corrosivity at various distances

National Aeronautics andSpace Administration

John F. Kennedy Space Center

MTB 099-74

REPORT '

ON

RELATIVE CORROSIVITY Ok ATMOSPHERES

AT VARIOUS DISTANCES FROM THE SEACOAST

PREPARED BY:MALFUNCTION/MATERIALS ANALYSIS SECTION

MATERIALS ANALYSIS BRANCH bFLUIDS AND ANALYSIS DIVISION

TG-FLD-22, ROOM 1218, 0 & C BUILDJNG

JANUARY 16, 1980

MSAI(SC FOR,., 16-12 IREV. 8/761

NASAMALFUNCTION/MATERIALS ANALYSIS SECTION

MATERIALS ANALYSIS BRANCHFLUIDS AND ANALYSIS DIVISION .

TC-FLD-22, ROOM 1218, O&C BUILDINGKENNEDY SPACE CENTER, FLORIDA 32899

JANUARY 17, 1980

-

MTB 099-74 .

SUBJECT: Relative Corrosivity of Atmospheres at VariousDistances from the Seacoast

1.0 FOREWORD

1.1 This i s the summary report o f an in -house invest igat iveprogram initiated by William J. Paton in 1975 and con-tinued by this organization after his reassignment.The purpose of this program was to obtain test datas p e c i f i c a l l y t o e v a l u a t e t h e e f f e c t o f d i s t a n c e f r o m *the seacoast on the rate o f corros ion o f s tee l .

1 . 2 Most of the field corrosion tests perform-ed at KSC haveu t i l i z e d a s i n g l e t e s t s i t e ,near the beach.

located.along the Cape RoadThe sample support racks are located

about 100 to 120 feet from mean high tide. This i s po -tentially a severe environment and has been used to sim-u l a t e “wars t case” field exposure of ground supportequipment (GSE) and to give a somewhat acceleratedevaluation of candidate protective coatings for CSE.For example, z i n c - r i c h c o a t i n g s f o r a p p l i c a t i o n t o s t e e ls tructures at KSC are required to protect s tee l testpanels for 18 months at th is s i te . H,owever, s u b j e c t i v eevaluat ion o f the corros ion rate o f s tee l s tructures andvarious test samples located at greater distances fromthe seacoast has indicated that the “d istance” var iablehas a pro found e f fec t on corros ion rate . I t has a lsobeen noted that atmospheric effects, such as the prolong-ed easterly winds of early autumn, and the higher rain-fall rates and higher relative humidities of summer, haved i s t i n c t s e a s o n a l e f f e c t s o n c o r r o s i o n r a t e .

1 . 3 A l t h o u g h t h e s e f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g c o r r o s i o n r a t e c o u l dinf luence the corros ion protect ion methods se lec ted fora g i v e n i n s t a l l a t i o n , no test data were avai lable for -t h e “ d i s t a n c e e f f e c t ” o r f o r t h e v a r i a t i o n s i n c o r r o s i o nresulting from the prevail ing weather conditions whenexposure was initiated.

MTB 099-74 2

2.0 TEST PROCEDURES

This program was designed to obtain such data, by means ofthe Collowing corros ion exposure tests.

2.1,. Two types of test materials were used: AISI 1008 steel ,and AISI 4130 steel . The former is a mild steel contain-ing nominally 0.08% carbon and 0.40% manganese. ‘The4130 is a low al loy stee l ,plications,

u s e d w i d e l y f o r a i r c r a f t ap-containing nominally 0.40% carbon, 0.50%

manganese, 0.30% silicon, 1.0% chromium, and 0.20%molybdenum. With i ts content o f a l loy ing e lements , i twould be expected to be s’omewhat more resistant to at-mospheric corrosion than the 1008 steel . The test sam-ples were 4” X 6” X l/8” panels o f the two s tee ls , asr e c e i v e d i n t h e h o t - r o l l e d c o n d i t i o n . A thin layer o fmill scale was present on the samples.were weighed to the nearest 0.01

These samplesgram pr ior to test ing .

2 . 2 S i x c o r r o s i o n t e s t s i t e s , at various distances from theocean, were ut i l i zed : No . 1 (beach) 100 feet ; No . 2 (nearComplex 41 entrance) 800 feet; No. 3 (near perimeterfence, east s ide o f Complex 39A) 2500 feet ; No . 4 ( inyard of water pump station, Pad B Road), 5,200 feet;No. 5 (behind Building M7-505, Industr ia l Area) 6 mi les ;and No. 6 (Orlando Naval Training Center) 50 miles.

2 .3 ~Five test panels o f each mater ia l were p laced in east-facing support racks at each exposure site every monthfor 23 months. After 12 months, t h e f i r s t g r o u p o f 5samples of each material was removed from each site andbrought to the laboratory for analys is .month, the second group was removed.

The followingThis process con-

t inued unt i l a l l test groups at each s i te had been ex-posed for 12 months and then removed ‘for evaluation.

