J. Chem. Chem. Eng.

6 (2012) 984-988
D DAVID PUBLISHING

Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracking of 316 Austenitic

Stainless Steel

Samir Milad Elsariti1*, Haftirman1 and Mazlee2

1. School of Mechatronic Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, Perlis 01000, Malaysia
2. School of Materials Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, Perlis 01000, Malaysia

Received: September 05, 2012 / Accepted: September 29, 2012 / Published: November 25, 2012.

Abstract: SCC (stress corrosion cracking) is environmentally well-known as a failure caused by exposure to a corroding while under a
sustained tensile stress. SCC is most often rapid, unpredictable. Failure can occur in a short time as a few hours or take years and
decades to happen. Most alloys are liable to SCC in one or more environments requiring careful consideration of alloy type in
component design. In aqueous chloride environments austenitic stainless steels and many nickel based alloys are common to perform
poorly. SCC of austenitic stainless steels of types 316 was investigated as a function of applied stress at room temperature in sodium
chloride solutions using a constant load method. The experiment uses a spring loaded fixture type and is based on ASTM G49 for
experiment method, and E292 for geometry of notched specimen. The stress depends on fracture appearance and parameters of time to
cracking, and cracking growth. The results explained in terms of comparison between the two concentrations of sodium chloride
solutions.

Key words: Stress corrosion cracking, austenitic stainless steels, sodium chloride.

1. Introduction statelessness is chromium. At least 12 wt% of

chromium is necessary to make steel eligible to be
Stainless steel often perceived as the backbone of
classified as “stainless steel” [4].
modern industry [1]. Stainless steel has achieved
Of all types of stainless steel, austenitic stainless
extensive applications in a wide range of industries and
steel (300 series) is regarded as the most important
has been employed as a reliable substitute for carbon
group [5]. Austenitic stainless steel is highly corrosion
steel in corrosive environments ever since [2]. Stainless
resistant in many varied corrosion conditions without
steel was generally attributed as being an expensive,
the need for additional protective measures. It has
high-technology alloy [1]. As material manufacturing
excellent work-hardening characteristic and excellent
and fabrication technology advanced, large-scale
mechanical ductility, which makes it suitable for many
production of stainless steel components occurred.
manufacturing processes [5, 6] and is not vulnerable to
This made stainless steel more cost-effective and
brittle fracture in classical applications [7]. The use of
affordable [3].
austenitic stainless steel is highly diversified and it is
All of these aforementioned factors, including cost
frequently used in demanding applications such as
of corrosion, economical feasibility, and the desire to
steam power plants, chemical plants, petrochemical
operate in more severe environments, have encouraged
facilities, nuclear applications, pulp and paper
the wide-spread use of stainless steel.
industries, fossil fuel electric power plants, gas turbines,
The touchstone element accountable for the
jet propulsion units, heat exchanges, surface piping,
*
Corresponding author: Samir Milad Elsariti, Postgraduate vessel cladding, and miscellaneous components in
Student, research field: corrosion engineering. E-mail:
equipment used for various purposes [3, 8, 9].
samir1982unimap@yahoo.com.
 Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracking of 316 Austenitic Stainless Steel 985

