Handbook Corrosion (1992) WW Part 3 ppt

Table 3 Planned interval corrosion test Duplicate strips of low-carbon steel (19 × 75 mm, or × 3 in.) were immersed in 200 mL of 10% AlCl 3 -90% SbCl 3 mixture through which dried hydrogen chloride gas was slowly bubbled at atmospheric pressure. Temperature: 90 °C (195 °F) Penetration Apparent corrosion rate Value Interval, days Weight loss, mg m mils mm/yr mils/yr A 1 0-1 1080 42.9 1.69 15.7 620 A t 0-3 1430 56.9 2.24 6.8 270 A t + 1 0-4 1460 58.2 2.29 5.3 210 B 3-4 70 2.8 0.11 1.02 40 A 2 calculated 3-4 30 1.3 0.05 0.46 18 A 2 < B < A 1 0.05 < 0.11 < 1.69 Conclusions: Liquid markedly decreased in corrosiveness during the test, and the formation of a partially protective scale on the steel was indicated; that is, metal became less corrodible. The causes for the changes in corrosion rate as a function of time are not given by the planned interval test criteria. The corrosivity of the liquid may decrease as a result of corrosion during the course of a test because of the reduction in concentration of the corrosive agent, the depletion of a corrosive contaminant, the formation of inhibiting products, or other metal-catalyzed changes in the liquid. The corrosivity of the liquid may increase because of the formation of autocatalytic products, the destruction of corrosion-inhibiting substances, or other catalyzed changes in the liquid. Changes in the corrosiveness of the liquid may also arise from changes in composition that would occur under the test conditions even in the absence of metal. To determine if the latter effect occurs, an identical test is run without test strips for the total time, t. Test strips are then added, and the test is continued for unit time interval. Comparison with A 1 of corrosion damage from this test shows if the corrosive character of the liquid changes significantly in the absence of metal. The corrodibility of the metal in a test may decrease as a function of time because of the formation of protective scale or the removal of a less resistant surface layer of metal. Metal corrodibility may increase because of the formation of corrosion-accelerating scale or the removal of a more resistant surface layer of metal. Indications of the causes of changes in corrosion rate can often be obtained from close observation of tests and corroded specimens as well as from special supplementary tests designed to reveal effects that may be involved. Changes in liquid corrosiveness are not a factor in most plant tests that consist of once-through runs or where large ratios of solution volume to specimen area are involved. If the effect of corrosion on the mechanical properties of the metal or alloy is under consideration, a set of unexposed specimens is needed for comparison purposes. Lengthy corrosion tests are generally not necessary to obtain accurate corrosion rates from materials that undergo severe corrosion. However, there are cases in which this assumption is not valid. For example, lead exposed to H 2 SO 4 initially corrodes at an extremely high rate while building a protective film; the rates then decrease considerably so that further corrosion is negligible. The phenomenon of the formation of a protective film is observed with many corrosion-resistant materials. Therefore, short tests on such materials would indicate a high corrosion rate and would be completely misleading. Short-term tests can also give misleading results on alloys that form passive films, such as stainless steels. With borderline conditions, a prolonged test may be needed to permit the breakdown of the passive film and subsequent more rapid attack. Consequently, tests conducted for long periods are considerably more realistic than those conducted for short durations. This statement must be qualified by stating that corrosion should not proceed to the point at which the original specimen size or the exposed area is drastically reduced or the metal is perforated. If anticipated corrosion rates are moderate or low, the following equation gives the suggested tests duration: For example, where the corrosion rate is 10 mils/yr (0.25 mm/yr), the test should run for at least 200 h. This method of estimating test duration is useful as an aid in deciding, after a test has been made, whether or not it is desirable to repeat the test for a longer period. Reporting the Data The importance of reporting all data as completely as possible cannot be overemphasized. Expansion of the testing program in the future or correlating the results with tests of other investigators will be possible only if all pertinent information is properly recorded. The following checklist is a recommended guide for reporting all important information and data: • Corrosive media and concentration (and any changes during test) • Volume of test solution • Temperature (maximum, minimum, and average) • Aeration (describe conditions or technique) • Agitation (describe conditions or technique) • Type of apparatus used for test • Duration of each test • Chemical composition or trade name of metals tested • Form and metallurgical conditions of specimens • Exact size, shape, and area of specimens • Treatment used to prepare specimens for test • Number of specimens of each material tested, and whether specimens were tested separately or which specimens were tested in the same container • Method used to clean specimens after exposure and the extent of any error expected by this treatment • Initial and final masses and actual mass losses for each specimen • Evaluation of attack if other than general, such as cre vice corrosion under support rod, pit depth and distribution, and results of microscopical examination or bend tests • Corrosion rates for each specimen • Minor occurrences or deviations from the proposed test program often can have significant effects and should be reported if known Salt Spray Testing Norman B. Tipton, The Singleton Corporation Salt spray tests have been used for over 80 years as accelerated tests for determining the corrodibility of nonferrous and ferrous metals as well as the degree of protection afforded by both inorganic and organic coatings on a metallic base (Ref 99). This procedure has been extensively discussed since its inception because of the reproducibility variances and the questionable correlation of results as related to actual service performance. The primary objective is to provide an easily performed acceptance standard for comparing the performance of materials and coatings. Many revisions to the salt spray test procedures and many improvements to the salt spray test cabinets have been made over the years through the joint efforts of the National Bureau of Standards, ASTM, equipment manufacturers, the automotive industry, and many governmental agencies. These revisions have eliminated many of the variables that have caused much of the criticism of this test procedure, with the result being a much more reliable and useful test. Even with the newly revised test procedures and modern designs of the salt spray test cabinets, there are still variables to be further investigated (Ref 99). Applications of Salt Spray (Fog) Testing The salt spray (fog) test has received its widest acceptance as a tool for evaluating the uniformity of thickness and degree of porosity of metallic and nonmetallic protective coatings, and it has served this purpose with a great deal of success. The test is useful for evaluating different lots of the same product, once a standard level of performance has been established, and it is especially helpful as a screening test for revealing a particularly inferior coating. In recent years, certain cyclic acidified salt spray (fog) tests have been implemented to test the resistance of aluminum alloys to exfoliation corrosion. The salt spray (fog) test is considered to be most useful as an accelerated laboratory corrosion test that simulates the effects of marine atmospheres on different metals, with or without protective coatings. The most commonly used and accepted salt spray test methods in the United States are the various methods outlined in ASTM standards B 117 and G 85 (Ref 100, 101). Many of the governmental agencies and automotive companies have written their own standards and procedures, but in the interest of national standardization, these standards have been revised to conform with most of the details of ASTM. However, they still incorporate several statements relating to practices that experience has shown to be desirable or beneficial for achieving reliable, reproducible results and maximum correlation among laboratories. Types of Salt Spray (Fog) Tests