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 The results of the 12 month exposure tests are presentedin Tables 1 through 12, which give the weight loss fromcorros ion o f the two test mater ia ls for each o f the 23exposure periods at each of the six exposure sites.These data are summarized in Table 13, in which theaverage weight loss over the ent ire test per iod i s g ivenfor each test mater ia l at each corros ion test s i te .Figure 1 is a graphical presentation-of these data, show-ing weig.ht loss as a funct ion o f d is tance f rom the sea-coast for the two test mater ia ls . ‘The average weightloss data (from Table 13) are plotted, and the weight-loss envelopes (maximum and minimum losses) are alsoshown. The data presented in Table 13 and Figure 1 arethose accummulated dur ing the ent ire test per iod f romA p r i l , 1975 through February, 1978.

.

MTB 099-74 3

3 .2

3 . 3

3 .4

At the lOO-foot s i te (beach) , the AISI 1008 stee l cor -roded at a considerably higher rate than the AISI 4130(approximately 3 l/2 times, based on average data forthe ent ire program interval ) . A t t h e 8 0 0 - f o o t s i t e therate d i f ferent ia l for the two s tee ls decreased to about2:1, and, at greater d is tances f rom the seacoast thec o r r o s i o n r a t e d i f f e r e n t i a l c o n t i n u e d t o decreasi s l i g h t -l y . For the AISI 1008 steel , the corros ion rate at the800-foot site was about 1 l/2 times that at the SO-miles i t e , a r e l a t i v e l y m i n o r r a t e d i f f e r e n t i a l f o r s u c h alarge increase in d is tance f rom the seacoast . The dif-ferent ia l for the AISI 4130 stee l was even less : 6 .6grams at the 800- foot s i te versus 5 .4 grams for the 50-m i l e s i t e .

As is shown in Figure 1, the weight-loss data envelopefor the AISI 1008 stee l exposed at the 100-foot s i te i svery wide, varying by a factor o f 3 . This indicated apronounced e f fect o f seasonal var iat ions in atmot;phericconditions during the various exposure periods at thebeach s i te . The envelope is much narrower for the AISI4 1 3 0 s t e e l a t t h e lOO-foot s i t e , a n d i s r e l a t i v e l y n a r -r o w f o r b o t h s t e e l s a t t h e 800-foot s i t e a n d a l l s i t e smore remote from the seacoast.

This effect of seasonal variations in weather phenomenaon corros ion rate at the lOO-foot s i te i s shown in Figure2, in which weight losses for the two s tee ls are p lot tedfor sample groups representing each of the 23 exposureper iods . There i s a general increase in weight loss forthe AISI 1008 stee l a f ter the th ird exposure per iod(samples p laced at the beach s i te in June 1975) . Thisweight loss peaked with the e leventh expo;ure-periodsamples (those exposed beginning in February, 1976).Weight losses dropped thereafter, reaching a minimumwith the thirteenth group (exposed beginning April 1976).This was followed by another increase in weight lo:s,which reached another peak with the nineteenth group(exposed beginning October, 1976). The mechanisms bywhich the combinat ions o f meteoro log ica l factors c;ntri-but ing to these wide var iat ions in corros ion rates operate ,are not known. Since each of the 23 test groups remainedat the 100-foot exposure site for 12 months it might beexpected that seasonal var iat ions in these iactors wouldlargely be compensated for. I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h edetermining factor may be the prevajling conditionsimmediately following placement of the samples at theBeach Site. Certainly , h igh humidity , a ir -borne sa l tand warm temperatures would be expected to result inhigh corros ion rate .

i

the s tart o f exposure ,I f these condi t ions prevai l f romthe samples may rapidly develop

a th ick layer o f i ron corros ion product ,ly adherent and moisture absorbing.

which i s loose -Consequently, this

in i t ia l corros ion layer may tend to acce lerate ,than prevent, further corros ion .

r a t h e r

M’l’B 099- 74 4

3 . 5 T h e r o l e o f a i r - b o r n e s e a s a l t h a s b e e n c i t e d , a n d i swidely acknowledged, as the main factor in rapid corro-s ion o f succeptible structural mater ia ls used near theseacoast . Recent studies were conducted at KSC byManagement Services Incorporated, under TS direction,

.* to determine the concentration of air-borne sodiumchlor ide at d i f ferent d is tances f rom the seacoast . Ofseven sampling points used, six were the six corrosionexposure s i tes l i s ted in Paragraph 2 .2 , above . Ther e s u l t s o f t h e s e s t u d i e s were p u b l i s h e d i n a t e c h n i c a lreport and two addendum reports (“Local Atmosphere SaltProfi le” , Shuttle Study Task No. 0031, July 8, 1974;“Local Atmosphere Salt Pl;ofile - Addendum I”, June 2,1975; “Local Atmosphere Salt Profile - Addendum II”,October, 1976). These studies showed considerablevar iat ions in atmospher ic sa l t with prevai l ing windd i r e c t i o n , a n d , as would be expected, easterly windsproduced the h ighest average sa l t concentrat ion . Itwas also noted that samples taken during heavy fogs con-tained much higher concentration of salt than samplestaken dur ing c lear condit ions . These observations ares i g n i f i c a n t t o t h e n o t e d v a r i a t i o n s o f c o r r o s i o n r a t ewith seasonal weather changes.f icance, however,

Of more obvious signi-are the data obtained for atmospheric

salt concentrations at various distances from the seac o a s t , and the re lat ionship o f th is factor to the cor -ros ion rates o f mi ld s tee l at the same locat ions .

Figure 3 shows graphical ly the var iat ion in a ir -bornesal t ( co l lec ted by the funnel method) at the s ix corro -s ion exposure s i tes . The plotted values are averagesof biweekly samples taken over a period from April , 1975,to November, 1976. The salt concentration is shown tobe an exponential function of distance from the seacoast.( R e f e r t o o r d i n a t e a t l e f t f o r u n i t s ) . It should benoted that the se lect ion o f ord inate ’ sca les for theseplots was arbi trary ,can be demonstrated.

and no quant i tat ive re lat ionshipHowever, a s imi lar i ty in curve

shape for these two p lots i s ev ident , and the corros ionr a t e o f t h e AISI 1008 steel i s cvidcntly a l s o a n cxpo-nent ia l funct ion o f d is tance f rom the seacoast . Thesecomparative data also demonstrate the controll ing influenceon corros ion rate o f the atmospher ic sa l t concentrat ion .

4.0 CONCLUSIONS

4.1 The weight loss from atmospheric corrosion of AISI 1008stee l exposed at 6 test s i tes at var ious d is tances f romthe seacoast exceeded that of AISI 4130 steel exposedunder similar conditions, The corrosion rate of thelOO8 steel at a site 100 feet from the ocean was greaterby a factor o f 3 than was the corros ion rate o f the 4130steel. A t sites m o r e remote from the c o a s t (SO0 I’cctto 50 mi les ) , t h e c o r r o s i o n rate diffcrcntial hctwccn thetwo stee ls was less but was s igni f i cant ly greater for the1 0 0 8 .

.

MT13 099-74 5

4 . 2 V a r i a t i o n s i n c o r r o s i o n r a t e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r t h eAlSI 1 0 0 8 s t e e l a t t h e lOO-foot s i t e ( b e a c h ) were de-monstrated with samples placed at the test site eachmonth for 23 months and exposed for a 12-month period.Variat ions in weight loss by a factor o f 3 , depending

.-upon the period of exposure, were noted. I t i s b e -lieved that this phenomenon is caused by a complexinterrelationship among prevailing winds, humidity,a n d r a i n f a l l .

4 .3 Corros ion rates for the AISI 1008 s tee l were found tobe an exponentional function of distance from the sea-c o a s t . It is noted that salt content ,in the KSC areaatmospherehas also been shown to be an exponentialfunct ion o f d is tance f rom the seacoast , and i t i s be -l i e v e d t h a t t h e c o r r o s i o n r a t e o f t h e s t e e l i s l a r g e l yinfluenced b y t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p .

INVESTIGATOR:

APPROVED:MMAS/NASA

TABLE 1

AISI 1008 STEEL SAMPLES

6

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

2 2 .

- - 23.

