See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237415853

The salt spray corrosion of polymer coating on steel

Article in Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering · June 2009

CITATIONS READS

8 6,336

1 author:

Akin Akinci
Sakarya University
15 PUBLICATIONS 281 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Akin Akinci on 30 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Akin Akinci

THE SALT SPRAY CORROSION OF POLYMER COATING

ON STEEL

Akin Akinci *
Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering
Faculty of Engineering, Sakarya University

:‫اﻟﺨﻼﺻـﺔ‬
‫ﻻ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻔﻊ اﻟﺮﻣﻠﻲ‬ ً ‫ وﻗﺪ ﻗﻤﻨﺎ أو‬.‫ﺗﻘﻮم هﺬﻩ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﺑﻌﺮض ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﺂآﻞ ﺑﻮﺳﺎﻃﺔ رذاذ اﻟﻤِﻠﺢ ﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ اﻟﺒﻮﻟﻴﻤﺮ اﻟﺨﺎرﺟﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ رآﻴﺰة ﻓﻮﻻذﻳﺔ‬
‫ ﺛ ّﻢ ﻗﻤﻨﺎ ﺑﻄﻼء اﻟﻔﻮﻻذ ﺑﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻮﻟﻴﺴﺘﺮ‬.‫ت زﻣﻨﻴ ٍﺔ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‬ ٍ ‫ ﺛ ّﻢ ﺑﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ اﻟﺴﻄﺢ ﺑﺤﺎﻣﺾ اﻟﻔﺴﻔﻮرﻳﻚ ﺧﻼل ﻓﺘﺮا‬،‫ ﺛﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻒ اﻟﻜﻴﻤﻴﺎﺋﻲ‬،‫ﻟﺸﺮاﺋﺢ اﻟﻔﻮﻻذ‬
‫ درﺟﺔ ﻣﺌﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﻤﺪة ﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ دﻗﻴﻘﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺤﻴﻂ ﺳﺎﺋﻞ‬200 ‫ وﻣﻦ ﺛ ّﻢ ﺗﻤّﺖ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺘﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ درﺟﺔ ﺣﺮارة‬،µm 180‫ و‬50 ‫ت ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺗﺮاوﺣﺖ ﺑﻴﻦ‬ ٍ ‫اﻹﺑﻮآﺴﻲ ﺑﺴﻤﺎآﺎ‬
‫ وآﺎﻧﺖ‬.‫ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻮدﻳﻮم اﻟﻜﻠﻮراﻳﺪ وذﻟﻚ ﻟﻔﺘﺮة زﻣﻨﻴﺔ ﺗﺰﻳﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ أﻟﻔﻲ ﺳﺎﻋﺔ‬%5 ‫ وﺗﻢ إﺟﺮاء ﺗﺠﺮﺑﺔ اﻟﺘﺂآﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﻣِﻠﺤﻲ ﻳﺤﺘﻮي ﻋﻠﻰ‬.‫ﻏﺎز اﻟﺒﺘﺮول اﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ‬
‫ وﻣﻦ ﺛ ّﻢ ﺗ ّﻢ ﻓﺤﺺ اﻟﻌﻴّﻨﺎت اﻟﻤُﻌﺮّﺿﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺂآﻞ ﺑﻮﺳﺎﻃﺔ آﺎﻣﻴﺮا ذات درﺟﺔ‬.‫ درﺟﺔ ﻣﺌﻮﻳّﺔ‬35 ‫ ودرﺟﺔ اﻟﺤﺮارة‬%100 ‫درﺟﺔ اﻟﺮﻃﻮﺑﺔ اﻟﻨﺴﺒﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺤﺠﺮة‬
‫ وﺗ ّﻢ أﻳﻀًﺎ إﻳﺠﺎد ﻧﺎﻗﻠﻴّﺔ اﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ اﻟﻤُﺴﺘﻌﻤﻠﺔ واﻟﻤُﻬﻴّﺄة‬.7.2‫ و‬6.5 ‫ﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻴﺎﻩ اﻟﻤﺮﺷﻮﺷﺔ واﻟﻤُﺠﻤّﻌﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ‬
ّ ‫ وﺗﺮاوح اﻟﺮّﻗﻢ اﻟﻬِﺪروﺟﻴﻨ‬.‫ﻲ‬ّ ‫وﺿﻮح ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺔ وﻣِﺠﻬﺮ ﻣِﺠﺴﺎﻣ‬
‫ وﺗ ّﻢ ﻗﻴﺎس ﺗﺂآﻞ اﻟﻌﻴّﻨﺎت ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ﺣﺴﺎب‬.‫ﻞ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﻴّﻨﺎت‬ ّ ‫ وإﻳﺠﺎد اﻟﻮﻗﺖ اﻟﻼزم ﻟﺘﻜﻮّن اﻟﺼﺪأ اﻷﺣﻤﺮ ﺧﻼل ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﻔﺤﺺ ﻟﻜ‬،‫ ﺑﻮﺳﺎﻃﺔ اﻟﺘﺼﻔﻴﺔ‬µS 10‫ك‬
‫ ووُﺟﺪ أن اﻟﻌﻴّﻨﺔ اﻟﻤُﻌﺮّﺿﺔ ﻟﻠﺴﻔﻊ اﻟﺮﻣﻠﻲ و اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺑﺤﺎﻣﺾ‬.‫ﻄﻠْﻴﺔ اﻟﺨﺎرﺟﻴﺔ‬ َ ‫ﻧﺴﺒﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺎﺣﺔ اﻟﻤُﺘﻌﺮﺿﺔ ﻟﻠﺨﺪش إﻟﻲ اﻟﻤﺴﺎﺣﺔ اﻟﺴﻠﻴﻤﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺨﺪش ﻣﻦ اﻟ‬
‫ﻃﻠْﻴﺔ‬
َ ‫ن‬ ّ ‫ وﻟﻮﺣﻆ أ‬.‫ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﻮاﻟﻲ‬10‫ و‬،10‫ و‬،10 ‫ وآﺎﻧﺖ ِﻗﻴَﻢ اﻟﻤﺤﺪوش واﻟﻐﻴﺮ ﻣﺨﺪوش وﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﻣُﻌﺪّل اﻟﺘﺂآﻞ‬.‫ ﺛﻮاﻧﻲ هﻲ اﻷﻓﻀﻞ‬3 ‫اﻟﻔﺴﻔﻮرﻳﻚ واﻟﻤﻄﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻤﺪة‬
.‫اﻟﺒﻮﻟﻴﻤﺮ ﺗﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻣُﻘﺎوﻣﺔ رآﻴﺰة اﻟﻔﻮﻻذ ﻟﻠﺘﺂآﻞ‬

