Journal of The Electrochemical

Society

OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- The bio-gripper: a fluid-driven micro-
Review—Effects of Solution and Alloy manipulator of living tissue constructs for
additive bio-manufacturing
Composition on Critical Crevice Temperature Blanche C Ip, Francis Cui, Anubhav
Tripathi et al.

- The nonlinear effects of air pollution on

To cite this article: Narasi Sridhar et al 2023 J. Electrochem. Soc. 170 031502 criminal behavior: evidence from Mexico
City and New York
Luis Sarmiento

- Critical currents in REBaCuO

superconducting tapes in response to
View the article online for updates and enhancements. neutron irradiation
M Jirsa, M Rameš, I uran et al.

This content was downloaded from IP address 203.172.103.50 on 12/10/2023 at 01:55

 Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2023 170 031502

Review—Effects of Solution and Alloy Composition on Critical

Crevice Temperature
Narasi Sridhar,1,*,z Andrzej Anderko,2 and Steven Kung3
1
The Ohio State University and MC Consult, LLC, United States of America
2
OLI Systems, Inc, United States of America
3
Electric Power Research Institute, United States of America

Critical temperature for localized corrosion can be a good design parameter because localized corrosion is not likely to occur below
that temperature. The critical temperature depends on alloy composition, microstructure, and environment chemistry (including its
redox potential). This paper reviews the literature on critical temperature for localized corrosion, expressed either as Critical Pitting
Temperature (CPT) or Critical Crevice Temperature (CCT). A history of various testing methods is presented. Different approaches
for modeling the temperature of transition to active pit growth are reviewed, including probabilistic aspects of critical temperature.
A semi-empirical, electrolyte-based, model is described that can be useful in predicting CCT in service environments that differ
from standard laboratory test environments. The model predictions are compared to experimental data for various alloys. The effect
of solvent on CCT/CPT is described briefly and future avenues of research are recommended.
© 2023 The Author(s). Published on behalf of The Electrochemical Society by IOP Publishing Limited. This is an open access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (CC BY, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse of the work in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. [DOI: 10.1149/
1945-7111/acc13d]

Manuscript submitted December 23, 2022; revised manuscript received January 19, 2023. Published March 14, 2023. This paper is
part of the JES Focus Issue on Critical Factors in Localized Corrosion in Honor of Gerald Frankel.

Localized corrosion occurs above a critical temperature that
depends on environmental and alloy chemistry, microstructural
factors, and test technique. This temperature is called the Critical
Pitting Temperature (CPT) in tests where there are no intentional
crevices and Critical Crevice Temperature (CCT) in tests where the
test specimen is sandwiched between crevice washers with a known
initial tightness. CPT/CCT may be defined in many ways, depending
on the test technique. In electrochemical tests, the CPT/CCT may be
defined as the beginning or mid-point of a steeply sloping region of
the electrochemical response (current, potential, noise, etc.) to
changing temperature. In non-electrochemical tests, CPT/CCT may
be defined as the lowest temperature at which localized corrosion is
visually observed (historically at 40X magnification) or the highest
temperature at which it is not visually observed. Although these
definitions may lead to different results, a common basis is the lack
of stable localized corrosion below the CPT/CCT. CCT and CPT can
be derived from more fundamental electrochemical parameters, such
as pitting potential (Ep), repassivation potential (Erp), corrosion
potential (Ecorr), and applied potential (Eapp) (Fig. 1). The Ep and Erp
can be regarded as threshold potentials for stable localized corrosion.
They are strong functions of temperature in the intermediate
temperature region for any alloy-environment combination, showing
abrupt transitions in some cases. At low temperatures, the upper
boundary of Ep/Erp of an alloy is determined by the transpassive
behavior or oxidation of the solvent and solute species, at least in the
case of Fe-Ni-Cr-Mo type alloys. At high temperatures, the lower
boundary of the potential response is determined by the reduction of
the solvent and active dissolution of the metal. The variation of Erp
as a function of temperature is discussed in detail in this paper. The
Ecorr in non-electrochemical tests is much less sensitive to tempera-
ture and is mainly dictated by the kinetics of redox reactions, as
shown in Fig. 2.1 Therefore, a unifying definition of CPT/CCT may
be the intersection of Ep/Erp and Ecorr as functions of temperature.
Because Erp is lower than Ep, the CPT/CCT determined using Erp
would represent a more conservative value, as will be discussed later
in this paper. Similarly, because Erp for crevice corrosion is
generally lower than that for pitting, the CCT is generally lower
than CPT.
However, CPT tests can produce crevice corrosion in unintended
crevice areas (e.g., contact points of specimen with holders or
*Electrochemical Society member.
z
E-mail: nsridhar@mcconsultco.com
glassware) and CCT tests exhibit pitting corrosion both within the
crevice area and outside it. Thus, CPT and CCT can be regarded as
two end members of a spectrum of critical localized corrosion
temperatures. In most industrial systems, it is difficult to avoid
crevices, as they occur in overlapping areas, under deposits, within
deep gouges, under coatings and insulation, and in gasketed joints.
Therefore, although CPT, when determined using artificial pit
electrodes simulating 1-D transport conditions, is of greater interest
from the point of view of understanding fundamental processes,
CCT is of greater importance in predicting the life of practical
systems. In this paper, a historical review of critical temperature is
presented, followed by results of an electrolyte-based model to
predict CCT in complex environmental conditions encountered in
industrial systems. Because of the review nature of this paper, there
is no separate experimental section as the techniques are briefly
described throughout the paper. Similarly, materials and chemistry
of the environments are described where they occur in the paper.
A History of Critical Temperature Testing
An early study of the effect of temperature on pitting by Leckie
and Uhlig2 showed a steep drop in Ep of 18Cr-8Ni stainless steel in
0.1 N NaCl with increasing temperature followed by a lower plateau
region above 25 °C. The study also showed that 18–8 stainless steel
exposed to a solution of 0.5 M NaCl + 0.5 M FeCl3 did not pit at 0 °
C but pitted at 25 °C after 24-hour exposure. Remarkably, they also
examined the effect of time of exposure at constant potential on
pitting and showed that at 25 °C in 0.1 N NaCl the potential for
observable pitting decreased from about 0.3 V SHE after about
2 min to about 0.15 V SHE after 24 hours. Taken together, this early
study showed that the temperature at which long-term pit initiation
potential exceeded the redox potential in an environment may lead to
a CPT. Although Leckie and Uhlig examined the inhibiting effects
of oxy-anions on localized corrosion, they did not examine the
solution chemistry effects on CPT. Defranoux3 studied the decrease
in Ep of 18Cr-Ni-Mo-Ti austenitic stainless steels in artificial
seawater and suggested that because of the differences in cathodic
kinetics between dissolved oxygen and ferric ions, the use of FeCl3
in characterizing relative seawater resistance of stainless steels was
not appropriate. He did not, however, identify a critical temperature.
The usefulness of CPT and CCT was firmly established through a
series of papers published by Brigham and co-workers.4–8 Brigham4
studied 18%-19% Cr austenitic stainless steels containing 0.2%N
and Mo ranging from 3%–7.3% in a 0.6 M NaCl solution acidified to
 Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2023 170 031502
Figure 1. Schematic diagram indicating CPT and CCT. Localized corrosion
can occur at temperatures higher than CPT/CCT where the Ecorr/Eapp is
above the Ep/Erp.
Figure 2. Effect of temperature on Ecorr of Pt and alloy C-22 (Ni-22Cr-
13Mo-3W) in 4% NaCl solutions at pH = 1 with different redox conditions.
Data are replotted from figures in Kolts and Sridhar.1
pH 3 with HCl. He conducted potential staircase experiments
(50 mV every 2.5 min) and showed that the critical potential for
exceeding 10 μA/cm2 exhibited an inverse sigmoidal behavior with
a precipitous drop in critical potential at intermediate temperatures.
He characterized this steep sloping region of critical potential vs
temperature curves as the CPT for these alloys. Notable in this early
work is the characterization of the uncertainty distribution in CPT in
the intermediate temperature region. Brigham and Tozer5 used a
potentiostatic technique (0.5 V SCE) in the same solution and
showed that the temperature at which there was a steep drop in
the current density below 10 μA/cm2 corresponded reasonably well
with the temperature at which there was a steep drop in critical
potential with temperature for 10 μA/cm2. Using the latter as the
rationale, they performed independent exposure tests in 10% FeCl3
solution at temperature increments of 2.5 °C, each test for 24 hours.
Using visual evidence of pitting as the criterion, they established a
correlation between the critical temperature in FeCl3 exposure and
0.6 M NaCl at 0.5 V SCE. It should be noted that they did not
specify whether they used a solution of 10% FeCl3 or 10%
FeCl3.6H2O. These two solutions would yield a dissolved Cl− of
1.5 and 0.93 M, respectively (a part of the FeCl3 will speciate to
FeCl2+). Using these two tests, they established a correlation of CPT
and Mo content as CPT (°C ) = 10 + 7 (%Mo). In a follow up test
using a variety of crevice devices and 18%Cr stainless steels
containing 0.06–0.2% N, Brigham6 showed that the CCT varied
with Mo as CCT (°C ) = −(45 ± 5) + 11 (%Mo). Brigham and
Tozer7 showed that for Type 317 L stainless steel, the CPT in
chloride solutions was relatively independent of redox potentials
ranging from about 0.5 to about 0.8 V SCE. It should be noted that
for the 6.1% NaClO + 3.5% NaCl and 3.5% NaCl + 5% K3Fe(CN)6
solutions, the Cl− concentration corresponds to about 0.62 M,
whereas for the 10% FeCl3, the Cl− is 1.5 M. They also showed
that the CPT in 4 to 10% FeCl3 did not vary significantly for Types
304 and 317 L stainless steels, but increased below about 2% FeCl3.
The probability of CCT and the effect of compliant crevice washer
on reducing the CCT was demonstrated in terms of cumulative
normal distribution plots of crevice sites attacked vs temperature.8
The intermediate temperatures produced the widest distribution in
CCT.
The characterization of crevice corrosion resistance in 6% FeCl3
solution as a function of temperature and Mo content was also
published around this time by Steigerwald et al.9 About the same
time, Manning10 compared different accelerated laboratory tests for
ranking alloys to relative service experience of these alloys. He
showed that the CCT in an oxidizing chloride solution (4% NaCl +
0.01% HCl + 0.1% Fe2(SO4)3) did not correlate to pitting potential
measured in a 4% NaCl + 0.01% HCl solution at 70 °C.
Furthermore, the CCT showed a greater correlation to the relative
ranking of alloys in service conditions. The ability to rank alloys
through CPT and CCT using immersion tests in standard environ-
ments and the ease of conducting such tests in large numbers was
attractive to alloy manufacturers as well as users. As a result, the
standardized immersion tests, e.g., ASTM G-4811 and ISO-19280,12
became the bases for alloy quality control and acceptance in many
industries.
The CCT measured from a variety of standardized solutions as
well as artificial seawater at an applied potential of 0.6 V SCE is
shown as a function of Pitting Resistance Equivalent Number
(PREN = Cr + 3.3(Mo + 0.5 W) +16 N), in Fig. 3.9,10,13–15 Also
shown in the figure legend are the calculated Cl− and SO42−
concentrations and pH using the OLI electrolyte speciation
model.16–18 The lines are linear regression fits to the data, which
are divided into four solution types ranging in calculated Cl−
concentration from 0.6 to 0.9 M and SO42− from 0 to 0.2 M.
Generally, the SO42− containing solution exhibits a higher CCT
suggestive of its inhibitive effect. Significant scatter in the reported
data can be observed (R2 = 0.5–0.65), although there is a general
trend of increasing CCT with increasing PREN. It should be noted
that the bulk pH of these solutions does not influence the CCT as the
solution with the lowest pH shows the highest CCT. This is
consistent with the idea that the pH within the pits is determined
by hydrolysis of metal cations and the potential is determined by the
Fe3+/Fe2+ and Cu2+/Cu+ redox reactions, except for artificial
seawater where the potential was applied. The wide scatter in
CCT data may be attributed to differences in test procedures, such
as crevice device, torque, test duration, and specimen surface
conditions. Russell et al.19 measured the CPT and CCT of several
experimental alloys containing 23%Cr- 4 to 5%Mn- 0.9 to 4.6%Mo-
0.01 to 0.73%N using potentiodynamic and temperature scanning
techniques and showed that the CPT and CCT varied linearly with
various PREN with a general formula of %Cr + 3.3 (%Mo) +x(%
N), where x = 24–30.
PREN, sometimes also called PREN to emphasize the effect of
nitrogen, is used in this paper as a convenient short-hand to depict
the effect of alloy content. It may indicate the approximate relative
effectiveness of an alloying element in affecting localized corrosion.
 Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2023 170 031502

