×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

(Material Selection/Corrosion) Bimetallic/Galvanic corrosion compatibility

(Material Selection/Corrosion) Bimetallic/Galvanic corrosion compatibility

(Material Selection/Corrosion) Bimetallic/Galvanic corrosion compatibility

(OP)
I am a QA/QC engineer in a refinery company but I am not a corrosion specialist. I have a puzzling point about the material used in building some of our towers which were constructed by Chiyoda Corp. The Towers shell and internal rings are made of carbon steel (I can not remember the exact JIS material designation but I think it is equivalent to A285 or A516 Gr.C). The trays, which have a direct contact to the rings, and some internal components are made from SS410 (ASTM A240 410 equivalent).

I searched many times for any codes that can explain the compatibility for the usage of these two different alloys together. In some cases we would prefer to use the austenitic stainless steel series (3xx). I know that the SS316 is more noble than 410 and i think that it will cause/produce a higher galvanic corrosion.

During my searches, I found the two famous codes MIT-STD-889B and NASA-STD-6012. In MIT main chart/table it prohibited both the (ferritic/martensitic & c. steel) coupling and (austenitic & c. steel) one for industrial services. In NASA (ferritic/martenistic & c. steel) is an accepted couple (potential difference between 12%cr and Iron doesn't exceed 0.25V) for space industry (but it does not work in same condition we have in towers "high press. and temp."). I could not find any ASME, ASTM or petroleum related codes that talking about that.
I also read some convincing articles that say that the potential difference, or anodic index difference, is not an enough factor to make a compatible couple. I also saw Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_corrosion#An... where the editor said that the reference is corrosion engineering handbook. I opened the handbook and could not find such anodic index diff. values (0.15, 0.25 & 0.5V) mentioned within!!!

It is very confusing for me. Can I find any NACE, ASME, ASTM, EN, DIN or JIS for?
What are the factors the material selectors and designers use/consider in such case? I think Chiyoda engineers were having a strong reference while making such couple.

Thanks in advance for any help.

RE: (Material Selection/Corrosion) Bimetallic/Galvanic corrosion compatibility

These are decisions left up to the designer, there is not Code (legally binding) or Standard (commonly accepted reference) that governs this.
What is the conductivity of your fluid at working temp and pressure?
The risk of galvanic attack is proportional to the actual potential difference. In a high conductivity environment (seawater) you have 0.25V potential, but if the conductivity is lower the potential will be lower. And the risk of corrosion will be lower.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, Plymouth Tube

RE: (Material Selection/Corrosion) Bimetallic/Galvanic corrosion compatibility

(OP)
One of these tower which has a high trays corrosion rate and had a suggestion to be replaced with 3xx grade is a Debutanizer. This corrosion occur mainly due to existence of chlorine (and sulfur) in natural gas liquid (electrolyte). I thought NGLs has a lower conductivity than sea water but I also was thinking about the direct contact between the debutanizer Trays & Rings. The ring will have a higher galvanic corrosion risk than the shell. Replacement of the trays in shutdown is an ordinary maintenance process (there no welding, just disassembly). The ring is welded to the shell and will be much harder to repair and will have more precautions before any repair.

RE: (Material Selection/Corrosion) Bimetallic/Galvanic corrosion compatibility

I would not move to 3xx stainless for the trays. Since the rings would be difficult and expensive to replace or repair I would stay with lower alloy materials for the trays ans replace them as needed. In the long run this is a lot less expensive.
You may want to assemble some dissimilar metal crevice corrosion coupons and galvanic couple coupons to place at various locations in the tower.
Once you can quantify the risk you can make better decisions.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, Plymouth Tube

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources