Content uploaded by Luis Garfias
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Luis Garfias on Nov 26, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Effect of Microstructure on the Pitting Resistance of Duplex Stainless Steels
L. F. Garfias-Mesias
Wood Group Kenny
15115 Park Row, 2nd Floor,
Houston, TX 77084, USA
ABSTRACT
The effect of the microstructure (ferrite/austenite ratio, grain size and inclusions) on the Pitting
Resistance of a UNS S32550 Duplex Stainless Steels (DSS) was studied in chloride containing
solutions. Increasing the ferrite content in the matrix of the UNS S32550 (by annealing the alloy at a
higher temperature) resulted in a lower Critical Pitting Temperature (CPT) of the alloy. Re-annealing the
material to increase the grain size of the austenite resulted in an increased CPT. Microscopy on the
inclusions before electrochemical measurements showed that the precursor sites for pitting on UNS
S32550 were found to be inclusions that are complex in composition where pits nucleate and propagate
at temperatures above the CPT in artificial sweater. These inclusions were analyzed and found to be
inhomogeneous in nature and consisting of a mixture of various elements (Si, Al, Mg, Ca, Ti, Mn and
S). After analysis of the particles, in-situ observation of the particles in the artificial seawater showed
that the pits started at those inclusions with further dissolution of the ferrite matrix.
Key words: Duplex Stainless Steel, Pitting, Ferrite/Austenite ratio, Inclusions, Precursor Sites,
Annealing Temperature, Electrochemistry.
INTRODUCTION
Due to the demand for more corrosion resistant materials from the oil and gas industry, Duplex
Stainless Steels (DSS) have re-emerged as a Corrosion Resistant Alloy (CRA) that can be both
commercially viable and effective to resist extreme conditions. DSS have excellent mechanical and
corrosion resistant properties while still remaining cost effective (for example compared to nickel and
cobalt alloys). In aggressive environments containing CO2, H2S, Cl-, at elevated pressures and
temperatures (HP/HT), the traditional inexpensive 300 series austenitic steels and Cr-containing
martensitic materials may not be a viable solution. Therefore, there is a need for DSS that can perform
better than existing commercially available materials.
In order to select the best DSS for a given application, the material must have several characteristics.
Among the some of the most important are the following:
1. Have the correct balance between ferrite and austenite
2. Contain the least amount of deleterious phases (sigma phase, carbides, metallic and non-
metallic inclusions, etc.)
3. Optimum partitioning of the beneficial alloying elements in the ferrite and austenite
4. Lower content of detrimental elements (P, S, Carbides, metallic and non-metallic inclusions)
5. Small size and density of precursor sites for pitting
6. Defects within the alloy should be kept to a minimum
7. Carbides should not segregated in the grain boundaries
Most of the commercially available DSS usually have roughly equivalent volume fractions of ferrite and
austenite obtained during heat treatment (changing the austenite/ferrite ratio from the structure that is
initially much higher in ferrite content). The original ferrite is transformed into austenite by a diffusion
controlled reaction giving approximately 50-50 ferrite/austenite. The normal commercial wrought DSS
are solution annealed between 1020oC and 1150oC (depending on the composition and phase balance
desired), followed by water quenching. Achievement of the correct phase balance relies upon the
control of the chemical composition and annealing temperature. The difficulty in predicting the
microstructure of the resulting material is due to the effects of the various alloying elements which
modifies the base alloy (Fe-Cr-Ni).1
The most harmful (and more often found) phase on DSS is the sigma phase (mainly because of its
detrimental influence on the mechanical and corrosion properties of the steel). Potgieter2 found that a
sigma phase content of 6% caused pitting corrosion on both ferrite and austenite in UNS S32550 in 3.5
% NaCl solution and a further increase of sigma phase (up to 21 %) shifted the pitting potential (Ep) to
less noble potentials, suggesting a more detrimental effect in the localized corrosion resistance of the
alloy. Francis3 pointed out that the principal cause of sigma phase precipitation is due to the high
temperatures used during welding. He found that there is a significant difference between the corrosion
resistance of the sigma phase generated during welding and those found by thermal cycling. Nilsson
and Wilson4 found that low values of Critical Pitting Temperature (CPT) in some DSS are normally
related to low volume fractions of sigma phase present in the alloy. They also found that the secondary
austenite phase is susceptible to pitting corrosion in the absence of sigma phase.
In practice, the annealing temperature is chosen as low as possible, but sufficient to take into solution
any precipitate phases. The relative amounts of the ferrite and austenite phases are then essentially
determined by the chemical composition, particularly the balance between ferrite-stabilizers (Cr, Mo, Si,
etc.) and austenite-stabilizers (Ni, N, Cu, etc.). The alloying elements are not evenly distributed in these
materials. Ferrite-stabilizing elements tend to enrich in the ferrite while austenite-stabilizing elements
tent to enrich in the austenite phase. This partitioning of the alloying elements can mean different
corrosion properties of the two phases. Solomon and Devine5 found that manipulating the ratio between
the two phases of a DSS could result in an increased pitting resistance by “enhancing” the two with the
correct alloying elements. In DSS the ferrite boundaries can be sensitized by the precipitation of
chromium carbides during cooling; additionally, the carbides may induce formation of sigma phase and
depletion of Cr in adjacent sites. Therefore, it is desirable to have low carbon contents in highly alloyed
DSS.
Pitting in DSS is virtually one of the biggest problems for the use of DSS in industrial applications,
especially in marine environments, where the presence of chloride ions increases the probability for the
alloy to pit. Very often the most susceptible sites for pitting are the inclusions, which can be especially
inhomogeneous with regard to the chemical composition. However, there are other sites where the
passive film is susceptible to pitting such as grain boundaries, second phase precipitates, flaws and
dislocations6. Frankenthal and Kruger7 have shown that, contrary to what people believe, scratches in
stainless steels do not preferentially nucleate pits and have emphasized the role of sulphide inclusions
which are the more susceptible sites for pitting attack. The presence of certain undesirable elements
such as C, P, S, and intermetallic phases have a negative effect on the pitting resistance of DSS. Sulfur
is the most detrimental element, mainly because it causes the formation of MnS-containing inclusions
which have been suggested to be sites for pit initiation8. Similar conclusions were made by Stewart and
Williams9 who demonstrated that the bulk sulfur content of an alloy does not control pitting
susceptibility, rather the size and distribution of sulfide inclusions. They suggested a critical inclusion
volume (between 0.008 and 0.5 μm3 if the inclusions have spheroidal shape) below which individual
sulfides are too small to nucleate a pit. Phosphorus in DSS has almost the same effect as S promoting
the creation of inclusions. Baker and Castle10 found that in stainless steel, the inclusions of low
solubility, such as oxides, may initiate pit nucleation. That investigation was focused on pits which
initiated at mixed Al/Ti/Mn/Cr oxide inclusions, showing that pits can be initiated at both oxides and
sulfides. Recently, it has been found that in DSS the cause for pitting is a more complex
phenomenon11, mainly because of the presence of different precursors (not only MnS inclusions).
The work described in this paper shows that microstructure and inclusions can influence the pitting
behavior of a DSS (UNS S32550) in chloride-containing solutions.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Materials
The samples used in the present research were obtained from commercially available 25Cr DSS (UNS
S32550), which were obtained in wrought form (bars of 10 mm diameter); the diameter of the bars was
further machined to either 7 or 5 mm. Table 1 shows the alloy composition.
Table 1
25 Cr DSS (UNS S32550) used in the present work (Composition in wt%)
Cr
Ni
Mo
Cu
N
Mn
Si
C
S
P
25.92
5.9
3.19
1.62
0.2
0.96
0.47
0.03
0.007
0.024
In order to modify the microstructure of the material, annealing was done at four different temperatures
(1020oC, 1060oC, 1100oC and 1140oC). Annealing was done for 2 hours followed by water quenching.
To obtain a coarser microstructure, one piece of the bar annealed at 1020oC was re-annealed at
1300oC for 2 hours (in the ferrite region), followed by 1 hour at 1020oC (to grow a controlled amount of
austenite phase in the ferrite matrix) and finally water quenched. This alloy will be referred as “Re-
annealed” throughout this manuscript.
Sample Preparation
The samples were cut into small discs of approximately 2 mm thick. The discs were then successively
ground with SiC polishing paper (using 200 grit, 600 grit and 800 grit), followed by ultrasonic cleaning in
deionized (DI) water. The samples were successively polished with 15 micron diamond paste, 6 micron
diamond paste and 1 micron diamond paste using polishing oil. All the samples were cleaned carefully
to avoid contact with any particulate other than the diamond polishing paste and the cleaning solvents
(acetone, isopropyl alcohol and DI water). At the end of each polishing step, the samples were
degreased with acetone, rinsed with isopropyl alcohol and rinsed with DI water (in that order). The
samples were then dried with high purity compressed air.
The samples were lightly electrolytically etched for 3-5 seconds in a solution prepared with 20% KOH at
an applied voltage between 2 and 4 Volts, to allow the ferrite, austenite and the metallic and non-
metallic inclusions to be distinguished under the microscope. The etching was done in order to remove
the air formed oxide (native oxide), to prepare a ‘fresh’ surface and to facilitate the microscopy of the
sample, since the grains and inclusions from the material could be determined.
After etching, the area of interest to be tested (in some samples) was covered with an insulating
lacquer, which was either the whole entire disc or a rectangle with an area approximately 200
micrometers by 300 micrometers. No crevices were ever observed at the edges of the lacquer and this
procedure allowed to isolate a small part of the surface and consequently to keep the background
passive current very low (less than 1 microampere) during the electrochemical tests.
Particle Analysis
Following polishing and etching, some samples were imaged using a conventional optical microscope
to select the areas to be analyzed. The ferrite matrix and austenite grains were analyzed by using a
Scanning Electron Microscope, equipped with an Energy Dispersive Spectrometer (EDS), which
provides X-ray mapping and particle analysis.
In-situ Optical Microscopy with Concurrent Electrochemistry at High Temperature
Anodic polarizations (at room temperature and above the CPT) were carried out using a potentiostat
and a 3D optical microscope while the In-situ real time monitoring of the surface was done using the
optical microscope. Additionally, a custom made cell was built in order to heat the sample (using a
Peltier element) to carry out the experiments at the higher temperature. The experimental setup is
shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Experimental; setup used in the present work
All the electrochemical experiments were carried out using a three-electrode electrochemical cell. A
Silver-Silver Chloride (Ag-AgCl) electrode was used as a reference electrode and a Pt wire as the
counter electrode. Both, the sample potential and the current were collected through the potentiostat
which was interfaced with a personal computer (shown in Figure 1). During the electrochemical
experiments, real time videos of the surface of the samples were collected. After the anodic polarization
experiments, the samples were rinsed with DI water and another set of images were collected.
RESULTS
Microstructure and Austenite to Ferrite Ratio
The determination of the ferrite and austenite ratio was done in the samples annealed at four different
temperatures (1020oC, 1060oC, 1100oC and 1140oC). Annealing was done for 2 hours followed by
water quenching. Figure 2 shows the optical image of the sample annealed at 1020oC. As it can be
seen in the image, the ferrite matrix appears as the dark region, whereas the austenite grains are
lighter in color. The very dark features inside the photomicrographs correspond to the inclusions in the
samples (this will be discussed below).
Figure 2: Optical image of the sample annealed at 1020oC (followed by water quenching). Dark gray areas
correspond to the ferrite matrix, whereas the austenite grains are light in color.
The chemical compositions of both phases in each of the DSS (annealed at different temperatures) was
determined by Electron Probe Microanalysis (EPMA), as described in previous publications by the
author12 and are presented in Table 2.
Table 2
Average composition of Ferrite and Austenite for the UNS S32550 samples annealed at 1020oC, 1060oC,
1100oC and 1140oC used in the present work (Composition in wt%)
* Nitrogen in the ferrite phase was estimated to be at the saturation value of ~0.05%. It was assumed that the remaining
Nitrogen was partitioned to the austenite
Annealing
Temp.