The neutral salt spray (fog) test (ASTM B 117 Method 811.1 of Federal Test Method 151b) is perhaps the most commonly used salt spray test in existence for testing inorganic and organic coatings, especially where such tests are used for material or product specifications. The duration of this test can range from 8 up to 3000 h, depending on the product or type of coating. A 5% NaCl solution that does not contain more than 200 ppm total solids and with a pH range of 6.5 to 7.2 when atomized is used, and the temperature of the salt spray cabinet is controlled to maintain 35 + 1.1 or - 1.7 °C (95 + 2 or - 3 °F) within the exposure zone of the closed cabinet. The Acetic Acid-Salt Spray (Fog) Test (ASTM G 85, Annex A1; Former Method B 287) is also used for testing inorganic and organic coatings, but is particularly applicable to the study or testing of decorative chromium plate (nickel- chromium or copper-nickel-chromium) plating and cadmium plating on steel or zinc die-castings and for the evaluation of the quality of a product. This test can be as brief as 16 h, although it normally ranges from 144 to 240 h or more. As in the neutral salt spray test, a 5% NaCl solution is used, but the solution is adjusted to a pH range of 3.1 to 3.3 by the addition of acetic acid, and again, the temperature of the salt spray cabinet is controlled to maintain 35 + 1.1 or - 1.7 °C (95 + 2 or - 3 °F) within the exposure zone of the closed cabinet. The Copper-Accelerated Acetic Acid-Salt Spray (Fog) Test or CASS test, which is covered in ASTM B 368 (Ref 102), is primarily used of the rapid testing of decorative copper-nickel-chromium or nickel-chromium plating on steel and zinc die-castings. It is also useful in the testing of anodized, chromated, or phosphated aluminum. The duration of this test ranges from 6 to 720 h. A 5% NaCl solution is used, with 1 g of copper II chloride (CuCl 2 ·2H 2 O) added to each 3.8 L of salt solution. The solution is then adjusted to a pH range of 3.1 to 3.3 by adding acetic acid. The temperature of the CASS cabinet is controlled to maintain 49 + 1.1 or - 1.7 °C (120 + 2 or - 3 °F) within the exposure zone of the closed cabinet. Other Standard Tests. Many new salt spray test procedures have been developed in the past 20 years in order to achieve tests that are more closely aligned with a specific application. These modifications include a cyclic acidified salt spray (fog) test (ASTM G 85, Annex A2), an acidified synthetic seawater spray (fog) test (ASTM G 85, Annex A3; Former Method G 43), and a salt/sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) spray (fog) test (ASTM G 85, Annex A4). The cyclic acidified salt spray (fog) test and the acidified synthetic sea water spray (fog) test are both primarily used for the production control of exfoliation-resistant heat treatments for various aluminum alloys (Ref 103). The salt/SO 2 spray (fog) test is mainly used to test for the exfoliation corrosion resistance of various aluminum alloys and a wide range of nonferrous and ferrous materials and coatings, both inorganic and organic, when exposed to an SO 2 -laden salt spray (fog). As more of these cyclic-type tests are used in the near future, the development of the required sophisticated testing cabinets will be required. Types of Salt Spray Cabinets and Their Construction Salt spray cabinets are available from many manufacturers and range in size from extremely small bench-top cabinets to large walk-in types. The small bench-top models are not practical; they have been found to be difficult to control and should be avoided. The larger walk-in types have been developed to be controlled capably, but they are very expensive. The most commonly used cabinet is the top-opening type (Fig. 17), which can range in size from 0.25 to 4.5 m 3 (9 to 160 ft 3 ) and larger. The cabinet should be large enough to test the required number of parts adequately without overcrowding. Basic cabinets are made of plastic or, more commonly, of plastic-lined steel having no exposed metals or corrodible materials in the interior testing area. The cabinets consist of an air saturation tower with automatic level control, a salt solution reservoir with automatic level control, plastic atomizing nozzles that are suitably baffled or housed in a central fog generation tower with adequate internal baffling (Fig. 18), specimen supports, and provisions for heating the cabinet and the air saturation tower along with suitable controls for maintaining temperatures. Fig. 17 Typical examples of top-opening salt spray cabinets with state-of-the- art features and pertinent accessories. Cabinets range in size from 0.25 to 4.5 m 3 (9 to 160 ft 3 ). Fig. 18 Vertical- type dispersion towers are the most commonly used for ensuring an even distribution of a uniform free-falling salt mist (fog) over the test specimens. These typical dispersion towers are internally baffled and can be located in the most advantageous part of the cabinet. Single towers (left) are usually used in smaller cabinets up to 1.0 m 3 , (36 ft 3 ), and multiple towers (right) are used in larger cabinets. Miscellaneous Tests Donald O. Sprowls, Consultant There are a number of specialized corrosion tests that are very complex and can be given only brief mention in this article. These include tests in simulated atmospheres, tests in gases at elevated temperatures, aqueous corrosion tests at elevated temperatures, and tests conducted in liquid metals. Simulated Atmospheres. Draft International Standard ISO 7384-1986 (E) describes general requirements for Corrosion Tests in artificial atmosphere (Ref 104). The corrosion processes are accelerated by intensifying such factors as temperature, relative humidity, condensation of the moisture, and corrosive agents (sulfur dioxide, chlorides, acids, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and so on). This standard applies to metals and alloys with and without permanent or temporary corrosion protection. The ASTM designation G 87 is a standard practice for conducting moist SO 2 tests (Ref 105). Moist air that contains SO 2 quickly produces easily visible corrosion on many metals in a form resembling that which occurs in industrial environments. It is therefore a test environment that is well suited to the detection of pores or other sources of weakness in protective coatings as well as deficiencies in corrosion resistance associated with unsuitable alloy composition or treatments. Standard SO 2 chambers are available from several suppliers, but certain pertinent details are required before they will function according to this practice and provide consistent control for duplication of results. Humidity-temperature chambers are commercially available for testing materials under a variety of conditions ranging in temperature from freezing to 65 °C (150 °F) and in relative humidity from 20 to 100% (Fig. 19). Such tests are commonly used for evaluating various nonmetallic materials of construction that are used in contact with metals, such as insulations and adhesives. An example is the Owens Corning Fiberglass test method C-02A (Ref 106). Versions of this test method have been used in product specifications, such as ASTM C 665 for mineral fiber blanket thermal insulation for wood frame and light construction buildings (Ref 107). Fig. 19 Chambers for testing materials under a variety of temperature and humidity conditions. Courtesy of the Aluminum Company of America The ASTM designation G 60 is a standard practice for conducting cyclic humidity tests (Ref 108). The procedure described is used to observe the behavior of steels under test conditions that retard the formation of a protective type of rust. Tests in Gases at Elevated Temperatures. The deterioration of metals and alloys upon exposure to air or other gases at elevated temperatures is a specific type of corrosion that is commonly referred to as high-temperature oxidation. The metals may in fact form sulfides, nitrides, carbides, and oxides. This form of corrosion is a serious problem in various industries. Experimental test methods are required to study this phenomenon. Tests can elucidate kinetics, mechanisms, and chemistry; they can help develop more resistant alloys or qualify an alloy. The high-temperature oxidation of metals and the various oxidation test methods that have been used are extensively reviewed in Ref 109. Additional information is also available in the articles "Fundamentals of Corrosion in Gases" and "General Corrosion" (see the section "High- Temperature Oxidation/Sulfidation") in this Volume. Aqueous Tests at Elevated Temperatures and Pressures. High-pressure equipment is necessary to conduct corrosion studies in high-temperature water and steam, and radioactive materials are often tested. Therefore, safety codes and practices should be strictly followed. Reference 110 contains a review of the procedures employed to evaluate the corrosion behavior of materials and concepts for nuclear reactor service. To date, two standards have been issued. The first is ASTM G 2, which addresses the testing of zirconium and zirconium alloys (Ref 111), and the second is NACE TM-01-71, which covers the autoclave corrosion testing of metals in high-temperature water (Ref 112). The NACE standard deals mainly with structural and pressure vessel materials, such as high-strength steel, stainless steel, and certain nickel-base alloys. Additional information on the evaluation of materials for nuclear reactor service can be found in the article "Corrosion in the Nuclear Power Industry" in this Volume. Reference 113 describes testing in hot brine loops designed to provide quantitative information on corrosion rates that will be encountered during the desalination of seawater. The hot brine loop is essentially a device for circulating a heated 3.4% NaCl solution through tubular specimens or past flat specimens in order to determine the corrosion resistance of the alloy(s) under investigation. To accomplish this, the loop must possess certain characteristics. It must be chemically inert so as to prevent contamination of the brine by metal ions or by organic species. It must also be pressure tight, because it is usually operated above the atmospheric boiling point of water. Liquid metals have large volumetric heat capacities, high heat transfer coefficients, and other properties that make them attractive as coolants for high-temperature nuclear reactors and in power generation systems that operate in conjunction with nuclear reactors. A comprehensive overview of the specialized test procedures required for testing the corrosiveness of liquid metals is given in Ref 114. The ASTM standard G 68 covers the liquid sodium corrosion testing of metals and alloys (Ref 115). Additional information can be found in the articles "Fundamentals of High-Temperature Corrosion in Liquid Metals" and "General Corrosion" (see the section "Corrosion in Liquid Metals") in this Volume. References 1. J.O'M. Bockris, Modern Aspects of Electrochemistry, Butterworths, 1954 2. E. Gileadi, E. Kirowa-Eisner, and J. Penciner, Interfacial Electrochemistry An Experimental Approach, Addison-Wesley, 1975 3. N.D. Tomashov, Theory of Corrosion and Protection of Metals, Macmillan, 1966 4. J.C. Scully, The Fundamentals of Corrosion, Pergamon Press, 1975 5. M.G. Fontana and N.D. Greene, Corrosion Engineering, McGraw-Hill, 1978 6. J. Newman, Electrochemical Systems, Prentice-Hall, 1973 7. H.H. Uhlig and R.W. Revie, Corrosion and Corrosion Control, John Wiley & Sons, 1985 8. J.O'M. Bockris, B.E. Conway, E. Yeager, and R.E. White, Ed., Electrochemical Materials Science, Vol 4, Comprehensive Treatise of Electrochemistry, Plenum Press, 1981 9. R. Baboian, Ed., Electrochemical Techniques for Corrosion, National Association of Corrosion Engineers, 1977 10. U. Bertocci and F. Mansfeld, Ed., Electrochemical Corrosion Testing, STP 727, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1979 11. G. Haynes and R. Baboian, Ed., Laboratory Corrosion Tests and Standards, STP 866, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1985 12. G.C. Moran and P. Labine, Ed., Corrosion Monitoring in Industrial Plants Using Nondestructive Testing and Electrochemical Methods, STP 908, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1986 13. R. Baboian, Ed., Electrochemical Techniques for Corrosion Engineers, National Association of Corrosion Engineers, 1986 14. R. Baboian, W.D. France, Jr., L.C. Rowe, and J.F. Rynewicz, Ed., Galvanic and Pitting Corrosion Field and Laboratory Studies, STP 576, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1974 15. A.C. Riddiford, Adv. Electrochem. Eng., Vol 4, 1966, p 47 16. D.D. MacDonald, Transient Techniques in Electrochemistry, Plenum Press, 1977 17. C. Wagner and W. Traud, Z. Electrochem, Vol 44, 1938, p 391 18. W.D. France, Jr., Controlled Potential Corrosion Tests, Their Application and Limitations, Mater. Res. Stand., Vol 