ABSTRACT
This study reports on the salt spray corrosion of polymer coating on steel substrate. In the process, firstly, steel
coupons are sand blasted, chemically cleaned, and phosphated in different time periods, then the surface of steel is
coated with an epoxy-polyester layer at different thicknesses which range from 50 to 180 µm and then they are cured
at 200 °C for 20 min. in a liquid petroleum gas atmosphere. The corrosion test was performed in salt solution, which
consists of 5% NaCl, for over 2000 hours. The relative humidity of cabinet was 100% and the temperature of it was
35 °C. The corroded samples were examined with a high resolution camera and a stereo microscope. The pH of
sprayed and collected water changed between 6.5 and 7.2. The conductivity of water used were arranged as 10 µS by
filtration and the formation time of red rust are determined during testing for each samples. The corrosion of samples
is measured in terms of ratio of scribed and unscribed areas of coating quantitatively. It was found that the best
results are obtained for sand blasted, phosphated, and coated for 3 seconds. The scribed, unscribed, and average
corrosion values are 10, 10, and 10, respectively. It was observed that polymer coating increases the corrosion
resistance of steel substrate.
Key words: salt spray corrosion, steel, phosphating, epoxy-polyester coating

*Corresponding Author:
E-mail: akinci@sakarya.edu.tr

This paper was presented at the Advanced Manufacturing Processes and Technologies (AMPT) Conference held in Bahrain on
November 2–5, 2008.

June 2009 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 34, Number 1C 139
 Akin Akinci

THE SALT SPRAY CORROSION OF POLYMER COATING ON STEEL

1. INTRODUCTION
Steel is an important part of the modern world and most of the structural steel that is used today for heavy
construction, such as in the marine, chemical, and petrochemical industries, contains varying amounts of salt
concentration on the surface. The steel materials used in sea atmosphere are protected with several methods. In
addition to protection methods, the leak proof polymeric coatings applied on surfaces increase corrosion resistance
of materials. Neutral (5% NaCI) salt spray corrosion that is frequently used in international applications, as in the
automotive industry and military investigations, is applied to prepared samples depending on ASTM B 117, D 1654,
and D 1193 standards [1–2].
Phosphating of metal surfaces is widely used to improve paint adhesion, corrosion resistance, and lubrication and
to provide electrical insulation. Phosphate layers, such as iron phosphate, applied by immersion in a chemical bath or
by spraying, increase corrosion resistance and adhesion of any further coating. Sealing is frequently applied to these
phosphate coatings to increase corrosion resistance. To improve the protection provided by these coatings, frequently
a second anticorrosive layer, consisting of a polymer layer included epoxy-polyester, is applied. The salt spray fog
test is one of the most widely utilized [3–5]. The phosphating process involves dissolution of a base metal in an
acidic solution of soluble primary phosphates with the subsequent hydrolysis of these phosphates and the
precipitation of insoluble tertiary phosphates. Phosphate baths for mild steel and zinc usually contain cations of Fe2+,
Zn2+, and Mn2+, hence, the tertiary phosphates of these are the most common constituents of the phosphate coatings.
The main function of the protective organic coating is to prevent the corrosion of metal substrates [6–12].
The main aim of the present study is to compare the performance of epoxy-polyester coatings on untreated and
sand blasted as well as phosphated steel surfaces in aggressive chemical environments.
2. EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
2.1. Materials
The materials used in this study as substrate are steel coupons. Surface treatment parameters of the coupons are
given in Table 1. The chemical compositions of the steel coupons are 0.18% C, 0.3% Mn, 0.15% Si, 0.04% P, and
0.05% S. First, surfaces of steel coupons which have nominal dimensions of 40x100 mm are coated with iron
phosphate for 10 min. (sample 1–3,25–27), 20 min. (sample 4–6,28–30) and 30 min. (sample 7–9,31–33). The
phosphating process is performed in the following sequence. First, they are held in a NaOH solution with pH 13 at
60–80 0C for 15 minutes, rinsed with pure water in two different baths, then hold in 10% HCl, which has a pH of 0,
for 10 minutes, rinsed in pure watered baths again and next held in phosphoric acid solution with a pH of 3 at 45–55
0
C for 10 minutes, rinsed, and at last dried with hot air at 120 0C. Then they are coated by an electrostatic spray
deposition method (EDS) in different thicknesses by using Akzo Nobel Interpon 700 epoxy-polyester powder for 1,
2, and 3 seconds. In the coating system, Wagner tribo manual gun is used. For the coating process, exiting voltage,
current, tribo current, and air pressure are 100 kV, 150 mA, 2 mA, and 3 bars respectively.

140 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 34, Number 1C June 2009
 Akin Akinci