Figure 4. Chloride-potential-CPT map for type 316 stainless steel devel-

oped by Bernhardsson et al.23 Data are replotted from printed paper.
Figure 3. Critical Crevice Temperatures reported by a variety of investiga-
tors for Ni-Fe-Cr-Mo-W-N alloys in oxidizing chloride solutions.9,10,13–15

Caution must be exercised in the use of PREN or other alloy

equivalence numbers. The alloy equivalence number cannot be used
as a predictor of an alloy’s performance with respect to localized
corrosion. For example, in a relatively benign environment, many
alloys will exhibit high resistance to localized corrosion, resulting in
an apparent insensitivity of localized corrosion to alloy equivalence.
Similarly, in a highly aggressive environment, many alloys may fail,
again exhibiting insensitivity of localized corrosion to alloy equiva-
lence. Thus, alloy equivalence numbers are, at best, a way to rank
alloys under specific experimental conditions. The alloy equivalence
numbers also assume that the effects of alloying elements are linear
and additive. The interactions between alloying elements, such as Cr
and Mo20 and Mn, Mo, and N,21 the effects of minor alloying
elements, such as Cu and Nb, and the effect of matrix alloying
element, Ni/Fe22 are ignored by various alloy equivalence numbers.
Bernhardsson and co-workers at Sandvik in the late 1970’s
developed an automated, rising temperature electrochemical test23,24
and associated equipment called, SANTRON (The critical tempera-
ture testing method was granted U.S. Patent No. 4,214,951). In this
test, the current density under potentiostatic control was measured at
a controlled temperature. The temperature was raised by 5 °C if the
current density did not increase above 10μA/cm2 after 15 min until a
temperature was reached when the current density exceeded this
threshold value, which was termed CPT. Variables in this test Figure 5. Comparison of CCT measured in immersion tests in 6% FeCl3 to
included chloride activity, applied potential, and time at any potentiostatic temperature scanning test.13 The numbers above and below the
temperature. An important result from this technique was the data points indicate the PREN of the alloys.
development of chloride—potential—CPT maps for different alloys.
The experimental arrangement included argon purging through the steeply rising slope at low chloride concentrations; (2) the cut-off
electrical contact point at the specimen to exclude solution in this point between the two-slope regions shifts to higher chloride
area and minimize crevice corrosion. Later, Qvarfort25 introduced a concentration as the alloy Cr, Mo, and N contents increase; and
different arrangement for minimizing crevice corrosion, involving (3) the CPT shifts to higher values as the applied potential decreases.
flooding the crevice area with distilled water at a slow rate (called A modified version of the SANTRON technique was used by
the “Avesta cell” after the company). An example of the results from Nagaswami and Streicher13 to measure the CCT in artificial seawater
Bernhardsson et al.23 is shown in Fig. 4. Unfortunately, this early by applying a potential of 0.6 V SCE (Fig. 5), where the threshold
work by Bernhardsson et al. has not received the recognition it current density was increased to 33 μA/cm2 based on total area
deserves. Several features of this work should be noted: (1) the CPT (1500 μA/cm2 based on effective crevice area) and the applied
depends on the activity of chloride, that may be interpreted as a dual potential was removed in between temperature increases. They
slope—a shallow slope at the high chloride concentrations with a showed that longer measuring time (1 hour compared to 15 min)
 Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2023 170 031502
Figure 6. Anodic current density at an applied potential of 0.6 V SCE
during a cyclic temperature scan. Solution used was 3% NaCl and the
temperature scan rate was 4 °C/24 h. The alloy was UNS N08367 (20.5%Cr-
23.5%Ni-6.11%Mo-0.22%N). Source: Steinsmo et al.28
resulted in a decrease in measured CCT. The ranking of alloys using
SANTRON technique and immersion in 10% FeCl3.6 H2O was
essentially the same, but the CCT was significantly lower for the
latter (Fig. 5). The higher CCT for the potentiostatic, temperature
scanning tests was likely a result of shorter time periods used for
these measurements (1 h) vs the FeCl3 tests (24 to 72 hours) and re-
polishing between temperatures for the FeCl3 tests. Hibner14 showed
that repolishing the specimens between temperatures significantly
reduced the CCT of alloys. Garner26 showed that the CCT of
stainless steels ranging in Mo from 0 to 6.7% in 10% FeCl3 test
correlated with their performance in seawater. It should be noted that
earlier studies in FeCl3 by Manning10 used independent specimens at
each temperature, but studies by Garner26 used the same specimen at
successively higher temperature.
The temperature scanning technique has been used since then by
others with crevice specimens under potential control,13,19,27–30
zero-resistance ammeter (ZRA) measurements in oxidizing chloride
solutions,31 electrochemical impedance and noise methods,32–36
galvanostatic method,37,38 potentiodynamic-galvanostatic-potentio-
dynamic method30 and artificial pit electrodes.39–41 The potentio-
static technique has been standardized as ASTM G-150 test
method,42 wherein a sufficiently high potential is applied to ensure
rapid initiation of pitting so that the CPT is essentially potential
independent at these high potentials. It should be emphasized that
the CPT, in general, is not potential independent (see Fig. 4).
In certain environments, such as those containing H2S, oxidation
of the H2S at high potentials typically used in ASTM G-150 is a
confounding effect in measuring CPT/CCT. Mendibide and
Duret-Thual29 modified the CPT procedure by applying a potential
of 0 V SCE, which is lower than the H2S oxidation potential. They
noted a hysteresis in the CPT during heating and cooling that
depended on the alloy. In general, the CPT determined in H2S
solutions was lower than in non-H2S solutions. Iannuzzi et al.33 used
an electrochemical noise technique in H2S containing solution to
measure CPT while avoiding high polarization potentials. The
potential difference between Pt and alloy in an oxidizing chloride
solution has also been used to measure CPT.1
Haugan et al.43 conducted cyclic potentiodynamic polarization
(CPP) tests on crevice-free and creviced specimens of duplex
stainless steels in 3.5% NaCl at pH of 8. In similarity to
Qvarfort,44 they found temperatures at which the Erp showed a
sudden transition from near transpassive values to active values
They compared the transition temperature to critical pitting tem-
peratures measured on crevice-free specimens using a temperature
scanning approach as provided in ASTM G-150. For the less
corrosion resistant duplex stainless steel, the CPT measured by
ASTM G-150 agreed reasonably well with the transition temperature
measured using CPP test, but for the more corrosion-resistant duplex
stainless steel, the transition temperature measured by CPP was
significantly lower than that measured by ASTM G-150.
Cyclic scanning of temperature27,28 showed that the CPT in the
forward (upward) scan of temperature was almost 50 °C higher than
the CPT upon reverse scan of temperature (Fig. 6). A smaller
hysteresis in critical temperature (2.5 °C–5 °C) was observed for
duplex stainless steels tested in natural seawater with an applied
potential of 0.6 V SCE by Torres et al.30 These results would
indicate that the CPT/CCT identified by the temperature scanning
technique is a lower-bound value of critical temperature by using a
high potential to reduce induction time for stable pitting. However,
in the case of temperature scanning technique, there could be a
significant hysteresis in the measured CPT/CCT. If CPP test
technique is used to measure the transition in potential, the Erp as
a function of temperature provides a more conservative measure of
CPT/CCT and it should be closer to the CPT/CCT measured using
the backward temperature scan. Unfortunately, cyclic temperature
scanning has not been pursued widely.
Dependence of CPT/CCT on Environmental Parameters
Effect of Bulk Chloride Concentration.—As shown in Fig. 4,
The CPT was dependent on the activity of chloride in the bulk
solution. Similar results were found by Le Guevel et al.38 and Vu
Quang et al.37 using a galvanostatic temperature scanning technique.
However, Qvarfort44 studied the effect of temperature on the cyclic
potentiodynamic polarization (CPP) behavior of a high-Ni austenitic
stainless steel, alloy 254SMO (UNS S31254) and found that the
transition temperature was essentially the same for both Ep and Erp,
and was relatively insensitive to bulk chloride concentration in the
range of 1 to 5 M. Wang et al.45 examined the effect of temperature
on Ep and pit induction time of Type 304 L stainless steel in aerated
NaCl solutions at open-circuit conditions. They showed that the pit
induction time increased at lower temperatures and chloride con-
centrations. They also showed that the CPT of alloy 254SMO (UNS
S31254) determined by an abrupt shift in Ep and Erp was not
sensitive to bulk chloride concentration ranging from 1 to 5 M even
though the Ep and Erp were themselves dependent on chloride
concentration. The sensitivity of CPT to chloride was also observed
by Brigham and Tozer,7 who exposed Types 304 L and 317 L
stainless steels to FeCl3 solution ranging in concentration from 0.2 to
