CASE.EDU:    HOME | DIRECTORIES | SEARCH
case western reserve university

MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

 
 

FRANK ERNST RESEARCH GROUP

CORROSION BEHAVIOR OF DUPLEX AND MARTENSITIC STRUCTURAL ALLOYS CARBURIZED UNDER PARAEQUILIBRIUM CONDITIONS

This investigation concerns the corrosion behavior of duplex stainless steels and martensitic stainless steels carburized under paraequilibrium conditions, i.e. processing conditions under which carbon diffuses over distances of several μm, whereas all other atomic species are effectively immobile [1]. The alloys being studied in this part of the project are SS-410 and Ferralium 255.

SS-410 is a martensitic stainless steel and is known for high corrosion resistance and high strength and toughness [2]. Ferralium 255 is a duplex stainless steel that contains approximately equal volume fractions of austenite and ferrite. Loaded in tension, it has a yield stress of approximateloy 860 MPa and a high corrosion resistance [3]. In natural seawater tests, Ferralium 255 has a corrosion rate of 3 mm/yr. For comparison, exposing austenitic 316L to these conditions results in a conversion rate of 38 mm/yr [3].

Low-temperature carburization was found to dramatically enhance the corrosion resistance of austenitic stainless steels [4,5]. For example, the carburized case of austenitic SS-316 was not attacked during etching, whereas the bulk material was attacked (Fig. 1). Corrosion resistance can be measured experimentally by applying an electric potential difference to a specimen versus a counter electrode and measuring a current density response. When comparing specimens, a more corrosion-resistant metal will exhibit a lower current density response, and therefore lower corrosion reaction rates. Figure 2 shows that compared to non-treated material, low-temperature carburized austenitic stainless steel (SS 316L) exhibits a lower current, and thus better corrosion properties at steady state [6]. TEM (transmission electron microscopy), XPS (X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy or ESCA – electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis), XRD (X-ray diffraction), and light-optical microscopy will be used to characterize the surface conditions of the carburized alloys before they are corrosion tested. After marine corrosion testing, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and XPS will be utilized to evaluate corrosion modes and contributing micromechanisms. The passivity of the carburized surfaces of these two alloys will determine their corrosivity in seawater.

Carburized layer.

Cross-sectional optical micrograph showing the carburized layer in an austenitc stainless steel (SS-316) after low-temperature carburization at 470 °C for 246 h [2].

Carburized layer.

Crevice corrosion testing of carburized SS 316L (austenitic, low carbon) versus wrought C-22 alloy and Ti–6Al–4V [6].


1. G. M. Michal, F. Ernst, A. H. Heuer: Carbon Paraequilibrium in Austenitic Stainless Steel. Metallurgical and Materials Transactions (2006), in press.

2. M.C. Tsai, C.S. Chiou, J.S. Du, and J.R. Yang: Phase transformation in AISI 410 stainless steel. Materials Science and Engineering A332 (2002) 1-10.

3. N. Sridhar, J. Kolts, S.K. Srivastave, A.I. Asphahani: Physical metallurgy, properties, and industrial applications of "Ferralium" alloy 255. 1st International Conference on Duplex Stainless Steels (Materials Park, OH: ASM International, 1982), p. 481-502.

4. Y. Cao, F. Ernst, and G.M. Michal: Colossal Carbon Supersaturation in Austenitic Stainless Steels Carburized at Low Temperature. Acta Materialia 51 (2003) 4171.

5. G. M. Michal, F. Ernst, H. Kahn, Y. Cao, F. Oba, N. Agarwal, and A.H. Heuer: Carbon Supersaturation due to Paraequilibrium Carburization: Stainless Steels with Greatly Improved Mechanical Properties. Acta Materialia 54 (2006) 1597.

6. F. Ernst, G. M. Michal, H. Kahn, A. H. Heuer: Paraequilibrium Surface Alloying with Interstitial Solutes: A New Concept for Improving the Performance of Medical Devices. Materials for Medical Applications and Devices, ASM International (2006), in press.


This material is based upon work supported by the Office of Naval Research (ONR). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the ONR.

 
Last updated: