Material Evaluation of Liquid Metal Corrosion in Zn-Al Hot-Dip Coating Baths

Matthew L. Burris

Thesis submitted to the College of Engineering and Mineral Resources at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering

Keh-Minn Chang, Ph.D., Chair Bruce Kang, Ph.D. Kenneth Means, Ph.D.

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

Morgantown, West Virginia 2000

Keywords: Liquid Metal Corrosion, Iron Aluminide, Bath Hardware Corrosion, Hot-Dip Coating

ABSTRACT Material Evaluation of Liquid Metal Corrosion In Zn-Al Hot-Dip Coating Baths Matthew L. Burris The corrosion of bath hardware used in continuous galvanization lines is a great challenge within the hot-dip coating industry today. The objective of this research was to examine the potential of using intermetallic Fe3Al alloys developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the bath hardware application of the continuous hot-dipping process. In order to examine the effectiveness of Fe3Al in this harsh, molten metal environment, two sets of liquid metal corrosion tests were carried out. The purpose of the first set of experiments was to examine the effect of test duration on the corrosion of the different alloys. The testing was conducted by the immersion of test specimens in a hot-dip coating bath of a commercial hot-dipping line. These corrosion tests were performed on coupons of Fe3Al, and a low carbon stainless steel, 316L, was accompanied for comparison. The 316L stainless steel alloy is a common alloy used for the manufacture of bath hardware of continuous hot-dip coating lines. In these tests, the bath material was maintained at a specific temperature used for commercial hot-dip runs. The sample materials were submerged in four different baths for durations ranging from 2 hours to 240 hours. The baths included: pure zinc, zinc-5wt%aluminum, zinc55wt%aluminum, aluminum-8wt% silicon. The purpose of the second group of tests was to examine the temperature effect on corrosion behavior of the sample alloys. In this group of tests an experimental FeCrSi alloy, developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, was tested in addition to the Fe3Al and 316L. Test specimens were statically tested in the same four liquid baths as the online battery of tests, but different temperatures were employed. After the corrosion tests were completed, the specimens were cut, mounted and ground. The specimens were then etched and the remaining specimen thicknesses were measured using a Hi-Scope optical microscope from Hirox outfitted with Vision Gauge PC-based software. Grain size measurements and microstructure examination of the pretest sample materials were carried out through standard laboratory procedure. Examination of the interface layers and compositional analyses were then carried out on the test specimens with the aid of a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Comparison between the corrosion behavior of the 316L, Fe3Al, and FeCrSi samples in the separate sets of corrosion tests were made. A sound base of corrosion data for the three test materials in molten zinc, Al-8Si, Zn-5Al, and Zn-55Al is developed and microstructure evaluation of the formed alloy layers is presented. A significant temperature and time effect on the corrosion of the test materials in the molten baths was found. Through the on-line corrosion testing, a linear time law for corrosion from 2 hours to 240 hours was found for the 316L, Fe3Al, and FeCrSi specimens. The Fe3Al alloy showed similar results in the Al-8Si bath as the 316L alloy. The FeCrSi alloy showed relatively low corrosion rates during the static testing, but demonstrated a pronounced temperature effect in the Zn-5Al bath as the testing temperature was increased above 560C.

iii

Acknowledgments

Firstly, I would like to thank my family. Their constant encouragement and unwavering support mean more to me than they can know. Without them, none of this would have been possible. I would next like to thank my research advisor, Dr. Keh-Minn Chang. His advice and guidance to me throughout the course of this project have helped me immensely. The knowledge and work ethic that he possesses leave a lasting impression on me. Next, I would like to thank Dr. Wanhong Yang for helping me with the SEM and EDS work at NIOSH. I appreciate the effort he put forth to help me with this project and all of my research. I would also like to thank Jian Mao, Longzhou Ma, and Li Yang for

continually taking time out from their schedules to assist me throughout the course of my graduate work. These people, and the rest of Dr. Changs research group, I would like to thank for everything theyve done. It has been a real privilege knowing them and working with them. I would also like to thank N. Rampura for conducting the on-line tests and preparing many of the test specimens for me. Next I would like to thank all the members of the Materials Processing division of Metals and Ceramics at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, especially Dr. Vinod K. Sikka. I learned a great deal while working in their facility and thoroughly enjoyed myself. They have my heartfelt gratitude for the lengths they went to in order to assist me with my project and testing. They were a tremendous group of people to work with. Finally, I would like to thank some of my close friends. I would like to thank Bobby Coulter for keeping graduate school from being too serious, and for helping me with all of my research work. I also need to thank Butch Kanth, John Clark, and Ben

iv

Freeman for being life-long friends, making me laugh, and keeping me sane. We had a lot of good times at WVU, and we made a lot of great memories in the process. Lastly I would like to thank Carrie Patterson, for always supporting me in everything that I did, and for being a great friend.

Table of Contents Title page Abstract Acknowledgments Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Hot-Dip Coating 1.2 Performance of Bath Hardware 1.3 Intermetallics 1.4 Liquid Metal Corrosion 1.5 Research Objective Chapter 2 Literature Review 2.1 Iron Aluminide 2.2 Corrosion in Hot-Dip Coating Baths 2.2.1 Galvanization 2.2.2 Aluminization Chapter 3 Experimental Procedure 3.1 Corrosion Tests 3.1.1 Alloy Preparation 3.1.2 On-line Corrosion Tests 3.1.3 Static Immersion Tests 3.2 Sample Sectioning i ii iii v viii ix 1 1 2 4 7 9 10 10 11 11 14 18 18 18 19 21 23

vi

3.2.1 On-line Corrosion Specimens 3.2.2 Static Immersion Specimens 3.3 Sample Preparation 3.4 Thickness Measurements 3.5 Calculation of Corrosion Rates 3.6 Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) 3.7 Microstructure Evaluation of Base Materials Chapter 4 Results and Discussion 4.1 Microstructure of Base Materials 4.2 Corrosion of On-Line Test Specimens 4.2.1 Al-8Si Bath 4.2.2 Zinc Bath 4.2.3 Zn-5Al Bath 4.2.4 Zn-55Al Bath 4.2.5 Discussion 4.3 Corrosion of Static Immersion Specimens 4.4 SEM/EDS Analysis 4.4.1 Al-8Si Bath 4.4.2 Zinc Bath 4.4.3 Zn-55Al Bath 4.4.4 Discussion Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations 5.1 Conclusions 5.1.1 On-line Corrosion Testing

23 24 24 25 26 28 29 31 31 33 33 35 36 37 37 39 44 44 50 55 62 64 64 64

vii

5.1.2 Static Corrosion Testing 5.1.3 Bath / Base Material Interactions 5.1.4 Summary 5.2 Future Work References Appendix A Thickness Loss Graphs Appendix B Raw Data Vita

65 67 69 69 71 74 89 106

viii

List of Tables Title Table 2.1: Phases Identified in the Galvanization of Steels Substrates Table 2.2: Fe-Al System Phases Table 2.3: Confirmed Phase Identities in Fe-Al-Si System Table 3.1: Chemical Compositions of Corrosion Test Specimens Table 3.2: Bath Temperatures for On-line Corrosion Tests Table 3.3: Static Immersion Tests Conducted Table 3.4: Static Immersion Specimen Dimensions Table 3.5: Density of Test Materials Table 3.6: Etchants Used for Microstructure Evaluation of Base Materials Table 4.1: Grain Sizes of Test Materials Table 4.2: Corrosion Rates for On-line Corrosion Tests Table 4.3: Average Thickness Losses for Static Immersion Tests Table 4.4: Corrosion Rates for Static Immersion Tests Table 4.5: Phases formed Upon Corrosion in Zn-Al Hot-Dip Baths Page Number 14 16 17 18 20 21 22 27 29 31 37 40 40 62

ix

List of Figures Title Figure 1.1: Schematic of Hardware in Hot-Dipping Process Figure 1.2: Iron-Aluminum Phase Diagram Figure 1.3: Unit Cell of FeAl (B2) and Fe3Al (D03) superlattices Figure 3.1: On-line Corrosion Test Specimen Figure 3.2: 316L Specimens upon Removal from the Aluminizing Bath Figure 3.3: Static Immersion Testing Set-up Figure 3.4: 316L Specimens Sectioned at Position 2 Figure 3.5: Hi-Scope Optical Microscope Set-up Figure 3.6: Location and Designation of Specimen Thickness Measurements Figure 4.1: Microstructure of Fe3Al, 316L, and FeCrSi specimens Figure 4.2: Grain structures in Fe-Cr-Si alloy Figure 4.3: Plot of Thickness Loss of 316L in Al-8Si bath at 660C Figure 4.4: Thickness Loss of 316L and Fe3Al in Al-8Si Bath Figure 4.5: Thickness Loss of 316L and Fe3Al in Zinc Bath Figure 4.6: Thickness Loss of 316L and Fe3Al in Galfan Bath Figure 4.7: Thickness Loss of 316L and Fe3Al in Galvalume Bath Figure 4.8: Corrosion Rates for On-line Corrosion Tests Figure 4.9: Corrosion Rates for Static Immersion Tests in zinc Figure 4.10: Corrosion Rates for Static Immersion Tests in Zn-5Al Figure 4.11: Transverse Section of Hot-Dip Aluminized 316L Sample Figure 4.12: EDS Spectrums of 316L in Al-8Si Page Number 3 6 6 19 20 22 23 25 26 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 42 43 46 46

Title Figure 4.13: SEM Micrograph of Fe3Al in Al-8Si Figure 4.14: EDS Spectra of Fe3Al in Al-8Si Bath Figure 4.15: SEM Micrograph of FeCrSi in Al-8Si Figure 4.16: EDS Spectra of FeCrSi in Al-8Si Figure 4.17: SEM Micrograph of 316L in Zinc

Page Number 47 48 49 50 51

Figure 4.18: EDS Spectrum of Fe-Al-Zn Ternary Phase Formed on 316L in Zinc 51 Figure 4.19: SEM Micrograph of Fe3Al in Zinc Figure 4.20: EDS Spectrum of FeAl3 Phase Formed on Fe3Al in Zinc Figure 4.21: EDS Spectrum of Zr Phase in Fe3Al Alloy Figure 4.22: SEM Micrograph of FeCrSi in Zinc Bath Figure 4.23: SEM Micrograph of 316L in Zn-55Al Bath Figure 4.24: EDS Spectra of 316L in Zn-55Al Bath Figure 4.25: SEM Micrograph of Fe3Al in Zn-55Al Bath Figure 4.26: EDS Spectra of Fe3Al in Zn-55Al Bath Figure 4.27: SEM Micrograph of FeCrSi in Zn-55Al Bath Figure 4.28: EDS Spectra of FeCrSi in Zn-55Al Bath Figure A.1: Thickness Loss of 316L in Al-8Si for On-line Tests Figure A.2: Thickness Loss of Fe3Al in Al-8Si for On-line Tests Figure A.3: Thickness Loss of 316L in Zinc for On-line Tests Figure A.4: Thickness Loss of Fe3Al in Zinc for On-line Tests Figure A.5: Thickness Loss of 316L in Zn-5Al for On-line Tests Figure A.6: Thickness Loss of Fe3Al in Zn-5Al for On-line Tests 52 53 53 54 56 57 58 59 60 61 76 77 78 79 80 81

xi

Title Figure A.7: Thickness Loss of 316L in Zn-55Al for On-line Tests Figure A.8: Thickness Loss of Fe3Al in Zn-55Al for On-line Tests Figure A.9: Thickness Loss in Al-8Si for Static Tests Figure A.10: Thickness Loss in Zinc for Static Tests Figure A.11: Thickness Loss in Zn-5Al for Static Tests Figure A.12: Thickness Loss in Zn-55Al for Static Tests Figure B.1: Level 1 Thickness Measurements in Al-8Si for On-line Tests Figure B.2: Level 2 Thickness Measurements in Al-8Si for On-line Tests Figure B.3: Level 3 Thickness Measurements in Al-8Si for On-line Tests Figure B.4: Level 1 Thickness Measurements in Zinc for On-line Tests Figure B.5: Level 2 Thickness Measurements in Zinc for On-line Tests Figure B.6: Level 3 Thickness Measurements in Zinc for On-line Tests Figure B.7: Level 1 Thickness Measurements in Zn-5Al for On-line Tests Figure B.8: Level 2 Thickness Measurements in Zn-5Al for On-line Tests Figure B.9: Level 3 Thickness Measurements in Zn-5Al for On-line Tests

Page Number 82 83 85 86 87 88 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105

Figure B.10: Level 1 Thickness Measurements in Zn-55Al for On-line Tests Figure B.11: Level 2 Thickness Measurements in Zn-55Al for On-line Tests Figure B.12: Level 3 Thickness Measurements in Zn-55Al for On-line Tests Figure B.13: Thickness Measurements in Al-8Si for Static Tests Figure B.14: Thickness Measurements in Zinc for Static Tests Figure B.15: Thickness Measurements in Zn-5Al for Static Tests Figure B.16: Thickness Measurements in Zn-55Al for Static Tests

Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Hot-Dip Coating In the world today, the need for corrosion resistant, structural materials is continually increasing. For almost two centuries, hot-dip coating has proven to be a high quality and highly economical corrosion protection method with a vast number of applications.1 Hotdip coated products have a multitude of uses ranging from the automobile industry, to the heating industry, to the construction industry. The hot-dip coating process remains

relatively simple and highly effective even after many years of development. New variations and uses for hot-dip coated products are continually being developed by companies world-wide. One reason for the overall effectiveness of hot-dip coating for corrosion control stems from the metallurgical bond that is formed between the base metal and the coating metal. During the coating process, the molten coating material reacts with the steels surface to form a series of alloy layers. This bond provides very strong protection, with excellent impact resistance provided by the ductile outer layer and excellent abrasion resistance provided by the hard, inner alloy layers. Two major sub-divisions within the field of hot-dip coating include the processes of aluminization and galvanization. Each of these processes involves the coating of a steelbased substrate with the respective coating alloy. Though the separate processes are very similar in their execution, the coated products that they yield harbor differing properties, and are often used in different applications. There are two main methods of protecting a steel sheet from corrosion: barrier protection and cathodic protection.2 Galvanization utilizes protection from both of these

important mechanisms. In the cathodic protection process, the zinc coating acts as the anodic area on the steel. Because it is the anode, the zinc will preferentially corrode, leaving the base metal intact. Also, the zinc coating applied to the steel base is extremely dense and considerably less permeable than other coating methods such as painting. The intermetallic layers formed by the alloying of the zinc and the steel form an excellent type of barrier protection. Because of this alloying, the bond between the zinc coating and the base material is extremely strong. The coatings formed from the process of aluminizing have many of the same properties as the coatings formed in the galvanization process. With aluminum, primary corrosion protection of the steel base is supplied by the formation of an impervious oxide barrier. The barrier property comes from the ability of aluminum to generate rapidly, a very thin surface film of alumina, which is practically impermeable and insoluble to most oxidizing media.3 Though coatings formed through the aluminizing of steel are not as easily welded or as inexpensive as their zinc counterparts, they have excellent heat and light reflectivity properties. Aluminized steel is widely used in vehicle exhaust systems and domestic appliances such as dryers, heating boilers, and cookers.3 Aluminized and galvanized steels have both encountered high demand in the construction industry.

1.2 Performance of Bath Hardware In continuous hot-dip coating lines, the immersed bath hardware (e.g. bearings, sink, stabilizer, and corrector rolls, and also support roll arms and snout tip) is subject to corrosive attack by the molten bath material.4 Figure 1.1 shows a schematic diagram of a

continuous hot-dipping bath. In addition to the corrosive effects of the molten bath material, the bath hardware is subject to erosive and abrasive attack from the hard intermetallic particles formed within the bath. The attack on the bath hardware hinders line operation, degrades the surface quality of the coated product, and requires frequent and expensive bath hardware changes. A typical campaign for the submerged bath hardware used in the hot-dip coating industry currently ranges from approximately one to six weeks.5

SNOUT

GAS KNIVES

STRIP DIRECTION

Stabilizing Rolls

BATH

Sink Roll

Figure 1.1: Schematic Diagram Showing Positions of Hardware Rolls in Continuous Hot-Dipping Bath

A shutdown of these continuous hot-dipping operations is costly because of both a loss of production time and additional energy to restart the process. A major factor contributing to the shutdown of these lines involves the limited life of the roll bearings

submerged in the liquid metal bath. Upon being subjected to the molten metal corrosion and extensive erosion within the bath, the bearings will lose their original dimensions.6 Because of these dimensional, losses vibrations within the line develop. These vibrations can be very hazardous, even catastrophic. Line vibrations can also create uneven

material coatings and cause intermetallic particles from the bath hardware and melt to be stirred up and mixed in with the clean coating material. These effects severely detract from the quality of the applied coating and may even render the coated material unusable. Numerous materials are currently being developed and tested to assess their effectiveness in the bearing application of a continuous hot-dip coating line. A

satisfactory material must possess the required mechanical strength at high temperatures while also resisting corrosion and erosion from the molten bath material. Current

materials used in the bearing application of continuous hot-dip coating lines include specialized ceramics, Stellite alloys, and multiple other materials. Though many

materials have been examined in the search for corrosion resistant bath hardware, none of these have emerged as an obvious leader in this field. An improvement in the material used for bearings in the hot-dip coating process would mean a decrease in the frequency of line shutdowns and substantial cost and energy savings. The continuous hot-dip coating lines could run for longer periods and produce higher quality products.

1.3 Intermetallics In recent years, increasing research interest has been seen in the development of intermetallic compounds. Intermetallics constitute a unique class of materials that have many exciting and advantageous properties for use in a wide variety of applications.

These materials are currently used in such diverse applications as resistors, magnets, superconductors, heating elements, and corrosion-resistant coatings.7 A number of intermetallic compounds are also being developed for use in structural applications. Some examples of these materials include Ni3Al, NiAl, Ni3Si, Fe3Al, FeAl, Ti3Al, TiAl, and MoSi2.8 The field of intermetallic research is a relatively new area with many exciting possibilities for further research and future applications. An intermetallic compound can loosely be defined as an ordered alloy phase formed as a combination of two or more metal elements, generally falling at or near a fixed stoichiometric ratio and ordered on at least two or more sublattices.7 The ordered structure of an intermetallic compound gives the material some extremely attractive properties at higher temperatures. These exceptional high temperature properties are due to the long-range-ordered superlattice which reduces dislocation mobility and diffusion processes at high temperatures.8 These characteristics contribute to the increased hightemperature strength and creep resistance of intermetallic materials. In addition,

hundreds of binary intermetallics have been identified that have melting points in excess of 1500C. These factors contribute to some of the appeal for the use of intermetallics in a variety of widespread applications. Iron aluminides have been of interest since the 1930s when the excellent corrosion resistance of compositions with more than about 18at% Al was first noted.9 At these compositions, the resistance of iron aluminides to corrosion in oxidizing and sulfidizing environments is well noted, particularly at elevated temperatures. Despite the fact that iron and aluminum can possibly form multiple intermetallic phases, two phases in particular carry the most possibility for use in structural applications.

Figure 1.2: Iron-aluminum phase diagram9

These two ordered phases are FeAl and Fe3Al, as can be seen in the Fe-Al binary phase diagram in Figure 1.2. The ordered DO3 structure of Fe3Al and the B2 crystal structure

Figure1.3: Unit cell of FeAl (B2) and Fe3Al (D03) superlattices9 of FeAl both have derivatives from the body-centered cubic structure.9 The crystalline unit cells for each phase are illustrated in the Figure 1.3.

1.4 Liquid Metal Corrosion Since the earliest days of metal processing there has been great concern about the corrosion of a solid metal exposed to a liquid-metal environment. As the metal

processing industry grew, so did the need to contain and transport molten metals. In addition to the melts used during material processing, molten metals were being utilized as high-temperature reducing agents in the production of metals, and because of their excellent heat transfer properties they were being used as coolants in a variety of powerproducing systems. Liquid metals have been observed to attack solid metals in various ways. The

phenomena of liquid-metal corrosion can be placed in the following categories: dissolution, impurity and interstitial reactions, alloying, and compound reduction.18 These classifications however have an arbitrary nature, due to the fact that the four individual categories of corrosion phenomena do not act independently of one another. Dissolution is the simplest type of corrosion that can occur in a liquid metal system. In this simple-solution type of attack, the amount of damage the solid metal undergoes is dependant upon the surface area of the solid exposed and the volume of the liquid metal. The rate of the dissolution reaction is governed by the kinetic properties of the ratecontrolling step in the dissolution reaction. The net dissolution rate at which the solid metal enters solution can be seen in the equation: J = k (C c) (1.1)

where J is the net dissolution rate of the solid, k is the solution rate constant for the ratecontrolling step, C is the solubility of the particular element in the liquid metal, and c is the instantaneous concentration of this element in the melt.18

Impurity or interstitial reactions refer to the interaction of light elements in the solid or the liquid metal. In situations where the solid metal has a low solubility in a particular liquid metal, reactions involving light elements such as oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon may dominate the reaction process. Examples of this type of reaction include the decarburization of steel in lithium and the oxidation of steel in sodium.18 Another type of corrosion that occurs between liquid metals and solid metals is alloying or alloy layer formation. In this type of reaction stable products are formed from the reaction of atoms within the solid metal with those from the liquid metal. These reactions occur without the participation of interstitial or impurity elements. The basic alloying reaction can be expressed by the equation: xM + yL = MxLy (1.2)

where L is the chemical symbol for a liquid-metal atom and M is one species from the solid metal.18 The product formed by this reaction may either be soluble or insoluble in the liquid metal. Assuming that chemical contact is maintained between compact product layers, then at equilibrium, the growth of the phase layers is controlled by volume diffusion. Compound reduction represents another mechanism of corrosion observed in liquid metal systems. In compound reduction, structural integrity of the solid metal is lost through reduction-induced removal of the nonmetallic element in the solid. An example of this aggressive situation would be the exposure of most oxides to molten lithium.18

1.5 Research Objective The main objective of this research is to examine, by means of corrosion testing and microscopic examination, the effectiveness of Fe3Al-type intermetallic alloys as materials of construction for bath hardware in continuous hot-dip coating lines. The iron-

aluminide alloy, which was developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, was compared to specimens of 316L, low-carbon stainless steel. Each of the selected materials was tested in similar conditions so that the results could be compared. Two different batteries of tests were run on the materials, the first being on-line corrosion tests to examine the testing duration effect on corrosion, and the second being laboratory, static immersion tests to examine the temperature effect on corrosion of the materials. During the static immersion tests an experimental FeCrSi alloy that was developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory was tested alongside the Fe3Al and 316L specimens. The microstructure and composition of the interface layers formed from the reaction between the test specimens and the molten bath were successfully examined with the aid of the scanning electron and optical microscopes. This paper discusses the differences in performance of the selected materials in the four separate coating baths: pure zinc, Zn5Al, Zn-55Al, and Al-8Si (weight percents).

10

Chapter 2 Literature Review 2.1 Iron Aluminide Iron aluminides compete with the 300 and 400 Series stainless steels and some nickel-based alloys in a variety of different applications.10 They offer relatively low material cost, conservation of strategic elements, and a lower density than stainless steels.8 These properties contribute to the reason iron aluminides have potential uses in numerous structural applications. One factor contributing to the excellent performance of iron aluminides in oxidizing and sulfidizing environments stems from the systems ability to form a protective Al2O3 coating. This coating protects the underlying base material from attack by sulfidizing and oxidizing environments in excess of 1400C.9 An example of iron aluminides being used in a highly sulfidizing environment include the use of the material as filters in coal-gasification processes. Here iron aluminide powders are sintered to form porous gas-metal filters that are used to remove particulate from the gas produced during a coal gasification process.10 This application exploits the excellent sulfidation resistance of the material. Iron aluminide is also used to produce heating elements, furnace fixtures, and catalytic converter substrate to take advantage of the superb oxidation resistance of the material. The application of iron aluminide as heating elements also utilizes the high resistivity of the material, which remains constant up to 1000C.

11

2.2 Corrosion in Hot-Dip Coating Baths 2.2.1 Galvanizing Lines Though the hot-dip coating processes greatly enhance the corrosion resistance of the steel substrate that is passed through the molten coating material, the intrinsic conditions of the procedure have severe effects on the submerged bath hardware. This hardware is subjected to high temperatures, severe corrosion, and continuous erosion from intermetallic particles within the molten coating bath. The same process that

produces the beneficial alloy layers that protect a steel sheet from corrosion is constantly at work shortening the life of the bath hardware. A considerable amount of research has been conducted to find a bath hardware material that can withstand these conditions for an extended period of time. Typical materials used for galvanizing operations are Type 316L stainless steel for the bath hardware rolls and Stellite for the roll bearings.11 One corrosion study compared the mass loss of various materials due to liquid zinc attack in a 480C bath for 120 hours. In that study, low carbon steel specimens were found to corrode at a rate almost three times that of type 304 and 316 stainless steel, which experienced approximately the same mass loss.11 Slight compositional changes to the base material were found to have very significant effects on the corrosion of the tested material. For example, increasing the silicon content of the Type 316 stainless steel from .4 wt% to .5 wt% was found to have a beneficial effect, while increasing the chromium content in binary iron-chromium alloys was detrimental to their performance in molten zinc.11 Also, martensitic grades of stainless steel, such as Type 410, were found to be corroded more readily in molten zinc baths than austenitic grades such as Types 304 and 316.11

12

Factors such as bath chemistry, sample microstructure, and surface condition have also been found to have significant effects on the corrosion of steels in molten zinc baths. Lampe et al.12 found that although small additions of aluminum to a pure zinc melt have no effect on the attack rate, an addition of 4% aluminum to the zinc melt greatly reduces the corrosion rate of the base steel. In hot-dip galvanizing, the formation of Fe2Al5 (phase) has been implicated in the inhibition of Fe-Zn reaction diffusion even when aluminum is present in the zinc melt in relatively low concentrations.3 In the same series of tests, the researchers found that the pre-oxidation of an AISI H13 alloy decreased the corrosion of the specimen in the bath. Brunnock et al.11 found that the grain size of the base steel had an effect on the mass loss independent of compositional variations. In every test run, the sample with the smaller grain size showed the higher amount of mass loss. This work confirmed previous studies, which stated that in steels, molten zinc attacks grain boundaries preferentially. As does the coated steel sheet, stainless steel or iron based bath hardware forms a series of alloy layers upon submersion in a zinc or zinc alloy coating bath. In one study, these coatings were found to be fully alloyed on submerged steel panels in an immersion time as brief as three minutes.12 The series of zinc/iron alloy layers formed from the metallurgical reaction of the bath material and the submerged material will be intermetallic phases with specific stoichiometric ratios. When a submerged material is

removed from the zinc bath, it carries with it a covering of pure zinc. This outer layer is known as the -layer. Progressing in towards the base steel, three other alloys layers have been observed to form: the -FeZn13 layer, the -FeZn10 layer, and the -Fe3Zn10 layer.1 From the outer layer to the inner -Fe3Zn10 layer, the alloy layers have

13

increasing iron contents. The exact compositions and presence of the alloy layers formed on an experimental steel specimen submerged in liquid zinc is under debate however. In a study conducted by Verma et al.14 at the University of Cincinatti, it was found that at a testing temperature of 455C the well-known three-phase structure, i.e., FeZn10, -FeZn13, and , was formed. The thin, innermost -Fe3Zn10 layer did not form. The researchers here formed comparisons among the coatings formed on a standard steel substrate in the temperature range 520 - 555C. It was found that coatings at the lower end of the temperature range had well defined layers on top of a layer.14 The coatings changed to primarily the alloy layer at the higher end of the temperature range.14 In

the first part of this study, which was a description of coatings formed at 560C, the experimenters found that the coating consisted of monoclinic crystals of the phase embedded in a layer which was a solid solution of the and phase. This layer was formed on top of a very thin layer of the alloy, which was present at the zinc-steel interface.12 It was found that by lowering the immersion temperature from 555 to 530C that the solid solution of + grew at the expense of the pure phase.12 After the immersion of an AISI 1012 steel specimen in a molten zinc bath for eight hours, Lampe et al.12 identified the formation of the noted , , , and layers.12 The researchers further divided the alloy layer into two separate sub-layers, designating these layers the 1 and 2 sub-layers because of their different morphologies. Table 2.1 illustrates the phases observed upon the corrosion of steel substrates in molten zinc baths. Despite the fact that much research is being conducted in order to find improved materials for the bath hardware application in continuous galvanization lines, only a handful of materials are being put into actual use in industry today. In 1996, the

14

International Lead Zinc Research Organization, Inc. (ILZRO) surveyed continuous galvanizers within Africa, Asia, North America and Europe in regard to their operating practices and experiences in the area.5 Of the bearing materials the galvanizers listed in the survey given, three were ceramic, eighteen were a cobalt-based Stellite alloy, and one was an alloy known as Tribaloy T-800.5 Even though these currently utilized alloys yield unsatisfactory operating lives, they continue to be used because a superior material for this application has not been identified.

Table 2.1: Phases Identified in the Galvanization of Steel Substrates

Testing Time (min) 3 3 3 3 480 Testing Temperature (C) 455 520 555 560 470

Source Verma et al.14 Verma et al.14 Verma et al.14 Verma et al.12 Lampe et al.13

Base Material Rolled structural steel panel Rolled structural steel panel Rolled structural steel panel Rolled structural steel panel AISI 1012 Steel

Phases Identified -FeZn10, -FeZn13 -FeZn10, -FeZn13 -FeZn10 -Fe3Zn10, -FeZn10, -FeZn13 - Fe3Zn10, 1-FeZn10, 2-FeZn7, FeZn13

2.2.2 Aluminizing Lines Similar to reactions in molten zinc, when a solid iron or steel substrate is submerged in a molten aluminum bath metallurgical reactions between the bath and immersed material will occur. Jones and Denner stated that the coating formed on the submerged material will have the following features: the number and order of formation of constituents it contains will accord with the predictions of the equilibrium phase

15

diagram, and the overall thickness of the coating layer will increase parabolically at reaction temperatures.15 At currently accepted hot-dip aluminizing temperatures

(approximately 660 - 730C), three intermediate phases should form between the limiting solid solution of aluminum in iron and the liquid solution of iron in aluminum.14 Richards stated that the addition of silicon in the Type 1 aluminizing melt results in several substantial differences between Type 1 and Type 2 hot dipped aluminized steels. A Type 1 aluminizing melt generally contains 8-11 wt.% silicon and the Type 2 melt is an unalloyed aluminum bath. The addition of the silicon inhibits alloy layer growth in the Type 1 aluminized steels and results in the formation of a planar, steel/alloy layer interface. A serrated, or saw-tooth, interface is said to be typical of Type 2 aluminized steels.3 In an X-ray diffraction study of Type 1 specimens produced in baths containing 9 11% Si, Coburn concluded that the single detected intermetallic layer was composed entirely of silicon bearing -Fe2Al5, this overlying a region of Fe-Al solid solution.3 Refer to Table 2.2 for phases formed in the Fe-Al binary system. In an analysis of industrially produced Type 1 samples, Liu and Wu found that the composition of the single layer formed during immersion testing consisted of FeSiAl2. In this study, no Fe-Al solid solution zone was found.3 Fotouhi found that the alloy layers formed in hot dip aluminized steels at temperatures below 750C were comprised of two distinct intermetallic strata.3 For immersion times of 300 seconds, the outer, thicker strata was identified as -Fe2SiAl8, while the inner, much thinner layer consisted of -FeAl3. At temperatures higher than

16

approximately 750C, the thinner FeAl3 layer was not identified, and the alloy layer consisted entirely of -Fe2SiAl8.14 For immersion times greater than 900 seconds and temperatures up to approximately 730C, Denner and Kim found a similar alloy layer structure to that observed by Fotouhi.3 The researchers found a distinct, but discontinuous layer of FeAl3 which was observed to form between a layer of Fe2SiAl7 and an -Fe2Al5 layer which formed next to the steel base material.

Table 2.2: Fe-Al system phases3

Phase -FeAl 1 2 Al-Fe Solubility of Fe in Al 700C ~ 2.5 wt% 600C ~ < 0.1 wt% Stoichiometry Fe3Al FeAl FeAl FeAl2 (47-50 wt%) Fe2Al5 (52-54 wt%) FeAl3 (57-62 wt%) Crystal Structure bcc Cubic (BiF3-type) Disordered, bcc Ordered, bcc Monoclinic, (rhombohedral?) Orthorhombic Monoclinic fcc

-Fe2Al3 (complex cubic, bcc) not relevant to hot dip aluminizing (high-temp phase) FeAl6 (monoclinic) metastable phase Fe2Al7 no recent evidence supporting existence

Richards et al.3 gives a comprehensive view of the phases formed upon the hotdip aluminizing of a steel substrate in a Type 1 aluminizing bath. Table 2.3 represents a compilation of the results from multiple research projects dealing with Type 1 aluminization.

17

Table 2.3: Confirmed phase identities in Fe-Al-Si system3

Phase 2() 6()

Reported stoichiometry

FeSiAl3

Approximate composition, wt-% _______________ Fe Al Si 35.5 49.5 15

Reported crystal systems One report cubic; one monoclinic Several reports monoclinic; one tetragonal All reports tetragonal

Fe2Si2Al9

27.0

49.5

13.5

4()

FeSi2 Al4 FeSi2 Al3 Fe15Si28 Al57 Fe15Si38 Al47 Fe2SiAl7 Fe2SiAl8 Fe3Si2Al12 Fe5Si2Al20

27.0

48.0

25.0

5()

32.2

59.8

8.0

One report cubic; all others hexagonal

18

Chapter 3 Experimental Procedure

3.1 Corrosion Testing 3.1.1 Alloy Preparation The Fe3Al intermetallic alloy used throughout the course of this research was prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The induction melting of high-purity, raw materials was performed. The composition of the iron

aluminide alloy is listed in Table 3.1. Ingots were cast from the alloy melt in cylindrical graphite molds that were 75 mm in diameter and 180 mm in length. The cylindrical ingots were heated to and held at 1100C for two hours and then extruded by a hydraulic press into billets with a 19 mm by 38 mm cross-section. The head and tail of the billets were cut off and the remaining material was then hot rolled to a thickness of 3.2 mm. Test specimens were then cut from the as-rolled plates in the longitudinal direction. The stainless steel used in the corrosion tests was commercial grade 316L stainless steel plate with a thickness of 3.2 mm. The chemical compositions of the 316L stainless steel and other test materials are listed in Table 3.1. Table 3.1: Chemical Composition of Corrosion Test Specimens (wt%)
Fe Bal Bal Bal Al 15.83 --Cr 5.45 17.00 35.00 Zr .96 --C .01 .03 -Ni -12.00 -Mo -2.5 -Mn -2.00 -Si -1.00 2.50 P -.045 -S -.030 --

Fe3Al 316L FeCrSi

The FeCrSi alloy was an experimental alloy produced at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The FeCrSi alloy was produced by the vacuum induction melting (VIM) of high purity laboratory materials. This mixture was poured at 1600C and the resulting

19

ingot had dimensions of 25.4 mm x 101.6 mm x 152.4 mm. The ingot was then hotrolled to yield the final thickness of 6.35 mm.

3.1.2: On-line Corrosion Tests A schematic of the test specimens used in the on-line corrosion tests is illustrated in Figure 3.1. During the corrosion tests, one iron-aluminide specimen and one 316L specimen were separated by a 25 mm wide spacer and bolted to a rig which hung over the coating bath. The rig was positioned over the hot-dip coating bath so that approximately one-third of the specimen was immersed in the melt.

50.8 mm

Level S

304.8 mm

292.1 mm

247.65 mm

203.2 mm

Level 3 Immersion Line Level 2 Level 1

Figure 3.1: On-line corrosion test specimen

The on-line corrosion tests in the galvanizing, galvalume (Zn-55Al), and Type 1 aluminizing bath (Al-8Si) were conducted on a commercial production line of the Wheeling Nisshin plant in Follansbee, WV. The on-line corrosion tests in the galfan (Zn-

20

5Al) bath were performed at the Weirton Steel facility in Weirton, WV. The operating temperatures of the various hot-dip coating processes are listed in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Bath Temperatures for On-line Corrosion Tests

Bath Material Al-8Si (Type 1 aluminizing bath) Zinc (galvanizing bath) Zn-5Al (Galfan) Zn-55Al (Galvalume) Bath Temperature (C) 660 460 490 600

Five specimen pairs of Fe3Al and 316L were immersed in the baths for times of 2, 8, 24, 72, and 240 hours. One by one, the specimens were removed from the hanging rig assembly after their specified immersion times had expired. Figure 3.2 shows a typical example of several test specimens after being removed from one of the molten coating baths.

Figure 3.2: 316L Specimens upon Removal from the Aluminizing Bath

21

3.1.3 Static Immersion Tests The static immersion testing for this project was conducted at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the Materials Processing Group of the Metals and Ceramics Division. The bath materials used for the static immersion tests were of the same chemistry as the molten baths used during the first series of tests. In addition to the Fe3Al and 316L, the FeCrSi alloy was also tested for comparison. The specimens were tested at temperatures of 460, 560, and 660C for 24-hour periods in order to investigate the temperature effect of the molten metal corrosion in the specified bath materials. Because of the melting points of the specified bath materials, all three temperatures could not be tested in every bath. For example, the melting point of the Type 1 aluminizing bath, Al-8Si, has a melting point slightly over 600C and therefore testing could not be run in this bath material at the 460 and 560C testing temperatures. The static corrosion tests that were run in the four bath materials are listed in Table 3.3 below. Table 3.3: Static Immersion Tests Conducted
Test Materials and Test Temperature

Bath (melting point) Al-8Si (605C) Zn (420C) Zn-5Al (390C) Zn-55Al (570C)

460C X X

316L 560C X X

660C X X X X

460C X X

Fe3Al 550C X X

660C X X X X

460C X X

FeCrSi 560C X X

660C X X X X

The specimens were cut to varying dimensions due to a limited amount of usable material. Table 3.4 lists the nominal dimensions of the test specimens that were used during the static immersion tests. The machined specimens of the three test materials were cleaned in methanol and weighed before the immersion tests were run.

