Crack Growth Rates and Corrosion Fatigue of Austenitic Stainless Steels in High Chloride Solutions

Abstract:

Purpose: Applications for highly corrosive environments and cyclic loading are often made out of austenitic stainless steels. Corrosion fatigue and crack propagation behaviour has been studied to determine failure processes and damage mechanisms. Approach: CrNiMo stabilized austenitic stainless steel and CrMnN austenitic stainless steel in solution annealed and cold worked condition are compared. S/N curves and crack propagation rate curves are recorded in 43 wt% CaCl₂ solution at 120 °C, which resembles most severe potential service conditions. For comparison these experiments are also performed in inert glycerine. Additionally, the electrochemical behaviour of these materials has been studied. Findings: The CrMnN steels have excellent mechanical properties but are very susceptible to stress corrosion cracking in the test solution. The fatigue limit as well as the threshold for long crack growth are significantly reduced in corrosive environment. Moreover these steels exhibit a remarkable increase in the propagation rate, which is extremely pronounced in the near threshold region. This effect is enhanced by cold working. CrNiMo steels also show a reduction in the fatigue limit, but it is less pronounced compared to CrMnN steels. The threshold is significantly reduced in corrosive environment, but propagation rate is lower in corrosive environment compared to inert glycerine. Possible explanations of this surprising behaviour are discussed.

• Periodical: Key Engineering Materials (Volumes 488-489)
• Pages: 97-100
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.488-489.97
• Online since: September 2011
• Authors: Clemens Vichytil, G. Mori, Reinhard Pippan, M. Panzenböck, Rainer Fluch
• Keywords: Austenitic Stainless Steel, Corrosion Fatigue, Crack Propagation

References

[1] R.P. Wei, Electrochemical and microstructural considerations of fatigue crack growth in austenitic stainless steels, Proceedings of the 36th MWSP Conference, ISS-AIM, Vol. 32, pp.541-549, (1995).

[2] Y.R. Qian, J.R. Cahoon, Crack initiation mechanisms for corrosion fatigue of austenitic stainless steel, Corrosion (USA), Vol. 53, no. 2, p.135, (1997).

DOI: 10.5006/1.3280442

[3] T. Magnin, Advances in corrosion deformation interactions, Trans Tech Publications Ltd, Switzerland, pp.11-15, 69, 80, 87, 88, (1996).

[4] T. Magnin, Recent advances for corrosion fatigue mechanisms, ISIJ Int. Vol. 35, no. 3, p.224225, 231-232. (1995).

[5] C. -K. Lin, I. -L. Lan, Fatigue behavior of AISI 347 stainless steel in various environments, Journal of Materials Science 39, pp.6901-6908, (2004).

DOI: 10.1023/b:jmsc.0000047531.98778.9d

[6] K. Endo, K. Komai, Influence of Cl- Concentration on Corrosion Fatigue Crack Growth of an Austenitic Stainless Steel, Bulletin of the JSME, Vol. 26, No 218, pp.1281-1287, (1983).

DOI: 10.1299/jsme1958.26.1281

[7] S.P. Lynch, Progress towards understanding mechanisms of hydrogen embrittlement and stress corrosion cracking, Corrosion 2007, Nashville, NACE, Houston, paper no. 07493, pp.1-55, (2007).

[8] R. Pippan, L. Plöchl, F. Klanner, H. P. Stüwe, The Use of Fatigue Specimens Precracked in Compression for Measuring Threshold Values and Crack Growth, ASTM Journal of Testing and Evaluation (USA), Vol. 22, no. 2, pp.98-103, (1994).

DOI: 10.1520/jte12641j

[9] R. Sonnleitner, C. Vichytil, G. Mori, M. Panzenböck, R. Fluch, Corrosion Fatigue Investigations on Austenitic Stainless Steels with Different Alloying Concepts, Corrosion 2010, San Antonio, NACE, Houston paper no. 14458, pp.1-15, (2010).

DOI: 10.1002/maco.200905264