[0001] The present invention relates to a method of preventing the occurrence of stress
corrosion cracking in machine or machine parts made of austenitic cast iron.
[0002] Austenitic cast iron, i.e., ASTM A 436 of the flaky graphite type or ASTM A 439 of
the nodular graphite type, containing 13.5 - 22 wt% of Ni (all percents noted hereinafter
are by weight) exhibits good corrosion resistance in seawater and other corrosive
environments containing chloride ions (Cl-) and is preferentially used in pumps, valves
and piping associated with the handling of concentrated or unconcentrated seawater.
[0003] The resistance of austenitic cast iron to general corrosion is such that the corrosion
rate is only about 0.1 mm/year in seawater at ordinary temperatures. Unlike mild steels
and cast iron, the increase in the rate of general corrosion in austenitic cast iron
situated in flowing seawater over that in standing seawater is negligible, and if
the seawater flows faster, the rate of corrosion is even seen to decrease. Additionally,
austenitic cast iron is not susceptible to localized corrosions such as the crevice
corrosion and pitting corrosion that are common to stainless steel. Because of the
balanced resistance to various forms of corrosion, austenitic cast iron is extensively
used in machines and machine parts that handle seawater and other corrosive fluids.
[0004] Cases, however, have been reported of machines or machine parts made of austenitic
cast iron handling seawater or enriched seawater devleoping cracks a considerable
time after the start of service. One case of such an accident occurred in pumps made
of austenitic cast iron (ASTM A 436, Type 2) that were handling enriched seawater
(7% NaCl) at ca. 33°C. The present inventors made extensive studies on the accident
in different aspects including the possibility of defects in the pump material, its
strength, stress during operation and fatigue, but no exact cause of the accident
could be identified.
[0005] The studies mentioned above did not cover stress corrosion cracking (hereunder abbreviated
to SCC) as a possible factor responsible for the failure of the pumps under relatively
low stress. There are not reported cases of SCC occurring in austenitic cast iron
used in salt water in the vicinity
pf ordinary temperatures. The occurrence of SCC in boiling-42% MgCl
2, boiling-20% NaCl and NaOH at 90% of the yield stress has been reported in Engineering
Properties and Applications of the Ni-Resists and Ductile Ni-Resists (INCO). The general
understanding has been that austenitic cast iron has high SCC resistance in a chloride
environment. Alloys having the austenitic structure such as Cr-Ni austenitic stainless
steel are well known to be susceptible to SCC in chloride solutions, but very few
cases have been reported on the occurrence of SCC at temperatures lower than 50°C.
SCC may occur at ordinary temperatures as a result of hydrogen embrittlement, but
the susceptibility of the austenitic structure to hydrogen embrittlement is low.
[0006] The present inventors made various studies to unravel the behavior of austenitic
cast iron in relation to its failure in seawater and other corrosive environments.
As a results, the inventors have located the cause of such failure and devised a method
for its prevention.
[0007] The present invention, therefore, provides a method for preventing the occurrence
of SCC in machines or machine parts made of austenitic cast iron which are intended
for handling salt water, or any type of the solutions that contain chloride ions C1-
such as seawater, enriched seawater and diluted seawater. This method is characterized
by cathodic polarization of the machine or machine part of interest.
[0008]
Fig. 1 shows applied stress vs. rupture time characteristic curves for austenitic
cast iron species, Type 2 and Type D-2, submerged in 7% NaCl solution at 33°C;
Fig. 2 shows applied potential vs. rupture time characteristic curves for the same
austenitic cast iron species;
Fig. 3 shows a flow rate vs. natural potential curve for Type D-2 cast iron submerged
in 3% NaCl solution at 25°C;
Fig. 4 shows applied potential vs. rupture time characteristic curves for Type D-2
cast iron in flowing NaCl solution;
Fig. 5 is a sketch of two anode metal pieces attached to a test piece having a tapered
diameter of 3 mm in the middle portion; and
Fig. 6 is a sketch of the same test piece having a coat of paint which comprises an
anode metal powder dispersed in a resin.
[0009] In order to check for the possibility of the occurrence of SCC in austenitic cast
iron, the present inventors made the following SCC test. The chemical composition
of each of the test specimens and their tensible strengthes (rupture stresses in the
atmosphere) are shown in Table 1. The same test was conducted on four samples of ferritic
cast iron and one sample of austenitic stainless steel.
[0010] All samples of the austenitic cast iron had been annealed (heating at 635°C for 5
hours followed by furnace cooling) in order to relieve any residual stress. The constant
load tension test was conducted by applying varying stresses to a test piece (5 mm')
submerged in 7% NaCl at 33°C. The two samples of Type 2 and Type D-2 were also tested
in 3% NaCl, 1% NaCl and natural seawater at 25°C by applying 80% of the tensile strength
of the respective samples. The results are shown in Table 2.