9 (No. 8), 1969, p 21 19. "Standard Practice for Standard Reference Method for Making Potentiostatic and Potentiodynamic Anodic Polarization Measurements," G 5, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Amer ican Society for Testing and Materials 20. "Standard Practice for Conducting Potentiodynamic Polarization Resistance Measurements," G 59, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials 21. Z. Tafel, Physik. Chem., Vol 50, 1905, p 641 22. "Standard Practice for Conventions Applicable to Electrochemical Measurements in Corrosion Testing," G 3, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1985 23. D. Britz, J. Electroanal. Chem., Vol 88, 1978, p 309 24. M. Hayes and J. Kuhn, J. Power Sources, Vol 2, 1977-1978, p 121 25. F. Mansfeld, Corrosion, Vol 38 (No. 10), 1982, p 556 26. M. Stern and R.M. Roth, J. Electrochem. Soc., Vol 104, 1957, p 390 27. M. Stern and A.L. Geary, J. Electrochem. Soc., Vol 105, 1958, p 638 28. M. Stern and A.L. Geary, J. Electrochem. Soc., Vol 104, 1957, p 56 29. S. Evans and E.L. Koehler, J. Electrochem. Soc., Vol 108, 1961, p 509 30. M. Stern and E.D. Weisert, Experimental Observations on the Relation Between Polarizatio n Resistance and Corrosion Rate, in ASTM Proceedings, Vol 59, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1959, p 1280 31. "Test Methods for Corrosivity of Water in the Absence of Heat Transfer (Electrical Methods)," D 2776- 79, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials 32. F. Mansfeld and M. Kendig, Corrosion, Vol 37 (No. 9), 1981, p 556 33. R.L. Leroy, Corrosion, Vol 29, 1973, p 272 34. R. Bandy and D.A. Jones, Corrosion, Vol 32, 1976, p 126 35. M.J. Danielson, Corrosion, Vol 36 (No. 4), 1980, p 174 36. J.C. Reeve and G. Bech-Nielsen, Corros. Sci., Vol 13, 1973, p 351 37. K.B. Oldham and F. Mansfeld, Corros. Sci., Vol 13, 1973, p 813 38. I. Epelboin, C. Gabrielli, M. Keddam, and H. Takenouti, in Electrochemical Corrosion Testing, STP 727, F. Mansfeld and U. Bertocci, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, 1981, p 150 39. A.C. Makrides, Corrosion, Vol 29 (No. 9), 1973, p 148 40. D.D. MacDonald and M.C.H. McKubre, in Electrochemical Corrosion Testing, STP 727 , F. Mansfeld and U. Bertocci, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, 1981, p 110 41. A.J. Bard and L.R. Faulkner, Electrochemical Methods: Fundamentals and Applications, John Wiley & Sons, 1980 42. F. Mansfeld, Corrosion, Vol 36 (No. 5), 1981, p 301 43. F. Mansfeld, M.W. Kendig, and S. Tsai, Corrosion, Vol 38, 1982, p 570 44. H. Hack and J.R. Scully, Corrosion, Vol 42 (No. 2), 1986, p 79 45. R. Baboian, in Electrochemical Techniques for Corrosion, R. Baboian, Ed., National Association of Corrosion Engineers, 1977, p 73 46. R. Baboian, in Galvanic and Pitting Corrosion Field and Laboratory Studies, STP 576, R. Baboian, et al., Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, 1974, p 5 47. F. Mansfeld and J.V. Kenkel, in Galvanic and Pitting Corrosion Field and Laboratory Studies, R. Baboian, et al., Ed., STP 576, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1974, p 20 48. J. Kruger, in Passivity and Its Breakdown on Iron and Iron Based Alloys, R.W. Staehle and H. Okada, Ed., National Association of Corrosion Engineers, 1976 49. N. Sato and G. Okamoto, in Electrochemical Materials Science, Vol 4, Comprehensive Treatise of Electrochemistry, J.O'M. Bockris, B.E. Conway, E. Yeager, and R.E. White, Ed., Plenum Press, 1981, p 193 50. B.E. Wilde, Corrosion, Vol 28, 1972, p 283 51. "Standard Practice for Conducting Cyclic Potentiodynamic Measurements for Localized Corrosion," G 61, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials 52. B.C. Syrett, Corrosion, Vol 33, 1977, p 221 53. N. Pessall and C. Liu, Electrochim. Acta, Vol 16, 1971, p 1987 54. B.E. Wilde and E. Williams, J. Electrochem. Soc., Vol 118, 1971, p 1057 55. J.R. Ambrose and J. Kruger, J. Electrochem. Soc., Vol 121, 1974, p 599 56. J.R. Ambrose and J. Kruger, in Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress on Metallic Corrosion, National Association of Corrosion Engineers, 1974, p 406 57. M.A. Devanathan and Z. Stackurski, Proc. R. Soc. (London) A, Vol 270A, 1962, p 90 58. J. McBreen, L. Nanis, and W. Beck, J. Electrochem. Soc., Vol 113 (No. 11), 1966, p 1218 59. M. Prazak, Corrosion, Vol 19 (No. 3), 1963, p 75t 60. P. Novak, R. Stefec, and F. Franz, Corrosion, Vol 31 (No. 10), 1975, p 344 61. W.L. Clarke, V.M. Romero, and J.C. Danko, Paper (preprint 180), presented at Corrosion/77, National Association of Corrosion Engineers, 1977 62. W.L. Clarke, R.L. Cowan, and W.L. Walker, in Intergranular Corrosion of Stainless Alloys, STP 656, R.F. Steigerwald, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, 1978, p 99 63. M. Akashi, T. Kawamoto, and F. Umemura, Corros. Eng., Vol 29, 1980, p 163 64. A.P. Majidi and M.A. Streicher, Corrosion, Vol 40 (No. 11), 1984, p 584 65. "Standard Practices for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austeniti c Stainless Steels," A 262, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials 66. J.B. Lee, Corrosion, Vol 42 (No. 2), 1986, p 106 67. A. Roelandt and J. Vereecken, Corrosion, Vol 42 (No. 5), 1986, p 289 68. J.R. Scully and R. Kelly, Corrosion, Vol 42 (No. 9), 1986, p 537 69. "Standard Method of FACT (Ford Anodized Aluminum Corrosion Test) Testing," B 538, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials 70. J. Stone, H.A. Tuttle, and H.N. Bogart, Plating, Vol 43, 1965, p 877 71. R.L. Saur and R.P. Basco, Plating, Vol 53, 1966, p 33 72. R.L. Saur and R.P. Basco, Plating, Vol 53, 1966, p 981 73. R.L. Saur and R.P. Basco, Plating, Vol 53, 1966, p 320 74. "Standard Method of Electrolytic Corrosion Testing (EC Test)," B 627, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials 75. "Standard Method for Measurement of Impedance of Anodic Coatings on Aluminum," B 457, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials 76. E.T. Englehart and G. Sowinski, Jr., SAE J., Vol 72, 1974, p 51 77. E.T. Englehart and D.J. George, Mater. Prot., Vol 3, 1964, p 25 78. J.D. Scantlebury, K.N. Ho, and D.A. Eden, in Electrochemical Corrosion Testing, STP 727, F. Mansfeld and U. Bertocci, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, 1981, p 187 79. S. Narian, N. Bonanos, and M.G. Hocking, J. Oil Colour Chem. Assoc., Vol 66 (No. 2), 1983, p 48 80. T.A. Strivens and C.C. Taylor, Mater. Chem., Vol 7, 1982, p 199 81. F. Mansfeld, M.W. Kendig, and S. Tsai, Corrosion, Vol 38 (No. 9), 1982, p 478 82. M. Kendig, F. Mansfeld, and S. Tsai, Corros. Sci., Vol 23 (No. 4), 1983, p 317 83. R. Touhasaent and H. Liedheiser, Corrosion, Vol 28 (No. 12), 1982, p 435 84. "Recommended Practice for Laboratory Immersion Corrosion Testing of Metals," G 31, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials 85. "Test Method Laboratory Corrosion Testing of Metals for the Process Industries," NACE TM-01- 69, National Association of Corrosion Engineers, 1976 86. M.G. Fontana, "Corrosion Testing," Lesson 8 in Home Study and Extension Courses, Metals Engineering Institute, American Society for Metals, 1969 87. F.A. Champion, Corrosion Testing Procedures, 2nd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, 1965 88. O.B.J. Fraser, D.E. Ackerman, and J.W. Sands, Ind. Eng. Chem., Vol 19, 1927, p 332 89. P.E. Francis and A.D. Mercer, Corrosion of a Mild Steel in Distilled Water and Chloride Solutions: Development of a Test Method, in Laboratory Corrosion Tests and Standards, STP 866, G.S. Haynes and R. Baboian, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, 1985, p 184-196 90. "Standard Practices for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels," A 262, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials 91. "Standard Test Method of Visual Assessment of Exfoliation Corrosion Susceptibility of 5xxx Series Aluminum Allows (ASSET Test)" G 66, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials 92. W.H. Ailor, Ed., Handbook on Corrosion Testing and Evaluation, John Wiley & Sons, 1971 93. G.D. Bengough, U.R. Evans, T.P. Hoar, and F. Wormwell, Chem. Ind., Nov 1938 94. "Standard Recommended Practice for Alternate Immersion Stress Co rrosion Testing in 3.5% Sodium [...]... sulfate (A 763X) None 120 No significant grain dropping S30400 Type 30 4 Oxalic acid (A 262-A) None (a) 120 0.1 (4) (a) 240 0.05 (2) Ferric sulfate (A 262B) S304 03 Type 30 4L Oxalic acid (A 262-A) 1 h at 675 °C (1250 °F) Nitric acid (A 262-C) S30908 Type 30 9S Nitric acid (A 262-C) None 240 0.025 (1) S31600 Type 31 6 Oxalic acid (A 262-A) None (a) 120 0.1 (4) (a) Ferric sulfate (A 262B) S316 03 Type 31 6L Oxalic... References 1 2 G Wranglén, Corrosion and Protection of Metals, Chapman & Hall, 1985, p 238 R.L Martin and E.C French, Corrosion Monitoring in Sour Systems Using Electrochemical Hydrogen Patch Probes, J Pet Technol., Nov 1978, p 1566-1570 3 P.A Schweitzer, Corrosion and Corrosion Protection Handbook, Marcel Dekker, 19 83, p 4 83- 484 4 "Metal Corrosion, Erosion, and Wear," Vol 03. 