10 weight percent for periods of 24 to 66 hours. For Type 304 L SS,
they found that the CPT was about 10 °C in 10% FeCl3 (1.5 M Cl−)
and increased to almost 100 °C in 0.2% FeCl3 (0.04 M Cl−). The
calculated pH of 10% FeCl3 solution at 10 °C is 0.7 and that of the
0.2% FeCl3 solution at 100 °C is 1.5. Laycock et al.46 measured the
CPT of 904 L stainless steel (UNS N08904) using Ep from
potentiodynamic scans as well as temperature scan at an applied
potential of 0.75 V Ag/AgCl and found that the CPT was indepen-
dent of chloride concentration between 0.01 M to 1 M. More recent
studies by El Meguid et al.32,47 have shown that the transition in Ep
occurred at a higher temperature than that in Erp for pitting and
crevice corrosion of UNS S31254 and the transition temperature was
dependent on chloride concentration and the presence of other
species, such as Br− and SO42− (Fig. 7). The Erp for creviced
specimens transitioned to a lower value at a lower temperature.
Although El Meguid et al. did not evaluate the statistical dispersion
of the data, it can be seen that for the 10% NaCl solution at 50 °C,
there was a big dispersion in the two data points, which is consistent
with the idea that the statistical dispersion is larger in the transition
temperature region. These discrepancies on the effect of chloride
concentration may depend on the alloy, range of chloride concentra-
tion, other species present in the solution, and the definition of CPT.
Effect of Bulk pH.—It is generally accepted for the Fe-Ni-Cr-
Mo alloys that bulk pH from about 2 to 10 does not affect the critical
 Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2023 170 031502
Figure 7. Erp as a function of temperature for alloy UNS S31254 (Fe-18Ni-
20Cr-6.1Mo-0.2 N) in NaCl solutions. The data are replotted from El
Meguid et al.32,47 Also shown is the model prediction.
potentials for localized corrosion because the pH inside pits and
crevices are determined by the hydrolysis of metal cations and the
activity of chloride.48 However, there are not many systematic
investigations on the effect of bulk pH on CPT/CCT. Kehler et al.49
showed that the effect of temperature on Ercrev of alloys 625 (Ni-
22%Cr-9%Mo) and 22 (22%Cr-13%Mo-3%W) did not vary sig-
nificantly with pH between 2.75 and 7.75. Qvarfort44 showed that
the CPT of 254SMO (20Cr-6Mo-0.2 N stainless steel) in 1 M NaCl
acidified using HCl was essentially independent of bulk pH in the
range of 1–7. Pardo et al.50 also observed that the CPT and CCT of
25%Cr-7%Ni-3.5%Mo-0.25%N and 24%Cr-22%Ni-7%Mo-0.5%N
stainless steels measured using CPP technique decreased with
increases in chloride concentration from 200 ppm to 6,000 ppm
(added as NaCl). As expected, the CCT was lower than the CPT.
However, CCT increased by almost 50 °C with a decrease in pH
from 6.5 to 2, which is somewhat counterintuitive. The pH of their
solutions was adjusted using H2SO4. At the low pH, the dissolved
SO42− concentration is significant (in the 200 ppm Cl− solution, the
concentration of SO42− is greater than that of Cl−). Because SO42−
is an inhibitor of localized corrosion, the unexpected effect of pH
may be related to the SO42−.
Effect of Other Species.—Inhibitive species, such as MoO42−
have been found to increase the CPT of 25%Cr duplex stainless
steel, albeit only by about 6 °C.35 The Ep and Erp have been shown to
Br −
slightly increase with an increase in molar fraction of
Br + Cl −
− the first term and the concentration of chloride in the second term).
molar concentration, when the total halide concentrations is main-
tained constant.47,51 Thus, the CCT in bromide solution would be
expected to be slightly higher than in chloride solutions. However,
direct evidence is lacking. Similarly, SO42− is an inhibitor in Cl−
solutions51 and would be expected to increase the CCT slightly. The
increase in CCT due to SO42− can be observed in Fig. 3, where two
solutions containing 0.7 M Cl−, but with varying SO42− exhibit a
slightly higher CCT with SO42−, albeit with significant scatter. Other
oxyanions, such as VO3−, NO3−, and NO2− are also strong
inhibitors of localized corrosion of stainless steels and Ni-base
alloys.52 However, there have been limited studies of the role of the
oxyanions on CPT/CCT.
Metallurgical Effects.—The effect of welding on CPT/CCT on
stainless steels and Ni-base alloys has been examined extensively
using standard immersion tests.26,53 Generally, these studies show
that the CPT in FeCl3 decreases in welds due to segregation of
alloying elements during weld solidification. Limited studies of the
effect of solid-state precipitation reactions on CPT/CCT have been
conducted. Pahlavan et al.54 showed that the CPT of a 22%Cr duplex
stainless steel decreased by about 15 °C due to the formation of σ
phase. Zhang et al.35 used an electrochemical noise method to
measure CPT of a 25%Cr duplex stainless steel. They showed that
aging at 650 °C decreased the CPT due to σ phase formation, the
decrease being larger for longer aging time. The effect of σ phase
formation on CPT is consistent with its effect on Erp of 22%Cr
duplex stainless55 and results from the formation of austenite that is
denuded of N.
Mechanistic Approaches
Early on, Leckie and Uhlig2 speculated that the temperature effect
on critical potential is probably related to competition in adsorption
between H2O and Cl− on passive film. They also stated that the effect
of temperature on the diffusion of defects in the passive film was
likely not sufficient to account for strong dependence of critical
potential on temperature. In the Point Defect Model (PDM) proposed
by Macdonald and co-workers,56–58 the critical potential contains two
terms influenced by temperature—one involving the flux of metal
cations transported through the film and injected into the metal from
the film and the other related to the flux of cation vacancies generated
at the film-solution interface through the adsorption of chloride. A
form of the PDM is shown in Eq. 1:59
2RT ⎛ b ⎞ RT
Vc = Ln − Ln (a Cl ) [1]
χFα ⎝ D ⎠ Fα
where, Vc is the critical potential, χ is the charge associated with the
cation, α is a transfer coefficient, and aCl is the activity of chloride in
the solution. The parameter, b is given by Eq. 2:
RTJm Ω
b=
FχεNv
χ χ χ
⎛ ΔGs0 + ΔGA0 − βFpH − Fφf0/ s ⎞
× exp ⎜ 2 2 2 [ 2]
⎟
⎜ RT ⎟
⎝ ⎠
where, Jm is the flux of cation vacancies going from the film into the
metal, ε is the electric field strength in the film, Ω is the molar
volume of cations in the film, and Nv is the Avogadro number. The
terms, ΔGs0 and ΔGA0 are the activation energies of Schottky-pair
reaction and adsorption of chloride in oxygen vacancies in the film,
respectively, β is a transfer coefficient, and φf0/ s is the potential drop
across the film-solution interface. Eq. 1 suggests that the critical
potential is a function of the absolute temperature (positive or
negative slope depending on the magnitudes of various parameters in
However, an explicit derivation of the temperature dependence of Vc
has not been attempted.
Newman and Liew39 were the first to examine pit stabilization as
a function of temperature using an artificial pit electrode. They did
this by first polarizing a recessed electrode 1-mm in diameter at
500 mV Ag/AgCl in 1 M NaCl at 90 °C, then switching off the
 Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2023 170 031502
heater to allow the solution to cool while maintaining the applied
potential until a temperature was reached where repassivation
occurred. They found that the transition temperature, Tr, at which
repassivation occurred, was reproducible to within about 2 °C for an
alloy at a given applied potential. In contrast to the decrease in CPT/
CCT with applied potential observed by others (see Fig. 4), they
observed an increase in Tr with applied potential for alloy G-30
(N06030 is a Ni-15%Fe-29.5%Cr-5.5%Mo-2.5%W). They specu-
lated that the increase in Tr was possibly due to a change in salt-film
property with potential, such as the formation of MoO42−. However,
they did not report similar data for higher Mo-containing alloys. It is
also possible that hexavalent Cr species were created in the high-Cr
alloy at the high potentials. Salinas-Bravo and Newman31 were the
first to articulate the idea that critical temperature is determined by
the transition of meta-stable to stable pits and suggested the
condition for determining CPT (Eq. 3):
nFDcs
icrit (T = Tc, cs ) =
δ In the concepts developed by Li et al. and Laycock et al., the
where, icrit is the critical current density when pits become stable, Tc
is the critical temperature (equal to CPT), cs is the concentration of
metal-chloride complex at the growing pit front (assumed to be
approximately equal to the saturation concentration with respect to
metal chloride salt), n is the charge of metal cation, F is the Faradays
constant, D is the diffusivity of the metal cation, and δ is the
diffusion boundary layer. They explained the sharp demarcation of
CPT by the cessation of stable pitting below a cut-off value of icrit
and the distributed value of CPT because of the distributed nature of
δ arising from a range of inclusion sizes which they envisioned to be
pit starters. Moayed and Newman elaborated this concept60 in terms
of geometrical parameters, temperature, and alloy chemistry, but
retained the notion that the critical concentration determining the
critical temperature was the metal-salt saturation concentration.
Laycock et al.46 showed that the frequency of metastable pitting