Table 1. Surface Treatment Parameters of Steel Coupons

Epoxy-Polyester Curing Temperature
Number of sample Sand Blasting Phosphating [min.]
Coating [s] [0C] / Time [min.]
1 Untreated 10 1 200 /25
2 Untreated 10 2 200 /25
3 Untreated 10 3 200 /25
4 Untreated 20 1 200 /25
5 Untreated 20 2 200 /25
6 Untreated 20 3 200 /25
7 Untreated 30 1 200 /25
8 Untreated 30 2 200 /25
9 Untreated 30 3 200 /25
10 Treated Untreated 1 200 /25
11 Treated Untreated 2 200 /25
12 Treated Untreated 3 200 /25
25 Treated 10 1 200 /25
26 Treated 10 2 200 /25
27 Treated 10 3 200 /25
28 Treated 20 1 200 /25
29 Treated 20 2 200 /25
30 Treated 20 3 200 /25
31 Treated 30 1 200 /25
32 Treated 30 2 200 /25
33 Treated 30 3 200 /25
0
The curing process is completed at 200 C in an LPG heated furnace. After the surface coatings of samples are
completed they are scribed with an Erichsen 463 scratch stylus. This hand operated instrument completed with
carbide cutting tip provides a convenient means of scoring a 1 mm wide rectangular track in a surface coating for
corrosion tests. The surface is scribed up to the steel substrate according to ASTM D 1654-02. A Deflesko positector
6000 FNS is used for measuring thicknesses of the coatings. Samples are placed in an Angelantoni DCTC 600 P
cabinet at an angle of 15–30 0.
Morphological analysis was carried out using a high resolution camera and stereo microscopy for evaluation of
surface characterization. Process temperature, time, humidity, and the stop and motion time of device are
monitorized with graphics and saved with a PC (WinKratos 3.21 software) connected to the cabinet. During the
experimental study, outside environment temperatures of the cabinet are measured at 10.00am and at 05.00pm two
times. In the experimental procedure, measured minimum and maximum environmental temperatures are 8.5 0C and
34 0C, respectively. This temperature interval is appropriate for the standards. During the experiment, the
conductivity value of the purified water and the pH value of prepared and sprayed solutions are controlled regularly.
The conductivity value of the type IV purified water prepared in terms of ASTM D 1193 standard is measured in
units of µs and continuously kept down. The value of pH of prepared and sprayed solution is between 6.5–7.2. The
treated samples are photographed once per 24 hours after being taken out of the cabinet. Stereoscopic images are
investigated with Leica MZ 75 stereo microscopy.
2.2. Salt Spray Test
Salt spray tests were carried out in a salt spray fog chamber following ASTM Bll7-02 standard. Specimens
scribed exposed to the salt fog were evaluated with respect to a change in mass, blistering associated with corrosion,
and loss of adhesion at the scribed and unscribed areas. In one set of samples, scratch lines (scribes) were made
through one corner of the sample to the diagonally opposite corner of the sample. One side of the coupons was
scribed while the other side was left unscribed. The specimens with the scribe mark were weighed before starting the
salt spray test. In the salt spray chamber, the specimens were placed meeting the following conditions; all the
specimens were supported parallel to the principal direction of the horizontal flow of the fog. A specimen holder was
made of wood and, therefore, specimens were not in contact with each other or with any metallic material. A
solution containing 5% sodium chloride was atomized by compressed air in the chamber. The temperature of the
chamber was kept as 35 °C. Specimens were exposed to tests under mentioned conditions for 100 days. Salt spray
fog testing was carried out for 2246 hours (net time), according to the ASTM B117 standard. During the experiment,

June 2009 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 34, Number 1C 141
 Akin Akinci

the salt spray cabinet which was kept under control for 24 hours, lost times occurred by unwanted stops because of
energy interruption and controlling time were downgraded from total time. After the required exposure period, the
samples were examined according to ASTM D1645-02. This method provides a means of evaluating and comparing
basic corrosion performance of the substrate, pretreatment, or coating system, or a combination thereof, after
exposure to a corrosive environment. The specimens were carefully removed from the holder and gently washed in
clean running water to remove salt deposits from their surfaces, and then immediately dried in air. The scribes'
surfaces exposed to the test were cleaned with a brush to remove all the rust. The failed area was measured and rated
in terms of ASTM Dl654-02. Similarly, measurements were also carried out for the blisters appearing on the scribed
and unscribed sides.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The untreated (a), sand blasted (b), epoxy-polyester coated (c), scribed (d, e) and check steel coupons (f-i) are
shown in Figure 1. Photographs taken from the corroded and the cleaned surfaces of scribed samples after corrosion
tests are shown in Figure 2a-b. Evaluation of scribed regions of surface Rs (scribed) and unscribed regions Rus
(unscribed) values are carried out according to ASTM D 1654-02 standard. For Rus, the ratio of blistered regions to
intact regions and for Rs, the vertical corrosion of scribe is taken as base.

t1

t2

t3

t4

t5

a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i)
Figure 1. Samples, a) untreated original, b) sand blasted, c) sample coated with polyester-epoxy, d) scribed before test, e)
stereoscopic images of scribed sample before test X20, f) untreated sample (a) after salt spray test, g) untreated sample (a) after
salt spray test, h) sample (f) after cleaning, i) sample (g) after cleaning
In Figure 1, the average roughness values of original (a), sandblasted (b), and epoxy polyester coated (c) steel
surfaces are 0.2500 µm, 3.513 µm and 0.0980 µm, respectively. It was observed that sand blasted steel surface has
the highest surface roughness value (Ra). Also, the measurement points of coating thickness are shown schematically
in Figure (1c). The scribed region of the sample before the experiment at 20 magnifications is given in Figure (1d). It
can be seen that the dimension of the scribe is 1 mm wide which is appropriate to standards and passing from coating
to substrate. For evaluation of experiment conditions, the steel coupons are exposed to corrosion in determined times
and their weight loss is measured. In Figure (1g) and Figure (1h), the cleaned surfaces of the calibration coupons
given in Figure (1e) and Figure (1f) after corrosion. Panels were cleaned chemically with 1000 ml of hydrochloric
acid, 1000 ml Tip IV water, and 10 g of hegzamethylene tetramine solution at 20–25 °C for 10 minutes. Lastly, the
panels washed with type IV water must be dried. The weight lost tested coupons must not be 20% higher than that of
the original sample weight. Initial weights (W1) of coupons used for controlling the corrosive environment shown in
Figure (1e) and Figure (1f) are 64.7888 g and 66.3894 g, respectively. As can be seen, the weight losses are 1.7%
and 1.8% respectively. It is possible to claim that the corrosive environment conditions selected are correct.
Thicknesses of coatings, weight changes of samples before and after the experiment, and evaluation of coatings in
terms of scribed and unscribed areas according to ASTM D 1654-02 standard are given in Table 2.
Thickness measured from the scribed surface of the samples given in Table 2, are calculated from the average of
five different points. By the effect of gravity, salt accumulated at the bottom of the samples is much thicker than on
the upper sides. In Table 2, W1 shows the weights of samples after scribing (given in Figure (1d)). W2 shows the
dried weights just after the corrosion experiment (appearances given in Figure (2a)), and W3 shows the weights after
cleaning (Figure 2b). As can be seen, W2 weights are higher than W1 weights because of corrosion products
collected at the surface of samples. W3 weights are lower than W1 because of detraction of corrosion products and
damage on the epoxy/polyester coating. The scores of samples 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9 are low because of porosity and
delamination among the polymer coating and substrate metal.

142 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 34, Number 1C June 2009
 Akin Akinci

a)

b)
Figure 2. Surfaces of the scribed samples after corrosion tests a) corroded, b) cleaned
When Table 2 is analyzed for scribed area, it can be said that corrosion resistance of samples with numbers 4 and
6 in Figure 2b is worse than the corrosion resistance of sample 5. That is why the R values of samples according to
the standard are 0, 10, and 7, respectively. No blistering, delamination, or fault is found in the scribed area of sample
5 that will spoil epoxy/polyester layer. Red rust existency is determined within first 24 hours in the scribed area of
all three samples. In further times, corrosion products filled the scribe on the sample and enabled it to be in an
isolated salt fog environment. When the blistering and fallen coatings are evaluated, Rus is found as 2 and this result
shows that the corrosion resistance in this sample is weak. The sample with number 6, which has an average coating
thickness of 97 µm, has showed the best corrosion resistance performance among the unblasted and 20 minutes
phosphated group. In unscribed area, Rus is determined as 9 as a result of evaluating the faulty regions on the surface
of the sample. In conclusion, the sample with number 5 is more advantageous at the scribed area than the sample
with number 6 whereas its surface has a more disadvantageous status at unscribed area due to filiform corrosion.
When samples with numbers 4, 5, and 6 were evaluated, it can be seen that the average corrosion resistance of
number 6 is higher than that of 4 and 5.

