A CORROSION MANAGEMENT AND APPLICATIONS ENGINEERING MAGAZINE FROM OUTOKUMPU 3/2015

Atmospheric Corrosion
Resistance of Stainless Steel:
Results of a Field Exposure
Program in the Middle-East
 3/2015 | 2

Atmospheric Corrosion Resistance

of Stainless Steel:
Results of a Field Exposure Program
in the Middle-East
Sukanya Hägg Mameng, Lena Wegrelius, Avesta Research Center, Outokumpu
Stainless AB, Avesta, Sweden

Rachel Pettersson, Jernkontoret, The Swedish Steel Producers’ Association Stockholm,

Stockholm,Sweden

Christofer Leygraf, Div. Surface and Corrosion Science, Dept. Chemistry,

Royal institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

Summary Introduction
Stainless steels have been widely used as architectural and Stainless steels have been widely used as architectural and
construction materials because of their high degree of corrosion construction materials because of their high degree of corrosion
resistance, unique aesthetic quality and stability in an unpolluted resistance, unique aesthetic quality and stability in an unpolluted
atmosphere. Although stainless steel is highly corrosion resistant, atmosphere. This resistance is the result of a very thin protective
localized corrosion can occur in certain environments, especially in oxide film on the stainless steel surface, usually referred to as the
marine atmospheric conditions if the appropriate grade is not used. passive film. Although stainless steel is highly corrosion resistant,
Exposure of stainless steel to a more aggressive environment than localized corrosion (pitting and/or crevice corrosion) can occur as a
the limiting conditions may be harmful to its aesthetic appearance result of local breakdown of this film, especially in marine atmos-
and ultimately even to its load-bearing capacity. pheric conditions if the appropriate grade is not used [1, 2]. When
Selecting a suitable stainless steel grade requires knowledge of the weather becomes dry, staining often becomes visible around
the actual location of the application and the atmospheric any pits and degradation of the stainless steel can occur [2, 3].
conditions. In terms of materials selection, the austenitic stainless Two main factors that affect atmospheric corrosion resistance
steel grade 316/316L has proved a very popular choice for and cosmetic degradation of stainless steel are the environ-
architectural applications in many locations but it is not always mental conditions and the characteristics of the stainless steel
suitable at demanding sites such as marine environments in the used. Environmental factors such as temperature, rainfall, relative
Middle-East. In such cases the use of a higher-performance grade, humidity and the presence of aggressive species (of which the
often in combination with a good surface finish and established most harmful is the chloride ion) are very important for the
cleaning routines, is required to maintain pristine surfaces. selecting stainless steel. The severe marine environment in the
The main objective of this paper is to present information about Arabian Gulf is characterized by high temperature, high salt and low
the atmospheric corrosion resistance of a number of stainless rainfall, which can combination have a severe corrosive action on
steels in the Middle-East at a marine site. The results obtained are metallic materials [4]. Characteristics of the stainless steel which
analysed and discussed in terms of factors affecting atmospheric can influence the atmospheric corrosion resistance include the
corrosion of stainless steel such as the, alloying element level, alloying element content, surface finish, surface treatment and
surface roughness, surface treatment and microclimate. surface orientation. The design and the microclimate are also
significant [2, 9].
Key words: Atmospheric corrosion of stainless steel, marine Selecting a suitable stainless steel grade requires knowledge
environment of the actual location of the application and the atmospheric
conditions. In terms of materials selection, the austenitic stainless
steel grade 316 has proven to be a very popular choice for
 3/2015 | 3

