AISTech 2019 — Proceedings of the Iron & Steel Technology Conference

6–9 May 2019, Pittsburgh, Pa., USA

DOI 10.1000.377.001

What Have We Learnt About the Corrosion of Stainless Steel Since 1934?

Carolyn M. Hansson

Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering

University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Phone: +1-519-888-4538; Fax: +1-519-888-4351
Email: chansson@uwaterloo.ca

Keywords: Stainless steels, passive films, corrosion behaviour, electrochemical techniques

INTRODUCTION
The cost of corrosion has been estimated over the last 30 years to be approximately 3% of the gross domestic product costs
(GDP) of many countries (1-5). Despite the cost, not just in monetary terms, but also in environmental and human terms(6), the
last time a Howe Memorial lecture concentrated on corrosion was in 1934 when Mr. Frank N. Speller presented “The
Corrosion Problem with Respect to Iron and Steel” (7). Mr. Speller first reviewed Dr. Howe’s work starting with his
investigation of corrosion in 1887, when steel was rapidly supplanting cast iron. One of the main concerns at that time was
whether steel was less resistant to corrosion than the iron. He conducted a comparative test of the two materials in fresh
water, sea water and the atmosphere and, in 1900, concluded there was no difference between them.
Speller continued with a discussion of three methods of limiting corrosion: (i) changing the environment, (ii) separating the
steel from the environment (coatings), (iii) alloying the steel. In the intervening 85 years, a huge amount of work has been
accomplished on all three approaches but, obviously, cannot be covered in this one paper. Consequently, this paper will
concentrate on the latter, specifically on development of stainless steels and the fundamental understanding of the corrosion
behaviour of these alloys.
Table I shows how the production of metals and alloys has burgeoned in the 20th century and continues to this day, led
largely by stainless steels and aluminum alloys, indicating the importance of corrosion resistance to modern day life.

Table I. World production, in million tonnes

Year Steel Stainless Copper Aluminum Zinc Lead Chromium Nickel
steel
1933 73.114 ~0.25 1.08 0.15 1.00 1.30 0.40 NA
2017 1,691.2 48 5.5 60.0 13.6 11.3 52.8 2.1
Increase,% 22 (23) 190 4.5 (5) 400 12.6 7.7 132 ---
(13.6) (8.7)
60% used 66%
for st. steel used for
st. steel

STAINLESS STEELS
It is humbling to realise that, by the time of Mr. Speller’s presentation, there was a considerable body of knowledge about
stainless steels. The first development of stainless steel is attributed to Harry Breardon’s work on Fe-13% Cr alloys in
1913(8, 9). His goal was not specifically corrosion-resistance but, as war loomed in Europe, was to develop an alloy which
could limit the high temperature erosion of gun barrels. Also, during the war stainless steel was used in aircraft engines, as

© 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology. 1

illustrated in Figure1b. The alloy was found to be significantly more resistant to acids than other alloys and, after the war,
much of the research was concentrated on improving the steels’ resistance to acid corrosion. The main non-military use in
the early 20th Century was for cutlery, and made the City of Sheffield in England renowned for its stainless cutlery, Figure 1a.
It was also used as tanks to contain acids, such as that shown in Figure 1c. Applications soon spread to atmospheric corrosion
resistance such as buildings and transport vehicles.

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

th
Figure 1. (a) Early 20 century cutlery; (b) World War I aircraft with stainless steel in engines; (c) Storage tank for nitric
acid, 1925; (d) The 1932 Zephyr train, clad in stainless steel; E. The Chrysler building was clad in stainless steel in 1929.
(photographs courtesy of the British Stainless Steel Association)
By 1934, the beneficial or detrimental influence of several alloying additions on the behaviour of stainless steels had been
recognised. For example, the role of nickel in stabilizing austenite was well known; additions of molybdenum were found to
reduce the pitting of the steels in acid environments; ”sensitization” was attributed to the formation of chromium carbides,
preferentially at grain boundaries, and additions of tungsten, vanadium or titanium, with their greater affinity for carbon, were
observed to mitigate the “sensitivity”(8). These observations have led to increasing numbers and types of applications for
stainless steels and their production rates have grown rapidly, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Production rates of stainless steel and nickel over a 60-year period. (Courtesy the Nickel Institute).

Applications of stainless steel

It is difficult to imagine today’s society without stainless steels. They have become ubiquitous in our daily lives, in the home,
in manufacturing of every conceivable product, in chemical plants, in surgery, in nuclear power, in oil and gas industries and
in all forms of transport. A fairly recent application ,which is growing rapidly, is the use of stainless steel as reinforcement
(rebar) in concrete, Figure 3. This has opened up the range of environments for stainless steel because the pH experienced by
rebar embedded in concrete is typically in excess of 13. The high pH is due to the fact that cement component of concrete is
porous and the pores are normally filled with a highly concentrated solution of KOH, NaOH and Ca(OH)2 dissolved from the
cement (10). It is estimated that the current annual use of stainless steel rebar is of the order of 50,000 tonnes, which is
already ~3% of total annual stainless steel production. The quantity of UNS S32304 (AISI 2304) used for the new Champlain
Bridge, across the St. Lawrence River in Montreal, Canada alone is 17,000 tons. These are, however, miniscule amounts
compared with the global output of carbon steel rebar of over 200 M tons per annum, which attests to the potential growth
market for stainless in this sector.
In large part, this huge range of applications is because of the wide selection of stainless grades available, succinctly
illustrated in Figure 4, from the developments out of the original “18/8” grade UNS S30400 (AISI 304) (11). The grades in
Figure 4 are identified by their UNS designations but the AISI terms are used in this paper. This wide range of grades

2 © 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology.

allows selection of the most appropriate steel for elevated temperature use, for cryogenic temperature applications and for
every pH from highly acidic to highly caustic. As illustrated in Figure 4, current stainless steels may contain a number of
elements including Ti, Cu, Al, Si, Se, Nb, but respecting space limitations, only the effects of the more widespread
components, Cr, Ni, Mo, Mn, and N, are discussed here. For further information, the reader is directed to the several reviews
of the development and properties of stainless steels, from a variety of aspects ranging from the historic (8, 9) to the
academic/metallurgical (11, 12) to applications in the food industry (13).

Figure 3. 36 km causeway in Kuwait reinforced with the Duplex stainless 2304, (Photo courtesy of Civilax Civil
Engineering)

Figure 4. Some compositional modifications of 18/8 stainless steel to produce special properties (11)

© 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology. 3

 THE PASSIVE FILM
Structure and composition
The concept of “passivity” as being important in corrosion resistance was proposed 75 years earlier than Breardon’s patent,
in correspondence between Michael Faraday and Swiss Professor, Christian Frederich Schönbein in 1838 (8). However,
research is still underway today, 180 years later, to gain a full understanding of passive films, their formation, composition,
dimensions and defect structure, and their role in the alloy’s stability in different environments.
As mentioned above, the concept of a naturally-formed film reducing the rate of corrosion of metals has been known for at
least 180 years. In stainless steel, the film can form under ambient atmospheric conditions, at elevated temperatures and in
aqueous solutions. Most of the scientific interest has focussed on elevated temperature applications and, as mentioned, the
steel’s resistance to acid attack. In the last few decades, however, work has expanded to a wider range of environments and,
as better techniques for characterizing the films have become available, greater understanding of the physical, chemical,
structural and electronic nature of passivity is being gained.
First, the thickness (or, more aptly, the thinness) of the passive films was determined by ellipsometry (11, 14) to be of the order
of a few nanometers: 3- 6 nm for Type I (passive films); ~30 nm for Type II (Heat treated, coloured films) and ~100 nm for
Type 3 (scales)(15). The first compositional analyses were obtained by removing the film by mechanical stripping (16), by
chemical stripping (17), or electrochemical stripping (18). The structure and composition of the films were then examined by
transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and electron diffraction. These analyses suffered, however, from the fact that the
films were not always crystalline and those that were had different crystal structures from those of the corresponding bulk
oxides, making their identification difficult. The Type I films were homogeneous and microcrystalline or amorphous while
the Type II films exhibited greater crystallinity. The corrosion protection provided by the films in a 10% ferric chloride
solution was found to decrease with increase in film thickness(16).
More recently, the preferred analysis techniques are Auger electron spectroscopy (AES), electron spectroscopy for chemical
analysis (ESCA), ion scattering spectrometry (ISS), secondary ion mass spectroscopy (SIMS) and electron stimulated
desorption (ESD) performed on the in-situ films (14). These techniques, combined with progressive sputtering of the surface
can provide the composition of the films as a function of depth from the surface. As a result, it has been recognised that the
passive film on stainless steels consists of two layers (19-22), the inner layer having a high chromium content and the outer
layer consisting predominantly of iron oxides, as shown in Figures 5 and 6.