events increased close to the CPT, but metastable pitting was
observed even 50 °C below the CPT. Laycock et al. suggested
that this is related to the nucleation of oxide beneath the salt film.
They argued, in analogy to the corrosion of iron in concentrated
sulfuric acid, that the metal-chloride salt film promotes the formation
of oxide below the CPT, possibly due to the reduction of H+ ions at
the metal-salt film interface due to its outward migration. The notion
that critical temperature is related to the formation of chloride salt
film seems to be a consequence of the high potentials used by
Laycock et al. to measure CPT. If Erp is used as a metric of CPT,
then salt film formation may not be necessary for the formation of
oxide at CPT. In earlier results of Gaudet et al.61 as well as many
subsequent studies62–65 repassivation of pitting was found to be
associated with a lower pit solution concentration, ranging from 20
to 50% of saturation.
Li et al. in a series of papers41,66,67 suggested that CPT is
associated with the criterion that the maximum dissolution rate at the
pit bottom corresponding to active dissolution of a salt-free surface
should be at least equal to a diffusive dissolution rate corresponding
to critical concentration (Eq. 4):
3nFDCcrit
i diff , crit = ⩽ i diss, max
2πr
ΔGa* ⎞ 3nFDCsat
= Aexp ⎛⎜− ⎟ ⩽ i dlim =
⎝ RT ⎠ 2πr
where, idiff , crit is the diffusional current density when the concentra-
tion of the metal cation at the pit bottom is at critical concentration,
D is the diffusivity of the metal cation in the pit solution, Ccrit is a
critical concentration of metal cations required for stable pit growth,
r is the pit radius, idiss, max is the maximum active dissolution rate at
the pit bottom, ΔGa* is the activation energy of active dissolution
related to the externally applied potential through the ohmic drop in
the pit, A is an adjustable constant, and Csat is the saturation
concentration of metal cations equal to the solubility of metal salt in
the pit electrolyte. In their model, the CPT is a distributed value
because the Ccrit is not fixed, but can take on a probability
distribution with a maximum of approximately Csat. In a more recent
study, Li et al.68 recorded the repassivation temperature for
passivation of Type 316 L stainless steel in 3.5% NaCl very
precisely as a function of initial applied potential and pit depth.
They observed maxima in repassivation temperature with applied
potential depending on the depth of pitting. The repassivation
temperature maximum generally decreased from 7 °C to about 2 °
C as a function of increasing pit depth. Two maxima were observed
in repassivation temperature for the shortest pit depth, but for most
cases, a single maximum was observed at about 0.5VSCE. They
concluded that repassivation during a temperature scan occurred
under a salt film and suggested that repassivation temperature is
related to either the transport of H+ away from the metal-salt film
interface or change in salt film properties with applied potential.
[3]
repassivation temperature is associated with changes occurring in or
underneath a salt film, with oxide formation an implicit consequence
of repassivation process. However, this concept cannot explain the
transition temperature at which repassivation potential drops pre-
cipitously because, at the repassivation potential, salt film is thought
to be absent and the pit electrolyte is at a fraction of the metal-
chloride saturation concentration, as discussed previously. One
approach to reconcile this apparent contradiction is to assume, in
analogy to the concept of sub-monolayer adsorption on surfaces, that
the salt film occupies only a fraction of the pit surface. A model
involving competitive adsorption and reaction of aggressive species
and oxide forming species was proposed by Anderko et al.51 and
later extended to sulfur-containing species.69 This model, called here
an electrolyte modeling approach, is described in the next section.
Electrolyte Modeling Approach
The modeling approach has been elaborated elsewhere,51,52,70–72
but it is beneficial to briefly revisit the basis for the model prior to
comparing the model predictions with experimental data. The model
starts from the relatively well-established experimental finding that
repassivation occurs when the pit electrolyte reaches a fraction of the
saturated metal-salt concentration.61,63 This process of metal-salt
dilution can be envisioned as the displacement of metal-salt by metal
oxide nuclei at the pit surface73 and was modeled by Okada.74 The
electrolyte modeling approach developed by Anderko et al.69 uses
the formalism developed by Okada and considers the reactions at the
growing pit front leading to the formation of oxide nuclei in a salt
film-covered surface (Fig. 8). In H2S systems under acidic condi-
tions, H2S is the predominant aqueous species. The model considers
the adsorption/desorption of H2S and the formation/dissolution of
metal sulfide in these systems. It should be noted that the model is
agnostic to the properties and physical distribution of the metal-
anion salt, sulfide, and oxide films, despite the visualization
presented in Fig. 8. The model only considers the surface coverage
fractions of these various species as a function of solution composi-
tion, temperature, and potential.
As the potential of the metal is decreased in the occluded
localized corrosion environment, nuclei of metal oxide (MO) or
metal-sulfur (MS) or other protective phases form within the metal
[ 4] halide salt (MX) layer. The nuclei of the protective phase(s) spread
across the metal surface at the expense of the halide layer and form a
stable passive film at the bottom of the pit. This passive film reduces
the kinetics of metal dissolution and lowers the pitting propagation
rate. The repassivation potential (Erp) is the potential at which the pit
is effectively covered with the passive layer and pit propagation
stops. The model considers the reactions of species that lead to the
formation of MX, MS, and MO through adsorption-based kinetic
equations that result in partial current densities at the growing pit
front and can be expressed by:
 Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2023 170 031502
Figure 8. The Erp model considers the phases and interfaces at the bottom
of a stable, active pit on the surface of a metal. M: metal, MX: metal halide;
MO: metal oxide, MS: metal sulfide, l: thickness of the metal halide layer, Δ:
thickness of the mass transfer boundary layer.
N M P P
i= ∑ i Xj + ∑ iMO, Rj + ∑ i Sj + ∑ iMS, Sj
j=1 j=1 j=1 j=1
where i Xj is the metal dissolution current density favored by the
metal halide layer, iMO, Rj is the metal oxide formation current density
favored by the metal-inhibitive species complex, i Sj is the metal
dissolution current density favored by the metal-sulfur species
complex, and iMS, Sj is the metal sulfide formation current density
favored by the metal-sulfur species complex. Equation 5 is summed
over N aggressive species (X1, X2 , …, XN ), such as Cl −, M inhibitive
species (R1, R3, …, RM ) that promote oxide formation (H2 O is
considered an inhibitive species), and P sulfur-bearing species (S1,
S2, …, SP ), such as H2 S, HS−, S2 O32−, and S 2−, which are considered
to be either aggressive or an inhibitive species. Considering the
reactions involved, the net rate of formation of the protective layer
(oxide and/or sulfide) is determined by the changes in the surface
coverage fraction of that layer with respect to time. The potential
drop in the pit is given by:
E = ΔΦM / MX + ΔΦMX + ΔΦMX / b + ΔΦb
where, ΔΦM / MX , ΔΦMX , ΔΦMX / b and ΔΦb are the potential drops
across the metal - metal halide salt interface, metal halide salt layer,
metal halide salt - bulk solution interface, and mass transfer boundary
layer within the bulk solution, respectively. ΔΦMX is a function of
activities of metal ions and other species and their flux in the halide salt
layer. ΔΦMX / b only depends on the rates of formation and dissolution of
the metal halide salt layer. ΔΦb is a function of activities of metal ions
and other species and their flux in the mass transfer boundary layer.
Okada’s irreversible thermodynamics model74 is used to evaluate the
last three terms of Eq. 6. At steady-state, a relationship between the
current density and potential at repassivation is derived for a simple case
of a solution with only Cl− and H2S as aggressive species:
irp =
(ic0 rc ac + iMO
0 0
)(1 + eMS iMS 0
) + (iMS + is0 ) rs as
0 0
⎡1 + r a + iMO ⎤ (1 + e i 0 ) + r a ⎛1 + iMS ⎞
⎢ c c
⎥ MS MS s s⎜ ⎟ generated on 25% Cr duplex stainless steel, UNS S32750, by
⎣ i p ⎦ ⎝ i q ( 1 + uMS a s ) ⎠
where, irp is the repassivation current density assumed to be 0.01
A /m2 . In Eq. 7, ac and as are the activities of Cl− and H2S at the
metal surface, respectively, calculated from electrolyte thermody-
namic model.16,17 The coefficients, rc, eMS , rs are adsorption
equilibrium constants that scaled to concentrations of Cl−, metal-
sulfide, and H2S, respectively and uMS relates to the rate constant for
the dissolution of metal sulfide. The terms, ip and iq can be
considered, as a first approximation, to be passive current densities
associated with the formation and dissolution of oxide and sulfide
0 0
layers, respectively. The ic0, is0 , iMS , and iMO , are partial current
densities associated with active corrosion mediated by Cl− adsorp-
tion, active corrosion mediated by adsorbed sulfur species, the
formation of metal sulfide, and formation of metal oxide, respec-