architectural applications in many locations [2–9] but it is not

always suitable at demanding sites such as marine environments 2. Experimental
(for example in the Middle-East) [8]. In such cases the use of a 2.1. Exposure site
higher-performance grade, often in combination with a good The marine test site in Dubai is located within Dubai Electricity and
surface finish and established cleaning routines, is required to Water Authority (DEWA), see Figure 1A [8]. The samples were
maintain pristine surfaces. As reviewed [2–8], there have been mounted in May 2010 and retrieved for evaluation in May 2014.
many reports on the results of corrosion behavior of stainless As seen in Figure 1B–1C, the racks are located directly on the sea
steel. However, there is little literature about the corrosion shore of the Arabian Gulf. A few meters from the racks is a fence
behavior of stainless steel in the special marine conditions such made out of carbon steel, making an already severe environment
as occur in the Middle-East. even more severe. A large number of carbon steel particles most
The main objective with this paper is to present information likely from the fence were found on the test samples. This
about the atmospheric corrosion resistance of a number of phenomenon is called Fremdrost [8] and will create discoloration
stainless steels at a marine site in Dubai. The results obtained are and maybe etching on the exposed samples if the stainless steel
analysed and discussed in terms of factors affecting atmospheric is not sufficiently highly alloyed.
corrosion of stainless steel such as the alloying element level, The closest available climate data is from a site within an
surface roughness, surface treatment and microclimate. industrial complex in Jebel Ali as shown in Table 1 [4]. The distance
to the sea is two kilometers (Red marker in Figure 1A) and the
location is about thirteen kilometers from the test site in this
study. It was reported that the Jebel Ali site is characterized by
very low rain amount and the reference samples exposed there
were little corroded due to the relatively large distance from the
shore, which resulted in a low local relative humidity [4].

Distance from sea shore ~2 kilometers

1A
Distance from the test site in this study ~13 kilometers
Period 02/2011 – 01/2012
Mean temperature [°C] 29.0
Minimal temperature [°C] 12.0
Maximal temperature [°C] 46.5
RH [%] 50
Precipitation [mm] 20

Table 1 Average temperature, relative humidity and precipitation in a year

period at an industrial complex in Jebel Ali, Dubai [4]

1B 1C

Figure 1 Yellow arrow shows the location where the test samples were exposed at the Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA) site in Dubai. Reference data
is taken from a site within an industrial complex in Jebel Ali [4], marked with a red arrow (1A). Two test racks (open and sheltered condition) with samples for this
study (1B–1C).
 3/2015 | 4

2.2. Materials
Eleven stainless steel grades were tested as plain (sheet), welded
and creviced samples. The characteristics of materials, including
the pitting resistance equivalent number (PREN) and the chemical
composition are given in Table 2.

Typical chemical composition, %wt

Thick.
Stainless steel EN Surface finish PREN*
(mm)
C Ni Cr Mo N Other

1.4003 2E 2.0 0.02 0.5 11.5 – – – 12

Ferritic 1.4016 2B 1.5 0.05 – 16.2 – – – 16
1.4521 2B 1.5 0.02 – 18.0 2.0 – Ti, Nb 25
1.4301 2R 0.9 0.04 8.1 18.1 – – – 18
1.4404 2R 0.8 0.02 10.1 17.2 2.1 – 24
Austenitic 1.4547 2E-brushed 1.0 0.01 18.0 20.0 6.1 0.20 Cu 43
1.4565 2E-brushed 0.5 0.02 17.0 24.0 4.5 0.45 5.5Mn 46
1.4652 2E-brushed 0.7 0.01 22.0 24.0 7.3 0.50 3.5Mn, Cu 56
Ground
1.4162 5.0 0.03 1.5 21.5 0.3 0.22 – 26
(Ra 0.5 µm)
Duplex 2E-brushed,
1.4462 1.0, 2.0, 5.0 0.02 5.7 22.0 3.1 0.17 – 35
2E,1D
1.4410 2E-brushed 1.5 0.02 7.0 25.0 4.0 0.27 – 43
Table 2 The characteristics of stainless steel, PREN values *PREN = %Cr+3.3%Mo+16%N
and the typical chemical composition . 2B = Cold rolled, heat treated, pickled, skin passed
2E = Brushed surface
2E = Cold rolled, heat treated, mechanically descaled, pickled
2R = Cold rolled, bright annealed
1D = Hot rolled, heat treated, pickled

Welding wire Welding

Base Welding Heat input Post welding
(EN ISO Shielding gas speed (cm/ Joint design
material method (KJ/min) treatment
designation) min)

EN 1.4003 GTAW W 19 9 L Si Ar 0.44 26 Bead on plate Polish

EN 1.4016 GTAW W 19 9 L Si Ar 0.22 26 Bead on plate Polish
EN 1.4521 GTAW W 19 9 L Si Ar 0.22 25 Bead on plate Polish
EN 1.4462 FCAW T 22 9 3 N L R Mison 18 0.50 78 Bead on plate Shot blasted
and pickled
Table 3 Welding condition of welded specimens. GTAW: Gas tungsten arc welding, FCAW: flux cored arc welding,
Ar : Pure argon gas, Mison 18: Ar+18% CO2 + 0.03% NO