22

Table 3.4: Static Immersion Specimen Dimensions

Material 316L Fe3Al FeCrSi

thickness (mm) 3.175 2.54 6.35

width (mm) 25.4 25.4 25.4

length (mm) 50.8 50.8 50.8

Crucibles composed of 90% alumina were used for the static immersion. The inner surface of the crucibles was coated with zirconium oxide to prevent the molten bath metal from wetting to the crucible surface upon removal from the furnace. The furnaces used were Thermolyne single-phase resistance furnaces controlled by a Barber Coleman 560 temperature controller. Figure 3.3 shows a schematic representation of the static corrosion testing set-up.

Resistance Furnace

External Thermocouple

Alumina Crucible

Test Specimen

Molten Bath Material

Figure 3.3: Static Immersion Testing Set-up The bath material was melted, brought to the desired testing temperature, and stabilized. The specimens were cleaned, measured, and weighed before being introduced to the molten bath. They were immersed for a duration of 24 hours. At the end of the

23

testing time the crucibles were removed from the furnace. The test specimens were then removed from the bath material and weighed.

3.2 Sample Sectioning 3.2.1 On-line Corrosion specimens Samples were cut from the tested 316L and Fe3Al in order to quantitatively compare the corrosion rate of the materials in the different testing scenarios. The tested specimens were cut at four different positions, which lied at different heights on the tested plate. These height designations are illustrated in Figure 3.1. Position 1 was 12.7 mm from the immersed end of the specimen and Position 2 was 57.2 mm from the immersed end. Positions 1 and 2 were both fully submerged in the molten bath material. Position 3 lied just above the immersion line of the specimen (refer to Figure 3.1). Position S lied 50.8 mm from the top of the specimen and served as the dimensional reference. Figure 3.4 shows specimens of 316L that have been cut at position 2 upon removal from the Al-8Si bath.

Figure 3.4: 316L specimens embedded in resin. Samples were cut at position 2 upon removal from the Al-8Si bath. The specimens were tested for periods of 0, 2, 8, 24, and 72 hours (left to right).

24

3.2.2 Static Immersion Specimens The specimens used for the second series of tests differed from the on-line specimens in their dimensions (refer to Table 3.4). The static specimens were smaller, coupon-type specimens which were totally immersed in the testing bath. After testing, the specimens were cut in half horizontally with an abrasive cutting wheel. Care had to be taken to assure that the cuts lied perpendicular to the specimen edge. The reference to be used for the quantitative corrosion analysis was the original dimensions of the test specimens, which were individually measured before each test.

3.3 Sample Preparation Cut specimen sections were cold-mounted. After the sections were mounted, grinding was done using a Buehler Ecomet 2 two-speed grinder-polisher outfitted with a Buehler Automet 2 power head. The specimens were consecutively ground using 240, 320, 400, 600, and 800-grit sandpaper. They were then polished using the Buehler Ecomet polisher and one-micron deagglomerated alumina polishing paste. Before thickness measurements of the specimens were taken, the polished specimens were first etched in a solution of 3 parts hydrochloric acid and 5 parts water. This etch was used to introduce a contrast between the matrix material and the alloy layers formed as a result of the corrosion. Without this etching, the interface between the alloy layers and the base material could not be clearly distinguished. Upon viewing the etched specimens under the optical microscope, very bright edges were produced as a result of light being reflected from the polished surface. These bright edges that appeared on the polished specimens inhibited the taking of accurate

25

thickness measurements. Because of this the specimens were very lightly ground with 600-grit sandpaper. This procedure eliminated this bright edge effect and allowed more accurate thickness measurements to be taken with the optical microscope.

3.4 Thickness Measurements Thickness measurements of the various test specimens were taken with the aid of a Hi-Scope KH-2400R optical microscope by Hirox. The optical microscope was used in conjunction with Vision Gauge version 4.98 imaging software by VisionX. The Hirox microscope and Vision Gauge software allowed accurate, reproducible measurements to be made and stored with the aid of a personal computer. measurements taken was 0.006 mm. The resolution of the

Figure 3.5 shows the Hi-Scope used for the

thickness measurements of the corrosion specimens.

Figure 3.5: Optical Microscope Set-up Used for Thickness Measurements

26

The thickness of every tested specimen was measured at multiple locations across the cross-section of the specimen. Figure 3.6 shows the locations and designations of the thickness measurements that were made on each cross-section.

Center
T10 T1 B1 B10
Specimen cross-section

1 mm.

Figure 3.6: Location and Designation of Specimen Thickness Measurements

Thickness measurements were made at 1mm intervals across the cross-sections. The measurements were not taken fully to the end of the specimen, but only taken 10 mm to either side of the specimen center. This was done in order to eliminate erroneous data that might result from the tapering of the specimen on the ends due to accelerated corrosion in these areas.

3.5 Calculation of Corrosion Rates From the thickness measurements taken along the cross-section of each corrosion specimen, average thickness losses were found. These average thickness losses were used to calculate corrosion rates. The formula used to calculate the corrosion rates of the tested alloys is given below:

27

dw/dt = * (dy/dt) * (1/2) where dw/dt = corrosion rate (g/cm2*hr) = density of base material (g/cm3) (dy/dt) = average thickness loss per unit time (cm/hr).

(3.1)

The factor of (1/2) in the equation is used to reflect the fact that the average thickness change of the specimen is caused by the corrosion of both faces of the specimen. The densities of the tested materials are listed in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5 Density of Test Materials Test Material 316L Fe3Al FeCrSi Density (g/cm3) 7.9 6.72 7.45

Corrosion rates for the on-line corrosion tests were calculated from the thickness losses of the Level 1 sample sections. This was done because of the fact that the on-line test specimens showed nearly identical corrosion losses at the Level 1 and Level 2 height designations. At the Level 3 height designation, very little corrosion was seen. Level 1 measurements were found to give the most accurate depiction of corrosion losses due to immersion in the molten baths. The remainder of the graphs and data presented for the on-line corrosion tests are derived from thickness losses measured at the Level 1 designation.

28

3.6 Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) After the thickness measurements, the corrosion specimens were prepared for examination under the scanning electron microscope (SEM). Test specimens from the static immersion testing in the Al-8Si bath were chosen for examination with the SEM. Also, specimens from the 24-hour on-line tests in the zinc and Zn-55Al baths were also selected for SEM analysis. In every case, the level 1 specimens were examined. Also, since the FeCrSi specimens were not tested in the first, on-line series of tests, specimens were selected from the static series of tests for examination. The FeCrSi specimens from the Al-8Si and galvalume (Zn-55Al) baths that were chosen for examination were immersed for 24 hours at 660C. A FeCrSi specimen statically tested in the zinc bath for 24 hours at 460C was chosen for observation under the scanning electron microscope. Selected specimens were re-ground. This grinding was done in order to remove the surface of the specimen that had been attacked by the previous etching treatment. Much of the SEM analysis was conducted at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) located in Morgantown, WV. The scanning electron

microscope used at this facility was a JEOL JSM-6400. This microscope allowed high magnification observation and analysis of the corrosion specimens. The SEM

accelerating voltage was set to 20 kV and the condenser lens current was set to 0.6 mA. The energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS) capability of the SEM was extensively used during the course of this project. When the electron beam of the SEM bombards a sample, electrons are ejected from the atoms comprising the materials surface. The resulting electron vacancy is filled with an electron from a higher shell, and an x-ray is emitted to balance the energy difference between the two electrons.17 The

29

energy of these emitted x-rays are characteristic of the elements from which the x-rays were emitted. The EDS detector collects, counts, and sorts the x-rays and displays the results as an EDS spectrum, which is a plot of energy versus the relative counts of the detected x-rays. EDS spectra of the alloy layers and the base materials were taken and compared. EDS spectra were collected for a time of 100 seconds. Elemental mapping of several specimens was also performed. The mapping indicated the distribution and relative concentrations of elements across the sample surface using image brightness intensity.17

3.7 Microstructure Evaluation of Base Materials The three base materials were etched to reveal the microstructure so that optical microscopy could be performed. The etching solutions used for the three test materials are listed in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6: Etchants Used for Microstructure Evaluation of Base Materials Base Material 316L Fe3Al FeCrSi Etching Solution Used 1 part HNO3, 1 part HCl, 1 part water 50 ml CH3COOH, 30 ml HNO3, 20 ml HCl, 10 ml water 3 parts HCl, 1 part HNO3, 1 part glycerol (Glyceregia)

Optical microscopy was performed on a Leitz Laborlux 12 ME optical microscope outfitted with a COHU high-performance CCD camera. Optimas 4.02 imaging software was used in conjunction with the optical microscope and CCD camera to capture images of the samples.

30

The images taken with the Leitz optical microscope were used for grain size measurement. Grain sizing calculations were performed with the aid of Scion Image software. Grain sizes that were calculated by the use of the Scion Image software were compared with grain size measurements taken with the Hirox optical microscope to confirm the values.

31

Chapter 4 Results and Discussion

4.1 Microstructure of Base Materials The three different base materials used throughout the course of this corrosion study contained distinctly different microstructures. Optical micrographs of the 316L, Fe3Al, and FeCrSi alloys can be seen in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Microstructure of Specimens used for Corrosion Testing. Fe3Al (left), 316L (center), FeCrSi (right)

Compared to the Fe3Al, the grain size of the low-carbon stainless steel 316L was substantially smaller. The grain size of the FeCrSi alloy was extremely large when compared to the other two alloys. Listed in Table 4.1 are the grain sizes of the three test materials. Table 4.1: Test Material Grain Sizes Material 316L Fe3Al FeCrSi Grain Size (ASTM #) 8.5 5.5 -0.7 Average Grain Diameter (microns) 17.7 55.6 458.4

32

The grains of the 316L and FeCrSi specimens were found to have straight grain boundaries in contrast to the grain boundaries of the iron aluminide specimen. The grain boundaries of the Fe3Al specimen appeared globular in nature and did not have the flat edges that appeared in the grain structure of the two other specimens. Also, within the structure of the iron aluminide specimen, small dark particles were observed. The

particles appeared to be evenly distributed across the surface, and may be precipitates within the grain structure of the Fe3Al. It can be seen from Figure 4.2 that the FeCrSi alloy contained a very large grain structure. Upon examining the FeCrSi alloy samples, the effect of mechanical rolling on the grain structure of the alloy was very apparent. In various areas on the specimen surface elongated grain structures, a result of the rolling process, were observed. However, within the same specimen, other areas of undeformed grain structures were present. It was from these non-elongated grain areas that the grain size calculations were done for this material. In Figure 4.2 one can clearly see the distinct differences between the areas in the FeCrSi alloy affected by the rolling process, and those that were left undeformed.

(a.)

(b.)

Figure 4.2: Grain structures in FeCrSi alloy. (a.) unaffected grain structure (b.) elongated grain structure

33

From these photographs, it can be seen that the rolling of the FeCrSi alloy did not have an equal effect on all areas of the material. The center of the FeCrSi specimens that were examined under the optical microscope showed this unaffected grain structure, while the outer edges of the specimens more prevalently showed the elongated grains.

4.2 Corrosion in On-line Tests 4.2.1 Al-8Si Bath Figure 4.3 illustrates a plot of specimen thickness loss measured at specified locations on the cross-section of a test specimen.

Thickness Loss (mm)

3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 B10 B2 B4 B6 T10 B8 T8 T6 T4 T2 C
2 hr 24 hr 8 hr 72 hr

Specimen Location

Figure 4.3: Thickness Loss of 316L specimens in Al-8Si bath at 660C

From Figure 4.3 the thickness loss of the 316L specimens can be observed to increase with an increase in testing time. The data in Figure 4.3 was measured from the Level 1 height designation of the respective test specimens. An edge effect on corrosion can be noticed in the 72-hour test. The data for this test shows greater thickness losses occurring

34

at the end of the specimen, compared to the specimen center. Similar graphs for the other material/bath combinations can be found in Appendix A. From the thickness loss data, such as in Figure 4.3, average thickness losses were calculated and these values were plotted versus time. Figure 4.4 shows the results of the corrosion testing of the two materials in the Al-8Si bath.

3.5

Thickness Loss (mm)

3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 20 40 60 80

Fe3Al 316L

Time (hours)

Figure 4.4: Thickness Loss of 316L and Fe3Al Specimens in Al-8Si bath at 660C

Through this graph it can be seen that the two materials perform similarly in the Type 1 aluminizing bath. The iron aluminide specimen, however, seems to have a slightly lower resistance to corrosion than the stainless steel alloy. The linear nature of the

thickness reduction rate (dy/dt), the slope of the fitted line, can also be observed from the presented data. This linear trend seems to hold true for all on-line tests.

35

4.2.2 Zinc Bath

Thickness Loss (mm)

3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 100 200 300

Fe3Al

316L

Time (hours)

Figure 4.5: Thickness Loss of 316L and Fe3Al Specimens in Zinc Bath at 460C

From Figure 4.5 the performance of the two alloys in the pure zinc bath can be seen. While the 316L shows very little corrosion, even after a time of 240 hours, the Fe3Al alloy shows a substantial thickness loss. Considering that the initial iron aluminide specimens had a thickness of approximately 3.2 mm, a thickness loss of close to 2.5 mm demonstrates the severe amount of corrosion that occurred with this material in the zinc bath.

36

4.2.3 Zn-5Al Bath

3.5

Thickness Loss (mm)

3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 100 200 300

Fe3Al 316L

Time (hours)

Figure 4.6: Thickness Loss of 316L and Fe3Al Specimens in Galfan Bath at 490C

Though both materials seemed to perform similarly in the galfan (Zn-5Al) bath, the 316L specimens appeared to have a better resistance to corrosion than the iron aluminide. Even after 240 hours in the bath, the 316L specimen showed little thickness loss. For the same time of 240 hours, the Fe3Al specimen showed approximately .75 mm of thickness reduction across the specimen cross-section. The linear nature of the

thickness reduction rate is evident from this graph and the previous graphs. This linearity however, contradicts the study by Lampe et al.13 in which it was stated that in a zinc melt containing 4% aluminum, the time law for the corrosion of steel was found to be parabolic up to 500C. Our study indicates a linear time law at 490C in a zinc bath containing 5% aluminum.

37

4.2.4 Zn-55Al Bath Figure 4.7 illustrates the performance of the stainless steel and iron aluminide alloys in the on-line testing in the galvalume (Zn-55Al) bath. As in the galfan bath, the 316L stainless steel alloy shows a higher resistance to corrosion than the Fe3Al alloy. The stainless steel alloy does show slightly more corrosion in the galvalume bath compared to the galfan bath. Iron aluminide specimens have a similar corrosion trend in the galvalume bath to those obtained from the on-line testing in the same bath.

3.5

Thickness Loss (mm)

3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 100 200 300

Fe3Al 316L

Time (hours) Figure 4.7: Thickness Loss of 316L and Fe3Al Specimens in Galvalume Bath at 600C 4.2.5 Discussion Table 4.2 presents the corrosion rates from the on-line tests.

Table 4.2: Corrosion Rates for On-line Corrosion Tests (gm/cm2*hr) Bath (Temperature(C)) Al-8Si (660) Zinc (460) Zn-5Al (490) Zn-55Al (600) 316L 1.41 x 10-2 3.56 x 10-5 1.58 x 10-5 2.37 x 10-4 Fe3Al 1.51 x 10-2 3.33 x 10-3 1.04 x 10-3 1.11 x 10-3

38

The data from Table 4.2 is also presented in Figure 4.8 for comparison. Figure 4.8 compares the corrosion rates of the two test materials in the four different hot-dip coating baths. The corrosion rate (dw/dt) was calculated from the thickness loss rate (dy/dt) by using equation 3.1. From Figure 4.8 one can see the drastic difference between corrosion rates in the Type1 aluminizing bath compared to the zinc containing baths.

Corrosion Rate (gm/cm^2*hr)

1.6E-02 1.2E-02 8.0E-03 4.0E-03 0.0E+00 Al-8Si

3.5E-03 3.0E-03 2.5E-03 2.0E-03 1.5E-03 1.0E-03 5.0E-04 0.0E+00 Zinc Zn-5Al Zn-55Al

Zinc
316L

Zn-5Al
Fe3Al

Zn-55Al

Bath Material
Figure 4.8: Corrosion Rates for On-line Corrosion Tests

The corrosion rates are much higher for both the 316L and the Fe3Al alloys in the Al-8Si bath than their corrosion rates were in any of the zinc containing baths. The corrosion rate in the Al-8Si bath may have been affected by the high operating temperature (660C).

39

The corrosion rates in the Type 1 aluminizing bath were very similar for both the 316L and iron aluminide specimens. For the on-line series of tests, this was the only bath in which the corrosion of the stainless steel and the intermetallic were comparable. In each of the zinc baths, the 316L clearly exhibited higher corrosion resistance than the Fe3Al specimens. For example, in the pure zinc bath the 316L yielded a corrosion rate of 3.56 x 10-5 gm/cm2*hr while the iron aluminide specimen showed a corrosion rate of 3.3 x 10-3 gm/cm2*hr. From the inserted figure in Figure 4.8 it can be clearly seen that the 316L alloy performs far better in each of the zinc-containing baths than the iron aluminide alloy did. Although the corrosion rates for the two materials were similar for the on-line tests in the aluminizing bath, in the zinc baths the 316L showed dramatically less corrosion. Of the zinc baths, the pure zinc produced the highest corrosion rate for the Fe3Al, while the galvalume bath yielded the highest corrosion rate for the 316L alloy.

4.3 Corrosion of Static Immersion Specimens Table 4.3 lists measured thickness loss data from the static immersion tests. From the average thickness losses the corrosion rates of the specimens in the static immersion tests were calculated, and this data is presented in Table 4.4.

40

Table 4.3: Average Thickness Losses for Static Immersion Tests (mm) Specimen Material and Test Temperature Bath 460C --Al-8Si 2.30E-01 Zinc Zn-5Al 0.00E+00 --Zn-55Al 316L 560C --2.99E-01 3.00E-03 --Fe3Al FeCrSi 660C 460C 560C 660C 460C 560C 660C 3.02E-01 ----2.41E-01 ----1.51E-01 1.04E+00 3.61E-01 5.06E-01 2.541E+00* 6.80E-02 2.25E-01 1.00E+00 1.90E-02 4.00E-03 1.64E+00 2.554E+00* 1.13E-01 1.17E-01 6.212E+00* 3.94E-01 ----2.541E+00* ----1.57E-01

Table 4.4: Corrosion Rates for Static Immersion Tests (gm/cm2*hr) Specimen Material and Test Temperature
316L Bath 460C 560C ----Al-8Si 3.80E-03 4.90E-03 Zinc 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 Zn-5Al ----Zn-55Al 660C 5.00E-03 1.71E-02 3.00E-04 6.50E-03 460C --5.10E-03 1.00E-04 --Fe3Al 560C --7.10E-03 2.29E-02 --660C 3.40E-03 3.56E-02 3.58E-02 3.56E-02 FeCrSi 460C 560C ----1.10E-03 3.50E-03 1.80E-03 1.80E-03 ----660C 2.30E-03 1.56E-02 9.64E-02 2.40E-03

41

Because the melting point of the Type 1 aluminizing mixture is approximately 605C, the tests could not be run at the 460 and 560C temperatures. From the data in Table 4.4 it can be seen that the corrosion rate of the 316L specimen was found to be approximately .005 gm/cm2*hr. However, when this value is compared to the value calculated from the first series of tests, there is a large discrepancy between the two. From the on-line battery of tests the corrosion rate of the 316L in the Al-8Si was calculated to be approximately .014 gm/cm2*hr. This value is nearly three times as large as the value received from the static testing. The exact reason for this discrepancy is not clear. This could result from the fact that the corrosion rates for the static immersion tests were calculated only at one testing time, 24 hours. The corrosion rates for the online series of tests however were calculated from multiple testing times, and therefore most likely give a better overall interpretation of the corrosion rate of the material. The static corrosion rate of the Fe3Al also shows a considerable reduction when compared to the corrosion rate received from the dynamic tests. Another reason for this reduction in corrosion rate may be due to the small, static bath that was used for the second series of corrosion tests. The small volume of this bath becomes saturated with dissolved elements from the specimen and this may have slowed the specimens corrosion. In addition, brittle intermetallic layers that formed on the outside of a

corroded specimen would be more likely to spall off into the melt in a moving bath. The breaking off of these alloy layers would facilitate new growth and faster corrosion in the on-line testing. The experimental FeCrSi alloy seems to outperform both the 316L and the Fe3Al in the Al-8Si bath. This fact can be observed from the corrosion rates listed in Table 4.4.

42

Within the Al-8Si bath, the 316L alloy showed the highest corrosion rate during the static immersion tests. Though the corrosion rate of the FeCrSi alloy was lower than the 316L and Fe3Al alloys, the performance of all three test materials was very similar in the aluminizing bath.

Corrosion Rate (gm/cm2*hr)

0.040 0.035 0.030 0.025 0.020 0.015 0.010 0.005 0.000 460C 560C 660C 316L Fe3Al FeCrSi

Temperature
Figure 4.9: Corrosion Rates for Static Immersion Tests in Zinc

Figure 4.9 illustrates the corrosion rates of the 316L, Fe3Al, and FeCrSi alloys after static testing in the zinc bath for a period of 24 hours. The temperature effect on corrosion rate of the test materials can clearly be seen in this figure. Though an increase in testing temperature from 460 to 560C slightly increases the corrosion rate in all three materials, an increase from 560 to 660C has a drastic effect on the corrosion rates. In this range the iron aluminide shows the most prominent increase in corrosion rate. At the final testing temperature the corrosion rate of the Fe3Al, .0356 gm/cm2*hr was more than twice that of the other two materials.

43

The Figure 4.10 illustrates the temperature effect on static corrosion in the galfan (Zn-5Al) bath.

Corrosion Rate (gm/cm2*hr)

0.10 316L 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 460C 560C 660C Fe3Al FeCrSi

Temperature
Figure 4.10: Corrosion Rates for Static Immersion Tests in Zn-5Al

Increasing the testing temperature from 460C to 560C, and eventually to 660C had virtually no effect on the corrosion rate of the 316L. The corrosion rate of the iron aluminide steadily increased across the three testing temperatures. The corrosion rate of the FeCrSi alloy remained relatively constant after the first two series of tests, but showed a drastic increase at 660C, which can be observed in Figure 4.10. Because of the melting point of the galvalume bath material, the static immersion tests could only be run in this bath at 660C, similar to the testing in the Type 1 aluminizing bath. At this temperature the iron aluminide showed the highest corrosion rate, while the FeCrSi alloy demonstrated the lowest rate, as can be seen in Figure 4.4.

44

All three test materials showed higher corrosion in the zinc bath at 660C than in the Al-8Si bath at the same testing temperature. The iron aluminide alloy totally

dissolved into the melt upon testing in the zinc, Zn-5Al, and Zn-55Al baths at 660C, as can be seen in Table 4.3. Upon testing in the Zn-5Al melt at 660C, the FeCrSi specimen also underwent 100% dissolution into the bath. The 316L alloy conversely, showed lower corrosion rates in the galfan bath than in the pure zinc bath at all three testing temperatures. The FeCrSi alloy demonstrated lower corrosion rates than the 316L alloy and the Fe3Al alloy in the Al-8Si, zinc, and Zn-55Al baths.

4.4 SEM/EDS Analysis Analysis of the alloy layers formed during the corrosion testing was conducted with the aid of a scanning electron microscope and the EDS capability of the microscope.

4.4.1 Type 1 Aluminizing Bath (Al-8Si) Figure 4.11 shows the alloy layers formed by the immersion of the low-carbon stainless steel specimen in the aluminizing bath. The specimen shown in Figure 4.11 was taken from the laboratory tests after immersion in the aluminizing bath at 660C for a period of 24 hours. A back-scattered electron image was used to show the compositional contrast. Upon immersion in the Al-8Si bath, the 316L specimen formed several distinct alloy layers. Figure 4.12 shows the corresponding EDS spectra taken of the 316L specimen and the formed alloy layers. The bright area on the left of the micrograph is the 316L base material (Figure 4.12a). To the right of the matrix, a relatively thin alloy layer

45

was observed. This alloy layer was approximately 20 microns in thickness and had a very uniform, continuous structure. From the EDS characterization of this thin alloy

layer, Figure 4.12b, the chemical composition was determined to be the -Fe2Al5 phase. This alloy layer is noted to form on the surface of steels that have been hot-dip coated in Type 1 aluminizing baths and was mentioned in various literature sources.3 A small amount of chromium that has diffused from the matrix material can also be seen in the EDS spectrum for the first alloy layer. The next alloy layer contained less iron than the -Fe2Al5 phase, and was identified as -FeAl3. Within this second alloy layer, a crack can be seen that propagates within the brittle alloy layer, parallel to the edge of the original specimen. This second layer is much thicker than the -Fe2Al5 layer, which formed adjacent to the 316L matrix. The third stratum that formed was an inhomogeneous layer that had a tree-like structure upon observation. This last layer had a high aluminum content, and showed a marked decrease in iron content compared to the previous alloy layer. Instead of being one single alloy layer, this layer was actually formed from tree-like projections that protruded from the second layer. The remaining space between these projections was filled with material from the surrounding bath. This unique structure gave the area its tree-like appearance. An EDS analysis of these projections revealed that they had the same chemical composition as the second alloy layer, and therefore were composed of the -FeAl3 phase.

46

Figure 4.11: SEM Micrograph of 316L Specimen after Static Testing in Al-8Si Bath at 660C for 24 Hours

Fe Cr Ni

Al Fe Cr

a.)

316L Matrix

b.)

1st Alloy Layer

(-Fe2Al5)
Al Al

Si

Cr

Fe Si

Cr

Fe

c.)

2nd Alloy Layer

d.)

Outer layer

(-FeAl3)

Figure 4.12: EDS Spectra of Alloy Layers Formed From the Static Corrosion Testing of 316L in an Al-8Si Bath at 660C for 24 Hours

47

Figure 4.13 reveals the alloy layers formed by the corrosion of an Fe3Al specimen in the Al-8Si bath. As with the stainless steel specimen, several alloy layers are also observed on the surface of the iron aluminide upon corrosion in the Al-8Si bath. The first alloy layer formed on the Fe3Al specimen had the same chemical composition as the first alloy layer formed on the 316L specimen in this bath, and was therefore identified as the -Fe2Al5 phase. The EDS spectra of the formed alloy layers are displayed in Figure 4.14. Instead of forming a thin layer of the -Fe2Al5 phase however, the iron aluminide specimen formed a thick layer of this phase. In Figure 4.13 a crack can be seen in this alloy layer that propagates parallel to the specimen surface. The second alloy layer to form was identified as the -FeAl3 phase. This second layer was composed of the same phase as the second alloy layer formed on the 316L sample. However, instead of forming a thick alloy layer as with the stainless steel sample, the FeAl3 formed a relatively thin alloy layer of FeAl3, as can be seen in Figure 4.13.

Figure 4.13: SEM micrograph of Alloy Layers Formed from the Static Testing of Fe3Al (left) in an Al-8Si Bath at 660C for 24 Hours

48

Fe

Al

Fe Al Cr

a.) Fe3Al Matrix

b.) First alloy layer (Fe2Al5)

Al

Al

Fe Si

c.) Second alloy layer (FeAl3)

d.) Al-8Si bath

Figure 4.14: EDS Spectra of Alloy Layers Formed During the Static Corrosion Testing of Fe3Al in Al-8Si Bath

Figure 4.15 shows the alloy layers that formed upon the corrosion of the FeCrSi alloy in the static Al-8Si bath after 24 hours. The FeCrSi matrix is the lighter section on the left of Figure 4.15. The relatively heavy elements in the base material appear as a lighter area when using the back-scattered imaging capability of the SEM. The EDS spectra corresponding to Figure 4.15 are displayed in Figure 4.16.

