Advertisement

Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp 1401–1410 | Cite as

Understanding Scribe Profile and Tool Type Effects on Visual Corrosion Assessments

  • Austin L. Maples
  • Eric B. Williams
  • James W. RawlinsEmail author
Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

Visual analysis is the most common evaluation of accelerated corrosion performance after exposure using a scribed protective coating on a metal substrate. Although the scribed-coating visual inspection is standardized, the specificity of initial conditions relative to the final performance has never been unified between laboratories, scribing tools, nor by published testing standards. To validate the initial state of the coating performance based on the selected tool, salt spray corrosion tests ASTM B117 and GM14872 were performed on 60 epoxy-amine primer coated UNS 10080/10100 steel test panels with nine different scribes (3 test panels each with 3 non-scribed control panels). The width of the initial scribe greatly impacted the visual corrosion assessment of the test results during ASTM B117, while the initial scribe width had little impact during GM14872. These results suggest that correlating the initial scribe with the final corrosion evaluation of the coating defect resulted in a better inter-comparable evaluation of coatings subjected to visual analysis by accelerated corrosion or electrolyte corrosion.

Keywords

Corrosion Scribe Accelerated corrosion Epoxy primer Corrosion rate 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of The United States Air Force (FA7000-13-2-0022 and FA7000-14-2-0011) through funding by the Department of Defense and collaborative efforts for Corrosion Prevention and Understanding via the Technical Corrosion Collaboration working group comprised of The University of Virginia, The University of Hawaii, The Ohio State University, the Air Force Academy, The University of Akron, The University of Southern Mississippi, the Air Force Institute of Technology, the Naval Postgraduate School, and the US Naval Academy.

Supplementary material

11668_2018_528_MOESM1_ESM.docx (4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 4100 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Standard Practice for Operating Salt Spray (Fog) Apparatus. ASTM International (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Selvaraj, M. Selvaraj, S.V.K. Iyer, Studies on the evaluation of the performance of organic coatings used for the prevention of corrosion of steel rebars in concrete structures. Prog. Org. Coat. 64(4), 454–459 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Zapponi, T. Pérez, C. Ramos, C. Saragovi, Prohesion and outdoors tests on corrosion products developed over painted galvanized steel sheets with and without Cr(VI) species. Corros. Sci. 47(4), 923–936 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P.J. Kinlen, D.C. Silverman, C.R. Jeffreys, Corrosion protection using polyaniline coating formulations. Synth. Met. 85(1), 1327–1332 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    N.K. Mehta, M.N. Bogere, Environmental studies of smart/self-healing coating system for steel. Prog. Org. Coat. 64(4), 419–428 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    M.V. Loo, D.D. Laiderman, R.R. Bruhn, Filiform corrosion. CORROSION 9(8), 277–283 (1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. Fastrup, A. Saarnak, AC impedance of painted and scribed steel panels under atmospheric exposure. Prog. Org. Coat. 16(3), 277–290 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M.R. Lambert, H.E. Townsend, R.G. Hart, D.J. Frydrych, Accelerated corrosion tests of precoated sheet steels for automobiles. Ind. Eng. Chem. Prod. Res. Dev. 24(3), 378–384 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. Chico, D. de la Fuente, M.L. Pérez, M. Morcillo, Corrosion resistance of steel treated with different silane/paint systems. J. Coat. Technol. Res. 9(1), 3–13 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Z. Feng, G.S. Frankel, C.A. Matzdorf, Quantification of accelerated corrosion testing of coated AA7075-T6. J. Electrochem. Soc. 161(1), C42–C49 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    T. Nguyen, F. Martin, Modes and mechanisms of degradation of epoxy-coated reinforcing steel in marine environment. Durab. Buil. Mater. Compon. 7, 491 (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Arrabal, J.M. Mota, A. Criado, A. Pardo, M. Mohedano, E. Matykina, Assessment of duplex coating combining plasma electrolytic oxidation and polymer layer on AZ31 magnesium alloy. Surf. Coat. Technol. 206(22), 4692–4703 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. Galliano, D. Landolt, Evaluation of corrosion protection properties of additives for waterborne epoxy coatings on steel. Prog. Org. Coat. 44(3), 217–225 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. He, V.J. Gelling, D.E. Tallman, G.P. Bierwagen, A scanning vibrating electrode study of chromated-epoxy primer on steel and aluminum. J. Electrochem. Soc. 147(10), 3661–3666 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Painted or Coated Specimens Subjected to Corrosive Environments. ASTM International (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    H. Yasuda, C. Reddy, Q. Yu, J. Deffeyes, G. Bierwagen, L. He, Effect of scribing modes on corrosion test results. Corrosion 57(1), 29–34 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Leng, H. Streckel, M. Stratmann, The delamination of polymeric coatings from steel. Part 2: first stage of delamination, effect of type and concentration of cations on delamination, chemical analysis of the interface. Corros. Sci. 41(3), 579–597 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    G. Fieldson, T. Barbari, The use of FTi.r.-atr spectroscopy to characterize penetrant diffusion in polymers. Polymer 34(6), 1146–1153 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    T. Nguyen, E. Byrd, D. Bentz, Quantifying water at the organic film/hydroxylated substrate interface. J. Adhes. 48(1–4), 169–194 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Seo, J. Jeon, Y. Gun Shul, H. Han, Water sorption and activation energy in polyimide thin films. J. Polym. Sci. Part B Polym. Phys. 38(21), 2714–2720 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    H. Leidheiser, W. Wang, L. Igetoft, The mechanism for the cathodic delamination of organic coatings from a metal surface. Prog. Org. Coat. 11(1), 19–40 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    C. Compère, É. Fréchette, E. Ghali, The corrosion evaluation of painted and artificially damaged painted steel panels by AC impedance measurements. Corros. Sci. 34(8), 1259–1274 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    P.A. Sørensen, K. Dam-Johansen, C.E. Weinell, S. Kiil, Cathodic delamination of seawater-immersed anticorrosive coatings: mapping of parameters affecting the rate. Prog. Org. Coat. 68(4), 283–292 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    J.M. Pommersheim, T. Nguyen, Z. Zhang, J.B. Hubbard, Degradation of organic coatings on steel: mathematical models and predictions. Prog. Org. Coat. 25(1), 23–41 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. Dornbusch, S. Kirsch, C. Henzel, C. Deschamps, S. Overmeyer, K. Cox, M. Wiedow, U. Tromsdorf, M. Dargatz, U. Meisenburg, Characterization of the water uptake and electrolyte uptake of organic coatings and the consequences by means of electrochemical impedance spectroscopy and UV–vis spectroscopy. Prog. Org. Coat. 89, 332–343 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    F. Deflorian, S. Rossi, An EIS study of ion diffusion through organic coatings. Electrochim. Acta 51(8), 1736–1744 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    B.E. Conway, Ionic Hydration in Chemistry and Biophysics (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1981)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Polymer Science and EngineeringThe University of Southern MississippiHattiesburgUSA

Personalised recommendations