June 2009 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 34, Number 1C 143
 Akin Akinci

Table 2. Thickness of Coatings (µm), Weight Change of Samples (g) and Evaluation of Coatings
Number of Thickness of coatings (µm) Weight of samples (g) Evaluation of coatings*
samples t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 taverage W1 W2 W3 (Rs) (Rus) (Rs+Rus/2)
1 62 70 72 76 78 71,06 65,8148 66,2212 65,6355 0 1 0,5
2 88 86 90 100 114 95,60 65,5130 65,8756 65,3440 0 0 0
3 130 134 156 164 166 117,20 66,6573 67,0129 66,6420 10 5 7,5
4 52 54 56 56 72 58,00 65,6498 66,0069 65,2764 0 2 1
5 64 70 80 86 94 78,80 66,1778 66,4981 66,0319 10 5 7,5
6 90 86 96 100 114 97,20 65,9760 66,2689 65,9260 7 9 8
7 74 72 74 62 72 70,80 64,5252 66,9841 64,4983 10 6 8
8 56 82 84 90 98 82,00 64,8198 65,1964 64,6323 0 0 0
9 86 90 94 102 104 95,20 67,8222 68,2022 67,6557 0 0 0
10 76 80 80 82 84 80,40 65,6737 65,8931 65,3931 5 5 5
11 90 90 92 96 96 92,80 66,1019 66,3324 65,7965 5 4 4,5
12 96 100 104 114 114 105,60 67,9728 68,1650 67,7816 7 6 6,5
25 52 56 60 76 92 67,20 67,9483 68,0895 67,7892 9 10 9,5
26 84 88 102 116 120 102,00 67,4203 67,5617 67,2621 10 10 10
27 106 110 118 122 132 117,60 65,8530 65,9661 65,7173 9 10 9,5
28 56 72 72 76 90 73,20 68,0833 68,1936 67,9982 9 9 9
29 96 96 104 104 130 82,00 65,0205 65,1503 64,8665 10 9 9,5
30 148 150 160 166 176 160,99 66,9553 67,0579 66,8618 10 10 10
31 54 68 68 72 88 70,00 67,8319 67,9694 67,6956 10 9 9,5
32 92 94 96 102 106 98,00 68,6223 68,7260 68,5362 10 9 9,5
33 102 110 124 126 126 117,60 66,2197 66,3417 66,1030 10 10 10
*corrosion resistance increases from 0 to 10, S:Scribed, US:Unscribed, W1: the weights of samples after scribing, W2: the
dried weights just after corrosion experiment, W3: the weights after cleaning
As can be seen in Figure (3d) and Figure (3e), the blistering is noticed, after the corrosive solution reaches the
substrate by going through the polymeric layer. Initially, as a result of corrosion on the surface, the formation of an
outer circle of blisters has been seen and later it has been determined that corrosion products blistered the polymeric
layer by volume expansion and caused it to be peeled as circular by beginning from the top point. As can be seen in
Figure 1, Figure 2, and Table 2, polymeric coating implementation generally increases the corrosion resistance of
steel surfaces. It was observed that the corrosion resistance has increased by sand blasting the surface when
compared with untreated surfaces. It has been seen that the average corrosion resistance of unphosphated samples
with numbers 10–12 is higher than the corrosion resistance of samples with numbers 1–9, which are not sand blasted
but phosphated. The highest corrosion resistance is seen in the group of samples between numbers 25 and 33, which
are both sand blasted and phosphated. Samples with numbers 26–30 and 33 gave the best result by taking 10 points
on the average when they have been evaluated for scribed and unscribed areas. This result shows that the polymeric
coatings of 100 µm and thicker increase the resistance of samples against corrosion.

a) b) c) d)

e) f) g) h)
Figure 3. Stereoscopic images of cleaned samples a) sample 4, X6,3, b) sample 4, X12,5, c) sample 11, X6,3, d) sample 11, X6,3,
e) sample 11, X20, f) sample 30, X20, g) sample 30, X50, h) sample 31, X20.

144 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 34, Number 1C June 2009
 Akin Akinci

4. CONCLUSIONS
Unprocessed steel surfaces are coated with a polymeric layer after sand blasting but without phosphating. It was
found that their surfaces were not affected remarkably. Only on some of the phosphated and polymer coated surfaces
did filiform corrosion, delamination, pitting, and serious damages occur. We can say that the corrosion resistance
increases with polymer layers’ thickening in some groups. By comparing the different pretreatment of mild steel,
sand blasting, phosphating, and epoxy-polyester coating, it is clearly seen that corrosion resistance is higher in the
phosphating system and that double layer corrosion resistance is higher than that of the single layer in the salt
system. The salt spray measurements indicate that the epoxy–polyester polymer blend system is more suitable than
the other two systems (unblasting and unphosphating) as far as protection from a chloride environment is concerned.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to thank TUBITAK for the research project numbered 105M061.
REFERENCES
[1] R. Naderi, M. M. Attar, and M. H. Moayed, “EIS Examination of Mill Scale on Mild Steel with Polyester–Epoxy
Powder Coating”, Progress in Organic Coatings, 50(2004), pp. 162–165.
[2] U. M. Anees, A. Ismail, A. Shahreer, and A. M. Fahd, “Corrosion and Mechanical Behavior of Fusion Bonded
Epoxy (FBE) in Aqueous Media”, Desalination, 150(2002), pp. 247–254.
[3] S. Palraj, M. Selvaraj, and P. Jayakrishnan, “Effect of Phosphate Coatings on the Performance of Epoxy Polyamide
Red Oxide Primer on Galvanized Steel”, Progress in Organic Coatings, 54(2005), pp. 5–9.
[4] M. Selvaraj, S. Palraj, and P. Jayakrishnan, “Performance of Polymer Blends on Phosphated Steel Substrate”,
Progress in Organic Coatings, 54(2005), pp. 1–4.
[5] C. I. Elsner, E. Cavalcanti, O. Ferraz, and A. R. D. Sarli, “Evaluation of the Surface Treatment Effect on the
Anticorrosive”, Progress in Organic Coatings, 48(2003), pp. 50–62.
[6] M. A. Ayman , F. E. K. Ahmed, H. A. Morsy, and A. A. Azim, “New Epoxy Resins Based on Recycled Poly(ethylene
terephthalate) as Organic Coatings”, Progress in Organic Coatings, 58(2007), pp. 13–22.
[7] E. Fekete and B. Lengyel, “Accelerated Test for The Prediction of Cut-Edge Corrosion of Coil-Coated
Architectural Cladding Part 1: Cyclic Cabinet Salt Spray”, Progress in Organic Coatings, 54(2005), pp. 211–215.
[8] J. P. Chintankumar and D. Ashok, “Novel Isocyanate-Free Self-Curable Cathodically Depositable Epoxy Coatings:
Influence of Epoxy Groups on Coating Properties”, Progress in Organic Coatings, 60(2007), pp. 219–223.
[9] B. D. Amo, L. Veleva, A. R. D. Sarli, and C. I. Elsner, “Performance of Coated Steel Systems Exposed to Different
Media Part I. Painted Galvanized Steel”, Progress in Organic Coatings, 50(2004), pp. 179–192.
[10] S. Rossi, F. Chini, G. Straffelini, P. L. Bonora, R. Moschini, and A. Stampali, “Corrosion Protection Properties of
Electroless Nickely PTFE, Phosphatey MoS and Bronzey PTFE Coatings Applied to Improve the Wear Resistance
of Carbon Steel”, Surface and Coatings Technology, 173(2003), pp. 235–242.
[11] A. Akinci, “Evaluation Methods of the Coatings with Accelerated Corrosion Experiments”, Surface Treatment,
56(2007), pp. 15–24.
[12] A. Akinci, “Natural Salt Spray (Fog) Corrosion of Protective Aimed Coatings”, Surface Treatment, 55(2007),
pp. 64–74.

June 2009 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 34, Number 1C 145

View publication stats