tively. They are given in Eqs. 8, 11:
αc FErp ⎤
ic0 = fc exp ⎡ [ 8]
⎢
⎣ RT ⎥ ⎦
αs FErp ⎤
iS0 = fS exp ⎡ [ 9]
⎢
⎣ RT ⎥ ⎦
ξMS FErp ⎤
0
iMS = fMS exp ⎡ [10]
⎢
⎣ RT ⎦ ⎥
[5] 0
iMO = fMO exp ⎡
ξMO FErp ⎤
[11]
⎢
⎣ RT ⎥ ⎦
Equations 7–11 can be solved numerically to derive Erp as a function
of solution chemistry, temperature, and alloy chemistry using
experimental data of Erp and polarization curves to regress the
parameters. The Erp model is then combined with an Ecorr model,
which is based on mixed potential theory.75
The assumption of irp =0.01 A/m2 arises from the notion that for
the pit to fully repassivate, the current density in the pit should
approach the passive current density. However, Srinivasan and
Kelly,76 using artificial pit electrode of Type 316 L stainless steel
in 0.6 M NaCl, showed that the irp was about 0.3 A m−2 at the lower
bound value of Erp. The Erp and irp were derived from rapid cathodic
scan (5 mV s−1) from the pit propagation potential. Sundararajan et
al.77 showed that increasing the irp in Eq. 7 results in an increase in
the calculated Erp and the assumption of a suitable irp to match
experimentally measured Erp depended upon the alloy and tempera-
ture. The variability of the assumed value of irp is undesirable from a
[6] predictive modeling perspective because it must be identified for
each corrosive system. Additionally, the assumption of irp =
0.01 A/m2 leads to a conservative prediction, which is desirable
for long-term performance assessment.
The results of model calculations of Erp as a function of
temperature compared to the data by El Meguid et al.32 on alloy
S31254 are shown in Fig. 7. The predicted transition in Erp occurs at
a much lower temperature than measured experimentally. The model
was regressed from a dataset that was limited in terms of
temperature to 50, 60, and 95 °C,52 all above the transition
temperature. Additionally, the experimental measurements used a
rather high scan rate (5 mV s−1) and a high current density criterion
for repassivation (100 μA/cm2). Nevertheless, the model predictions
of the trend are in reasonable agreement with the data and the
agreement above the transition temperature is quite good. As with
the experimental measurements, the model predicts that the transi-
tion temperature shifts to higher values with lower chloride
concentrations and vice-versa. A comparison of model to data
Haugan et al.43 is shown in Fig. 9. Again, the model prediction of
[ 7] a transition temperature is lower than experimentally measured
values, although at the high temperatures, the model and experi-
ments agree. The sudden transition in CCT reported by Haugan et al.
may be related to the difficulty of pit nucleation at the transition
 Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2023 170 031502
Figure 9. Comparison of OLI model prediction with the experimental data
of Haugan et al.43 for UNS S32750 (Fe-25Cr-4Mo-7Ni-0.3 N) duplex
stainless steel.
Figure 10. The CCT reported by Manning10 is compared to OLI model
predictions for a number of commercial alloys represented by their PREN.
point, which may give rise to greater dispersion in CCT as discussed
by Li et al.51 The model only considers propagation of pitting.
The CCT measured by non-electrochemical, immersion tests
provide a strong validation of the model since the Erp and Ecorr are
implicit, but not measured. A comparison of CCT reported by
Manning7 in a solution of 4% NaCl +0.1 g/L Fe2(SO4)3 + 0.1% HCl
(called Yellow Death solution) for various alloys to model prediction
for this environment is shown in Fig. 10. The data are plotted in
terms of PREN because not all the alloys that were tested are in the
model database. Nevertheless, there is a general agreement between
model and experimental values, considering the uncertainties in
experiments that relied on duplicate testing for 24 hours and visual
examination of crevice corrosion. A much larger dataset is available
Figure 11. The CCT reported by several investigators9,10,13–15 in 6% FeCl3
is compared to OLI model predictions. The linear regression fit for all data is
shown.
for testing in 6% − 10% FeCl3 and the model predictions are
compared to experimental data in Fig. 11. The degree of scatter is
much larger as indicated by the low R2 value, largely because of
differences in testing procedures between various laboratories.
Additionally, PREN is not an adequate representation of the effect
of alloying elements for reasons described in previous sections.
The calculated effect of chloride concentration on the transition
temperature is shown in Fig. 12a for two stainless steels. The
transition temperature is assumed to be the temperature at which the
Erp attains a value of 0.4VSCE. This is an arbitrary criterion, but
represents a steep portion of the Erp vs T curve shown in Fig. 12b.
Also, this value is approximately the same as the corrosion potential
of alloys in FeCl3 or other Fe3+-containing solutions. The transition
temperature is less sensitive to chloride at intermediate concentra-
tions. Especially for alloy S31254, the transition temperature in the
range of 1–5 M Cl− is essentially independent of temperature and
this is consistent with the earlier experimental findings44,45 for this
alloy in this chloride range. Thus, the independence of CPT with
chloride does not mean that CPT is a fundamental property of an
alloy, but just the special circumstance of a combination of alloy and
environment chemistry.
Discussion
CPT/CCT measured using standard redox solutions, such as
FeCl3, or simple solutions, such as 3.5% NaCl using an applied
potential, have been used extensively in alloy ranking. In some
cases, such measurements have been correlated to field performance
of alloys. However, for many industrial applications involving
complex solution chemistries, the performance of alloys in standar-
dized tests, such as the ASTM G48 and ISO 19280, need to be
translated to the service environments. Ranking of alloys in standard
tests may not be the same as that in more complex systems. Such a
translation requires a model for critical temperatures that explicitly
considers the role of various species and their concentrations in
solution on critical potential and corrosion potential. A model that
computes the Erp and Ecorr was described in this paper, but the model
may be overly conservative in calculating Erp and predict lower
CCT. Furthermore, the model parameters must be regressed against
 Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2023 170 031502
Figure 12. Calculated transition temperatures for two stainless steels. (a)
The effect of chloride on transition temperature at 0.4 V SCE. (b) shows an
example of calculated Erp vs temperature at 0.01 M Cl− for S31254.
experimental data. Careful measurements of Erp and Ecorr as a
function of cationic, anionic, and gaseous species are necessary to
fully realize the predictive capability of such a model.
Models that deal with the early stages of passive film breakdown
and metastable pitting are useful for those cases where the environ-
ment-alloy combination result in low susceptibility to localized
corrosion. In such cases, considerable scatter in Erp can be observed
because some samples may not initiate localized corrosion. At
present the passive film breakdown/metastable pitting models are
either empirical or, when mechanistic, have parameters that have not
been estimated as functions of temperature and solution chemistry.
A challenge is in improving models of metastable pitting as a
function of electrolyte chemistry.
The temperature scanning test methods, e.g., ASTM G150, have
proven to be rapid and more precise than the previously used
immersion tests combined with visual observations. However, cyclic
temperature scanning tests have not been utilized extensively and
may be desirable as they can provide a lower-bound value for CPT/
CCT. Such a lower-bound value may be important in those
applications where the temperature may reach high values episodi-
cally, providing conditions for stable pit growth at temperatures
below the CPT/CCT measured using only forward temperature
scanning.
The effect of applied potential on CPT/CCT should be explored
more systematically. The effect of applied potential may have both
practical (in relation to the actual redox potential of the environment)
and mechanistic implications. As discussed in the previous section,
temperature scanning tests at high potential may be influenced by
salt film formation at the pit bottom. In such cases, repassivation at
CPT is considered to occur under the salt film, either through the
increase in pH at the salt film-metal interface or through an as-yet
unknown alteration of salt film properties. However, in tests where
Erp is measured as a function of temperature, a salt film is not likely
to cover the pit front, although islands of salt may be present. In such
cases, temperature may influence the oxide formation through other
processes occurring at the bare metal surface, such as adsorption and
dissociation of oxyanion species.
It is not clear whether repassivation occurs because the pH under
the salt film rises to a critical value or whether the critical metal-
chloride concentration is the cause of repassivation and the pH is just
the result. This is because, at least in aqueous solutions, the pH in the
pit and metal-chloride concentrations are linked. Non-aqueous
solvents may decouple these two factors. Solvents not only affect
speciation through their dielectric and complexation properties, but