EXPOSED AT BEACH (100 FOOT) TEST SITE

EXPOSURE PERIOD

A p r i l ' 7 5 - A p r i l ' 7 6

May '75 - May '76

June '75 - June '76

July.'75 - J u l y ' 7 6

August '75 - August '76

September '75 - September '76

O c t o b e r ' 7 5 - O c t o b e r '76

November '75 - November '76

December '75 - December '76

January '76 - January '77

February '76 - February '77

March '76 - March '77

A p r i l ' 7 6 - A p r i l ' 7 7

May '76 - May '77

June '76 - June '77

July ' 7 6 - J u l y ' 7 7



October '76 - October '77





AVERAGE

WEIGHT LOSSGRAMS

35.1

36.2

35.6

53.1

47.7

70.5

63.7

64.9

69.0

90.1

95.1

74.4

33.9

42.8

49.6

72.9

82.7

79.9

87.1

62.3

47.9

54.6

56.4

. 61.1

--

/

I,

/

I

I

,

I

/

I

I

I

I

,

I

-

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14,

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

TABLE 2


EXPOSED AT BEACH (100 FOOT) TEST SITE

WEIGHT LOSSEXPOSURE PERIOD CRAMS

Apr'il '75 - A p r i l ' 7 6 11.8

May '75 - May '76 18.3

J u n e ' 7 5 - J u n e '76 17.2

J u l y ' 7 5 - J u l y ' 7 6 16.5

August"75 - August '76 13.2

September '75 - September '76 13.6

October '75 - October '76 12.9

November '75 - November '76 13.7

December '75 - December '76 14.4

January '76 - January '77 17.3

February '76 - February '77 21.1

March '76 - March '77 13.9

A p r i l ' 7 6 - A p r i l ' 7 7 12.0

May '76 - May '77 19.3

June '76 - June '77 20.4

J u l y ' 7 6 - J u l y ' 7 7 17.2

August '76 - August '77 19.7


October '76 - October '77 18.5





AVEMCE 16.9

7

.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

--

TABLE 3

AISI 1008 STEEL Sti1PLES

EXPOSED AT COMPLEX 41 (800 FOOT) TEST.SITE

WEIGHT LOSSEXPOSURE PERIOD GRAMS

Ap'r il '75 - A p r i l ' 7 6

May '75 - May '76

June '75 - June '76

July ' 7 5 - Ju ly ' 76









A p r i l ' 7 6 - A p r i l ' 7 7

May '76 - May '77

June '76 - June '77

Ju ly ' 76 - Ju ly ' 77








AVERAGE

9.5

10.1

10.0

9 .9

11.3

11.8

12.1

12.0

14.1

12.0

11.9

11.5

8 .9

11.3

13.0

11.6

13.5

13.5

12.3

12.8

12.1

10.7

10.5

11.6

.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

TABLE 4


EXPOSED AT COMPLEX 41 (800 FOOT) TEST.SITE

9

EXPOSURE PERIOD

April ' 7 5 - A p r i l ' 7 6

May '75 - May '76

June '75 - June '76

J u l y ' 7 5 - J u l y ' 7 6

August , '75 - August '76








Apr i l ' 7 6 - A p r i l ' 7 7

May '76 - May '77

June '76 - June '77

July ' 7 6 - J u l y ' 7 7



O c t o b e r ' 7 6 - O c t o b e r '77





AVERAGE

WEIGHT LOSSGRAMS

4 . 3

5.7

5.2

5 .6

6 .0

6 .5

7.1

6 .8

8 .5

6 .9

6 .6

7.7

3 .2

7.5

7.5

7.0

9.0

6.4

6 .1

8.7

_ 7.2

5.7

5.7

6 . 6./

/

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.- -12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.._-

TABLE 5


EXPOSED AT COMPLEX 39A (2500 FOOT) TEST. SITE

EXPOSURE PERIOD

Ap;‘.il ' 7 5 - A p r i l ' 7 6

May '75 - May '76

J u n e ' 7 5 - J u n e '76

J u l y ' 7 5 - J u l y ' 7 6



October '75 - O c t o b e r '76





March '76 - March '77 _

A p r i l '76 - A p r i l ' 7 7

May '76 - May '77

June '76 - June '77

J u l y ' 7 6 - J u l y ' 7 7



O c t o b e r '76 - O c t o b e r ' 7 7


December '76 - December 177



AVERAGE

WEIGHT LOSSGRAMS

9.4

10.2

9.7

9.1

10.9

12.5

12.5

12.1

12.3

12.1

12.3

12.0

7.3

10.9

. 13.5

11.5

13.5

13.7

13.0

13.0

- 11.5

10.6

9 .5

11.4

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14. May '76 - May '77

Apri l '75 - A p r i l '76

May '75 - May '76

June '75 - J u n e ' 7 6

July ' 7 5 - J u l y ' 7 6

August"75 - August '76


O c t o b e r ' 7 5 - O c t o b e r '76






Apr i l '76 - A p r i l ' 7 7

TABLE 6


EXPOSED AT COMPLEX 39A (2500 FOOT) TEST SITE

EXPOSURE PERIOD- -,I

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

J u n e '76 - J u n e '77

Ju ly ' 76 - Ju ly ' 77



O c t o b e r ‘76 - O c t o b e r ‘77


December '76 - December ‘77

January ‘77 - January ‘78

February ‘77 - February ‘78

AVERAGE

WEIGHT LOSSGRAMS

5.0

5 .9

3.7

5.5

5.6

8 .0

9.1

7.1

6 .6

7.3

7 .0

7 .3

3.1

6.8

7 .6

7 .0

8 .1

8.2

5.9

8 .5

7 .6

5.7

4 .9

6 .6

11

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14:

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

TABLE 7


EXPOSED AT PUMP HOUSE (5200 FOOT) TEST SITE

EXPOSURE PERIOD

Apr'il '75 - A p r i l ' 7 6

May '75 - May '76

J u n e ' 7 5 - J u n e '76

WEIGHT LOSSGRAMS

6.9

7.9

6 .6

J u l y ' 7 5 - J u l y ' 7 6 6 . 5

August '75 - August '76 8.1


October ' 7 5 - O c t o b e r '76 10.5




9 .3

8.7

9.4

February '76 - F e b r u a r y '77

March '76 - M a r c h '77

Apr i l '76 - A p r i l ' 7 7

May '76 - May '77

J u n e '76 - J u n e '77

July '76 - July '77


September '76 - -September '77

O c t o b e r ' 7 6 - O c t o b e r '77





AVERAGE

8.7

8.4

5.3

8.6

9.9

9.2

9 .5

10.5

10.7

9.7

9.3

9.4

8.0

8.7

12

TABLE 813

-

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.I 14.

15.

16., 17.I

18.

19.1 20./

21.I 22.

23.--


EXPOSED AT PUMP HOUSE (5200 FOOT) TEST SITE

WEIGHT LOSSEXPOSURE PERIOD GRAMS

Ap$il ' 7 5 - A p r i l '76 3.9

May '75 - May '76 4.7

J u n e '75 - J u n e '76 3.3

July ' 7 5 - Ju ly ' 76 3 .6

August '75 - August '76 4 .9


O c t o b e r ' 7 5 - O c t o b e r '76 7.8




February '76 - February '77 4 . 9

March '76 - March '77 5.9

A p r i l '76 - A p r i l '77 1.7

May '76 - May '77 5.3

June '76 - June '77 5.8

July '7 .6 - July '77 5.4

August '76 - August '77 6 .2


O c t o b e r ' 7 6 - O c t o b e r '77 4.9


December '76 - December '77 6 .0



AVEIWCE 5.2

.