02, Annual Book of ASTM... Ferric sulfate (A 262B) S31700 Type 31 7 Oxalic acid (A 262-A) 120 S317 03 Type 31 7L Oxalic acid (A 262-A) 1 h at 675 °C (1250 °F) Ferric sulfate (A 262B) (a) 0.1 (4) (a) 120 Ferric sulfate (A 262B) 120 None 0.1 (4) 0.1 (4) S32100 Type 32 1 Nitric acid (A-262-C) 1 h at 675 °C (1250 °F) 240 0.05 (2) S34700 Type 34 7 Nitric acid (A 262-C) 1 h at 675 °C (1250 °F) 240 0.05 (2) N08020 20Cb -3 Ferric sulfate (G... Mansfeld and V Bertocci, Electrochemical Corrosion Testing, STP 727, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1981 6 M Fontana, Corrosion Engineering, 3rd ed., McGraw Hill, 1986, p 162 7 A Wachter and R.S Treseder, Chem Eng Prog., Vol 43, 1947, p 31 5 -32 6 8 A.J Bard and L.R Faulkner, Electrochemical Methods: Fundamentals and Applications, John Wiley & Sons, 1980, p 2 83- 304 9 A.C Riddiford, Adv Electrochem... Atmospheric Corrosion Tests of Metals," G 50, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials 6 "Corrosion of Metals and Alloys Determination of Bi-Metallic Corrosion in Outdoor Exposure Corrosion Tests," ISO 7441, International Standards Organization 7 K.G Compton, A Mendizza, and W.W Bradley, Atmospheric Galvanic Couple Corrosion, Corrosion, Vol II, 1955, p 38 3 8 H.P Godard,... appearance or maximum allowable corrosion rate, mm/month (mils/month) S 430 00 Type 430 Ferric sulfate (A 763X) None 24 1.14 (45) S44600 Type 446 Ferric sulfate (A 763X) None 72 0.25 (10) S44625 26-1 Ferric sulfate (A 763X) None 120 0.05 (2) and no significant grain dropping S44626 26-1S Cupric sulfate (A 763Y) None 120 No significant grain dropping S44700 29-4 Ferric sulfate (A 763X) None 120 No significant... Society for Testing and Materials "Autoclave Corrosion Testing of Metals in High Temperature Water," NACE TM 01-71, National Association of Corrosion Engineers R.J Hart, Testing in Hot Brine Loops, in Handbook on Corrosion Testing and Evaluation, W.H Ailor, Ed., John Wiley & Sons, 1971, p 36 7 -37 8 R.L Kluch and J.H DeVan, Liquid Metal Test Procedures, in Handbook on Corrosion Testing and Evaluation, W.H Ailor,... Scharfstein and M Henthorne, Testing at High Temperature in Handbook on Corrosion Testing and Evaluation, W.H Ailor, Ed., John Wiley & Sons, 1971, p 291 -36 6 W.E Berry, Testing Nuclear Materials in Aqueous Environments, in Handbook on Corrosion Testing and Evaluation, W.H Ailor, Ed., John Wiley & Sons, 1971, p 37 9-4 03 "Standard Practice for Aqueous Corrosion Testing of Samples of Zirconium and Zirconium... p 32 4 -33 6 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 B.E Wilde, Critical Appraisal of Some Popular Laboratory Tests for Predicting the Localized Corrosion Resistance of Stainless Alloys in Sea Water, Corrosion, Vol 28 (No 8), Aug 1972, p 2 83 F.L LaQue and H.H Uhlig, An Essay on Pitting, Crevice Corrosion and Related Potentials, Mater Perform., Vol 22 (No 8), Aug 19 83, p 34 "Standard Recommended Practice... Office, 1957, p 71 I.A Denison, Soil Exposure Tests, in The Corrosion Handbook, H.H Uhlig, Ed., John Wiley & Sons, 1948, p 1048 H.P Godard, The Corrosion Behavior of Aluminum in Natural Waters, Can J Chem Eng., Vol 38 , Oct 1960, p 1671 E.J Gumbel, Statistical Theory of Extreme Values and Some Practical Applications, Applied Mathematics Series 33 , U.S Department of Commerce, 1954 P.M Aziz, Application of the . Materials 32 . F. Mansfeld and M. Kendig, Corrosion, Vol 37 (No. 9), 1981, p 556 33 . R.L. Leroy, Corrosion, Vol 29, 19 73, p 272 34 . R. Bandy and D.A. Jones, Corrosion, Vol 32 , 1976, p 126 35 . M.J Danielson, Corrosion, Vol 36 (No. 4), 1980, p 174 36 . J.C. Reeve and G. Bech-Nielsen, Corros. Sci., Vol 13, 19 73, p 35 1 37 . K.B. Oldham and F. Mansfeld, Corros. Sci., Vol 13, 19 73, p 8 13 38 . I Plating, Vol 53, 1966, p 33 72. R.L. Saur and R.P. Basco, Plating, Vol 53, 1966, p 981 73. R.L. Saur and R.P. Basco, Plating, Vol 53, 1966, p 32 0 74. "Standard Method of Electrolytic Corrosion