also can participate in adsorption at the pit surface to inhibit metal-
salt formation. Experimental studies reported recently by Huggins-
Gonzalez et al.78 in CH3OH-H2O-Cl− system have shown that the
critical temperature decreases significantly with the removal of
water. Experimental measurements using artificial pit electrodes of
316 L stainless steel in CH3OH-H2O-Cl− mixtures suggest that the
critical metal-chloride concentration, Ccrit, for repassivation in-
creases with an increase in H2O content.79 This would suggest an
increase in CPT with H2O because higher dissolution rate is
necessary to maintain the pit electrolyte concentration above the
critical concentration (Eq. 4). The higher Ccrit probably occurs
because H2O is more effective in forming a passive film in the pit
than methanol. Further work is needed to understand the role of non-
aqueous solvents in localized corrosion processes, which may clarify
the rate limiting processes responsible for pit stabilization.
The probabilistic aspects of CPT and CCT have been known
since the early studies by Brigham. The variability of CPT has been
thought to be due to inclusion distribution on the surface31 or other
surface heterogeneities that result in metastable pitting.41,66 Other
factors that could contribute to variability in CCT include macro-
scopic and microscopic variations in crevice gap, surface area
effects, prior surface treatments, such as pickling, test methods (e.
g., polishing between temperature increases, temperature scan rate),
and minor alloying elements (e.g., Nb and Cu). Parameter uncer-
tainties in the model described in this paper may also contribute to
probability distributions of CPT/CCT.
Although this review focused exclusively on Fe-Ni-Cr-Mo
alloys, similar consideration may apply to other alloy systems,
notably Ti and Al. The characterization of these alloys in terms of
CPT/CCT has been more limited than for stainless steels and Ni-base
alloys. Beck80 measured the effect of temperature on the Ep of Ti in
chloride, bromide, and iodide solutions and showed that the Ep
decreased precipitously with temperature above about 110 °C in
chloride solutions, but not bromide or iodide, where they remained at
lower values. A challenge in measuring Ep in Ti alloys was the high
potentials required for pitting. Using controlled crevice washers,
CCT for Ti has been measured as a function of chloride concentra-
tion, alloy content, and applied potential.81–85 However, in-depth
studies of the type performed for stainless steels have not been
attempted for Ti alloys. A complicating factor in these studies could
be the hydrogen generation in pits. Nevertheless, further studies of
the critical temperatures for Ti alloys may be valuable in under-
standing the mechanisms of critical temperature.
Summary
Critical pitting or crevice temperature, the latter being a more
conservative parameter, can be a useful parameter for design and
selection of alloys. This paper reviewed the history and status of
critical temperature measurements. There is a significant scatter in
the critical temperatures determined by standard immersion techni-
ques, likely to be due to variations in test parameters and
interpretation of the results. The use of PREN to compile these
results adds further errors because there is no fundamental basis for
PREN. Furthermore, there is a need to translate the CPT/CCT
measurements in standardized tests to service conditions. Such a
translation should consider the mechanistic bases for critical
temperature. Mechanistic approaches relying on the stability of
salt film and changes to the salt film properties as a function of
 Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2023 170 031502
temperature were reviewed. An approach, based on competitive
adsorption of various anionic species at the pit bottom was examined
and appears to provide a way to translate the CCT measured in
standard environments to service environments.
Acknowledgments
N. Sridhar acknowledges partial support of this work by EPRI.
The work at OLI Systems was supported in part by the U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Science under the Award No. DE-
SC0022494 to OLI Systems Inc.
ORCID
Narasi Sridhar https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9570-7839
References
1. J. Kolts and N. Sridhar, “Temperature effects in localized corrosion.” Corrosion of
Nickel Base Alloys, ed. R. C. Scarberry (ASM International, Ohio) p. 191 (1984).
2. H. P. Leckie and H. H. Uhlig, “Environmental factors affecting the critical potential
for pitting in 18-8 stainless steel.” J. Electrochem. Society, 113, 1262 (1966).
3. J. M. Defranoux, “Sur le comportement des aciers inoxydables en presence d’eau de
mer froide et chaude.” Corros. Sci., 8, 245 (1968).
4. R. J. Brigham, “Pitting of molybdenum bearing austenitic stainless steel.”
Corrosion, 28, 177 (1972).
5. R. J. Brigham and E. W. Tozer, “Temperature as a pitting criterion.” Corrosion, 29,
33 (1973).
6. R. J. Brigham, “Temperature as a crevice corrosion criterion.” Corrosion, 30, 396
(1974).
7. R. J. Brigham and E. W. Tozer, “Effect of alloying additions on the pitting
resistance of 18% cr austenitic stainless steel.” Corrosion, 30, 161 (1974).
8. R. J. Brigham, “Technical note: on the variability of crevice corrosion initiation in
ferric chloride exposure tests.” Corrosion, 37, 608 (1981).
9. R. F. Steigerwald et al., “The new fe-cr-mo ferritic stainless steels.” Corrosion, 33,
279 (1977).
10. P. E. Manning, “Comparison of several accelerated laboratory tests for the
determination of localized corrosion resistance of high-performance alloys.”
Corrosion, 39, 98 (1983).
11. ASTM, (2020), Standard Test Methods for Pitting and Crevice Corrosion
Resistance of Stainless Steels and Related Alloys by Use of Ferric Chloride
Solution, ASTM G48-11. 2020: 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O.Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, USA.
12. ISO, (2017), ISO 19280:2017, Corrosion of metals and alloys — Measurement of
critical crevice temperature for cylindrical crevice geometries in ferric chloride
solution.
13. N. S. Nagaswami and M. A. Streicher, “Accelerated Laboratory Tests for Crevice
Corrosion of StainlessAlloys.” in Corrosion 83, Paper No. 711983(Houston, TX,
NACE International (now AMPP)).
14. E. L. Hibner, “Modification of critical crevice temperature test procedures for nickel
alloys in a ferric chloride environment.” Mater. Performance, 26, 37 (1987).
15. A. Mishra, “Role of Major and Minor Alloying Elements in Corrosion-Resistant
Alloys to Localized Corrosion Inhibition: A Review.” in Corrosion 2018, Paper
113302018(Houston, TX, NACE International (AMPP)).
16. A. Anderko, P. M. Wang, and M. Rafal, “Electrolyte solutions: from thermo-
dynamic and transport property models to the simulation of industrial processes.”
Fluid Phase Equilib., 19420 (2002).
17. P. Wang, A. Anderko, and R. D. Young, “A speciation-based model for mixed-
solvent electrolyte systems.” Fluid Phase Equilib., 203, 141 (2002).
18. P. Wang et al., “Modeling phase equilibria and speciation in mixed-solvent
electrolyte systems: II. Liquid–liquid equilibria and properties of associating
electrolyte solutions.” J. Mol. Liq., 125, 37 (2006).
19. J. H. Russell, B. S. Covino Jr, and S. J. Bullard, “Applications of electrochemical
methods for investigations of localized corrosion of nitrogen-molybdenum stainless
steels.” Corrosion, 57, 360 (2001).
20. N. Sridhar, “Effect of alloying elements on localized corrosion resistance of nickel-
base alloys.” Advances in Localized Corrosion, Orlando, FL1990, ed. H. S. Isaacs,
U Bertocci, J. Kruger, and S. Smialowska (Orlando, FL)(NACE International)
NACE-9,p. 263 (1990).
21. M. A. Streicher, “Analysis of crevice corrosion data from two seawater exposure
tests on stainless alloys.” Mater. Performance, 22, 37 (1983).
22. N. Sridhar, “Localized corrosion in seawater—a bayesian network based review.”
Corrosion, 79(3), 268–283 (2022).
23. S. Bernhardsson, R. Melstrom, and B. Brox, “Limiting Chloride Contents and
Temperatures withRegard to Pitting of Stainless Steels.” in Corrosion 80, Paper
851980(Houston, TX, NACE International (AMPP)).
24. S. Bernhardsson and R. Melstrom, “Performance of Highly Alloyed Stainless Steel
in MarineEnvironments.” in Corrosion 1983, Paper No. 721983(Houston, TX,
NACE International (AMPP)).
25. R. Qvarfort, “New electrochemical cell for pitting corrosion testing.” Corros. Sci.,
28, 135 (1988).
26. A. Garner, “Crevice corrosion of stainless steels in sea water: correlation of field
data with laboratory ferric chloride tests.” Corrosion, 37, 178 (1981).
27. S. Valen and P. O. Gartland, “Crevice corrosion repassivation temperatures of
highly alloyed stainless steels.” Corrosion, 51, 750 (1995).
28. U. Steinsmo et al., “Critical crevice temperature for high-alloyed stainless steels in
chlorinated seawater applications.” Corrosion, 53, 26 (1997).
29. C. Mendibide and C. Duret-Thual, “Determination of the critical pitting temperature
of corrosion resistant alloys in H2S containing environments.” Corros. Sci., 142, 56
(2018).
30. C. Torres, R. Johnsen, and M. Iannuzzi, “Crevice corrosion of solution annealed
25Cr duplex stainless steels: effect of W on critical temperatures.” Corros. Sci., 178
(2021).
31. V. M. Salinas-Bravo and R. C. Newman, “An alternative method to determine
critical pitting temperature of stainless steels in ferric chloride solution.” Corros.
Sci., 36, 67 (1994).
32. E. A. Abd El Meguid and A. A. Abd El Latif, “Critical pitting temperature for Type