Figure 5. EDS profile through 304 sheet on the left and the passive film formed after the cold-rolled sheet was annealed and
pickled in nitric-hydrofluoric acid. (20)

Figure 6. HAADF-STEM image and elemental maps (20)

4 © 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology.

The EDS profile in Figure 5 and the high angle annular dark field (HAADF) image of 304 sheet in Figure 6 show
accumulation of Ni in the metal adjacent to the passive film, a Cr-enriched inner layer and an Fe-rich outer layer of the film
(20)
.
The specific composition and partitioning of the alloys elements within these films varies with both the specific grade of the
stainless steel and the environment in which the film is formed (or in which it is equilibrium). However, to quote Olsson and
Landolt (23): “There is no such thing as a static passive film. The passive film on a given stainless steel changes with the
environment. It can grow or dissolve and may adsorb or incorporate anions.” These authors reviewed the research on the
influence of alloying additions to the basic Fe-Cr on the structure and properties of the passive film (23).
In order to compare the relative corrosion resistance of the different stainless steels, a pitting resistance equivalent number
(PREN) is often used, the earliest reference to which is reported in Reference 10 in the paper by Lorenz et al. (24) as being
in1969. This number is based on the apparent magnitude of beneficial or detrimental effects of the various alloying elements.
It is important to note that the PREN was developed for stainless steels in neutral or acidic chloride solutions and often at
elevated temperature.
The most commonly used version of this number was given by the formula:
PREN16 = %Cr + 3.3%Mo + 16% N,
but the weighting of nitrogen has been modified with the introduction of higher nitrogen-containing steels and many
investigators prefer:
PREN30 =%Cr + 3.3%Mo + 30% N.
Today, there have been numerous investigations into the influence of manganese on the PREN and, for duplex alloys, the
PREN values of the individual austenite and delta ferrite phases. For example, Perren et al. have measured the partitioning
of elements and the specific corrosion behaviour of the individual phases if Duplex 2205 in highly acidic, concentrated
chloride solutions (25). They demonstrated that the heat treatment temperature prior to quenching plays a critical role in the
partitioning and, hence, in the subsequent corrosion behaviour. Moreover, recent research suggests that the pH of the
environment also plays a significant role in the influence of the alloying components (22) (26).

Influence of Nickel – both good and bad

The main roles of nickel in the stainless steels are to stabilise the austenitic structure, which provides greater ductility and
formability than the ferritic grades, at both ambient and below zero temperatures, and provides improved high temperature
oxidation resistance. However, one of the major factors in the selection and application of stainless steels is the cost of the
constituent materials. Although these costs have fluctuated wildly over the last 15 years, as can be seen from Figure 7,
nickel has maintained its position as the second most expensive component, with only molybdenum as a more costly element.
As pointed out by Lo et al., a second cost of nickel is to the environment as the carbon footprint of Ni constitutes a major
proportion of that of the stainless steel (12).

Figure 7. The cost per ton in USD of the major components of stainless steels (data courtesy of ASW Welland)
Another driver to limit the nickel is the widespread allergic responses of both humans and animals to nickel. This is
particularly important for biomedical applications, both for implanted devices and surgical tools and instruments. On the

© 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology. 5

other hand, the non-ferromagnetic property of the austenitic stainless steels make them indispensable for magnetic resonance
imaging.
Consequently, there has been significant effort over several decades to reproduce the advantages of nickel, but with lower
cost, and non-allergenic elements. In fact, it has been suggested that nickel plays little, if any, role in corrosion resistance,
and is included only to stabilize the austenite phase. (27). This, of course is not trivial, because retaining an austenitic
microstrcuture has many advantages, as mentioned above. The major substitutes for nickel to maintain the austenite
structure have been manganese and nitrogen. (28). Unfortunately, while nitrogen improves the corrosion resistance in
aqueous chloride solutions, manganese has a negative effect. Because of these factors, Rondelli et al. proposed a
modification of the PREN (28):
PRENMn = %Cr + 3.3 %Mo +30 %N -1.0 %Mn.
Alternatively, a new measure, namely the Measure of Alloying for Resistance for Corrosion (MARC) has been proposed (27):
MARC = %Cr + 3.3%MO +20 %N + 20%C - 0.5% Mn - 0.25% Ni

Influence of Molybdenum
As mentioned above, the ability of molybdenum additions to austenitic stainless steels to improve their resistance to pitting
has been known since the early part of the last century and has been a consistent +3.3 factor in all the variations of PREN and
MARC. The influence of molybdenum on the composition of the passive films is illustrated by the Auger depth
concentrations in AISI 304 without Mo, and AISI 316 containing 2% Mo in Figure 8 (19). Molybdenum is not present in
detectable quantities in the profile for the 316 alloy and the major differences appear to be a greater thickness of the
chromium-rich layer and a greater concentration of nickel in the iron-rich layer in the AISI 304 than in those of the AISI 316.
Most of the nickel is again observed to be in metallic phase near the interface with the passive film. However, there did not
appear to be any observable change in overall thickness of the film.

Figure 8. Auger depth profiles of the passive films formed on AISI 304 and AISI 316 at +0.8V SCE in a buffer solution
composed of H3BO3 (0.05 M) + Na2B4O, 10 H20 (0.075 M) and pH 9.2 (19)
Recent observations have found the effectiveness of molybdenum in adding pitting resistance to be highly dependent on the
environment, being less and less effective with increasing pH (29, 30) This effect is illustrated by the anodic polarization curves
of three pairs of alloys tested in 0.025M NaHCO3 + 0.025M Na2CO3.10H2O+ 0.6M NaCl solution adjusted for pH with
HCL. Figure 9 A and B show Mo-free 304 and Mo-containing 316 at pH 6 and 12, respectively. At pH 0.6, the 304 exhibits
significantly higher corrosion current densities than those of 316 whereas, at pH 12, the pitting potential of the 304 was more
anodic than that of the 316. On the other hand, at pH 10, the Mo-free ferritic 430 and duplex 2304 exhibited slightly less
anodic pitting potentials than their Mo-containing counterparts 434 and 2205 (29).

6 © 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology.

Figure 9. Anodic polarization curves illustrating the influence of pH on the effectiveness of molybdenum in providing pitting
resistance (29)
It appears that the beneficial effect of Mo remains in the ferritic alloy at pH 10. The question of whether it is the Mo’s effect
on the ferrite phase or austenite phase of the duplex steels was addressed by both Mesquita et al. and Luo et al. (22, 29). The
former researchers observed pitting in the ferrite phase in 2304 but in the austenitic phase in 2205; Luo et al. also found the
pits in 2205 to occur preferentially in the austenite and near the austenite/ferrite boundaries. The partitioning of Cr and Mo
in the austenite and delta ferrite phases of duplex stainless steels has been investigated by both Mesquita et al. and Luo et al.
and is given in Table II. The data from Mesquita et al. are the average values of Thermocalc models, EDS and WDS
measurement. The data for Luo et al. are for EDS measurements. Both sets of data show higher Cr and Mo concentrations in
the delta ferrite () phase than in the austenite (phase. Moreover, Luo et al. found both Cr and Mo contents of the film to
increase with increasing pH, as illustrated in Figure 11. This is interesting because Mo was not detected in the AES
measurements of the austenitic 316 steel at pH 9.2 shown in Figure 8. It can be concluded that molybdenum behaves very
different on both austenitic steel and on the austenite component of duplex steels than it does on ferrite.

Table II. Partition of chromium and molybdenum between the austenite and ferrite phases of duplex stainless steels
Reference Alloy Phase Element , wt. %
 Cr Mo
Mesquita 2304  24.70 0.33
et al.
 20.75 0.17
Ref. 29
2205  24.98 3.39
 20.63 2.09
Luo et al. 2205  22.45 3.83
Ref. 30  21.08 2.53

The images in Figure 10 show that, in the near absence of Mo in the 2304, the ferrite phase is more susceptible to pitting,
whereas in the relatively Mo-rich 2205, the ferrite phase contains the greater portion of both Cr and Mo, leaving the austenite
more susceptible to pitting(29).

© 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology. 7

Figure 10. Back scattered SEM image from corrosive attacks on different samples. Left: 2304 at pH 0.60 showing austenite
(lighter grains) remaining after ferrite (darker grains) have dissolved. Middle: 2304 at pH 10 showing pit initiation at the
ferrite. Right: 2205 at pH 10 showing pit initiation in the austenite (29)

Figure11. XPS cationic fraction in the passive film of AISI 2205 in alkaline solution with 10% NaCl at different pH (22)

CORROSION BEHAVIOUR OF STAINLESS STEELS

The traditional electrochemical measurements for corrosion resistance, such as cyclic polarization (31), linear polarization
resistance (32) and for pitting or crevice corrosion, (33), have been applied to stainless steel for decades. However, relating this
kinetic behaviour in different environments to the possible thermodynamic phases formed has been difficult. Beverskog and
Puigdomenech have calculated the thermodynamic potential/pH diagrams for the Fe-Cr-Ni-O-H system at temperatures
between 25°C and 300°C (34). This system exhibits four different spinels: magnetite (Fe3O4), trevorite (NiFe2O4), chromite
(FeCr2O4) and nichromite (NiCr2O4).
This information can be used to identify the possible reactions occurring during anodic polarization, as shown for two 304
rebar specimens tested in synthetic cement pore solution with pH 13.5.The polarization curves together with the potential
passive film components are shown in Figure 12 (30, 35).

Figure 12. Possible passive film components from Reference 34 and the cyclic polarization curves for two replicate 304
rebar specimens tested in synthetic cement pore solution with pH 13.5 (35).

8 © 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology.

More detailed information is being obtained from electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), both by itself and in
potential steps for Mott-Schottky (M-S) analysis and from localized potential and current measurements using a scanning
electrochemical microscope (SECM). Typically, of course, a combination of some of these techniques allows for a more
comprehensive analysis of the corrosion process.
Since corrosion is an electrochemical process, the electronic nature of the passive films has received considerable interest,
and the films are characterised as extrinsic semiconductors (21, 24, 36-38). The Mott-Schottky data are plotted as the reciprocal of
the square of the capacitance (1/C2), versus the applied potential. Analysis of this relationship enables the semiconductor
nature of the passive film to be analyzed in terms of its capacitance, flat band potential, EFB, donor- and acceptor-levels (ND
and NA) and its overall thickness. Using this technique, several authors have shown that the passive film on iron is an n-type
semiconductor e.g.(39-41). Hakiki et al. have shown this to be true also for the Fe-rich layer in the passive film of stainless steels
(region R3 in Figure 13a), while that of the Cr-rich inner layer of the film is a p-type semiconductor and the acceptor levels
increase with Cr content (region R1in Figure 13a) (19, 37). They also showed that the Ni-content had no influence on the
semiconductor properties (19), Figure 13b, which is consistent with the observations that Ni remains predominantly in the
metallic phase as illustrated in Figure 6.

Figure 13. Mott-Shottky curves (a) for Fe-Cr alloys and (B) for Ni- 17%Cr and Fe-17%CR with different Ni contents(19).
Surprisingly, there has been little effort to relate the information obtained from the Mott-Schottky analysis to the corrosion
behaviour of the alloy. One exception to this is the work by Cheng and co-workers (42, 43). They studied the corrosion
behaviour of individual ferrite and austenite phases of 2205 by dissolving one phase and measuring the corrosion behaviour
of the remaining phase using cyclic polarization, cyclic voltammetry, impedance spectroscopy and M-S analysis in neutral
NaCl solution. The cyclic polarization curves are given in Figure 14 and show the individual phases to be less corrosion
resistant than the duplex 2205. On the basis of these combined tests, the authors concluded there is a beneficial interaction
between the ferrite-phase and austenite-phase which enhances the chemical stability of passive film by forming a denser and
more homogeneous film.

Figure 14. Cyclic polarization curves for the individual phases of duplex 2205 and of the duplex alloy in neutral NaCl
solution(42)

© 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology. 9

In another attempt to relate the electronic nature of the film to corrosion behaviour, Ogunsanya and Hansson have considered
the corrosion behaviour of 304L, 316LN, 2304 and 2205 rebar specimens in alkaline solutions, from the viewpoint of the
cyclic polarization and Mott-Schottky data (30). An example of the approach, for 304L samples in chloride-free and 6 wt.%
Cl- solution ,is illustrated in Figure15. An interesting aspect of these curves is that there is little effect of the 6% Cl- on the
polarization curve while there is a very strong effect in the cathodic region of the M-S plot, with a significant drop in the
slope attributed to the Cr-rich component of the film. This is surprising in view of the fact this is the inner layer of the film
and there appears to be little effect on the outer Fe-rich layer. A possible explanation is considered in (30).

CATHODIC ANODIC
4
P‐type: 
N‐type:  oxidation of 
3

Cs-2 (pF-2 cm4)

reduction  of  FeCr2O4
Fe oxides
2 ETRANSPASSIVE
P‐type:  EFB oxidation  of 
reduction  of  Cr3+ to Cr6+
1
Cr oxides Stability 
of NiFe2O4
0
100-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5
H2/H+ equilibrium
0 0.5 1
E (VSCE)
1 O2/OH‐ equilibrium
ECORR
i (A/m2)

0.01

ETRANSPASSIVE
0.0001
0%
6% 304L
0.000001
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
E (VSCE)

Figure 15. The Mott-Schottky curve and cyclic polarization curve for 304L rebar in KOH+NaOH+Ca(OH)2 solution of pH
13.3 with and without 6% Cl- added as NaCl. Note the plots are shifted slightly horizontally due to a shift in the corrosion
potential because of the different scan rates employed for the two tests (30). (Ogunsanya, I.G. and Hansson, C.M. (2019) Fig.
9. licensed CC-BY-ND)
Another corrosion analytical technique becoming increasingly applied to the study of stainless steels is that of scanning
electrochemical microscopy (SECM) (44). In this technique, very small reference and counter electrodes are scanned across
the metal surface as a potential difference (or current) is applied and the corresponding current (or potential difference) is
monitored. As this technique is relatively new, several of the studies have investigated the optimum parameters/protocols for
application of the technique to the stainless steel/chloride solution system (45-47). For example, the scan rate, the hold time at
each location, the applied potential were all found to influence the results (46), as was the time of exposure of 304 to the
solution (47). The technique has been applied to determine the effect of sulphide inclusions(45), the metastability of pits (48), the
fabrication and use of a miniature pH probe for the SECM local variations in pH (49-51) and observation of individual micro-
sized pits (52). An SEM micrograph of latter is illustrated together with the measured corrosion currents in Figure 16.

Figure 16. A: SEM micrograph of two adjacent pits in the surface of 316L with 0.5 and 0.35 µm diameters separated by a 1.0
μm gap. B: SECM image of 316L steel immersed in 1.0 mM FcMeOH+0.1M NaCl solution for 10 hrs. (52)

10 © 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology.

 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This article gives only a snapshot of the enormous amount of knowledge and understanding about stainless steels developed
over the last 85 years. What is clear from this brief overview, can be summed up in four sentences:
• Stainless steels do corrode;
• Their resistance depends on their specific composition, heat treatment and mechanical treatment;
• Chromium content at a minimum level of 12 wt.% is required for passivity;
• The need for all other components is dependent on the specific application: the environmental conditions and the
desired service life of the part.
Nevertheless, the interest in these alloys by the research community is definitely not waning. According to Google Scholar,
there were more than 26,000 scholarly articles on stainless steel published over the last four years, with more than 19,000 of
those concerned with corrosion.
Finally, the range of applications appears to have no limits: a 2019 endorsement of the unique and amazing properties of
stainless steel come from Elon Musk who has announced he is replacing the carbon fibre wrap on his Starship Rocket with
AISI 301 stainless steel, as shown in Figure 17 (53). In his interview with Popular Mechanics, he succinctly and eloquently
explains the reasons for selecting this alloy and its advantages over alternative materials.

Figure 17. The Starship test flight rocket just finished assembly at the SpaceX Texas launch site (53)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.
I am very thankful to those colleagues who nominated me to present the 2019 Howe Memorial Lecture and to the Selection
Committee for giving me this honour. I am also appreciative to the long list of fantastic young men and women whom I’ve
had the privilege to supervise over the years and who have kept me on my toes and prevented me from retiring. Trying to put
85 years of alloy development into a 12 page paper has been a harrowing experience and I have clearly not been able to do
justice to much of the excellent work - but I have learned a lot!

REFERENCES
1. Zhu R, editor International approaches to reducing corrosion costs. Corrosion 86; 1986; Houston, TX: National
Association of Corrosion Engineers.
2. Al-Kharafi F, Al-Hashem A, Matrouk F. Economic effects of metallic corroson inthe State of Kuwait. KISR
Publications; 1995.
3. Tullmin M. Corrosion-Club.com2015 [
4. Koch GH, Brongers MPH, Thompson NG, Virmani YP, Payer JH. Corrosion Cost and Prevention Strategies in the
United States. McLean VA: Federal Highway Administration; 2002. Report No.: FHWA-RD-01-156.
5. Sastri VS, Elboujdaini M, Perumareddi, editors. Ecomonics of corrosion and wear in Canada. International Conference
on Environmental Degradation of Metals; 2003; Vancouver, Canada: Metallurgical Society of the Canadian Institute of
Mining.
6. Hays GF. World Corrosion Organization. Corrosia. 2010.