Phase % Cr Ni Mo N*Cu S P
Ferrite 47 26.36 4.63 3.70 0.05 1.27 0.073 0.043
Austenite 53 23.14 7.36 2.35 0.33 1.95 0.035 0.025
Ferrite 51 26.39 4.69 3.57 0.05 1.31 0.085 0.046
Austenite 49 23.26 7.24 2.33 0.36 1.85 0.037 0.027
Ferrite 60 26.39 4.83 3.38 0.05 1.34 0.074 0.042
Austenite 40 23.44 7.15 2.30 0.43 1.84 0.042 0.022
Ferrite 64 26.37 5.05 3.36 0.05 1.36 0.082 0.038
Austenite 36 24.04 7.15 2.33 0.47 1.83 0.037 0.027
Ferrite 50 27.27 4.58 3.89 0.05 1.33 N/A 0.052
Austenite 50 23.44 7.58 2.36 0.35 1.98 N/A 0.023
Re-anealed
1020 oC
1060 oC
1100 oC
1140 oC
1020oC
Table 2 shows also the percentage of the ferrite and austenite. Notice that the percentage of ferrite and
austenite is closer to a 50/50 ratio on the samples annealed at 1020oC and 1060oC. However, the
samples annealed at the higher temperatures (1100oC and 1140oC) contain significantly more ferrite
than austenite. Also, notice that the Re-annealed sample (re-annealed to grow coarse austenite grains)
has a 50/50 percentage of ferrite and austenite.
Critical Pitting Temperature and Microstructure
The CPT for the samples annealed at 1020oC, 1060oC, 1100oC, and 1140oC has been reported
before12. The CPT for the Re-annealed sample was also reported before13. The CPT, Austenite and
Ferrite content in the samples are summarized in Table 3. Notice that the highest CPT was obtained on
the re-annealed sample. This sample was extracted from the sample annealed at 1020oC (which
yielded a CPT equals to 62.3oC), but was re-annealed in order to obtain coarser grains and a ferrite
and austenite ratio of 50/50. This Re-annealed sample yielded a CPT of 70.0oC. Since the overall
sample composition and concentration of deleterious phases is exactly the same, the only possible
explanation for the increase in 7oC of the CPT is the microstructure.
Table 3
CPT, Ferrite and Austenite content on the UNS S32550 samples used in the present work
Composition of the Ferrite Matrix, Austenite Grains and Inclusions in DSS
Figure 3 shows the SEM image of a sample annealed at 1040oC. As it can be seen in the image, a few
inclusions in the surface are shown as either very bright (white) spots or very dark (black spots),
depending on the composition of the inclusion (metallic inclusions can be seen as black areas in the
SEM, whereas non-metallic inclusions typically charge and appear white).
Annealing
Temp.
Phase % CPT
(oC)
Ferrite 47
Austenite 53
Ferrite 51
Austenite 49
Ferrite 60
Austenite 40
Ferrite 64
Austenite 36
Ferrite 50
Austenite 50
Re-annealed
70.0
62.3
61.8
54.1
42.2
1020 oC
1060 oC
1100 oC
1140 oC
Figure 3: SEM image of a UNS S32550 sample annealed at 1040oC. Dark areas correspond to
the ferrite matrix, whereas light areas correspond to the austenite grains.
Table 4 shows the composition of the matrix and grains for the sample annealed at 1040oC shown in
Figure 3. As expected, the concentrations of Cr, Mo and Si are higher in the ferrite matrix, whereas the
concentrations of Ni, Cu and Mn are higher in the austenite grains. Figure 3 shows the locations where
the EDX analysis of the individual austenite grains were taken (labeled “light_1” through “light-4”) and
matrix (labeled “dark_1” through “dark-4”). The composition of the grains and matrix in those locations
are presented in Table 4 below.
Table 4: Composition of the matrix and grains selected and marked in Figure 2 (UNS S32550
sample annealed at 1040oC).
It is important to notice that only a few of the inclusions, the very small ones, are clearly in the middle of
the either the ferrite matrix or the austenite grains. However, most of the larger inclusions are in the
boundary between the ferrite matrix and the austenite grains. This is particularly important, when the
main discussion on whether the ferrite or the austenite is the “weaker” (or less corrosion resistant) part
of the duplex structure.
Figure 4 shows the optical and SEM images of a selected area of the sample annealed at 1040oC. The
three larger inclusions from this selected area were imaged and the composition of the inclusions was
also obtained using EDX (see Table 5)
Figure 4: Optical and SEM image of a UNS S32550 sample annealed at 1040oC showing three
typical inclusions.
Table 5 shows the composition of the inclusions selected and marked in Figure 4. The composition of
the different particles is clearly different in each case. Furthermore, and contrary to what it is expected,
the particles have a very different composition from the traditional MnS inclusions observed in the
typical austenitic steels. Finally, the particles seem to have high concentrations of Al, Si, Ca, Mg, Ti or
Mn (and combinations of these elements). Only one of the particles is in the middle of the ferrite matrix,
while the other two are in the boundary between the ferrite matrix and the austenite grain.11 In previous
investigations14, with a different microprobe that could resolve and differentiate the Mo and S peaks, it
was observed that in these 25 Cr DSS, a high Mn peak was not always associated with a high S
content in the inclusion. The number of inclusions found in the middle of the austenite grains was
normally less than in the case of the inclusions in the middle of the ferrite matrix. Furthermore, due to
the nature of the grain distribution and shape of the grains it is difficult to guess whether the inclusions
that are in the boundaries will belong to either the ferrite matrix or the austenite grains.
Table 5: Composition of the inclusions selected and marked in Figure 3 (UNS S32550 sample
annealed at 1040oC).
As discussed before, it has been proposed that the initiation sites on DSS can be attributed to four
distinct causes:
1. Inclusions on the ferrite matrix
2. Inclusions in the austenite grains
3. Inclusions in the boundary between austenite grains and ferrite matrix and
4. Defective oxide grown over active grain boundaries or other surface features.
In the case of the inclusions, they appear to be complex particles that in some cases can be found near
the grain boundaries, most probably because of the migration of these contaminants during heat
treatment (see Figures 2, 3, and 4). Although most of them contain Al, Si, Ca, Ti and Mn, they have
other impurities in lower concentrations.
Anodic Polarization Below and Above the CPT to find the Precursors Sites for Pitting in DSS
After locating and analyzing the inclusions, in-situ electrochemistry with simultaneous optical imaging in
the area with the inclusions was done first below the CPT and then above the CPT. It is important to
understand the electrochemical behavior of DSS when exposed to a chloride containing solution. While
testing the DSS below the CPT in neutral NaCl solutions, a region of very large peaks associated with
metastable pits can be observed at low potentials, between 200 mVSCE and 350 mVSCE, followed by a
decrease of activity at higher potentials.13 Above the CPT, stable pits can initiate at the same low
potentials where metastable event occur but preceded by only a few metastable events.
Figure 5 shows the anodic polarization curves (in artificial seawater) of the same area at both room
temperature (21oC) and at the CPT (42oC) for the sample annealed at 1140oC. As described above, the
room temperature anodic polarization shows a region of passivity from the open circuit potential all the
way until the experiment was terminated (at about 1 V versus the Ag-AgCl electrode). A small transient
believed to be metastable pitting is shown at about 200 mV versus the Ag-AgCl. However, no stable
pits developed during this experiment. Notice that because of the higher temperatures used in these
type of experiments, a Ag-AgCl reference electrode was used.
Figure 5: In-situ Anodic Polarization of UNS S32550 sample annealed at 1040oC in Artificial
Seawater at Room Temperature (21oC) and 42oC.
Due to the applied voltage during the anodic polarization at room temperature, the oxide film (passive
layer) in the sample may have increased in thickness. This may explain the shift in the open circuit
potential at 42oC. However, because of the higher test temperature used in the second test, the passive
current increased as well. Immediately after the room temperature experiment, the cell was heated until
it reached a constant temperature of 42oC (which has been determined as the CPT for this material12).
In this case (anodic polarization at 42oC), the sample underwent pitting corrosion starting at 350 mV
(versus Ag-AgCl). In both cases, the real time optical video of the sample surface was collected and
was used to determine the first, second, third and fourth areas where pit developed in the surface of the
sample.
Figure 6 shows the optical image of the area analyzed (just before the beginning of the anodic
polarization at room temperature). As it can be seen in the image, the inclusions that underwent pitting
corrosion are approximately 2 micrometers in diameter. The first inclusion to corrode (L2) is in the
boundary between the ferrite matrix and an austenite grain. On the other hand, the second inclusion
that corroded at 42oC is located in the middle of the ferrite matrix.
Figure 6: Optical image of the UNS S32550 sample (annealed at 1040oC) showing the two
inclusions that corroded first (L2) and second (L1).
Figure 7 shows the optical image of the area analyzed before and after anodic polarization at 42oC. As
it can be seen in the images, the pitting corrosion that occurred in the areas adjacent to the first two
inclusions underwent severe dissolution of the surrounding ferrite matrix. The dissolution of the ferrite
grains around the first inclusion to corrode (L2), extended for over hundred micrometers radially, but
only consuming the ferrite matrix (leaving the austenite grains intact). While the area around inclusion
L2 was corroding, the area around inclusion L1 also started to corrode.
Additionally, pitting corrosion started in two other sites (marked 3 and 4 in Figure 7), but they did not
further developed because the experiment was terminated.
The composition of particles L1 and L2 is very similar to that found in Table 5 (marked DSS-1140C-
A2_2 and DSS-1140C-A2_3 respectively). More work is on its way to determine the correlation
between the composition of the particles and whether they corrode first, second or third.
Figure 7: Optical image of the sample (annealed at 1040oC) before (left) and after anodic
polarization (right) showing the precursor sites for pitting L1, L2, L3 and L4.
CONCLUSIONS
The effect of the microstructure (ferrite/austenite ratio, grain size and inclusions) on the Pitting
Resistance of a UNS S32550 Duplex Stainless Steels (DSS) was studied in chloride containing
solutions. The results showed that:
1. Increasing the ferrite content in the matrix of the 25 Cr DSS UNS S32550 (by annealing the
alloy at a higher temperatures), resulted in lower CPTof the alloy.
2. Re-annealing the sample with the higher CPT (62.3oC) increasing the grain size of the austenite
and keeping a 50/50 ratio between the phases resulted in a ~7oC increase in the CPT.
3. A new methodology to study in-situ in real time the pitting corrosion of materials (above room
temperature) was developed. This methodology allowed the real-time in-situ determination of
the first particles to undergo pitting in the surface of the UNS S32550 DSS.
4. Microscopy on the inclusions before electrochemical measurements showed that the precursor
sites for pitting on UNS S32550 were found to be inclusions that are complex in structure where
pits nucleate at the Critical Pitting Temperature (CPT) and where stable pitting occurs in artificial
seawater at temperatures above the CPT.
5. The inclusions were analyzed and found to be inhomogeneous in nature and consisting of a
mixture of various elements. In-situ microscopy and electrochemical testing confirmed that
pitting started at those inclusions with further dissolution of the ferrite matrix and passivity of the
austenite grains.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Acknowledgements to Dr. Haralampos Tsaprailis (from Alberta Innovates - Technology Futures), for his
support during some tests and stimulating discussions.
REFERENCES
1. J. Charles, The Duplex Stainless Steels: Materials to Meet Your Needs, Proceedings of the DSS
Conference, Beaune, France, 1991. p. 3
2. J. H. Potgieter, Br. Corros. Journal, 27, (1992). p 219
3. R. Francis, Br. Corros. J, 27, (1992). p. 319
4. J. O. Nilsson and A. Wilson, Materials Science and Technology 9, 1993. p. 545
5. H. D. Solomon and T. M. Devine, “Duplex Stainless Steels - A Tale of Two Phases”, Duplex
Stainless Steels, Ed. R. A. Lula, American Society for Metals, 1983. p. 693
6. S. Szklarska-Smialowska, Pitting Corrosion of Metals, National Association of Corrosion Engineers
(NACE), Houston TX, (1986).
7. R. P Frankenthal and J Kruger, J. Electrochem. Soc 125, (1978)
8. J. E. Castle and R. Ke, Corros. Sci. 30, (1990). p. 409
9. J. Stewart and D. E. Williams, Corros. Sci. 33, 3, (1992). p. 457
10. M. A. Baker and J. E. Castle, Corros. Sci. 33, (1992). p. 1295
11. L. F. Garfias and D. J. Siconolfi, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 147, 7, (2000). p. 2525
12. L. F. Garfias Mesias, J. M. Sykes, C. D. S. Tuck, Corrosion Science. 38, (1996). p. 1319
13. L. F. Garfias-Mesias and J. M. Sykes, Corros. Sci. 41, (1999). P. 959,
14. L. F. Garfias-Mesias, Ph.D. Thesis, Oxford University, Oxford UK, July 1996.