Austenitic stainless steels are widely used for behaviour related to austenitic stainless steels;
construction of nuclear power and chemical plant To identify requirement for the experimental part in
components and in marine construction due to the this research;
combination of mechanical properties, fabric-ability, To setup the necessary equipment for the
weld-ability and corrosion resistance. experimental part;
SCC (stress corrosion cracking) is a form of failure To make analysis of stress corrosion cracking of
of material having specific characteristics. This is a austenitic stainless steels in two different
represent able cause of dominant damage at one concentrations of NaCl;
particular component or material structure, so that it is To gather data for time-to-crack nucleation and
reckoned in design at a construction industry. Stress time-to-fracture of specimen such as weight lost, crack
corrosion cracking behavior in austenitic stainless growth and length.
steels in solution has been extensively investigated This research will apply the stress corrosion
using a constant load method. cracking of 316 austenitic stainless steel’s type which
Tsai et al. [10] reported that the material 2,205 will particularly in sodium chloride solutions (3.5 wt%
duplex stainless steel is immune to stress corrosion & 9.35 wt%) approximately equal to NaCl
cracking in near neutral NaCl solution at concentration in sea water and Sabkha (salt-flat).
concentrations up to 26 wt% in the temperature range
from 25 ºC to 908 ºC. Pitting corrosion has assisted the 2. Experimental Procedure
initiation and the elective dissolution was involved in The all series of experiments was conducted using
the propagation of stress corrosion cracking in new specimens of 316 austenitic stainless steel types
concentrated NaCl solution at 908 ºC. that were newly ordered during the time of the
Li et al. [11] reported that the contamination of the experiment. The materials and specimens used for the
water with SO4H2 has increased the stress corrosion constant load test are explained in this section. The
cracking susceptibility of the weld by both decreasing parameters used in the design and setup of the
the minimum potential for cracking and by increasing experiment were obtained from reviews of several
crack growth rate at the same potential. similar stress corrosion cracking tests available from
Nishimura et al. [12] reported that the relationships the ASTM (American Society for Testing and
between applied stress and the three parameters were Materials), NACE (National Association of Corrosion
divided into three regions that are dominated by either Engineers), and similar tests conducted by other
stress corrosion cracking or corrosion. Sulphate ions researchers.
were found to become more aggressive than chloride
2.1 Materials and Specimen
ions for the stress corrosion cracking susceptibility of
the specimens with the most severe sensitization. Thus, The experiment utilized type 316 austenitic stainless
stress corrosion cracking on austenitic steel in chloride steel material ordered at the time of this program.
solution with various concentration of chloride at room Specimens austenitic stainless steel with a thickness of
temperature has not been clarified completely. 3.2 mm were used. The yield and ultimate strengths of
The mainly aim of this paper is to identify stress the material are summarized in Table 1. Most constant
corrosion cracking of 316 austenitic stainless steels in load stress corrosion cracking tests were conducted at a
sodium chloride solutions (3.5 wt% & 9.35 wt%) at stress level of 0.9 yield. The chemical composition for
room temperature under constant stress including: this material is as listed in Table 2.
To investigate the stages of stress corrosion cracking For the purpose of this experiment, smooth and
986 Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracking of 316 Austenitic Stainless Steel

Table 1 Mechanical properties of 316 austenitic. concentration solution to produce cracks in a

Yield strength 0.2% Ultimate tensile laboratory environment comparable to those in
Materials
offset MPa strength MPa accelerated tests was not preferred in this test program.
SS316 205 515 Two different percentages NaCl solutions were used as
a reasonable intensity and falls within the range of most
Table 2 Chemical properties of 316 austenitic stainless steel.
actual service condition. It is where austenitic stainless
Materials C Cr Ni Mo
steel is susceptible to pitting and stress corrosion
SS316 0.081 15.31 8.975 0.042
cracking at the room temperature or elevated
notched specimens were used. Notched and standard temperature.
specimens are beneficial because of size also which
easy to conduct the dimensions changes, and ultimate 3. Results and Discussion
failure of the specimen is more probable than for Stress corrosion cracking cracks were not achievable
larger specimens. In addition, shorter failure time in the constant load stress corrosion cracking tests
generally results with notched standard specimens performed for all 316 austenitic stainless steel
compared to sub-sized specimens. The basic specimens at time of 404 h. When the tests were setup
geometry and dimensions of the tension specimens and eventually commenced, though it was not totally
are shown in Fig. 1. expected, difficulties in reproducing cracks were not a
2.2 Test Solution surprise when actually confronted. The test of the all
types in first stage (404 h) has demonstrated that the
Austenitic stainless steel has a tendency to crack at
materials were quite resistant to surface attack and
stress points when exposed to certain corrosive
indicated that this material was highly corrosion
environments, such as those involving chloride ions.
resistant as in Figs. 2 & 3. It is this material that was
Chloride ions can concentrate at stress locations and
used in the experiment. Longer time recommended in
catalyze the formation of a crack. In this test, 3.5 wt%
other research studies.
& 9.35 wt% NaCl solutions were used. The test
As previously commented, more than one reason
solution was prepared by dissolving some of NaCl in
could have led to the unsuccessful production of cracks
sufficient amount of tap water to make about ten liters
at first stage, and many may have worked
of test solution.
cooperatively. The following paragraphs discuss
NaCl solution was used in this of other type
possible explanation of the results obtained.
of chloride solutions as NaCl is everywhere such
316 austenitic stainless steel has addition of
as sea water and Sabkha (salt-flat). The use of a higher
molybdenum which is accountable for the superior
stress corrosion cracking resistance and may lead to the
long-drawn-out incubation period required. Materials
that were made in more recent years may have better
stress corrosion cracking resistance due to the
advancement in metal making process. Also, the
potential during stress corrosion cracking tests may not
encourage pitting for the 316 austenitic stainless steels
tested.
Stress corrosion cracking of the specimen 316 notch
Fig. 1 The basic geometry of the 316 austenitic stainless steel
specimen. area’s surface was detected on the third stage (1,244 h)
 Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracking of 316 Austenitic Stainless Steel 987

stainless steels on the notch surface area and were

investigated by SEM as well in both NaCl solutions.

4. Conclusions
A stress corrosion cracking constant load test
method was used. Two different tests were conducted
related to chloride stress corrosion cracking of 316
Austenitic stainless steels in 3.5 wt% & 9.35 wt%
Fig. 2 Crack growth of 316 austenitic stainless steel in 3.5 NaCl solution in a room temperature environment.
wt% & 9.35 wt% NaCl solutions.
Though cracks were not produced during the first stage
of the first experiment in 3.5 wt% NaCl solution, this
“no crack” result is still consistent in regards to some
literature and published data gathered. The outcome of
this test series does not mean that stress corrosion
cracking is immune in the test condition used; instead,
it demonstrated the difficulty in conducting stress
corrosion cracking research as testing under constant
conditions can provide simulation more closely aligned
to the actual environment (sea water & salt-flat)
encountered in practice while sufficient patience and
Fig. 3 Crack on the surface of type 316 with 0.9 yield time is required to gather crack data for analysis.
strength in sodium chloride concentration of 3.5 wt% at room
Keeping in mind that environmental cracks are usually
temperature ( × 1,000).
accompanied with a large degree of diffusion and
of the 3.5 wt% NaCl test despite of the 316 where variation in data, which calls for numerous specimens
cracks appeared and at the second stage (838 h), they to be tested under the same condition to increase the
cracks occurred in all specimens in 9.35 wt% NaCl certainties of the measurement attained, it only further
solution. Crack growth of the specimen 316 crack time confirms the obstacles that researchers see every day in
to crack length on Figs. 2 & 3 showed that a longer dealing with stress corrosion cracking in general.
time-to-failure was recorded in this test comparing to Reasons for not being able in short term to generate
the other test data in 9.35 wt% NaCl solution. This stress corrosion cracking in constant load tests are
longer failure time may be due to the following summarized as following in point forms:
reasons: (1) The use of low concentration test environment
As noted in Fig. 2 stress corrosion cracking is highly for the series of stress corrosion cracking constant load
sensitive to concentration of NaCl. The test conducted tests probably require an incubation period that is
was carried out at a NaCl lower than the concentration longer than the experiment duration of two months;
of the other test solution; (2) Surface of specimen was smooth. Features such
Different specimen configuration, surface as stress notch do exist to encourage the generation of
preparation and other differences in test conditions localized aggressive environment for stress corrosion
may result in diffusion of data; cracking to occur;
At the time of 1,244 & 1,678 h, there were (3) Machining of the specimens’ gauge section may
appearance of cracks on all specimens of 316 austenitic have resulted in compressive residual stress on the
988 Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracking of 316 Austenitic Stainless Steel