TABLE 9 14


EXPOSED AT INDUSTRIAL AREA (6 MILE) TEST SITE

WEIGHT LOSSEXPOSURE PERIOD-.. GRAMS

,I1. April ' 75 - April '76 8 .1

2. May '75 - May '76 8 .1

3. June '75 - J u n e '76 6.9

4. July ' 7 5 - J u l y ' 7 6 7 . 6

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11._-_

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.J'


September '75 - S e p t e m b e r '76

O c t o b e r '75 - O c t o b e r '76






A p r i l '76 - A p r i l ' 7 7

May '76 - May '77

June '76 - June '77

J u l y ' 7 6 - J u l y ' 7 7



O c t o b e r ' 7 6 - O c t o b e r '77





AVERAGE

7.7

9 .0

8 .5

8 .9

9 .2

9 .2

8 .9

7 .6

6 .3

8 . 0

9 .2

8 . 6

9 .2

10.9

10.8

9 .7

8 .9

9 .9

8 .4

8 .7

.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

1 0 .

11.

12.

13.

14;

15.16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

TABLE 1015

AISI 4130 STEEL SAMPLE

EXPOSED AT INDUSTRIAL AREA (6 MILE) TEST'SITE

EXPOSURE PERIODWEIGHT LOSS

GRAMS,-

A p r i l ' 7 5 - A p r i l ' 7 6

May '75 - May '76

J u n e '75 - J u n e '76

J u l y ' 7 5 - J u l y ' 7 6

5.1

5 .1

4 . 3

4 .1

A u g u s t " 7 5 - A u g u s t ' 7 6


October ' 7 5 - O c t o b e r '76



January ' 7 6 - J a n u a r y ' 7 7

February ' 7 6 - F e b r u a r y '77

5.0

6.1

6 .0

6 .3

5.8

5.1

6 .4

5 .5March '76 - March '77

Apr i l ' 7 6 - A p r i l '77

May '76 - May '77

June '76 - J u n e '77

J u l y ' 7 6 - J u l y ' 7 7



O c t o b e r '76 - O c t o b e r '77





AVERAGE

1.6

4 .8

6 .0

5 .6

6 .6

7 .6

7 .3

6 . 9

6 .4

4 . 3

5.2

5.5

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14..

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

TABLE 11


EXPOSED AT ORLANDO (50 MILE) TEST SITE

EXPOSURE PERIOD

A p r i l ' 7 5 - A p r i l '76.

May '75 - May '76

J u n e ' 7 5 - J u n e '76

J u l y ' 7 5 - J u l y ' 7 6

August ' 7 5 - August '76


O c t o b e r ' 7 5 - O c t o b e r '76






I Apr i l '76 - A p r i l '77

May '76 - May '77

J u n e '76 - J u n e '77

Ju ly ' 76 - Ju ly ' 77



October '76 - O c t o b e r '77





AVERAGE

WEIGHT LOSSGRAMS

6 . 9

7 . 5 .

6.5

5.9

7.4

8 .3

7.7

7.6

10.9

7.1

7 .3

6.8

4 .4

7.1

8 .5

7 .5

8 .2

9.7

6 .9

8 .9

8.7

8.7

7.3

7 .6

16

TABLE 12 17

1.

2.

3.

4. J u l y ' 7 5 - J u l y ' 7 6 4 .1

5. August '75 - August '76

6. September '75 - September '76

O c t o b e r ' 7 5 - O c t o b e r '76






A p r i l ' 7 6 - A p r i l ' 7 7

May '76 - May '77

J u n e '76 1 J u n e '77

Ju ly ' 76 - Ju ly ' 77



O c t o b e r '76 - O c t o b e r '77


7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14..

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.


EXPOSED AT ORLANDO (50 MILE) TEST SiTE

EXPOSURE PERIOD,-

A p r i l ' 7 5 - A p r i l ' 7 6

May '75 - May '76

WEIGHT LOSS ,GRAMS

4.7

4 .9

June '75 - J u n e ' 7 6 4 .7

5.0

6 .3

5.8

5.8

7.4

4 . 5

5.0

5.7

2.8

4 . 5

6 .5

4 .6

6 . 3

7 .3

4.8

6 .3

December '76 - December '77 6 .9


February '77 - February '78 4 . 0

AVERAGE 5.4

.

18

,-

TABLE 13 .

AVERAGE WEIGHT LOSS FOR ALL EXPOSURE PERIODS

WEIGHT LOSS, GRAMS

CORROSIONTEST SITE

1

2

3

4

5 6 miles

6 50 miles

DISTANCEFROM SEACOAST

100 feet

800 feet

2500 feet

5200 feet

TEST MATERIALAISI 1008 AISI 4130

61.1 '16.9

11.6 6.6

11.4 6.6

8 .7 5.2

8.7 5.5

7 .6 5.4

-

to. ..-_I _.__-- -” _I_. _ Lr

. -__ - - .-i_ -. _ -.. _i.-l ; I I I I I‘,’ j; ST; T;fL

.- -. y- -y-y.l -j-.’

.____ . ..L. ..---:

yj ‘1:..-_ 1--.

i,ii

‘i iI7 ,.,,,! I ! .! ,s -+-;! I I ;/Ij 171 ii!7..--,--Ll--- --_1 j .!-’ ” / ,+TJL j-L.-.I I~-- ..a

I - -j /Ir-, i -.+.L~--~ +; I- ;-f-;+l-+.i :: : T-r-, j I ! i I 1-i

-

-_it+-.-i. .;-+---L!/ / I /7-F?. _... ;_!! ! /2. ----! ! i I[’ r1-r-i-g-;jq-j;1: :T--#--FI I- _..IT-i-hJ- r :.@ilT1 ,I ‘-wI.. -.I -! -1- -- ,

7$r_-

j+ii 1i‘i” -I1%. -. -I-j-9 :-dk, -@J-/IY?-rrr--gii.+Ol-iLff>..;--j--j - i--‘-L.-! I: ! ;f-j-p.$7,j.. -j :q-r- -I /_.-]I--;1 1

I -

i i

Ii -

.-....

:_.iII

I!_

_- -__

---:.

I+.

! :_ -_. _ _.

I -

I.I

--_--:---.r s, -1 ( (.IIem -:i_iiTF jLsL’.-e,.za -- ~~~!-i_~?-- -..?--.’ ____ :1-z.; ’ :/ !: : i--. ; j /-..-.’ _ __ AI i.& _.__,_ /ST1 ! r -i: ::,-. ~-~~j~;~.~:~~~~~;~:~ ;.-- , f :_:1 i jjji / ,jj_ / 1-y-r: j j;;/

i / j j

j iT!- -1. , [ ;- F.-f:-P-r. . ..g.:

II--.- --LI1-1

1. j j / ( 1 .... r,::~~~~

4 -r. . ..‘..~~~::~~;I.~.;.~~:..~~~

I/ ; ; / I ; /

: *.:. ~~~~:::‘::!:.:f~‘~~~~

I . . . . !ii:~:i:“:.:.:.~.:~” .:.*.. :::.+j:.:. . ..:c:.:::::...~i:~.~~f:.:::.:

) .:.,:..:...;:~ . . . . . . . . ..‘......I~I.~~~....~..::.t:y.::. 1.. . . .4 I / / 1 i . ..I Sii$i$L$.F& ::...:..:.-.....

. ...*..*. ::.: . ..*....y:.:s::l:::::d.‘.... ..:.:._ _ __ _ . . ..,,..*.......: :.>:::;:;y . . . . :

7.I-I.,--..

__-~

-..--_- _--2

~~~~~~--

-.- -. -..- I- -.l-- - -L- --.L--.

_. -Ti..-:-.F-:-I-i-: _.._ ’

19.

’ j j !-- ---- -.--2 -I a

,-

t

-I-- -1 LL.--- --f;-,--‘-y- :-.j-: yY--i:_

,..j_ +;-.i+I ;-r-i-+~-.~ tL;-.{-: .:. +---.-b-._..--‘_- ,-- __,/i ,,:j :‘:” ‘iJ ! : iI ij-. - --v-

: -7+--Y~~~T~~-&~

! .I i ‘; !

TJ ; /;.I;;;~ : i .j-;

i: I;,,.--

!-..-- -’

.: ;.;- ! ; ;. j

,; .I

1

,JJL, j

- - _ _ _ _/ j

’ I

!.---.- :: _,-- .___

:ii /

/ j j. ni j j i ; j j j j j .-

‘..I., I.-j-l.././. /../I j j /-1.1

.!,.;+

: 1.T--/ ie--j_ 1, 1 i:ij

---./ I ! !

:! ,.i!i 1 17 _: i i

T-‘+ , -1 ‘-1. iiT: jjj:

i ! I i j ’! ! iij/ l/!j /ji:

j ..i& -.j_i,i’:j/e ..j.;/- iT?qy-/g

;EfI- +g++. ++- -:._l. -1.L-

I-:‘L--,

a

I-

-.--b-L

,f -I:

: ! ! /, i,i ;i;j’ ‘-A----! -_

:;::

I- -

Tr! ii!j / r: ; -?-; I

l ; ;j / :. j :I-i--j j .I-./ .; j -! j ii.7 _

-~~~-j-I~~-/ i-. i.- i-j / ’ j z? ij

#

-;---.&! j ‘-1

P

-j-i! (I// ,. -. _, 1 j_ 1.. .-jY/.liIl_

--&:-A -~1.. )- 1

.-t-l.; -fi!q-

’

1 ‘II-j_ -i-~i. /j.l.+

/ I i :-I

/ j. i

-.ii_~~~:~~~./:~~~~ :+i{L. i-/-i i go. 1

1i

I,

;:ji,!---,--f-

! ,+-.;-..-.’ “-.ij

-r7-v

L- -;.--&: !

L&-r -+

c

: : i

;: ;j:/ ::iI-‘-i-.--L ---A-:- - L A . -

,,.: ,:;x-q-;-;;‘. I-(

-+J; j i ; j :p~q;-!f 1 y-p+)~j-_, 7~ : j I ~j .1--‘--11-“‘-!~---‘1;

---- -I.-

.-- ..--) -.-.. . . --.L-~-__-..-: ,.-.. _ -.- .---“:--I-i-~--l--l.-1.-I. . .._I. 1.. _.__ /- /-‘...-. :--’

/.-- -! i i 1.8 ,

*~;T-i+-$-&-I I ,,I

-....

-. .._

--

--

--_

.A-

- .-.-

00

.,000

Le

000

L00l-4

-

zu-lCLV

c-0200OU-4

OWt-Iv,

2z

zu

e

z

L/)

2

000r(

go0G 900-Y: 804

5 70.r(s" 60

50

40

30x

20

lo"

1 2 3 4 5 6

FIGURE 2

CORROSION RATES FOR 2 STEELS EXPOSED AT BEACH (100 FT) SITE

FOR 1 YEAR, DURING PROGRM INTERVAL,

APRIL 1975 THROUGH FE-BRUkRY.'1978.

X- AISI 1008

tyr AISI 4 1 3 0 __.-. ._._ . .._.

x-.

x

* x

L) 0

x ,’

?t

00 0

._ _ ._._._ . ..- _ _

-.- - ..- ---___-- ________

% . :Y

. . . -. ~-.. ..-....-. -..--. .-. __- - ..__. -;.---.i- _.._.. X++L

.-.. . X. . . . . .~ ~. .Lx

. . . :. .x -. _ : ..j . .: : I---._. L __ ----A :.------L--.1.:. :+x ! ::...~

_- _. _._.._._.... l ___... ..______ i:. x ---I. i : : i : : I-.-.-. :-. .---.Y -..... -I:2 :

/ F .: : i -- :’ j :i---. A--! : I A-L’.__. -A1 .: .,.- --. - i . . . . . . ..L .._.... .._ L. : ‘-..-.. _.__: _..-... ..--.1.. ; _.__ .--..-2 ._ -__.-._ .- .-__.- .-._. _ .:I

. . 0.9

3 0 0

7 8 9 10 11

: : :--- *.-L j ‘.. .-I:-.-.I ____L --.-.-----.-’

x :.~. .._ _- )( ‘. 1 -. -;y .-.- -- :’ ::j::--- -;--:- j --, ---; -;- .;: -. j .‘.-~-I j. .._ ___ __.- ---..L! .:.i.:r J. -___-__.--.-- 4,.:.I :...Ix . .~ -I- _ . . ..--.I.-IIL-~.L...-_ --+-+L+ -.:--;--i.-_:.:._r.l._--__ ..____ I

.: .- .. _:.! : : : 1: ‘. .i .:.’ i :.:. i :.:i-.i :-. :-i .

! 9’.jT-T--:-:......:Yz-

: . . .:.:..:.: !._-:. :. ..-. ..--. f .-.-._....... -- __._ ..-.. .__’ ..__. Le.--. .:

lQ.- .--. f&-. : -’: j. ;.

t .q----- ----LLLL”.- .-

V : ur:-- :-.; ::. .;. ; i::::: --[

Q 0

i :IyIQ-: j .: '.. ;~. :

: : :i--.-

*--- __: . . ..--. . 1L:..I.:.. ')3iI. i : :....I :Y.: ;o

/ i. :: ;.:-:..--i. .:. i' : ..:;-..i.~-._.II_.-.l..--L..!_.ll:.- -;-j,.:

i_..:!.:..:: ..:,,-.. -:.:ie.:~ )..++ L. .-_.-I --::..1:~‘_--,1~1..:

: .i,: . . _; f. : ..!. .:, ;I '- '12 13 1J -.-i.5--16-.----'..: ! ':

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25EXPOSLJ"' PERiOD

.! .1- ., J 1,*.::ii :: ..;-‘>,Yz “.‘.

Mil l igrams NaC1/ML/HR 21 000

0”00

vu

l-l

03 u3.il 1-11 i.jej/ 1 a8 ; ( j/j/ ;:I;11; II s -*

+-/a p I ’ $--q--/---~~-~~/!/I Ii;; ;;;;I II: ;!.I-_

‘. .Nt-LF-;j!; ! i:Ij)i 7I i : 1

-I * -iy~.m---- I- j-.-r -f i i !JTi‘;l~i 1 1 1 1 ; ! 1 ipii- -!- -i .‘I-:-? -.-. :‘i -.-- :

++-pp--q 1 / : ’ ;kIIT:i

-T7-T’T- 1. :+&-~j~-

I ! ; I .-l-I I I I I

T ii

~~,’ ‘-‘- .j.l _ i.i / 1-..-~-” ! i j i j! !!--.

-,?I. I $,-jI’i: p;- ; ( 7-T-J. 7-7_.: i 1 Ij-! .j 1 i j j [

; i 1 ; 1 ; I I!_: Ii

fi

__.1:._

T.t_

I

:

7,I ( 1 i i!Ii :j T7.; -;! 1 j i l/J i :-I 1;

zFn

A - - . - -( :.- _ -,-:I; -i- ---:-7-L -i ! I iI I : i F;-I;$ j-j. j+L

,I, ,1-l 1. i I ; ! i ~-j.~t~~*

$& I#~~:%

‘lIje.j i;/ T// -:,;J[ ~/-1_Ij~ /! / 1

;;.} y. / 1 1-j-i i II! -:g

i 1 j j ; 1 ; / j ; j j i 1

I-I- j 1. i i I \-I. I I j 1 i -/ / i 1 j / [ /‘. I/

7:. ijj!/ ilij j/ :--__- -_-.-_ Aj j ! j1.1 / 1

,I;: /i-i_- -3-1 1; Ij

!a! ,,(,T-_plL;---- _L&I-J--.&J-I-:

=:0

L00t-i;.J--,-: : - :-, .: ” :A-/ i

+-.y- - -

--IT/I i I ; ij j .I;

--. -. .- - .- .-L.-i- _.__ _ .._; : :i -&i $-. ;--,:, ::I:

7, j / 1 ,-j; i 1 i I:,- --..__

I , : ! 1-1 ly-fly 1 -‘y.5., !,I

‘-~-.;i : ”

-,L.i j/ -1 .j j pl;j .i

L-.---l-.‘, ..-. ._

----r-1 ,-; ?I /

ii:: ,i.j jif.+ -iy- -:

:’ 1

&& j .i.-jije/: j;i:/-l j 1 ; ; 1 i i j j-i’: j- +!-/-I

-1stl-i -I: /:j+ :II/. I::1~~~-~~~~-~~~~~~~~~.

1 I I , _ , I /I.: i I- / ime[i-.iLl_i9ij’ 1: j-1 IIIN--- --

it-t Iit-t I

Ik!-..- 1 2 -:_I ___ .A-1Ik!-..- 1 2 -:_I ___ .A-1Iw ;Ip:Iw ;Ip:

q-ll~ I/ IiTq-ll~ I/ IiT

i w;i w; p:,:l j/l.p:,:l j/l.

L$jI. / “Lr 1. ix~L$jI. / “Lr 1. ix~

__ -__ - ‘. i-‘. i-2525 ; 4 1 Li.; 4 1 Li.

--o:- i---o:- i--.. --.. -h !b..-;h !b..-;..,_--..,_--

-.$.-. /-:s . .i. .__1___ L-.$.-. /-:s . .i. .__1___ L~.. % / -. .’~.. % / -. .’

; 0; 0 -.-. _ _ __ _ _

u. ‘Uu. ‘U 1 ..:.1 ..:. :..:..

-I

I /+I ’

.I I ’ :

I-. .I_’ IS!-.!

Li-gr;.

s 2-- __ :.. _.,. _-i+- I ’: - _Lij

” I

._.I_---! - --.--:;:‘;“i I-_--_-

I ’ ’ I, : III

- : , , _.. ,, ,

---.

i.‘- i- ;.; / 5+[;[ :;-Ii-

;-Tm-tTy”T -f- y.T-~--“-’

’

;%-f-.,-, ;_ .+!,-+-IT-ci. : i / _. : 1 . . I-:- -. ._I_ ;--:.

I- __._! .E+.-‘-1 iL-2-ki-

:-! :- .-i____‘I -.-. I

I_ _ _.,.’i - .I -__-. .

I .! _..:! ; I?-- I !;T

_.+- ,s

, .j j .( ../- -I--b -.L-.L.;: ; IiJ i-qy++-G : /..IA-LL-: #i/l

~:

!I +7-k-r-i---i+4 iA++j I3 rl-lT

.$gg2 .. i---- -_ ._ _-.

I#. . _

1

-----.- .-._i

__ j _ _ -..-.- - I .- . . .: ; :

-? /: -. - -.-.---

1 t-+cjiJ .-+ -l--.y-__ fJJ- _ / +--I. --:-+.cJ !I-7.;. . ..&/ s. .~.:- 1 ..,j

l-cd. . fu.,-l-’ .--.. I!_

-i j$gi I

; j 2. $!&

,4-

_I .j @- ii.i-{-j..I-L/-g. -. .-=-T I-., Pz

--G-;! ,/Ii.1

j i

T-y’- -y-- i /. .; ; I_ j

?Ix; ;- -

L&l- -. 1 I 1. j j-1.

5/

Frj--- ,-;.+\ ;ir__-_-!_

P,l 1 LI 1 1 ! -i j .I. I-:!-../: / .I f L j 1 jI_: i !I. : ! f I i 1 i-l I-i i ! jI 14 ! 1 ., .,_ J I..!

i 1 ; / / / j 1 i r/-j--f/#j+~j#/~~ -#I T & j ! - -

-___ ’ /. i I_ 1/+ _I-:-’ 1.-- -:,

;j. I!

/

?I’i ii I_ ) ; ; I j i-yL.,<-L kL>- .&-i-;-

Irl/i j.j

: ; :..-- / ./;:. .i i j ;

.:: I.000l-lT-7 .-.-

+~-k;+j---~-~-y-j-j--y-~---j i :

2

,~~~~~

I I.T l”l.?-~.-1-1-.1..-i-lr:-~l~~.l-i: :I. j ! /

: I I - I ! : .--’ ;A-pm’ ! ’ 1-7-f-; ;.+ +- .i i jj

:’ I---i;-;..;--q--j-+---, 1 j /

-&L~j-yf~L1- __._ -- ---.--j: .:,ji :+--L.L. .-;?- -:_ --i I ! ,.

i- -_.. . ..!----.- -. -f : , ii_/ i: rLL- ILi i: j ii!: I!,:Try-+ -T;-T l”.-j ! I i II’;1 j~jj//jj ////. 11.1-r-i-c- i I -!--._I’/! j ’,I ’ 1 1. jJIi.// 1 I I ,,

I ’p#+~; :;p,

XjL( j + -1; .y ).I-:/’

0 0t-4

corrosivity at various distances

Documents