA + 650°C, 5 h 88.90 144.97 1.63 x 10–3
SA + 650°C, 35 h 62.65 125.45 2.00 x 10–3
summarized in Table 6.
SA + 650°C, 100 h 67.87 137.27 2.02 x 10–3
Compared to the specimen of SA weld buildup Weld buildup 62.27 169.40 2.72 x 10–3
308L SS, the specimens sensitized at 650°C for dif- Weld + 650°C, 35 h 77.87 182.00 2.34 x 10–3
ferent durations after SA, original weld buildup
material, and original weld buildup followed by stress
relief treatment at 650°C for 35 h all showed a cer-
tain DOS. The SA specimen had the lowest current
ratio of ~ 10–5 orders. Current ratios of the specimens
mildly sensitized (650°C, 1 h) and severely sensitized
(650°C for 5 h, 35 h, 100 h) were ≈ 1 and 2 orders of
magnitude higher, respectively, than those of SA
specimens. The original weld buildup and annealed
specimen (650°C, 35 h) also showed a certain DOS
compared to the SA specimens, both of which
showed DOS 2 orders of magnitude higher than that
of SA specimen.
The reactivation ratios of the well buildup speci-
mens sensitized at 650°C were plotted with
sensitization time (Figure 6). Ir:Ia values increased
with sensitization time for all durations in the study
but tended to stabilize when sensitization time ex-
FIGURE 8. Comparison of DOS of types 304L, 308L, and weld
ceeded 35 h. buildup 308L SS sensitized at 650°C by the modified EPR test.
To observe the corroded morphology by the
EPR test, the reverse scanning rate was decreased
to 50 mV/min. Figure 7 shows the corroded sur-
face by EPR test on weld buildup type 308L SS of 304L, 308L, and weld buildup 308L SS except for
various sensitizations. Selective corrosion at the type 308L SS at 750°C for > 5 h.
interphase increased with sensitization time. The ❖ For type 304L SS, DOS determined by the modified
original weld buildup specimen also showed a EPR test with activator CH3CSNH2 was consistent
certain degree of interphase corrosion. These with that determined by the traditional EPR test with
micrographs, showing interphase corrosion, corre- activator KSCN and the copper-accelerated Strauss
sponded well to measurements by the modified test. The advantage of the modified EPR test was that
EPR test. it was more sensitive to susceptibility to IGC of vari-
Figure 8 shows the variation of DOS measured ous sensitized type 304L SS than the EPR test with
by the modified EPR test with sensitization time for activator KSCN and was more capable of detecting
the types 304L, 308L, and weld buildup 308L SS and quantifying DOS of mildly sensitized type 304L
sensitized at 650°C. Ir:Ia of the three types of SS were SS than the EPR test with activator KSCN or the
very different. Type 304L SS had the highest current copper-accelerated Strauss test.
ratio and weld buildup. Type 308L SS had the lowest ❖ For type 308L SS, DOS determined by the EPR test
one. The modified EPR technique differentiated not and the Huey test correlated well.
only the value for very different DOS, but also the ❖ The modified EPR test was most sensitive in de-
DOS of steel mildly, slightly, or entirely free of sensi- tecting and differentiating DOS in slightly or mildly
tization. sensitized SS (i.e., in materials in which the grain
boundaries were not surrounded completely by car-
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS bide precipitates).

❖ CH3CSNH2 proved to be a more suitable activator ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

than other compounds containing sulfur-bearing free
electron pairs for the EPR test. The authors acknowledge support of the Lab of
❖ The current ratio increased with the duration of Corrosion-Erosion and Surface Technology of The
sensitization at all temperatures studied for types Metallurgical Ministry.

CORROSION–Vol. 54, No. 5 345

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

REFERENCES 6. C. Cihal, A. Desestret, M. Froment, G.H. Wagner, “Tests for

1. A. Taboda, L. Prank, “Intergranular Corrosion in Nuclear Sys-
tem,” Intergranular Corrosion in Stainless Alloys, ASTM STP
656, ed. R.F. Steigerwald (Philadelphia, PA: ASTM, 1978), p. 85.
2. W.L. Clark, V.M. Romero, J.C. Danko, “Detection of Sensitiza-
tion in Stainless Steels Using Electrochemical Techniques,”
CORROSION/77, paper no. 180 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1977).
3. W.L. Clark, R.L. Cowan, W.L. Walker, “Comparative Methods
for Measuring Degree of Sensitization in Stainless Steels,” in
Intergranular Corrosion of Stainless Alloys, ASTM STP 656, ed.
R.F. Steigerwald (Philadelphia, PA: ASTM, 1978), p. 99.
4. ASTM Standard Practice A 262-93a, “Standard Practice for
Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic
Stainless Steels,” in Annual Book of Standards, vol. 3.02 (Phila-
delphia, PA: ASTM, 1988).
5. W.L. Clarke, MP 19 (1980): p. 16.
Evaluation of Sensibility of Stainless Steels to Intergranular
Corrosion,” Proc. 5th European Corros. Cong. (Paris, France:
European Federation on Corrosion, 1973), p. 249.
7. M. Prazak, Corrosion 19 (1963): p. 75.
8. P. Novak, R. Stepec, F. Franz, Corrosion 31 (1975): p. 344.
9. L.A. Medvedeva, V.M. Knyazheva, Ya.M. Kolotyrkin, S.G.
Babich, Zashch. Metall. 11 (1975): p. 699.
10. N.B. Gegelova, Zashch. Metall. 8 (1972): p. 420.
11. F. Duffaut, J.P. Pouzet, P. Lacombe, Corros. Sci. 6 (1966):
p. 83.
12. Z. Fang, L. Zhang, Y.S. Wu, Corrosion 51 (1995): p. 124.
13. M. Akashi, T. Kawamoto, F. Umemura, Boskhoku Gijutsu, 29
(1980): p. 163.
14. A.P. Majidi, M.A. Streicher, Corrosion 40 (1984): p. 584.
15. Z.A. Lofa, Prot. Met. 6 (1970): p. 445.
16. Z.A. Lofa, Prot. Met. 16 (1980): p. 220.
17. S.M. Bruemmer, L.A. Charlot, Scrip. Metall. 20 (1986): p. 1,019.

CORROSION RESEARCH CALENDAR

CORROSION is a technical research journal devoted to furthering the knowledge of corrosion science and
engineering. Within that context, CORROSION accepts notices of calls for papers and upcoming research grants,
meetings, symposia, and conferences. All pertinent information, including the date, time, location, and sponsor
of an event should be sent as far in advance as possible to: Ira D. Perry, Managing Editor, CORROSION,
P.O. Box 218340, Houston, TX, 77218-8340. Notices which are not accompanied by the contributor’s name,
daytime telephone number, and complete address will not be considered for publication.

1998 July 5-10 — Gordon Research September 28-October 1 — European

May 24-28 — Laboratory of
Engineering Materials of Helsinki
University of Technology and Institute
of Materials Research 5th Conference,
Finland and Sweden; Finland: + 358 9
4513530 or Sweden: + 4684404866.
May 25-27 — NACE East Asian and
Pacific Region Conference,
CORROSION ASIA ’98 — Marina
Mandarin, Singapore; Contact Lawrie
Grace, Phone: 011 65 862 3551 or Fax:
011 65 861 6436.
May 25-29 — 15th International
Thermal Spray Conference and
Exhibition — Nice, France; Contact
Secretary of Conference (19 33) 47 71
9004.
May 26-29 — International Symposium
on Corrosion in the Pulp and Paper
Industry — Ottawa, ON, Canada;
Contact Douglas Singbeil, 604/222-3200.
June 8-11 — 3rd International
Congress and Exhibition on Anti-
Corrosion “Protection ’98” — Moscow,
Russia; Contact the organizing
committee, +7 (095) 135 72 86.
June 17-24 — American Water Works
Association Annual Conference and
Exposition — Dallas, TX; Contact
AWWA, 303/347-6160.
* Sponsored by NACE International.
Conference on Aqueous Corrosion,
Colby Sawyer College — New London,
NH; Contact J. Douglas Sinclair, Phone:
908/582-3345 or Web Site: http://
home.att.net/-jdsinclair/.
* July 5-11 — 5th International
Conference on Composites Engineer-
ing — Las Vegas, NV; Contact David
Hui, 504/280-6652.
* August 30-September 4 — 3rd NACE
Latin American Region Corrosion
Congress — Cancun, Mexico; Contact
Lorenzo Martinez, Phone: 011 52 73
138915; Fax: 011 52 73173077; e-mail:
lorenzo@ce.ifisicam.unam.mx; or Web
Site: http://nacemexico.unam.mx/
nace.htm.
* September 13-18 — NACE Fall
Committee Week — Phoenix, AZ;
Contact NACE, 281/228-6200.
September 21-23 — International
Union of Testing and Research
Laboratories for Material Structures
2nd Conference — Melbourne,
Australia; Contact Liz Gray, Phone: 61 3
9252 6000 or Fax: 61 3 9252 6400.
* September 27-30 — NACE Central
Region Conference — Tulsa, OK;
Contact John Cole, 918/627-3188.
Federation of Corrosion, EUROCORR
’98, Annual European Corrosion
Congress Organized for the EFC by
The Netherlands Corrosion Center —
The Netherlands; Contact Congress
Secretariat, +31 (0) 30 228 77 73.
* October 11-14 — NACE Eastern Area
Conference — Sandestin, FL; Contact
Essa Rhebi, 850/729-4870.
* October 11-17 — NACE Western Area
Conference — Honolulu, HI; Contact
Tom Tehada, Phone: 808/474-5360 or
E-mail: ttehada@efdpac.navfac.navy.md.
October 25-30 — American Concrete
Institute Fall Convention — Los
Angeles, CA; Contact Angie Legaspi,
810/848-3700.
* December 8-11 — Conference on
Corrosion and Rehabilitation of
Concrete Structrures, Contact D. Harris
Cunningham, Phone: 613/991-2987 or
Fax: 613/952-1638.
1999
* March 8-11 — NACE Northern Area
Conference, (Western Canadian
Conference) — Calgary, AB, Canada;
Contact Gordon Tunnicliffe, 403/231-
0111.
March 14-18 — American Concrete
Institute Spring Convention —
Chicago, IL; Contact Angie Legaspi, 810/
848-3700.

346 CORROSION–MAY 1998