surface which suppresses the initiation of cracks; ASM International Narosa Publishing House, 2002.
[2] Oberndorfer, M.; Kaestenbauer, M.; Thayer, K.
(4) Reaction of fixture material due to corrodant may
Application Limits of Stainless Steels in the Petroleum
have interfered stress corrosion cracking process that Industry, Proceeding of the SPE Annual Technical
was aimed in this experiment; Conference and Exhibition, October 1999.
(5) The potential at which the test was conducted [3] Marshall, P. Austenitic Stainless Steels: Microstructure
and Mechanical Properties; Elsevier Applied Science
may not have encouraged the occurrence of stress
Publishers Ltd: New York, 1984.
corrosion cracking within the span of the test duration. [4] Brown, B. F. NBS Monograph 156: Stress Corrosion
The difficulties of detecting cracks may also due to the Cracking Control Measures; U.S. Department of
incubation period required being longer than the test Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, 1977.
[5] Balk, A. H. T.; Boon, J. W.; Etienne, C. F. Stress
period set for this test program.
Corrosion Cracking in Austenitic Stainless Steel Fixings
For stress corrosion cracking constant load tests, for Facade Panels. British Corrosion Journal (Quarterly)
helical springs and test chamber were specifically used 1974, 1, 5-9.
and applied. Using of the equipment and test procedure [6] Truman, J. E. The Influence of Chloride Content, pH and
Temperature of Test Solution on the Occurrence of Stress
were completed to resolve problems encountered Corrosion Cracking with Austenitic Stainless Steel.
during the tests. The equipment that was specifically Corrosion Science 1977, 17, 737-746.
selected which was verified to be capable of generating [7] Tyzack, C. Index of Susceptibility to Stress Corrosion for
Austenitic Steels Basedon the Electromechanical Model.
stress corrosion cracking given a susceptible
British Corrosion Journal 1972, 7, 268-272.
material-environment combination and an exposure [8] Bruce, D. Selection Guidelines for Corrosion Resistant
time that is longer than the incubation time required for Alloys in the Oil and Gas Industry. Materials Selection for
stress corrosion cracking to initiate. the Oil and Gas Industry, October 2009. Accessed:
<www.stainless-steel world.net/pdf/ 10073.pdf>.
Acknowledgments [9] Russell, H. J. Stress-Corrosion Cracking Materials
Performance and Evaluation, USA: ASM International,
All authors thanks will be firstly to Dr. Haftirman 1992, pp 1-40, 91-130.
and Dr. Mazlee for their support and guidance in this [10] Wen, T. T.; Ming, S. C. Stress Corrosion Cracking
Behavior of 2205 Duplex Stainless Steel in
research work. Thanks for all the help that authors got
Concentrated Nacl Solution. J. Corrosion Science 2000,
from Universiti Malaysia Perlis and its staff including 42, 545-559.
CGS and lab’s technician. Finally, authors would like [11] Li, G. F.; Congleton, J. Stress Corrosion Cracking of a
to thank Libyan Education Department for their Low Alloy Steel to Stainless Steel Transition Weld in
PWR Primary Waters at 292 °C. J. Corrosion Science
support.
2000, 42, 1005-1021.
[12] Nishimura, R.; Sulaiman, A.; Maeda, Y. Stress Corrosion
References
Cracking Susceptibility of Sensitized Type 316 Stainless
[1] Khatak, H. S.; Baldev, R. Corrosion of Austenitic Steel in Sulphuric Acid Solution. J. Corrosion Science
Stainless Steels: Mechanism, Mitigation and Monitoring; 2003, 45, 465-484.