[0011]

[0012] As one can see from Table 2, all samples of the austenitic cast iron failed in the
test period although the applied stress was such that the samples would not fail in
the atmosphere. This was obviously the result of the SCC that was caused by the interaction
of the corrosive attack of the aqueous NaCl solutions and the applied stress. Type
2 and Type D-2 also developed SCC in the 3% NaCl, 1% NaCl and natural seawater at
25°C. From these results, one can readily see that SCC would occur in austenitic case
iron whether it is submerged in concentrated or diluted seawater. The ferritic cast
iron species, JIS FC20, JIS FCD45, ESSIF and ES51, as well as the austenitic stainless
steel JIS SCS 14 did not fail in a 2,000-hour period and not a single tiny crack developed
in the test pieces.
[0013] The above observation that austenitic cast iron develops SCC in salt water in the
vicinity of ordinary temperatures whereas ferritic cast iron and austenitic stainless
steel are free from such phenomenon was first discovered by the present inventors.
It was quite surprising and in conflict with metallurgical common sense to find that
SCC should occur in austenitic cast iron submerged in salt water at ordinary temperatures
or in its vicinity.
[0014] In order to further study the behavior of SCC in austenitic cast iron, samples of
Type 2 and Type D-2 were checked for the relationship between applied stress and rupture
time using test pieces with a diameter of 12.5 mm. This diameter was greater than
that of the samples used in the test conducted to obtain the data shown in Tables
1 and 2. The reason for selecting such increased diameter was that it was necessary
to obtain data that would be applicable to large-size equipment such as large pumps
in consideration of the "size effect", i.e., the fact that larger diameters prolong
the rupture time. The test was conducted in 7% NaCl at 33°C, and the test method was
the same as used for obtaining the data shown in Tables 1 and 2.
[0015] The test results are shown in Fig. 1, from which one can see that both Type 2 and
Type D-2 failed in shorter periods under increasing stresses. Type 2 failed at 2,000
hours under a stress of 5 kgf/mm
2 which was only 20% of its tensile strength whereas Type D-2 failed at 7,000 hours
under a stress of 10 kgf/mm2 which was 23% of its tensile strength. Surprisingly enough,
SCC occurred in austenitic cast iron even under very low stressed, suggesting the
possibility that machines or machine parts made of austenitic cast iron would fail
during service in salt water.
[0016] Several methods are available for preventing the SCC- induced failure of machines
or machine parts made of austenitic cast iron. One is to make a machine or machine
part having the lowest possible design stress, but this is not economically feasible
since such a machine or machine part either has reduced capabilities or requires an
increased wall thickness. Another method is to insulate the machine or machine part
from the corrosive environment by providing a lining. However, not only does the lining
add to the cost of the machine or machine part but also a highly reliable lining is
difficult to obtain. The great problem associated with the use of the lining is that
the unique corrosion resisting properties of austenitic cast iron are not utilized
to the fullest extent, and lower grade materials such as common cast iron may be used
as the substrate if they are lined. A third way is to use an austenitic cast iron
having a higher Ni content because the data in Table 2 shows that such cast iron had
longer rupture periods. However, even such high Ni austenitic cast iron is susceptible
to SCC, and additionally, the inclusion of much Ni increases the cost.
[0017] Therefore, the best way is to directly prevent the occurrence of SCC in austenitic
cast iron; if this is possible, the machines or machine parts made of austenitic cast
iron can be used in salt water without experiencing SCC- induced failure, and furthermore,
economical machine design can be realized since the possibility of a drop in rupture
stress within corrosive environments is eliminated.
[0018] The mechanism behind SCC in austenitic cast iron must first be unravelled in order
to devise a method for its prevention. Two types of SCC are generally known: an example
of the first type of SCC is that which occurs in austenitic stainless steel under
a chloride environment, and in this type of SCC, the anodic reaction causes progressive
cracking; an example of the second type of SCC is that which occurs in high-strength
steels in an environment containing hydrogen sulfide, and in this type of SCC, atomic
hydrogen formed by cathodic reaction enters the structure to cause its embrittlement.
In a special case, the two types of SCC combine to accelerate cracking. With a view
to unravelling the mechanism behind SCC in austenitic cast iron, the present inventors
conducted the following test.
[0019] Two sets of Type 2 and Type D-2 samples were provided; one set of samples was subjected
to an SCC test while they were held at varying applied potentials, and the other set
was tested under their natural potentials. The test pieces had a diameter of 3 mm.
Type 2 samples were subjected to a stress of 15 kgf/mm2 and Type D-2 samples were
subjected to a stress of 34.7 kgf/mm
2. The samples were submerged in 7% NaCl at 33°C. The rupture times as a function of
applied potential vs. SCE (saturated calomel electrode) were measured and are shown
in Fig. 2. In the test conducted under the natural potentials of the samples, Type
2 failed at 4 hours, with the natural potential varying from -430 mV to -490 mV. Type
D-2 failed at 23 hours, with the natural potential varying from -460 mV to -550 mV.
The rupture times of both Type 2 and Type D-2 were appreciably reduced when they were
held at potentials more noble than the natural potentials. On the other hand, the
rupture times were considerably prolonged by setting the samples at potentials more
base (less noble) than the natural potentials. At -570 mV, neither Type 2 nor Type
D-2 cracked even after 350 hours. At more base -800 mV, no crack occurred in either
type of samples after 420 hours. These data show that the SCC in austenitic cast iron
is of the anodic dissolution type (Active Path Corrosion Cracking - APC-Type) which
is accelerated by anodic polarization and inhibited by cathodic polarization.
[0020] In order to further delve into the conditions for providing the cathodic polarization
that is necessary to prevent the occurrence of SCC in austenitic cast iron, the present
inventors investigated the behavior of SCC in Type D-2 samples submerged in flowing
3% NaCI at 25°C. Fig. 3 shows the relationship between the flow rate of the NaCl solution
and the natural potential at 48 hours. As one can see from the figure, the natural
potential was initially -530 mV when the NaCl solution was not flowing, but the potential
rapidly became noble as the flow rate increased, and at flow rates of 0.5 m/sec and
higher, the potential remained substantially constant at about -440 mV. The present
inventors therefore conducted another experiment, with the flow rate of 5 m/sec selected
as a typical value simulating the flowing state of the NaCl solution. Fig. 4 shows
the applied potential vs. rupture time for Type D-2 under an applied stress of 34.7
kgf/mm
2. As one can see from Fig. 4, when no control was effected over the potential, Type
D-2 failed at 28 hours, with its natural potential varying from -410 mV to -435 mV.
When Type D-2 was held more base than the natural potential, the rupture time was
extended and no crack occurred at -490 mV even after 1,200 hours. In other words,
the natural potential of Type D-2 submerged in a flowing NaCl solution became more
noble than when the solution was standing, but at the same time, the applied potential
necessary for preventing the occurrence of SCC also became more noble. These observations
are associated with the behavior of SCC in NaCl solutions but it will be radially
understood that the same applies to seawater.
[0021] The present invention is based on the above findings and is characterized by preventing
the occurrence of SCC in austenitic cast iron by means of cathodic polarization. The
applied potential necessary for preventing the occurrence of SCC is preferably more
base than about -570 mV in the case of a standing salt water in the vicinity of ordinary
temperatures, and is preferably more base than about -490 mV if the salt water is
flowing. However, even if these potentials are not reached, the life of austenitic
cast iron can be significantly extended by means of cathodic polarization.
[0022] The natural potential of austenitic cast iron will vary depending upon the concentration
of salt water, its temperature, flow rate and the immersion time. In the experiment
conducted by the present inventors, the natural potentials of the samples of austenitic
cast iron were not sufficiently stabilized for examining the effects of applied potential
on SCC. Therefore, another experiment was conducted to measure the natural potentials
at 48 hours which was considered sufficiently long for their stabilization. The results
are shown in Table 3, which also lists the applied potentials necessary for preventing
the occurrence of SCC in austenitic cast iron.

[0023] The above data show that although the natural potentials, and hence, the conditions
for cathodic polarization necessary for preventing the occurrence of SCC, vary depending
upon the specific environment, the development of SCC can be prevented almost completely
by performing cathodic polarization to such an extent that the applied potential is
at least 50 mV more base than the stabilized natural potential for the environment
concerned. Even if the differential potential is less than 50 mV, the life of austenitic
cast iron can be significantly extended by means of cathodic polarization.
[0024] Cathodic polarization can be realized either by the impressed current method (forced
drainage method) using a rectifier, battery or a dc generator, or by the galvanic
anode method using the potential difference between dissimilar metals. The former
method has the advantage that a desired potential can be selected. The anode for the
galvanic anode method may be made of any of the metallic materials that are more base
than austenitic cast iron, for example, iron, ferritic cast iron, zinc, aluminum,
magnesium, and paint compositions having these metals dispersed in resins. These materials
may be used either alone or in combination.
Example
[0025] The effects of cathodic polarization on SCC using the impressed current method are
clear from the data shown above. Therefore, in this example, the effects of cathodic
polarization by the galvanic anode method were investigated. Each of the test pieces
(Type D-2) used had a middle portion with a diameter of 3 mm, as shown at 1 in Fig.
5 or 6. They were submerged in 7%
NaCl at 33°C and placed under an applied stress of 30 kgf/mm2.
[0026] Fig. 5 illustrates a test piece to which anode metal pieces 2 (30 x 30 x 10 mm) were
attached. Fig. 6 shows a test piece provided with an anodic coat 3 formed from a paint
composition having a powder of anodic metal dispersed in a resin.
[0027] In the test, the following six anode metals were used: ferritic cast iron JIS FC20,
mild steel JIS SS 41, pure iron, aluminum, zinc and magnesium. The following two paint
compositions were used: zinc paint and aluminum paint. The zinc paint contained 36
vol% of zinc in an epoxy resin whereas the aluminum paint contained 45 vol% of aluminum
in an epoxy resin. The test results are shown in Table 4.

[0028] According to Table 4, the samples that were not subjected to cathodic polarization
failed at 25 hours but those samples protected by cathodic polarization in accordance
with the present invention did not fail even after 500 hours. These results were obtianed
in 7% NaCl at 33°C and it will be readily understood that similar results can be obtained
in seawater. Powders of anodic metallic material may be dispersed not in resins but
in sodium silicate, and similar results are obtainable with such inorganic paints.