0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

Chloride Content Effect on the Corrosion Fatigue Properties of Superduplex Stainless Steels

[+] Author and Article Information
A. Gironès, M. Anglada

Dept. Ciència dels Materials i Enginyeria Metal.lúrgica, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Avda Diagonal 647, 08028 Barcelona, Spain

A. Mateo1

Dept. Ciència dels Materials i Enginyeria Metal.lúrgica, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Avda Diagonal 647, 08028 Barcelona, Spainantonio.manuel.mateo@upc.edu

1

Corresponding author.

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 129(4), 588-593 (Jul 10, 2007) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2772325 History: Received March 06, 2006; Revised July 10, 2007

The corrosion fatigue performance of a superduplex stainless steel in two different chloride-bearing solutions (30gl and 60glNaCl) is explored in the present paper. Fatigue life results and surface damage analysis show a strong influence of the applied strain amplitude, as well as of the chloride content, on the cyclic response. Moreover, there is an interaction between both factors because corrosion fatigue mechanisms at low and high strain amplitudes are not comparable, since ferrite is only fully plastically active at high strains. Whereas a detrimental effect of the 30glNaCl solution on the fatigue strength is observed, longer fatigue lives were attained in 60glNaCl solution, even longer than in air. Surface damage inspection and residual solutions analysis support a critical anodic dissolution rate, which would act as a polishing effect, as the main reason for this unexpected result.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2007 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Anodic polarization curves for EN 1.4410 submerged in 30g∕l and 60g∕lNaCl solutions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Cyclic hardening-softening curves corresponding to tests in air

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

SEM photograph showing the damage on the lateral surface close to the fracture zone of a specimen tested at Δεpl∕2=6×10−4 up to rupture in 30g∕lNaCl solution

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

SEM photograph showing the damage on the lateral surface close to the fracture zone of a specimen tested at Δεpl∕2=6×10−4 up to rupture in air

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

SEM photograph showing the damage on the lateral surface close to the fracture zone of a specimen tested at Δεpl∕2=6×10−4 up to rupture in 60g∕lNaCl solution

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

SEM photograph showing the damage on the lateral surface close to the fracture zone of a specimen tested at Δεpl∕2=6×10−3 up to rupture in air

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

SEM photograph showing the damage on the lateral surface close to the fracture zone of a specimen tested at Δεpl∕2=6×10−3 up to rupture in 30g∕lNaCl solution

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

SEM photograph showing the damage on the lateral surface close to the fracture zone of a specimen tested at Δεpl∕2=6×10−3 up to rupture in 60g∕lNaCl solution

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

SEM photograph showing the damage on the lateral surface close to the fracture zone of a specimen tested up to 700 cycles at Δεpl∕2=6×10−3 in 30g∕lNaCl solution

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

SEM photograph showing the damage on the lateral surface close to the fracture zone of a specimen tested up to 700 cycles at Δεpl∕2=6×10−3 in 60g∕lNaCl solution

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In