2.3. Preparation of samples pickled in a mixed acid (HNO3+HF) bath until they appeared free
The samples were made by cutting the stainless steel to dimen- from weld oxides. Other specimens were left as-welded in order to
sions of 150 x 100 x t mm (t= thickness) [10] and the cut edges study the effect of residual weld oxides on atmospheric corrosion
were then dry ground (320 grit) to minimize edge attack by resistance. Since the mixed acid is too aggressive for ferritic
removing residual carbon steel from cutting and get a smoother grades, these were mechanical polished in the welded area.
surface. The samples were thereafter marked and cleaned before
mounting in accordance with ASTM GI-90 [11]. The crevice samples were bolted together through a 12 mm hole
with INCO crevice formers on both sides of specimen. All crevice
The welded samples were prepared with welding parameters formers were tightened with a torque of 2.5 Nm. It was verified
shown in Table 3. These were bead on plate welds with appropriate that there was no electrical contact between the samples and the
heat input and shielding gases. The post-weld treatments were bolt. The samples were exposed in open and sheltered conditions
selected for demonstration purposes. Some of the welded (see Figure 1B–1C) with an angle of 45° and were orientated to the
samples of the duplex grade 1.4462 were shot blasted and North West facing to the sea.
 3/2015 | 5

2.4. Evaluation between stain and discoloration is that staining is defined as

After the exposure, all specimens were photographed and visually a discoloration of the surface of stainless steel as a result of
examined before cleaning. The exposed specimens were cleaned corrosion attack. Although this can look quite significant in term
first by tap water in order to get rid of dirt and dust thereafter left of appearance, the corrosion usually does not penetrate into the
for drying. After this they were degreased with an alkane-based steel, and does not affect the structural integrity. Discoloration is
degreasing agent, followed by a short rinse in acetone. The cleaned defined as dirt or rust caused by particles on the stainless steel
specimens were weighed and photographed before examined in surface. The evaluation of corrosion of stainless steel from an
a microscope at 20x magnification for evaluation of corrosion aesthetic point of view is important because even a small weight
attack. lost can cause a significant loss of appearance or aesthetic
degradation.
Two different criteria are used for evaluation in this investigation.
The first is the ranking of the corrosion resistance of the different The deposit particles were collected from stainless steel surfaces
surface condition based on localised attack and the depths and after four years exposure. The deposits were dissolved in deminer-
numbers of pits. The mass losses have not been used in this alized water by using ultrasonic cleaning. The resulting solutions
evaluation. Corrosion attack shallower than 25 µm has been were analysed by ion chromatography for chloride (Cl-), sulphate
neglected [12]. Edge attack is disregarded. (SO42 -) and nitrate (NO3 -).

The second criterion is the visual rating of the extent of corrosion 2.5. Electrochemical testing
products (rust), discoloration and staining on the exposed surface. In order to study the effect of surface treatment on the corrosion
The rating number (RN) was evaluated by modifying the procedure resistance, the critical pitting temperature, CPT was measured on
described in the JIS G 0595 standard [13], which involves the duplex grades 1.4462 with different surface finishes before
comparison with standard specimens. The average rating number exposure. The samples were tested according to ASTM G150 [14]
was calculated from 3 values obtained from 3 different evaluators. using a crevice free cell, the Avesta cell [15]. The test solution was
The relationship between the rating number and percentage of the 1 M NaCl and the applied potential was +700 mVSCE. The
specimen area with rust and staining is shown in Table 4. The temperature was increased by 1°C per minute starting from 0°C
rating “9” means that the entire surface is covered by rust and and the critical pitting temperature, CPT, was determined when the
stain, whereas “0” means no rust/stain or discoloration and the current density exceeded 100 µA/cm2 for 60 seconds. Duplicate
appearance is the same as before the exposure. The difference specimens were used to determine the CPT.

Rating number (RN) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Rust and staining area (%) Original surface 0 (Discoloration) ~1 ~5 ~12 ~20 ~30 ~50 ~70 ~100
Table 4 The relationship between the rating number and rusting/staining area.

Test rack with samples exposed in open condition at the marine test site in Dubai.
 3/2015 | 6

3 Results and discussion exposure on carbon steel, zinc, copper and aluminium, where C1 is
the least corrosive and CX is the most corrosive, see Table 5. This
rating is based upon the uniform corrosion of active material. As a
3.1. Classification of corrosivity of consequence this ranking is not suitable for stainless steels for
atmospheres at the marine site in Dubai which localized corrosion is the main concern. The test site
The classification based on the corrosivity at the test site was represents a very severe environment, since mass loss per year is
performed in accordance with the standard ISO 9223 [16]. This higher than corrosivity category of CX for all reference materials.
takes into account the corrosion rates measured after one year of

Carbon steel Zinc Copper Aluminum

g/m2 y Class g/m2 y Class g/m2 y Class g/m2 y Class

4010 CX 628 CX* 93 CX* 11 CX*
Table 5 Measured and calculated mass losses per year (g/m2 y) * Very severe environment due to higher mass loss per year than CX
and corrosivity category at the marine site in Dubai.

(2A) Carbon steel (2B) Zinc (2C) Copper (2D) Aluminium

Figure 2 Reference samples to estimate the corrosivity category of the test site.
(Note: The diagonal marks are shadows from the specimen holders)

3.2. The presence of aggressive species [2]. The PREN and atmospheric corrosion results for openly
Sea water contains a mixture of salts. It typically comprises anions exposed specimens at the marine site in Dubai are shown in Table
such as chloride, sulphate and small quantities of magnesium, 6 and images of the specimens in Figure 4– 6. The only exception
calcium and potassium cations in addition to sodium [17]. Chloride to the general trend of improved atmospheric corrosion resistance
in airborne sea sprays and dry salt particles may cause pitting and with increasing PREN is that grades 1.4301/1.4404 were more
rusting of stainless steel. Evaporation and infrequent rain resistant to degradation than some materials with a higher PREN
increases the salt concentration on the surface. A high salt value such as the ferritic grade 1.4521. The reason for the
concentration combined with a high ambient temperature and high exceptional performance is that the surface finishes for grade
humidity creates the most aggressive conditions. Ion chromatog- 1.4301/1.4404 were bright annealed. This gives a very smooth
raphy analysis of dissolved deposits, Figure 3, showed that a larger surface and resistant [17] surface with some silicon enrichment in
amount of chloride and sulphate was found on stainless steel the passive film [18, 19].
surfaces exposed in sheltered conditions. This can be explained by
a lower wind speed and no washing by rain.
1000
3.3. Alloying element level 823
Amount of soluble deposit (mg/m2)

Chloride Sulphate Nitrate

The different stainless steels have different levels of resistance to 800
atmospheric corrosion. There is a limit to how high a chloride
concentration different stainless steel can resist. The alloying 600
elements chromium (Cr), nitrogen (N) and molybdenum (Mo) have
248
the largest impact: the higher the content of these elements the 400
higher the resistance. The Pitting Resistance Equivalent, PREN, 126 168
has been extensively used to rank different steels regarding their 200

resistance to pitting corrosion in aqueous chloride environments. 14 20

0
The PREN formula exists in a number of forms, the most common
Open condition Sheltered condition
of which is PREN = %Cr+3.3x%Mo+16x%N. Even though the PREN
value was developed for immersion conditions, it has also proved Figure 3 Amount of soluble deposit on the exposed surface after four years
to be a good predictor for the resistance to atmospheric corrosion exposure in Dubai
 3/2015 | 7

3.3. Alloying element level to be a good predictor for the resistance to atmospheric corrosion
The different stainless steels have different levels of resistance [2]. The PREN and atmospheric corrosion results for openly
to atmospheric corrosion. There is a limit to how high a chloride exposed specimens at the marine site in Dubai are shown in Table 6
concentration different stainless steel can resist. The alloying and images of the specimens in Figure 4-6. The only exception to
elements chromium (Cr), nitrogen (N) and molybdenum (Mo) have the general trend of improved atmospheric corrosion resistance
the largest impact: the higher the content of these elements the with increasing PREN is that grades 1.4301/1.4404 were more
higher the resistance. The Pitting Resistance Equivalent, PREN, resistant to degradation than some materials with a higher PREN
has been extensively used to rank different steels regarding their value such as the ferritic grade 1.4521. The reason for the
resistance to pitting corrosion in aqueous chloride environments. exceptional performance is that the surface finishes for grade
The PREN formula exists in a number of forms, the most common 1.4301/1.4404 were bright annealed. This gives a very smooth
of which is PREN = %Cr+3.3x%Mo+16x%N. Even though the PREN surface and resistant [17] surface with some silicon enrichment in
value was developed for immersion conditions, it has also proved the passive film [18, 19].

Corrosion resistance Degree of

Stainless
EN PREN* Surface finish degradation
steel type
Max. depth (µm) No. of pits (RN)

1.4003 12 2E Uniform corrosion 9

Ferritic 1.4016 16 2B 180 (B), 240 (W) >20 8
1.4521 25 2B 315 (B), 227 (W) >20 7
1.4301 18 2R 160, 200 >20 6
1.4404 24 2R 130, 215 >20 6
Austenitic 1.4547 43 2E-brushed 25, 70 >20 3
1.4565 46 2E-brushed No corrosion 0 2
1.4652 56 2E-brushed No corrosion 0 1
1.4162 26 Ground (Ra 0.5 µm) 103, 125 >20 5
Duplex 1.4462 35 2E-brushed 70, 97 >20 4
1.4410 43 2E-brushed No corrosion 0 2
Table 6 Result of the effect of alloying element level on atmospheric corrosion resistance. *PREN = %Cr+3.3%Mo+16%N, RN = Rating number, B= Pit attack
on base material, W= Pit attack in welded area

Figure 4 Appearance of ferritic

stainless steel after four years exposure
1.4003 (PREN 12) RN 9 1.4016 (PREN 16) RN 8 1.4521 (PREN 25) RN 7
in open condition

Figure 5 Appearance of duplex

stainless steel after four years exposure
1.4162 (PREN 26) RN 5 1.4462 (PREN 35) RN 4 1.4410 (PREN 43) RN 2
in open condition
 3/2015 | 8

A correlation between the effects of alloying element in term of PREN of 35 or above 35 (Figure 8). For PREN values below 35 red
PREN and the extent of atmospheric corrosion is shown in Figure 7 rust was also observed, and the amount increased with decreasing
– Figure 8. Figure 7 can be used to predict the risk for atmospheric PREN value. This may be explained by the physical and chemical
corrosion in a severe marine environment in terms of the maximum properties of passive film exposed to the atmosphere [1]. The
corrosion depth. When the PREN is higher than 43, pitting is not maximum depth of corrosion attack can be considered if the depth
expected, whereas pitting corrosion will take place when the PREN of attack constitutes any serious risk to structural integrity. The
is lower than 43. When the PRE is 12, uniform corrosion occurs. difference between the surface finish, can also be considered as
For architectural applications the main degradation of stainless a margin of safety as indicator of the susceptibility to degradation.
steel is caused by staining and discoloration, which correlates to a

1.4301 1.4404 1.4547 1.4565 1.4652

(PREN 18) RN 6 (PREN 24) RN 6 (PREN 43) RN 3 (PREN 46) RN 2 (PREN 56) RN 1

Figure 6 Appearance of austenitic stainless steel after four years exposure in open condition.

400
3.4. Surface treatment
PREN = 12 12 < PREN ≤ 43 PREN > 43 In order to study the effect of surface treatment on atmospheric
Uniform corrosion Pitting corrosion No corrosion
300 corrosion resistance, some samples of 1.4462 were exposed
as-welded and some after post weld cleaning (shot blasted and
Max. depth ( µm)

pickled in the laboratory). The as-welded specimen (1D mill

200
surface) exhibited a higher corrosion sensitivity than those that
had undergone post weld cleaning see Figure 9 and Figure 11. This
100 was observed in the heat affected zone, weld areas and base
y = 6,2319x + 317,21 material (Figure 11A). No significant difference between the weld
R2 = 0,70954
and the base material for the shot blasted and pickled surface
0
12 22 32 42 52 after open exposure could be observed (Figure 12B). The surface
PREN without post weld treatment exhibited a worse appearance after
only two years of exposure. The degree of degradation after 2 years
Figure 7 The effect of PREN on the maximum depth of corrosion attack open exposure was RN 4 (~12%) for the 1D mill surface but only
after four years exposure. RN 2 (~1%) for the shot blasted and pickled surface. The degree of
degradation became more obvious with longer exposure periods.
The conclusion is that in the marine environment in Dubai, the
9 duplex grade 1.4462 can lose 7 points on the RN scale if the
PREN ≥ 35 appropriate surface treatment is not used. Frequent cleaning of
8
Stain and discoloration
7 the stainless steel is recommended for severe marine environ-
ments, since this removes deposits (such as salt/sand) that can
Rating number ( RN)

6
y = 0,1701x + 10,410 cause corrosion and staining, but the effect is dependent on the
5
R2 = 0,92963 surface finish.
4
It has been reported that chromium enrichment in the surface
3
film is the main factor controlling the atmospheric corrosion
2
PREN < 35 resistance in marine environments [2, 18]. Pickling can give a
1
Rust, stain and discoloration relative rough surface but also result in increased chromium in
0
passive film [2]. The effect of surface preparation can also be seen
12 22 32 42 52
from the results of critical pitting temperature (CPT) testing
PREN
according to ASTM G 150, (Figure 10). The CPT method is used to
Figure 8 The effect of PREN on the degree of degradation (RN)
estimate the resistance to stable propagation of pitting corrosion
after four years exposure. of stainless steels. It is an accelerated test with no direct
correspondence to the in-service conditions, but it is useful as a
ranking tool. The results showed that a very careful laboratory
pickling procedure gave a higher CPT than either a mill surface or a
 3/2015 | 9

wet ground surface. The reason for this is that surface treatment
250
such as acid pickling will remove contaminants and inclusions
Base material Welded area
from the surface as well as restore the passive layer, leaving the
200
stainless steel with a cleaner and more corrosion resistant
surface.
Max. depth ( µm)

150

100 3.5. Surface roughness

The surface roughness is an important factor which influences
50 the corrosion performance and appearance of a stainless steel.
No No
corrosion corrosion Some smooth surfaces are produced specifically for architectural
0 applications. The results in Figure 12-Figure 14 demonstrate that
2 years 4 years 2 years 4 years
a smooth surface finish has a beneficial effect on corrosion
As welded Shot blasted and lab. pickled
resistance and degree of degradation. A smooth surface finish
(Ra 0.2 µm) retains less dirt and debris, and provides better
Figure 9 Effect of surface treatment on corrosion resistance corrosion performance than a rougher surface (Ra 3.0 µm).
This observation is in agreement with the European standard
EN 10088 which recommends that a surface roughness of
1000 Ra ≤ 0.5 microns can used in highly corrosive environments [20].
70 The severe atmospheric condition at the marine site in Dubai
650 gives a high risk for staining as seen in Figure 12 and Figure 14.
60 Aggressive deposition or dust is more likely to be retained on a
55 rough surface, particularly when there is no cleaning through
CPT (°C)

50 rainfall. The higher degree of degradation of the coupon with

45
a rougher surface became obvious with longer exposure time.
This supports the conclusion that a smooth surface and
40
crevice-free design can be used in combination with appropriate
35
14 alloy selection to achieve the desired long term corrosion
30
1D - mill surface 1D - shot Wet ground
performance.
blasted and (320 grit)
lab. pickled

Figure 10 Effect of surface treatment on CPT of duplex grade 1.4462 tested

on reference sample in 1 M NaCl.

Figure 11 Appearance of welded

(11A) As welded samples
(FCAW) duplex 1.4462 with different
exposed times in open condition

Reference RN 0 2 years RN 4 4 years RN 7

(11B) Shot blasted and pickled samples

Reference RN 0 2 years RN 2 4 years RN 4

 3/2015 | 10

3.6. Microclimate eaves) which is not cleaned regularly accumulates dust and
The microclimate must also be taken into consideration when it deposits, creating in the most cases a more aggressive corrosion
comes to architectural applications. Stainless steels exposed in environment. The presence of chlorides and moderate levels of
sheltered areas or open to the weather can give rise to very humidity may facilitate corrosion of a susceptible stainless steel in
different amount of staining and corrosion. The difference in sheltered application [9].
corrosion between the open condition and sheltered positions is
geographically dependent. A sheltered area (such as under building

250 9
2 years 4 years
Base material Crevice corrosion 8
200
7

Rating number ( RN)

Max. depth ( µm)

150 6
5
100 4
3
50
2
0 1
2 years 4 years 2 years 4 years
0
Ra 0.2 µm Ra 3.0 µm
Ra 0.2 µm Ra 3.0 µm

Figure 12 Effect of surface finish on corrosion resistance Figure 13 Effect of surface finish on degree of degradation.