254 SMO stainless steel in chloride solutions.” Corros. Sci., 49, 263 (2007).
33. M. Iannuzzi et al., “Determination of the critical pitting temperature of martensitic
and supermartensitic stainless steels in simulated sour environments using electro-
chemical noise analysis.” Corrosion, 66, 045003 (2010).
34. D. Han et al., “Detecting critical crevice temperature for duplex stainless steels in
chloride solutions.” Corrosion, 67, 025004 (2011).
35. T. Zhang et al., “A new criterion to determine the critical pitting temperature (CPT)
based on electrochemical noise measurement.” Corros. Sci., 58, 202 (2012).
36. M. Hoseinpoor et al., “EIS assessment of critical pitting temperature of 2205 duplex
stainless steel in acidified ferric chloride solution.” Corros. Sci., 80, 197 (2014).
37. K. Vu Quang et al., “Fast method for determination of critical pitting temperature.”
Corros. Sci., 28, 423 (1988).
38. P. L. Guevel, N. Jallerat, and K. V. Quang, “Critical pitting temperature of stainless
steels developed by a fast method.” in High Nitrogen Steels International
Conference 1988 (Lille, France).
39. R. C. Newman and K. H. Liew, “Technical note: repassivation temperatures of
artificial pit electrodes.” Corrosion, 43, 58 (1987).
40. J. Jun, G. S. Frankel, and N. Sridhar, “Effect of chloride concentration and
temperature on growth of 1D Pit.” J. Solid State Electrochem., 19, 8 (2015).
41. T. Li, J. R. Scully, and G. S. Frankel, “Localized corrosion passive film breakdown
vs pit growth stability part ii. a model for critical pitting temperature.”
J. Electrochem. Soc., 165, C484 (2018).
42. ASTM, (2018), Standard Test Method for Electrochemical Critical Pitting
Temperature Testing of Stainless Steels and Related Alloys. 2018, ASTM
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA
19428-2959. United States.
43. E. B. Haugan et al., “Effect of tungsten on the pitting and crevice corrosion
resistance of type 25cr super duplex stainless steels.” Corrosion, 73, 53 (2016).
44. R. Qvarfort, “Critical pitting temperature measurements of stainless steels with an
improved electrochemical method.” Corros. Sci., 29, 987 (1989).
45. J.-H. Wang, C. C. Su, and Z. Szklarska-Smialowska, “Effects of Cl− concentration
and temperature on pitting of aisi 304 stainless steel.” Corrosion, 44, 732 (1988).
46. N. J. Laycock, M. H. Moayed, and R. C. Newman, “Metastable pitting and the
critical pitting temperature.” J. Electrochem. Soc., 145, 2622 (1998).
47. E. A. Abd El Meguid and A. A. Abd El Latif, “Electrochemical and sem study on
type 254 smo stainless steel in chloride solution.” Corros. Sci., 46, 2431 (2004).
48. Z. Szklarska-Smialowska, Pitting and Crevice Corrosion. (Houston, TX, NACE
International) (2005).
49. B. A. Kehler, G. O. Ilevbare, and J. R. Scully, “Crevice corrosion stabilization and
repassivation behavior of alloy 625 and alloy 22.” Corrosion, 57, 1042 (2001).
50. A. Pardo et al., “Influence of pH and chloride concentration on the pitting and
crevice corrosion behavior of high-alloy stainless steels.” Corrosion, 56, 411
(2000).
51. A. Anderko, N. Sridhar, and D. S. Dunn, “A general model for the repassivation
potential as a function of multiple aqueous solution species.” Corros. Sci., 46, 1583
(2004).
52. A. Anderko et al., “A general model for the repassivation potential as a function of
multiple aqueous species. 2. Effect of oxyanions on localized corrosion of
Fe–Ni–Cr–Mo–W–N alloys.” Corros. Sci., 50, 3629 (2008).
53. P. I. Marshall and T. G. Gooch, “Effect of composition on corrosion resistance of
high-alloy austenitic stainless steel weld metals.” Corrosion, 49, 514 (1993).
54. S. Pahlavan et al., “Investigation of the microstructure dependence of critical pitting
temperature and pitting potential in a 2205 duplex stainless steel.” J. Electrochem.
Soc., 168 (2021).
55. N. Sridhar et al., “Effect of aging treatments on the repassivation potential of duplex
stainless steel s32205.” Corrosion, 65, 650 (2009).
56. L. Lin, C. Chao, and D. Macdonald, “A point defect model for anodic passive films
II. Chemical breakdown and pit initiation.” J. Electrochem. Soc., 128, 1194 (1981).
57. D. D. Macdonald, “The history of the point defect model for the passive state: A
brief review of film growth aspects.” Electrochim. Acta, 56, 1761 (2011).
58. D. D. Macdonald and S. Yang, “Oxyanion inhibition of passivity breakdown and
the nucleation of pits on type 316l stainless steel.” PowerPlant Chemistry, 9, 18
(2007).
59. R. Case, “Study of the passivity limits of austenitic stainless steel in h2s-containing
brines using mott-schottky and point defect model analysis.” Corrosion, 77, 764
(2021).
60. M. H. Moayed and R. C. Newman, “The Relationship between pit chemistry and pit
geometry near the critical pitting temperature.” J. Electrochem. Soc., 153, B330
(2006).
61. G. T. Gaudet et al., “Mass transfer and electrochemical kinetic interactions in
localized pitting corrosion.” AlChE J., 32, 949 (1986).
 Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2023 170 031502
62. U. Steinsmo and H. S. Isaacs, “Dissolution and repassivation kinetics of Fe‐Cr
alloys in pit solutions I. effect of the surface salt layer.” J. Electrochem. Soc., 140,
643 (1993).
63. N. Sridhar and D. S. Dunn, “In situ study of salt film stability in simulated pits of
nickel by Raman and electrochemical impedance spectroscopies.” J. Electrochem.
Soc., 144, 4243 (1997).
64. C. S. Brossia, D. S. Dunn, and N. Sridhar, “The Role of metal salt film formation on
localized corrosion stabilization.” Critical Factors in Localized Corrosion III,
ed. R. G. Kelly et al. (Pennington, NJ, The Electrochemical Society) Vol. 98-17, p.
485 (1998).
65. J. Srinivasan and R. G. Kelly, “On a recent quantitative framework examining the
critical factors for localized corrosion and its impact on the galvele pit stability
criterion.” Corrosion, 73, 613 (2017).
66. T. Li, J. R. Scully, and G. S. Frankel, “Localized corrosion: passive film breakdown
vs pit growth stability: part iii. a unifying set of principal parameters and criteria for
pit stabilization and salt film formation.” J. Electrochem. Soc., 165, C762 (2018).
67. T. Li, J. R. Scully, and G. S. Frankel, “Localized corrosion: passive film breakdown
vs pit growth stability: part iv. the role of salt film in pit growth— a mathematical
framework.” J. Electrochem. Soc., 166, C1 (2019).
68. T. Li and G. S. Frankel, “Repassivation underneath salt film on stainless steel pits.”
Corros. Sci., 203 (2022).
69. A. Anderko et al., “Modeling localized corrosion of corrosion-resistant alloys in oil
and gas production environments: part i. repassivation potential.” Corrosion, 71,
1197 (2015).
70. A. Anderko, N. Sridhar, and G. Tormoen, “Localised corrosion of heat-treated
alloys Part II—Predicting grain boundary microchemistry and its effect on
repassivation potential.” Corrosion Engineering, Science and Technology, 45,
204 (2010).
71. G. Tormoen, N. Sridhar, and A. Anderko, “Localised corrosion of heat treated alloys
Part 1–repassivation potential of alloy 600 as function of solution chemistry and
thermal aging.” Corrosion Engineering, Science and Technology, 45, 155 (2010).
72. A. Anderko et al., “Validation of localised corrosion model using real time
corrosion monitoring in a chemical plant.” Corrosion Engineering, Science and
Technology, 40, 33 (2013).
73. G. S. Frankel et al., “Metastable Pitting of Stainless Steel.” Corrosion, 43, 429
(1987).
74. T. Okada, “Considerations of the stability of pit repassivation during pitting
corrosion of passive metals.” J. Electrochem. Soc., 131, 7 (1984).
75. A. Anderko, P. McKenzie, and R. D. Young, “Computation of rates of general
corrosion using electrochemical and thermodynamic models.” Corrosion, 57, 202
(2001).
76. J. Srinivasan and R. G. Kelly, “One-dimensional pit experiments and modeling to
determine critical factors for pit stability and repassivation.” J. Electrochem. Soc.,
163, C759 (2016).
77. G. P. Sundararajan et al., (2022), Improved Localized Corrosion Models for
Stainless Steels in Aqueous Chloride Environments with Low Levels of Dissolved
Oxygen, in AMPP Annual Conference + Expo,Paper No. 17955. 2022, AMPP: San
Antonio, TX.
78. A. S. Huggins-Gonzalez et al., “Localized corrosion of chromium-containing
conventional and multiprincipal element alloys in methanol and aqueous chloride
environments.” Corrosion, 78, 840 (2022).
79. T. Ramgopal and S. Amancherla, “Role of methanol on pitting of type 316 stainless
steel.” Corrosion, 61, 1136 (2005).
80. T. R. Beck, “Pitting of titanium.” J. Electrochem. Soc., 120, 1317 (1973).
81. S. Tsujikawa and Y. Kojima, “Repassivation method to predict long term integrity
of low alloy titanium for nuclear waste package.” Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste
Management XXXII, Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings, Boston
(Boston, MA)p. 212 (1990).
82. X. He, J. J. Noël, and D. W. Shoesmith, “Temperature dependence of crevice
corrosion initiation on titanium grade-2.” J. Electrochem. Soc., 149, B440
(2002).
83. R. W. Schutz, (2003), Defining the Corrosion Performance Window for Grade 28
Titanium, in Corrosion 2003, Paper 03455, AMPP, Houston, TX.
84. X. He, J. J. Noël, and D. W. Shoesmith, “Effects of iron content on microstructure
and crevice corrosion of grade-2 titanium.” Corrosion, 60, 378 (2004).
85. M. Akashi, G. Nakayama, and T. Fukuda, “Initiation criteria for crevice corrosion
of titanium alloys used for hlw disposal over pack.” Corrosion 1998 (Houston, TX,
NACE International) Vol. 158 (1998).