© 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology. 11

7. Speller FN. The Corrosion Problem with Rspect to Iron and Steel. Trans AIME. 1934;113:13-33.
8. Dulieu D. Stay Bright: a history of stainless steels in Vritain”. Sheffield, UK: Outokumpu Stainless Ltd.; 2013. 219 p.
9. Fielder N, editor. 100 years of stainless steel. Sheffield UK: British Stainless Steel Association; 2013.
10. Barneyback R, Diamond, S. Expression and analysis of pore fluids from hardened cement pastes and mortars. Cement
and Concrete Research. 1981;11(2):279.
11. Sedriks AJ. Corrosion of Stainless Steels. Second ed. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; 1996. 282 p.
12. Lo KH, Shek CH, Lai JKL. Recent Developments in Stainless Steel. Materials Science and Engneering R.
2009;65(1):39-104.
13. Covert RA, Tuthill AH. Stainless steels: an introduction to their metallurgy and corrosion reistance. Dairy, Food and
Environmental Sanitation.20(7):506=17.
14. Larsen DT. Surface analytical techniques in corrosion science. Corrosion Science. 1979;19:657-73.
15. Rhodin TN. Oxide films on stainless steel. Corrosion. 1956;12(March):40-53.
16. Mahla EM, Nielsen NA. A study of films isolated from passivestainless steels. Transactions Electrochemical Society.
1948;93:339 -54.
17. Vernon WHJ, Wormwell F, Nurse TJ. A study of the surface film on Cr-Ni (18-8) stainless steel. J Iron and Steel Inst
1944;2:81.
18. Pryor MJ. The protective action of pigments on steel. J Electrochem Soc. 1954;101(3):141-8.
19. Hakiki NE, Da Cunha Belo M, Simoes AMP, Ferreira MGS. Semiconducting properties of passive films formed on
stainless steels. J Electrochem Soc. 1998;145(11):3821-9.
20. Hamada E, Yamada K, Nagoshi M, Makiishi N, Sato K, Ishii T, et al. Direct imaging of native passive film on stainless
steel by aberration corrected STEM. Corrosion Science. 2010;52:3851-4.
21. Montemore MF, Ferreira MGS, Hakiki NE, Da Cunha Belo M. Chemical composition and electronic structure of the
oxide films formed on 316L stainless steel and nickel based alloys in high temperature aqueous environments. Corrosion
Science. 2000;42:1635-50.
22. Luo H, Dong CF, Li XG, Xiao K. The electrochemical behaviour of 2205 duplex stainless steel in alkaline solutions with
different pH in the presence of chloride. Electrochimica Acta. 2012;64:211-20.
23. Olsson C-OA, Landolt D. Passive films on stainless steels - chemistry, structure and growth. Elecectrochimica Acta.
2003;48:1093-104.
24. Sato N. An overview of the passivity of metals. Corrosion Science. 1990;31:1-19.
25. Perren RA, Suter TA, Uggowitzer PJ, Weber L, Magdowski R, Böhni H, et al. Corrosion resistance of super duple
stainless steels in chloride ion containing environments: investigations by means of a new microelectrochemical method
I. Precipitation-free states. Corrosion Science. 2001;43:707-26.
26. Mesquita TJ, Chauveau E, Mantel M, Nogueira RP. A XPS study of the Mo effect on passivation behaviors for highly
controlled stainless steels in neutral and alkaline conditions. Applied Surface Science. 2013;270:90-7.
27. Speidel MO. Nitrogen containing austeitic stainless steel. Mat-wiss u Werkstoffe. 2006;37(10):875-80.
28. Rondelli G, Vicentini B, Cigada A. Influence of nitrogen and manganese on localised corrosion behaviour of stainless
steels in chloride environments. Materials and Corrosion. 1995;46:628-32.
29. Mesquita TJ, Chaveau E, Mantel M, Kinsman K, Nogueira RP. Anomalous corrosion resistance behaviour of Mo-
containing SS in alkaline media: the role of microsructure. Materials Chemistry and Physics. 2011;126:602-6s.
30. Ogunsanya IG, Hansson CM. Analysis of the electronic properties of passive films formed on austenitic and duplex
stainless steel alloys in synthetic concrete pore solution with chlorides. Materialia. 2019;Submitted for publication
31. ASTM. G61-86 Standard Test Metod for Conducting Cyclic Polarization Measurements for Localized Corrosion
Susceptibiity of Iron-, Nickel-, or Cobalt-Based Alloys. West Conshocken, PA: American Society for Testing and
Materials; 2009.
32. ASTM. G59-97 Standart test method for conducting potentiodynamic polarization resistance measurments. West
Conshocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 1997.

12 © 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology.

33. ASTM. G 78-89 Standard Guide for Crevice Corrosion Testing of Iron-Base and Nickel-Base Stainless Alloys in
Seawater and other Chloride-Containing Aqueous Environments. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and
Materials; 1989.
34. Beverskog B, Puigdomenech I. Pourbaix Diagrams for the Ternary System of Iron-Chromium-Nickel. Corrosion.
1999;55(11):1077-87.
35. Hansson CM, Olsen K, Jaffer SJ. Comparative evaluation of LDX 2101 and AISI 304L. 2008.
36. Dean MH, Stimming U. The electronic properties of disordered passive films. Corrosion Science. 1989;29(2/3):199-211.
37. Hakiki NE, Boudin S, Rondot B, M.. DCB. The electronic structure of passive films formed on stainless steel.
Corrosion Science. 1995;37(11):1809-22.
38. Hakiki NE, Montemore MF, Ferreira MGS, Da Cunha Belo M. Semicondicting properties of thermally grown oxide
films on AISI 304 stainless steel. Corrosion Science. 2000;42.
39. Cheng YF, L’uo JL. Passivity and pitting of carbon steel in chromate solutions. Electrochimica Acta. 1999;44(26):4795-
804.
40. Li DG, Feng YR, Bai ZQ, Zhu JW, Zheng MSH, V. Influence of temperature, chloride ions and chromium element on
the electronic property of passive film formed on carbon steel in bicarbonate/carbonate buffer solution. Electrochimica
Acta. 2007;52(28):7877-84.
41. Hamadou L, Kadri A, Benbrahim N. Characterisation of passive films formed on low carbon steel in borate buffer
solution (pH 9.2) by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy. Applied Surface Science. 2005;252(5):1510-9.
42. Tian H, Cheng X, Wang Y, Dong CF, L’i X, V. Effect of Mo ininteraction between alph/gamma phases of duplex
stainless steel. Electrochimica Acta. 2018;267:255-68.
43. Cheng X, Wang Y, Dong CF, L’i X. The beneficial galvanic effect of the constituent phases in 2205 duplex atainless on
the passive films formed in a 3.5% NaCl solution. Corrosion Science. 2018;134:122-30.
44. Fushimi K, Nakagawa R. Some microelectrochemical methods for the investigation of passivity and corrosion.
Corrosion Reviews. 2018(1):3-15.
45. Lister TE, Pinhero PJ. The effect of localized electric fields on the detection of dissolved sulfur species from Type 304
stainless steel using scnning electrochemical microscopy. Elecectrochimica Acta. 2003;48:2371-8.
46. Rhode S, Kain V, Raja VS, Abraham GJ. Factors affecting corrosion behaviour of inclusion containing stainless steels:
A scanning electrochemical microscopic study. Materials Characterization. 2013;77:109-15.
47. Yin Y, Niu L, Guo W, Chen S. In situ characterization of localised corrosion of stainless steel by scanning
electrochemical microscopy. Applied Surface Science. 2009;255:9193-9.
48. González-García Y, Burstein GT, González S, Souto RM. Imaging metastable pits on austemitic stainless steel in situ at
open-circuit potential. Electrochemistry Communications. 2004;6:637-42.
49. Shahrestani S, Ismail MC, Kakooei S, Beheshti M, Zabihiazadboni M. Iridium Oxide pH sensor based onstainless steel
wire for pH mapping on metal surface. Materials Science andEngineering. 2018;328.
50. Zhu Z, X.. L, Ye Z, Zhang J, Cao F, Zhang J. A fabrication of iridium oxide film pH micro-senso on Pt
ultramicroelectrode and its application on in-situ pH distribution of 316L stainless stee corrosion at open circuit. Sensors
and Actuators B: Chemical. 2018;255:1974-82.
51. Zhu Z, Ye Z, Zhang Q, Zhang J, Cao F. Novel dual Pt-Pt/IrOx ultramicroelectrode for pH imaging using SECM in both
potentiometric and amperometric modes. Electrochemistry Communications. 2018;88:47-51.
52. Ye Z, Zhu Z, Zhang Q, L’iu X, Zhang J, Cao F. In situ SECM mapping of pitting corrosion in stainless steel using
submicron Pt ultramicroelectrode and quantitative spatial resolution analysis. Corrosion Science. 2018;143:221-8.
53. Musk E. Why I'm Building the Starship out of Stainless Steel
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a25953663/elon-musk-spacex-bfr-stainless-steel/: Popular Mechanics;
January 23, 2019

© 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology. 13