(14A) Ra 0.2 µm (2E-Brushed surface) (14B) Ra 3.0 µm (2E mill surface)

2 years RN 3 4 years RN 4 2 years RN 5 4 years RN 6

Figure 14 Appearance of duplex grade 1.4462 with different surface finishes for open condition.

250 9
Open condition Sheltered condition
Open condition Sheltered condition 8
200 7
Rating number ( RN)

6
Max. depth ( µm)

150
5
4
100
3

50 2
No No Original
1
corrosion corrosion surface
0 0
1.4301 1.4462 1.4652 1.4301 1.4462 1.4652
(2R surface) (2E-Brushed (2E-Brushed (2R surface) (2E-Brushed (2E-Brushed
surface) surface) surface) surface)
Steel grade Steel grade

Figure 15 Effect of exposed condition on corrosion resistance. Figure 16 Effect of exposed condition on degree of degradation.
 3/2015 | 11

Figure 15 and Figure 17 show the effect of the microclimate

(17A) Austenitic 1.4301
after four years of exposure at the marine site in Dubai. In this
case however, sheltered specimens are less affected than the
openly exposed specimens. The general observation from
European tests [8] is the reverse, because regular washing by
rainfall results in less staining on openly exposed specimens
than those which are sheltered. However, the Dubai climate is
very dry [4]. One plausible explanation for the difference is that
some condensation may occur in open condition surfaces,
which are more rapidly cooled at nightfall, and promote
corrosion. Another answer may lie in the observation that there
was a higher proportion of sulphate in the deposits formed in
sheltered conditions (Figure 3). This might act as corrosion
inhibitors [4]: it is recognised that the localised corrosion
susceptibility of stainless steels increases with increasing
Open condition RN 6 Sheltered condition RN 4 chloride concentration and decreases with increasing sulphate
to chloride ions ratio [21, 22].

(17B) Duplex 1.4462

4. Conclusions
1. The corrosiveness of the marine test site in Dubai was
according to ISO 9223 category CX for all reference
samples.
2. The typical amount of soluble chloride deposition after
four years averaged 126 mg /m2 for open conditions and
248 mg /m2 for sheltered conditions. Other anion species
such as sulphate, and nitrate were also present.
3. A correlation was observed between the alloying level
(PREN) and the atmospheric corrosion resistance. The
most resistance grades were 1.4410, 1.4565 and 1.4652
which have PRE ≥ 43.
Open condition RN 4 Sheltered condition RN 3 4. Alloys with PREN ≥ 35 may be considered for architectural
materials in severe marine locations such as the Dubai
site, if this is combined with frequent cleaning. A smooth
surface finish or the uses of bright annealed surfaces also
(17C) Austenitic 1.4652
give an improvement in corrosion resistance.
5. To achieve the best corrosion performance the surface
should be clean and free of contamination and have a
crevice-free design.
6. Specimens in a sheltered location showed better
performance than those which were openly exposed, in
contrast to the situation usually observed at European
sites. This may be due to the lack of rainfall in combination
with condensation effects, plus sulphate ion accumulation
at sheltered locations which can act as a corrosion
inhibitor.

Open condition RN 1 Sheltered condition RN 0

5. Acknowleagements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support given by the
Figure 17 Appearance of stainless steel surface after 4 years exposure with Corrosion department at Avesta Research Centre, Outokumpu
different exposed condition
Stainless AB and thank the Dubai Electricity and Water
Authority (DEWA) for providing the test site in Dubai.
 3/2015 | 12

6. References [13] JIS G 0595: 2004, Rating method of rust and strain
of atmospheric corrosion for stainless steel.
[1] K. Asami, K. Hashimoto, Corros. Sci.45 (2003) 2263 – 2283. [14] ASTM G150-13, Standard test method for electrochemical
[2] J.R. Kearns, M.J. Johnson and P.J. Pavik, The Corrosion critical pitting temperature testing of stainless steels.
of Stainless Steels in the Atmosphere, ASTM STP 965, [15] R. Qvarfort, Corros. Sci., 1988, 28 (2), 135 – 140.
Atmospheric Corrosion and Development of Stainless [16] ISO 9223:2012 – Corrosion of metals and alloys – Corrosivity
Steel Alloy Against Marine Environments, in Degradation of atmospheres – Classification, determination and estimation.
of Metals in the Atmosphere, eds. S.W. Dean, T.S Lee (West
[17] Levy, Guy J. ; Fine, Pinchas ; Bartal, Asher, Treated Wastewater
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM international, 1988), p.35 – 51.
in Agriculture, Impacts on the Soil Environment and Crops,
[3] H. Luo, X. G. Li, C. F. Dong and K. Xiao, Corros. Eng. Sci. Chapter 8, p.286-305, 2010.
Technol., 2013, 48 (3), 212 – 229.
[18] D.Wallinder, I.O. Wallinder, and C. Leygraf, Corrosion, 2003,
[4] Duplex stainless steel in storage tank (DUPLEXTANK), 59 (3), 220 – 227.
Final report, DOI: 10.2777/49448.
[19] S. Ito, H. Ornata, T. Murata, Y. Yabumoto, ASTM STP 965,
[5] C. Lojewski, P. Boillot, J. Peultier, Revue de Métallurgie 108, “Atmospheric corrosion and development of a stainless
p. 191 – 201, 2011. steel alloy against marine environments,” in degradation of
[6] A. Burkert, J. Lehmann, A. Burker, J. Mietz and P. Gumpel, metals in the atmosphere, eds. S.W. Dean, T.S. Lee (West
Mater, Corros. 2014, 65 (11) 1080 – 1095. Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 1988), p. 68 – 77.
[7] S.Ito, H. Ornata, T. Murata, Y. Yabumoto, ASTM STP 965, [20] EN 10088-2005, European standard – Stainless steels
Atmospheric Corrosion and Development of Stainless [21] AJ. Sedriks. Corrosion of stainless steels.
Steel Alloy Against Marine Environments, in Degradation New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1979.
of Metals in the Atmosphere, eds. S.W. Dean, T.S Lee (West
[22] B. Baroux. Further insights on the pitting corrosion of
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM international, 1988), p.68 – 77.
stainless steels. In: Marcus P, Oudar J, editors.
[8] A. Persson, P. Lundström, T. Larsson, R. Petterson: Challenges Corrosion mechanisms in theory and practice.
in selecting stainless steels for long term performance in New York: Marcel Dekker; 1995.
architectural applications in the Middle East, 14th Middle
East Corrosion Conference & Exhibition, 2012.
[9] S. Syed, Corros. Eng. Sci.Technol., 2009, 44 (4), 297 – 303.
[10] ASTM G50–10, Standard practice for conducting
atmospheric corrosion tests on Metals.
[11] ‘Practice for preparing, cleaning and evaluating corrosion test
specimens’, ASTM GI–90, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1990.
[12] ASTM G 48-03, Standard test methods for pitting and crevice
corrosion resistance of stainless steels and related alloys
by use of ferric chloride solution.

Paper presented at the European Corrosion Congress,

EUROCORR 2015, 6–10 September 2015, Graz, Austria.
 1576 EN-GB, Art 58, 06, 15.
Working towards forever.
We work with our customers and partners to create long
lasting solutions for the tools of modern life and the
world’s most critical problems: clean energy, clean water
and efficient infrastructure. Because we believe in a world
that lasts forever.

Information given in this brochure may be subject to alterations without notice. Care has been taken to
ensure that the contents of this publication are accurate but Outokumpu and its affiliated companies do
not accept responsibility for errors or for information which is found to be misleading. Suggestions for
or descriptions of the end use or application of products or methods of working are for information only
and Outokumpu and its affiliated companies accept no liability in respect thereof. Before using products
supplied or manufactured by the company the customer should satisfy himself of their suitability.

[email protected]
outokumpu.com