Corrosion Science and Technology

  • 제16권1호
  • /
  • Pages.8-14
  • /
  • 2017
  • /
  • 1598-6462(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-6524(eISSN)
한국부식방식학회 (The Corrosion Science Society of Korea)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Corrosion Behavior and Oxide Film Formation of T91 Steel under Different Water Chemistry Operation Conditions

  • Zhang, D.Q. (Department of Environmental Engineering, Shanghai University of Electric Power) ;
  • Shi, C. (Department of Environmental Engineering, Shanghai University of Electric Power) ;
  • Li, J. (Department of Environmental Engineering, Shanghai University of Electric Power) ;
  • Gao, L.X. (Department of Environmental Engineering, Shanghai University of Electric Power) ;
  • Lee, K.Y. (State Key Laboratory of Structural Analysis for Industrial Equipment, Department of Engineering Mechanics, Dalian University of Technology)
  • 투고 : 2016.06.07
  • 심사 : 2017.01.20
  • 발행 : 2017.02.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The corrosion behavior of a ferritic/martensitic steel T91 exposed to an aqueous solution containing chloride and sulfate ions is investigated depending on the stimulated all-volatile treatment (AVT) and under oxygenated treatment (OT) conditions. The corrosion of T91 steel under OT condition is severe, while the corrosion under AVT condition is not. The co-existence of chloride and sulfate ions has antagonistic effect on the corrosion of T91 steel in both AVT and OT conditions. Unlike to corrosion resistance in the aqueous solution, OT pretreatment provides T91 steel lower oxidation-resistance than VAT pretreatment. From scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM/EDS) and X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis, the lower corrosion resistance in the aqueous solution by VAT conditions possibly is due to the formation of pits. In addition, the lower oxidation resistance of T91 steel pretreated by OT conditions is explained as follows: the cracks formed during the immersion under OT conditions accelerated peeling-off rate of the oxide film.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. R. Viswanathan, J. Sarver, and J. M. Tanzosh, J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 15, 255 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1361/105994906X108756
  2. D. A. Guzonas and W. G. Cook, Corros. Sci., 65, 48 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2012.08.006
  3. B. C. Syret, Corros. Sci., 35, 1189 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-938X(93)90339-I
  4. YY. Kaiju, Q. Shaoyu, T. Rui, Z. Qiang, and Z. Lefu., J. Supercrit. Fluid., 50, 235 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.supflu.2009.06.019
  5. J.-L. Huang, K.-Y. Zhou, J.-Q. Xu, and C.-X. Bian, J. Loss Prevent. Proc., 26, 22 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2012.08.004
  6. Y. Feng, G. Zhou, and S. Cai, Electrochim. Acta, 36, 1093 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4686(91)85319-3
  7. S. Xiong, Z. Zhu, H. Zhang, and L. Jing, Corrosion, 68, 1 (2012).
  8. D. Laverde, T. Gomez-Acebo, and F. Castro, Corros. Sci., 46, 613 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-938X(03)00173-2
  9. J. L. Huang, K. Y. Zhou, and J. Q. Xu, Mater. Corros., 65, 786 (2015).
  10. Y. Chen, K. Sridharan, and T. Allen, Corros. Sci., 48, 2843 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2005.08.021