Advertisement

Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 1860–1865 | Cite as

The Efficacy of a Chelating Agent-Based Oxide Remover to Clean Corrosion Products from Ferrous Fracture Surfaces

  • Aphrodite Strifas
  • Michael K. Budinski
  • Edward Komarnicki
  • Nancy B. McAtee
  • Matthew Fox
  • Erik Mueller
  • Frank Zakar
Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed
  • 33 Downloads

Abstract

Challenges exist when cleaning fracture surfaces to reveal fractographic features without damaging the fracture surfaces further. This technical paper will compare the efficacy of cleaning ferrous-based fracture surfaces with a chelating stripping agent versus inhibited acid solutions. The chelating stripping agent used in this study was commercially available Evapo-Rust. The inhibited acid solutions used in this study were ASTM G1 C.3.1 solution and ASTM G1 C.3.5 solution. In this study, metallographically prepared samples of annealed type 8620 steel were immersed in the ASTM G1 C.3.1 solution, ASTM G1 C.3.5 solution, and Evapo-Rust for different times under inactive and ultrasonic conditions. The extent of damage to the polished surfaces was qualitatively examined using various types of optical microscopy. The sample damage was visually compared to a baseline sample etched with 2% natal. The indices used to qualify the extent of damage were the existence of pits and microstructural etching. It was found that a chelating agent-based oxide remover causes less etching and pitting on metallographically prepared annealed type 8620 steel samples than inhibited acid solutions.

Keywords

Corrosion Ultrasonic Steel microstructure Pitting Optical microscopy Microstructure 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This article is the work product of National Transportation Safety Board staff members as part of their official duties. This work product does not require review by the appointed Board Members of the NTSB. The article is work of the United States Government, and copyright protection is not available in the United States for any work of the United States Government, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 105.

References

  1. 1.
    R.M.N. Pelloux, The analysis of fracture surfaces by electron microscopy, Boeing Scientific Research Laboratories, Report D1-82-0169-R1 (1963).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. Davies et. al., General practice in failure analysis, in Volume 11 Failure Analysis and Prevention, Metals Handbook, 9th Edition (American Society for Metals, 1986), pp. 19, 173.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R.D. Zipp, E.P. Dahlberg, Preparation and preservation of fracture specimens, in Volume 12 Fractography, Metals Handbook, 9th edn. (American Society for Metals, 1987), pp. 72–77.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C.R. Brooks, C.D. Lundin, Rust removal from steel fractures—effect on fractographic evaluation. Microstruct. Sci. 3, 21–23 (1975)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Pepi, Sample preservationthe key to a successful failure analysis, ARL-RP-228, Army Research Laboratory (2008).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S.J. Oh, D.C. Cook, H.E. Townsend, Characterization of iron oxides commonly formed as corrosion products on steel. Hyperfine Interact. 112(1–4), 59–66 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ASTM G1, Standard Practice for Preparing, Cleaning, and Evaluating Corrosion Test Specimens (American Society for Testing Materials)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    V.Y. Guertsman, Fracture surface cleaning, in Accident Investigators Materials Meeting, Washington, DC (2014).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    NTSB accident investigation DCA14MP002, Materials Laboratory Factual Report 14-071 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. Garverick, Corrosion in the Petrochemical Industry (ASM International, Metal Park, 1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    N. Cheng et. al. Avoidance of hydrogen embrittlement during rust removal with vappro VBCl (Academia, 2019), p. 6. https://www.academia.edu/37320437/Avoidance_of_Hydrogen_Embrittlement_During_Rust_Removal_with_Vappro_VBCI_812.
  12. 12.
    J.S. Gill et. al. Rust and Scale Removal Composition and Process, US Patent 6,310,024, 30 Oct 30 2011.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Panias, M. Taxiarchou, I. Paspaliaris, A. Kontopoulos, Mechanisms of dissolution of iron oxides in aqueous oxalic acid solutions. Hydrometallurgy 42(2), 257–265 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. Noren et al., Adsorption mechanisms of EDTA at the water–iron oxide interface: implications for dissolution. J. Phys. Chem. C 113(18), 7762–7771 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    H. Tamura, S. Takasaki, R. Furuichi, A kinetic model of the dissolution of magnetite (Fe3O4) in EDTA solutions. Bunseki Kagaku 47, 397–403 (1998).  https://doi.org/10.2116/bunsekikagaku.47.397 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Hidalgo, N.E. Katz, A.J.G. Maroto, M.A. Blesa, The dissolution of magnetite by nitrilotriacetatoferrate(II). J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. 1 Phys. Chem. Condens. Phases 84(1), 9–18 (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A.M. Al-Mayouf, Electrochemical investigation of magnetite reductive dissolution in aqueous solutions. Corrosion 58(6), 519–525 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M.A. Blesa, J.G. Maroto, Dissolution of metal oxides. J. Chim. Phys. 83, 757–764 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    M.U. Gmurczyk, A. Barkatt, L. May, S. Olszowka, Degradable chelating agents for decontamination and chemical cleaning, in CORROSION 98, San Diego, 22–27 Mar 1998Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M.A. Blesa, P.J. Morando, A.E. Regazzoni, Chemical Dissolution of Metal Oxides (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    H. Förch, T. Oliver, W. Hertle, Chemical cleaning of PWR steam generators with a low temperature process. Nuclear Eng. Des. 147(1), 115–118 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    D.M. Christy, Extracting, Protecting, Cleaning, and Preserving Fracture Surfaces. https://www.slideserve.com/danno/extracting-protecting-cleaning-and-preserving-fracture-surfaces.
  23. 23.
    National Transportation Safety Board, Enbridge Incorporated Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Rupture and Release, PAR-12-01 (National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC, 2012).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    National Transportation Safety Board, Natural Gas-Fueled Building Explosion and Resulting Fire, PAR-15-01 (National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC, 2015).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    National Transportation Safety Board, Colonial Pipeline Company Petroleum Product Leak, PAB1701 (National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC, 2017).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    National Transportation Safety Board, BNSF Railway Crude Oil Unit Train Derailment, RAB1712 (National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC, 2017).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    National Transportation Safety Board Aviation Accident Final Report, DCA17MA022, (National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC, 2018).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    National Transportation Safety Board Marine Accident Report, DCA18SM016, (National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC, 2019)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. government work and its text is not subject to copyright protection in the United States; however, its text may be subject to foreign copyright protection 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aphrodite Strifas
    • 1
  • Michael K. Budinski
    • 2
  • Edward Komarnicki
    • 2
  • Nancy B. McAtee
    • 3
  • Matthew Fox
    • 1
  • Erik Mueller
    • 1
  • Frank Zakar
    • 1
  1. 1.AlexandriaUSA
  2. 2.National Transportation Safety BoardWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.WashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations