ASTM G31——金属的实验室浸泡腐蚀标准
Designation:G31–72(Reapproved2004)
Standard Practice for
Laboratory Immersion Corrosion Testing of Metals1
This standard is issued under the?xed designation G31;the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of original adoption or,in the case of revision,the year of last revision.A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval.A superscript epsilon(e)indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1.Scope
1.1This practice2describes accepted procedures for and factors that in?uence laboratory immersion corrosion tests, particularly mass loss tests.These factors include specimen preparation,apparatus,test conditions,methods of cleaning specimens,evaluation of results,and calculation and reporting of corrosion rates.This practice also emphasizes the impor-tance of recording all pertinent data and provides a checklist for reporting test data.Other ASTM procedures for laboratory corrosion tests are tabulated in the Appendix.(Warning—In many cases the corrosion product on the reactive metals titanium and zirconium is a hard and tightly bonded oxide that de?es removal by chemical or ordinary mechanical means.In many such cases,corrosion rates are established by mass gain rather than mass loss.)
1.2The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard.The values given in parentheses are for information only.
1.3This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns,if any,associated with its use.It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.
2.Referenced Documents
2.1ASTM Standards:3
A262Practices for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranu-lar Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels
E8Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials G1Practice for Preparing,Cleaning,and Evaluating Cor-rosion Test Specimens
G4Guide for Conducting Corrosion Coupon Tests in Field Applications
G16Guide for Applying Statistics to Analysis of Corrosion Data
G46Guide for Examination and Evaluation of Pitting Corrosion
3.Signi?cance and Use
3.1Corrosion testing by its very nature precludes complete standardization.This practice,rather than a standardized pro-cedure,is presented as a guide so that some of the pitfalls of such testing may be avoided.
3.2Experience has shown that all metals and alloys do not respond alike to the many factors that affect corrosion and that “accelerated”corrosion tests give indicative results only,or may even be entirely misleading.It is impractical to propose an in?exible standard laboratory corrosion testing procedure for general use,except for material quali?cation tests where standardization is obviously required.
3.3In designing any corrosion test,consideration must be given to the various factors discussed in this practice,because these factors have been found to affect greatly the results obtained.
4.Interferences
4.1The methods and procedures described herein represent the best current practices for conducting laboratory corrosion tests as developed by corrosion specialists in the process industries.For proper interpretation of the results obtained,the speci?c in?uence of certain variables must be considered. These include:
4.1.1Metal specimens immersed in a speci?c hot liquid may not corrode at the same rate or in the same manner as in equipment where the metal acts as a heat transfer medium in heating or cooling the liquid.If the in?uence of heat transfer effects is speci?cally of interest,specialized procedures(in which the corrosion specimen serves as a heat transfer agent) must be employed(1).4
4.1.2In laboratory tests,the velocity of the environment relative to the specimens will normally be determined by convection currents or the effects induced by aeration or boiling or both.If the speci?c effects of high velocity are to be studied,special techniques must be employed to transfer the
1This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee G01on Corrosion of Metals and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee G01.05on Laboratory Corrosion Tests.
Current edition approved May1,2004.Published May2004.Originally approved https://www.wendangku.net/doc/4044939.html,st previous edition approved in1998as G31–72(1998).
2This practice is based upon NACE Standard TM-01-69,“Test Method-Laboratory Corrosion Testing of Metals for the Process Industries,”with modi?ca-tions to relate more directly to Practices G1and G31and Guide G4.
3For referenced ASTM standards,visit the ASTM website,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/4044939.html,,or contact ASTM Customer Service at service@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/4044939.html,.For Annual Book of ASTM
Standards volume information,refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on the ASTM website.
4The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to the list of references at the end of this practice.
1
Copyright?ASTM International,100Barr Harbor Drive,PO Box C700,West Conshohocken,PA19428-2959,United States.
environment through tubular specimens or to move it rapidly past the plane face of a corrosion coupon(2).Alternatively,the coupon may be rotated through the environment,although it is then difficult to evaluate the velocity quantitatively because of the stirring effects incurred.
4.1.3The behavior of certain metals and alloys may be profoundly in?uenced by the presence of dissolved oxygen.If this is a factor to be considered in a speci?c test,the solution should be completely aerated or deaerated in accordance with 8.7.
4.1.4In some cases,the rate of corrosion may be governed by other minor constituents in the solution,in which case they will have to be continually or intermittently replenished by changing the solution in the test.
4.1.5Corrosion products may have undesirable effects on a chemical product.The amount of possible contamination can be estimated from the loss in mass of the specimen,with proper application of the expected relationships among(1)the area of corroding surface,(2)the mass of the chemical product handled,and(3)the duration of contact of a unit of mass of the chemical product with the corroding surface.
4.1.6Corrosion products from the coupon may in?uence the corrosion rate of the metal itself or of different metals exposed at the same time.For example,the accumulation of cupric ions in the testing of copper alloys in intermediate strengths of sulfuric acid will accelerate the corrosion of copper alloys,as compared to the rates that would be obtained if the corrosion products were continually removed.Cupric ions may also exhibit a passivating effect upon stainless steel coupons ex-posed at the same time.In practice,only alloys of the same general type should be exposed in the testing apparatus.
4.1.7Coupon corrosion testing is predominantly designed to investigate general corrosion.There are a number of other special types of phenomena of which one must be aware in the design and interpretation of corrosion tests.
4.1.7.1Galvanic corrosion may be investigated by special devices which couple one coupon to another in electrical contact.The behavior of the specimens in this galvanic couple are compared with that of insulated specimens exposed on the same holder and the galvanic effects noted.It should be observed,however,that galvanic corrosion can be greatly affected by the area ratios of the respective metals,the distance between the metals and the resistivity of the electrolyte.The coupling of corrosion coupons then yields only qualitative results,as a particular coupon re?ects only the relationship between these two metals at the particular area ratio involved.
4.1.7.2Crevice corrosion or concentration cell corrosion may occur where the metal surface is partially blocked from the corroding liquid as under a spacer or supporting hook.It is necessary to evaluate this localized corrosion separately from the overall mass loss.
4.1.7.3Selective corrosion at the grain boundaries(for example,intergranular corrosion of sensitized austenitic stain-less steels)will not be readily observable in mass loss measurements unless the attack is severe enough to cause grain dropping,and often requires microscopic examination of the coupons after exposure.
4.1.7.4Dealloying or“parting”corrosion is a condition in which one constituent is selectively removed from an alloy,as in the dezinci?cation of brass or the graphitization of cast iron. Close attention and a more sophisticated evaluation than a simple mass loss measurement are required to detect this phenomenon.
4.1.7.5Certain metals and alloys are subject to a highly localized type of attack called pitting corrosion.This cannot be evaluated by mass loss alone.The reporting of nonuniform corrosion is discussed below.It should be appreciated that pitting is a statistical phenomenon and that the incidence of pitting may be directly related to the area of metal exposed.For example,a small coupon is not as prone to exhibit pitting as a large one and it is possible to miss the phenomenon altogether in the corrosion testing of certain alloys,such as the AISI Type 300series stainless steels in chloride contaminated environ-ments.
4.1.7.6All metals and alloys are subject to stress-corrosion cracking under some circumstances.This cracking occurs under conditions of applied or residual tensile stress,and it may or may not be visible to the unaided eye or upon casual inspection.A metallographic examination may con?rm the presence of stress-corrosion cracking.It is imperative to note that this usually occurs with no signi?cant loss in mass of the test coupon,although certain refractory metals are an exception to these observations.Generally,if cracking is observed on the coupon,it can be taken as positive indication of susceptibility, whereas failure to effect this phenomenon simply means that it did not occur under the duration and speci?c conditions of the test.Separate and special techniques are employed for the speci?c evaluation of the susceptibility of metals and alloys to stress corrosion cracking(see Ref.(3)).
5.Apparatus
5.1A versatile and convenient apparatus should be used, consisting of a kettle or?ask of suitable size(usually500to 5000mL),a re?ux condenser with atmospheric seal,a sparger for controlling atmosphere or aeration,a thermowell and temperature-regulating device,a heating device(mantle,hot plate,or bath),and a specimen support system.If agitation is required,the apparatus can be modi?ed to accept a suitable stirring mechanism,such as a magnetic stirrer.A typical resin ?ask setup for this type test is shown in Fig.1.
5.2The suggested components can be modi?ed,simpli?ed, or made more sophisticated to?t the needs of a particular investigation.The suggested apparatus is basic and the appa-ratus is limited only by the judgment and ingenuity of the investigator.
5.2.1A glass reaction kettle can be used where the con?gu-ration and size of the specimen will permit entry through the narrow kettle neck(for example,45/50ground-glass joint).For solutions corrosive to glass,suitable metallic or plastic kettles may be employed.
5.2.2In some cases a wide-mouth jar with a suitable closure is sufficient when simple immersion tests at ambient tempera-tures are to be investigated.
5.2.3Open-beaker tests should not be used because of evaporation and
contamination.
5.2.4In more complex tests,provisions might be needed for continuous ?ow or replenishment of the corrosive liquid,while simultaneously maintaining a controlled atmosphere.
6.Sampling
6.1The bulk sampling of products is outside the scope of this practice.
7.Test Specimen
7.1In laboratory tests,uniform corrosion rates of duplicate specimens are usually within 610%under the same test conditions.Occasional exceptions,in which a large difference is observed,can occur under conditions of borderline passivity
of metals or alloys that depend on a passive ?lm for their resistance to corrosion.Therefore,at least duplicate specimens should normally be exposed in each test.
7.2If the effects of corrosion are to be determined by changes in mechanical properties,untested duplicate speci-mens should be preserved in a noncorrosive environment at the same temperature as the test environment for comparison with the corroded specimens.The mechanical property commonly used for comparison is the tensile strength.Measurement of percent elongation is a useful index of embrittlement.The procedures for determining these values are shown in detail in Test Methods E 8.
7.3The size and shape of specimens will vary with the purpose of the test,nature of the materials,and apparatus used.A large surface-to-mass ratio and a small ratio of edge area to total area are desirable.These ratios can be achieved through the use of square or circular specimens of minimum thickness.Masking may also be used to achieve the desired area ratios but may cause crevice corrosion problems.Circular specimens should preferably be cut from sheet and not bar stock,to minimize the exposed end grain.Special coupons (for example,sections of welded tubing)may be employed for speci?c purposes.
7.3.1A circular specimen of about 38-mm (1.5-in.)diam-eter is a convenient shape for laboratory corrosion tests.With a thickness of approximately 3mm (0.125-in.)and an 8-mm (5?16-in.)or 11-mm (7?16-in.)diameter hole for mounting,these specimens will readily pass through a 45/50ground-glass joint of a distillation kettle.The total surface area of a circular specimen is given by the following equation:
A 5p /2~D 22d 2!1t p D 1t p d
(1)
where:t =thickness,D =diameter of the specimen,and d =diameter of the mounting hole.
7.3.1.1If the hole is completely covered by the mounting support,the last term (t p d )in the equation is omitted.
7.3.2Strip coupons 50by 25by 1.6or 3mm (2by 1by 1?16or 1?8in.)may be preferred as corrosion specimens,particularly if interface or liquid line effects are to be studied by the laboratory tests (see Fig.1),but the evaluation of such speci?c effects are beyond the scope of this practice.
7.3.3All specimens should be measured carefully to permit accurate calculation of the exposed areas.A geometric area calculation accurate to 61%is usually adequate.
7.4More uniform results may be expected if a substantial layer of metal is removed from the specimens to eliminate variations in condition of the original metallic surface.This can be done by chemical treatment (pickling),electrolytic removal,or by grinding with a coarse abrasive paper or cloth such as No.50,using care not to work harden the surface (see section 5.7).At least 0.0025mm (0.0001in.)or 0.0155to 0.0233mg/mm 2(10to 15mg/in.2)should be removed.(If clad alloy specimens are to be used,special attention must be given to ensure that excessive metal is not removed.)After ?nal preparation of the specimen surface,the specimens should be stored in a desic-cator until exposure,if they are not used immediately.In special cases (for example,for aluminum and certain copper alloys),a minimum of 24h storage in a desiccator is recom-mended.The choice of a speci?c treatment must be considered on the basis of the alloy to be tested and the reasons for testing.A commercial surface may sometimes yield the most signi?-cant results.Too much surface preparation may remove segre-gated elements,surface contamination,and so forth,and therefore not be representative.
7.5Exposure of sheared edges should be avoided unless the purpose of the test is to study effects of the shearing operation.It may be desirable to test a surface representative of the material and metallurgical conditions used in practice.
N OTE 1—The ?ask can be used as a versatile and convenient apparatus to conduct simple immersion tests.Con?guration of top to ?ask is such that more sophisticated apparatus can be added as required by the speci?c test being conducted.A =thermowell,B =resin ?ask,C =specimens hung on supporting device,D =air inlet,E =heating mantle,F =liquid inter-face,G =opening in ?ask for additional apparatus that may be required,and H =re?ux condenser.
FIG.1Typical Resin Flask
7.6The specimen can be stamped with an appropriate identifying mark.If metallic contamination of the stamped area may in?uence the corrosion behavior,chemical cleaning must be employed to remove any traces of foreign particles from the surface of the coupon(for example,by immersion of stainless steel coupons in dilute nitric acid following stamping with steel dies).
7.6.1The stamp,besides identifying the specimen,intro-duces stresses and cold work in the specimen that could be responsible for localized corrosion or stress-corrosion crack-ing,or both.
7.6.2Stress-corrosion cracking at the identifying mark is a positive indication of susceptibility to such corrosion.How-ever,the absence of cracking should not be interpreted as indicating resistance(see4.1.7.6).
7.7Final surface treatment of the specimens should include ?nishing with No.120abrasive paper or cloth or the equiva-lent,unless the surface is to be used in the mill?nished condition.This resurfacing may cause some surface work hardening,to an extent which will be determined by the vigor of the surfacing operation,but is not ordinarily signi?cant.The surface?nish to be encountered in service may be more appropriate for some testing.
7.7.1Coupons of different alloy compositions should never be ground on the same cloth.
7.7.2Wet grinding should be used on alloys which work harden quickly,such as the austenitic stainless steels.
7.8The specimens should be?nally degreased by scrubbing with bleach-free scouring powder,followed by thorough rins-ing in water and in a suitable solvent(such as acetone, methanol,or a mixture of50%methanol and50%ether),and air dried.For relatively soft metals(such as aluminum, magnesium,and copper),scrubbing with abrasive powder is not always needed and can mar the surface of the specimen. Proper ultrasonic procedures are an acceptable alternate.The use of towels for drying may introduce an error through contamination of the specimens with grease or lint.
7.9The dried specimens should be weighed on an analytical balance to an accuracy of at least60.5mg.If cleaning deposits (for example,scouring powder)remain or lack of complete dryness is suspected,then recleaning and drying is performed until a constant mass is attained.
7.10The method of specimen preparation should be de-scribed when reporting test results,to facilitate interpretation of data by other persons.
7.11The use of welded specimens is sometimes desirable, because some welds may be cathodic or anodic to the parent metal and may affect the corrosion rate.
7.11.1The heat-affected zone is also of importance but should be studied separately,because welds on coupons do not faithfully reproduce heat input or size effects of full-size weldments.
7.11.2Corrosion of a welded coupon is best reported by description and thickness measurements rather than a millime-tre per year(mils per year)rate,because the attack is normally localized and not representative of the entire surface.
7.11.3A complete discussion of corrosion testing of welded coupons or the effect of heat treatment on the corrosion resistance of a metal is not within the scope of this practice.
8.Test Conditions
8.1Selection of the conditions for a laboratory corrosion test will be determined by the purpose of the test.
8.1.1If the test is to be a guide for the selection of a material for a particular purpose,the limits of the controlling factors in service must be determined.These factors include oxygen concentration,temperature,rate of?ow,pH value,composi-tion,and other important characteristics of the solution.
8.2An effort should be made to duplicate all pertinent service conditions in the corrosion test.
8.3It is important that test conditions be controlled through-out the test in order to ensure reproducible results.
8.4The spread in corrosion rate values for duplicate speci-mens in a given test probably should not exceed610%of the average when the attack is uniform.
8.5Composition of Solution:
8.5.1Test solutions should be prepared accurately from chemicals conforming to the Speci?cations of the Committee on Analytical Reagents of the American Chemical Society5and distilled water,except in those cases where naturally occurring solutions or those taken directly from some plant process are used.
8.5.2The composition of the test solutions should be controlled to the fullest extent possible and should be described as completely and as accurately as possible when the results are reported.
8.5.2.1Minor constituents should not be overlooked be-cause they often affect corrosion rates.
8.5.2.2Chemical content should be reported as percentage by weight of the solutions.Molarity and normality are also helpful in de?ning the concentration of chemicals in some test solutions.
8.5.3If problems are suspected,the composition of the test solutions should be checked by analysis at the end of the test to determine the extent of change in composition,such as might result from evaporation or depletion.
8.5.4Evaporation losses may be controlled by a constant level device or by frequent addition of appropriate solution to maintain the original volume within61%.Preferably,the use of a re?ux condenser ordinarily precludes the necessity of adding to the original kettle charge.
8.5.5In some cases,composition of the test solution may change as a result of catalytic decomposition or by reaction with the test coupons.These changes should be determined if possible.Where required,the exhausted constituents should be added or a fresh solution provided during the course of the test.
8.5.6When possible,only one type of metal should be exposed in a given test(see4.1.6).
5Reagent Chemicals,American Chemical Society Speci?cations,American Chemical Society,Washington,DC.For suggestions on the testing of reagents not listed by the American Chemical Society,see Analar Standards for Laboratory Chemicals,BDH Ltd.,Poole,Dorset,U.K.,and the United States Pharmacopeia and National Formulary,U.S.Pharmacopeial Convention,Inc.(USPC),Rockville,
MD.
8.6Temperature of Solution :
8.6.1Temperature of the corroding solution should be controlled within 61°C (61.8°F)and must be stated in the report of test results.
8.6.2If no speci?c temperature,such as boiling point,is required or if a temperature range is to be investigated,the selected temperatures used in the test,and their respective duration,must be reported.
8.6.3For tests at ambient temperature,the tests should be conducted at the highest temperature anticipated for stagnant storage in summer months.This temperature may be as high as from 40to 45°C (104to 113°F)in some areas.The variation in temperature should be reported also (for example,4062°C).8.7Aeration of Solution :
8.7.1Unless speci?ed,the solution should not be aerated.Most tests related to process equipment should be run with the natural atmosphere inherent in the process,such as the vapors of the boiling liquid.
8.7.2If aeration is employed,the specimen should not be located in the direct air stream from the sparger.Extraneous effects can be encountered if the air stream impinges on the specimens.
8.7.3If exclusion of dissolved oxygen is necessary,speci?c techniques are required,such as prior heating of the solution and sparging with an inert gas (usually nitrogen).A liquid atmospheric seal is required on the test vessel to prevent further contamination.
8.7.4If oxygen saturation of the test solution is desired,this can best be achieved by sparging with oxygen.For other degrees of aeration,the solution should be sparaged with air or synthetic mixtures of air or oxygen with an inert gas.Oxygen saturation is a function of the partial pressure of oxygen in the gas.
8.8Solution Velocity :
8.8.1The effect of velocity is not usually determined in normal laboratory tests,although speci?c tests have been designed for this purpose.
8.8.2Tests at the boiling point should be conducted with the minimum possible heat input,and boiling chips should be used to avoid excessive turbulence and bubble impingement.
8.8.3In tests below the boiling point,thermal convection generally is the only source of liquid velocity.
8.8.4In test solutions with high viscosity,supplemental controlled stirring with a magnetic stirrer is recommended.8.9Volume of Test Solution :
8.9.1The volume of the test solution should be large enough to avoid any appreciable change in its corrosivity during the test,either through exhaustion of corrosive constituents or by accumulation of corrosion products that might affect further corrosion.
8.9.2Two examples
of a minimum “solution volume-tospecimen area”ratio are 0.20mL/mm 2(125mL/in.2)of specimen surface (Practice A 262),and 0.40mL/mm 2(250mL/in.2).
8.9.3When the test objective is to determine the effect of a metal or alloy on the characteristics of the test solution (for example,to determine the effects of metals on dyes),it is desirable to reproduce the ratio of solution volume to exposed
metal surface that exists in practice.The actual time of contact of the metal with the solution must also be taken into account.Any necessary distortion of the test conditions must be considered when interpreting the results.8.10Method of Supporting Specimens :
8.10.1The supporting device and container should not be affected by or cause contamination of the test solution.
8.10.2The method of supporting specimens will vary with the apparatus used for conducting the test,but should be designed to insulate the specimens from each other physically and electrically and to insulate the specimens from any metallic container or supporting device used within the apparatus.8.10.3Shape and form of the specimen support should assure free contact of the specimen with the corroding solution,the liquid line,or the vapor phase as shown in Fig.1.If clad alloys are exposed,special procedures will be required to ensure that only the cladding is exposed,unless the purpose is to test the ability of the cladding to protect cut edges in the test solution.
8.10.4Some common supports are glass or ceramic rods,glass saddles,glass hooks,?uorocarbon plastic strings,and various insulated or coated metallic supports.8.11Duration of Test :
8.11.1Although duration of any test will be determined by the nature and purpose of the test,an excellent procedure for evaluating the effect of time on corrosion of the metal and also on the corrosiveness of the environment in laboratory tests has been presented by Wachter and Treseder (4).This technique is called the “planned interval test,”and the procedure and evaluation of results are given in Table 1.Other procedures that require the removal of solid corrosion products between exposure periods will not measure accurately the normal changes of corrosion with time.
8.11.2Materials that experience severe corrosion generally do not ordinarily need lengthy tests to obtain accurate corro-sion rates.However,there are cases where this assumption is not valid.For example,lead exposed to sulfuric acid corrodes at an extremely high rate at ?rst,while building a protective ?lm;then the rates decrease considerably so that further corrosion is negligible.The phenomenon of forming a protec-tive ?lm is observed with many corrosion-resistant materials.Therefore,short tests on such materials would indicate a high corrosion rate and be completely misleading.
8.11.3Short-time tests also can give misleading results on alloys that form passive ?lms,such as stainless steels.With borderline conditions,a prolonged test may be needed to permit breakdown of the passive ?lm and subsequent more rapid attack.Consequently,tests run for long periods are considerably more realistic than those conducted for short durations.This statement must be quali?ed by stating that corrosion should not proceed to the point where the original specimen size or the exposed area is drastically reduced or where the metal is perforated.
8.11.4If anticipated corrosion rates are moderate or low,the following equation gives the suggested test duration:
Hours 52000/~corrosion rate in mpy !
(2)
where mpy =mils per year (see 11.2.1and Note 1for conversion to other units).
8.11.4.1Example —Where the corrosion rate is 0.25mm/y (10mpy),the test should run for at least 200h.
8.11.4.2This method of estimating test duration is useful only as an aid in deciding,after a test has been made,whether or not it is desirable to repeat the test for a longer period.The most common testing periods are 48to 168h (2to 7days).8.11.5In some cases,it may be necessary to know the degree of contamination caused by the products of corrosion.This can be accomplished by analysis of the solution after corrosion has occurred.The corrosion rate can be calculated from the concentration of the matrix metal found in the solution and it can be compared to that determined from the mass loss of the specimens.However,some of the corrosion products usually adhere to the specimen as a scale and the corrosion rate calculated from the metal content in the solution is not always correct.
8.12The design of corrosion testing programs is further discussed in Guide G 16.
9.Methods of Cleaning Specimens after Test
9.1Before specimens are cleaned,their appearance should be observed and recorded.Location of deposits,variations in types of deposits,or variations in corrosion products are extremely important in evaluating localized corrosion,such as pitting and concentration cell attack.
9.2Cleaning specimens after the test is a vital step in the corrosion test procedure and if not done properly,can cause misleading results.
9.2.1Generally,the cleaning procedure should remove all corrosion products from specimens with a minimum removal of sound metal.
9.2.2Set rules cannot be applied to specimen cleaning,because procedures will vary,depending on the type of metal being cleaned and on the degree of adherence of corrosion products.
9.3Cleaning methods can be divided into three general categories:mechanical,chemical,and electrolytic.
9.3.1Mechanical cleaning includes scrubbing,scraping,brushing,mechanical shocking,and ultrasonic procedures.Scrubbing with a bristle brush and mild abrasive is the most popular of these methods.The others are used principally as a supplement to remove heavily encrusted corrosion products before scrubbing.Care should be used to avoid the removal of sound metal.
9.3.2Chemical cleaning implies the removal of material from the surface of the specimen by dissolution in an appro-priate chemical solution.Solvents such as acetone,carbon tetrachloride,and alcohol are used to remove oil,grease,or resin and are usually applied prior to other methods of cleaning.Chemicals are chosen for application to a speci?c material.Methods for chemical cleaning after testing of spe-ci?c metals and alloys are described in Practice G 1.
9.3.3Electrolytic cleaning should be preceded by scrubbing to remove loosely adhering corrosion products.A method of electrolytic cleaning is described in Practice G 1.
9.3.3.1Precautions must be taken to ensure good electrical contact with the specimen,to avoid contamination of the solution with easily reducible metal ions,and to ensure that inhibitor decomposition has not occurred.
9.4Whatever treatment is used to clean specimens after a corrosion test,its effect in removing metal should be deter-mined and the mass loss should be corrected accordingly.A “blank”specimen should be weighed before and after exposure to the cleaning procedure to establish this mass loss (see also Practice G 1).Careful observation is needed to ensure that pitting does not occur during cleaning.
9.4.1Following removal of all scale,the specimen should be treated as discussed in 5.8.
9.4.2The description of the cleaning method should be included with the data reported.10.Interpretation of Results
10.1After corroded specimens have been cleaned,they should be reweighed with an accuracy corresponding to that of the original weighing.The mass loss during the test period can be used as the principal measure of corrosion.
TABLE 1Planned Interval Corrosion Test
(Reprinted by permission from Chemical Engineering Progress,June
1947)
Identical specimens all placed in the same corrosive ?uid.Imposed conditions of the test kept constant for entire time t +1.Letters,A 1,A t ,A t +1,B ,represent corrosion damage experienced by each test
specimen.A 2is calculated by subtracting A t from A t +1.
Occurrences During Corrosion Test
Criteria
Liquid corrosiveness
unchanged decreased increased
A 1=
B B unchanged decreased increased A 2= B A 2 Combinations of Situations Liquid corrosiveness Metal corrodibility Criteria 1.unchanged unchanged A 1=A 2=B 2.unchanged decreased A 2 3.unchanged increased A 1=B 4.decreased unchanged A 2=B 5.decreased decreased A 2 6.decreased increased A 1>B 7.increased unchanged A 1 8.increased decreased A 1A 2 9. increased increased A 1<