49

One distinct alloy layer was formed on the FeCrSi specimen. The alloy layer that formed consisted of a ternary phase of aluminum, iron, and chromium. Refer to Figure 4.16 for the EDS spectra of this ternary phase. The exact phase that composed this alloy layer requires further identification. This layer contained a relatively high amount of aluminum, compared to the amounts of chromium and iron. Though the relative thicknesses of the alloy layers formed on the 316L and Fe3Al in the Al-8Si bath differed, the actual phase compositions of the alloy layers were the same. This similar alloy layer structure may have contributed to the similar performance of the two materials in the aluminizing bath. The 316L alloy showed a lower corrosion rate than the Fe3Al in the on-line corrosion tests, and a slightly higher one in the static immersion tests (refer to fig. 4.8 and Table 4.4). The FeCrSi alloy showed a slightly lower corrosion rate than the stainless steel and intermetallic in the second series of tests

Figure 4.15: SEM micrograph of Alloy Layers Formed from the Static Testing of FeCrSi (left) in an Al-8Si Bath at 660C for 24 Hours

50

a.) FeCrSi Matrix

Al

b.) Alloy Layer (Fe-Al-Cr phase)

Cr

Fe

Cr Si Mn

Fe

0.0

2.0

4.0
keV

6.0

8.0

10.0

0.0

2.0

4.0
keV

6.0

8.0

10.0

c.) Al-8Si
Al

Si

Cr

Fe

0.0

2.0

4.0
keV

6.0

8.0

10.0

Figure 4.16: EDS Spectra of FeCrSi after Static Testing in Al-8Si Bath at 660C for 24 Hours

4.4.2 Zinc Bath SEM analysis was also conducted on the 316L, Fe3Al, and FeCrSi specimens that had been immersed in the pure zinc bath. Figure 4.17 shows a back-scattered electron micrograph of a 316L specimen that has been immersed in a pure zinc melt for 24 hours. In the micrograph, only one distinct alloy layer is present. This alloy layer can be seen as the dark, non-uniform layer lying adjacent to the 316L matrix. The EDS spectrum for this alloy layer is illustrated in Figure 4.18. The actual phase structure requires further identification.

51

Figure 4.17: SEM micrograph of Alloy Layers Formed from the On-line Testing of 316L (left) in a Zinc Bath at 460C for 24 Hours

Al

Fe

Zn

Zn

0.0

2.0

4.0 keV

6.0

8.0

10.0

Figure 4.18: EDS Spectrum of Fe-Al-Zn Ternary Phase Formed from the On-line Testing of 316L in a Zinc Bath at 460C for 24 Hours

52

The alloy layer contains a high amount of aluminum. This fact was of particular interest considering that the 316L base material contains no aluminum and the nominal bath composition was pure zinc. This high aluminum peak was present in all EDS spectra that were taken of 316L specimens tested in the commercial zinc bath. The enrichment of Al in the layer was attributed to residual aluminum contained in the commercial hot-dipping line. Instead of forming binary phases with the zinc in the bath, the iron from the 316L specimen reacted with this aluminum to form a ternary Fe-Al-Zn phase. As did the 316L specimen in the zinc bath, the iron aluminide specimen formed a single alloy layer, as can be seen in Figure 4.19.

Figure 4.19: SEM micrograph of Alloy Layers Formed from the Immersion of Fe3Al (left) in a Zinc Bath at 460C for 24 Hours

53

Figure 4.20: EDS Spectrum of -FeAl3 Phase Formed from the On-line Testing of Fe3Al in Zinc Bath at 460C for 24 Hours

Figure 4.21: EDS of Zirconium Rich Phase Observed in Fe3AL Matrix after On-line Corrosion Testing in Zinc Bath at 460C for 24 Hours

54

This alloy layer was identified as the -FeAl3 phase. An EDS spectrum for this alloy layer can be seen in Figure 4.20. Upon analysis, the white areas within the matrix were found to be rich in zirconium. An EDS spectrum of these zirconium rich phases is illustrated in Figure 4.21. This zirconium was possibly introduced into the material during processing, where zirconium oxide is often used as a melt release during the casting procedure. In contrast to the 316L and Fe3Al specimens, the FeCrSi specimen was found to form no alloy layers upon immersion in the zinc bath. A micrograph of the FeCrSi after testing in the zinc bath can be seen in Figure 4.22.

Figure 4.22: SEM micrograph of FeCrSi (left) after Static Testing in Zinc at 460C for 24 Hours

In the left of Figure 4.22 the FeCrSi base material can be seen as the dark area. To the right of this matrix material no discernable alloy layers are seen. The only coating layer on the FeCrSi specimen is the molten zinc, which solidified on the specimen upon its removal from the testing bath.

55

During static immersion tests in the zinc bath, the FeCrSi alloy showed a lower corrosion rate than the 316L and Fe3Al specimens at each of the three testing temperatures. The fact that the FeCrSi alloy did not readily form alloy phases upon corrosion in the zinc bath seemed to reduce the materials corrosion. The iron aluminide, which formed a single layer of -FeAl3, showed a higher corrosion rate than the 316L specimen, which formed a single alloy layer composed of a Fe-Al-Zn ternary phase.

4.4.3 Galvalume (Zn-55Al) Bath Unlike the single alloy layer it formed in the pure zinc melt, the 316L specimen formed two alloy layers when submerged in the galvalume (Zn-55Al) bath. The stainless steel specimen in Figure 4.23 was tested in the first series of tests at a temperature of 600C for a period of 24 hours. On the right side of Figure 4.23 the stainless steel base material can be seen, and to the left of the matrix an alloy layer of -Fe2Al5 is observed. The EDS spectra of these layers can be seen in Figure 4.24. Next to the layer of - Fe2Al5, a crack can be seen. This crack however did not form within one of the alloy layers, but instead was located between two distinct layers with differing compositions. The alloy layer to the left of the crack contained a lower concentration of iron than the previous layer and was identified as -FeAl3. The decrease in iron content from inner alloy layers to the outer layers was a trend also noticed in each of the previous corrosion tests. The -FeAl3 phase formed an alloy layer that was considerably thicker than the innermost alloy layer of the -Fe2Al5 phase.

56

The bath material to the left of Figure 4.23 was observed to have a non-uniform appearance. The lighter areas have high zinc concentrations while the block-like areas are an Fe-Al intermetallic phase. This phase contained in the melt is believed to be the FeAl3 intermetallic phase that composes the outermost alloy layer. These blocky areas could have possibly spalled off from the forming alloy layer upon the corrosion of the 316L substrate. The EDS spectrum for these particles can be viewed in Figure 4.24e.

Figure 4.23: SEM micrograph of Alloy Layers Formed from the On-line Testing of 316L (right) in a Zn-55Al Bath at 600C for 24 hours

57

a.) 316L Matrix

Fe

b.) First alloy layer (Fe2Al5)

Al

Cr Mo Ni

Fe

c.) Second alloy layer (FeAl3)

Al Al Zn

d.) Zn-55Al Bath

Fe

Zn

e.) FeAl3 Particles in Bath

Al

Fe

Figure 4.24: EDS Spectra of 316L after On-line Testing in Zn-55Al Bath at 600C for 24 Hours

58

In Figure 4.25 one can see the alloy layers that have formed on the Fe3Al specimen upon corrosion in the galvalume bath. To the right of the matrix a thick alloy layer can be seen with a crack propagating through it. This alloy phase was identified as Fe2Al5. Immediately to the right of the first alloy layer, a thinner layer of the -FeAl3 intermetallic phase can be observed. The Fe2Al5 and FeAl3 phases were observed to form on the 316L specimen during the on-line testing in the galvalume bath also. This fact might lead to the similar corrosion rates of the two specimens during the on-line testing in the Zn-55Al bath (refer to Figure 4.8). Within the bath, to the right of the micrograph, lighter areas with relatively high concentrations of zinc can be seen. The darker areas within the outer layer indicate areas with high aluminum concentrations.

Figure 4.25: SEM micrograph of Alloy Layers Formed from the On-line Testing of Fe3Al (left) in a Zn-55Al Bath at 600C for 24 hours

59

a.) Fe3Al Matrix

b.) First alloy layer (-Fe2Al5)

c.) Second alloy layer (-FeAl3)

d.) Zn-55Al Bath

Figure 4.26: EDS Spectra of Fe3Al after On-line Testing in Zn-55Al Bath at 600C for 24 Hours

60

After static testing in the Zn-55Al bath, two alloy layers were observed to form on the FeCrSi alloy. The FeCrSi specimen was tested in the galvalume bath at 660C for a period of 24 hours. The two alloy layers that formed were found to be ternary phases of aluminum, chromium, and iron, but the exact phases could not be identified. The amount of aluminum in the alloy layer phases was higher in the layer lying adjacent to the matrix. Refer to Figure 4.28 for EDS spectra of the phases formed upon the corrosion of the FeCrSi specimen in the galvalume bath.

Figure 4.27: SEM micrograph of Alloy Layers Formed from the Immersion of FeCrSi (left) in a Galvalume Bath at 660C for 24 hours

61

a.) FeCrSi Matrix

Fe Cr

Si

Mn

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

KeV

Al

b.) First alloy layer (Fe-Al-Cr phase)

Fe Cr

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

KeV

Al

c.) Second alloy layer (Fe-Al-Cr phase)

Cr

Fe

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

KeV Figure 4.28: EDS Spectra of Fe3Al after On-line Testing in Zn-55Al Bath at 600C for 24 Hours

62

4.4.4 Discussion Table 4.5 summarizes the phases identified upon the examination of the corrosion specimens with the SEM.

Table 4.5: Phases Identified from Corrosion Testing in Zn-Al Hot-Dip Coating Baths

Bath Material

Test Type Static On-line On-line Static On-line On-line Static Static Static

Temperature (C) 660 460 600 660 460 600 660 460 660

Time (hr) 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24

Phases Identified -Fe2Al5, -FeAl3 ternary Fe-Al-Zn phase (1 alloy layer) -Fe2Al5, -FeAl3 -Fe2Al5, -FeAl3 -FeAl3 -Fe2Al5, -FeAl3 ternary Fe-Al-Cr phase (1 alloy layer) no phases observed to form ternary Fe-Al-Cr phases (2 alloy layers)

316L

Al-8Si Zinc Zn-55Al

Fe3Al

Al-8Si Zinc Zn-55Al

FeCrSi

Al-8Si Zinc Zn-55Al

The 316L and Fe3Al alloys formed similar Fe-Al phases upon corrosion in the Al8Si and Zn-55Al baths. In both baths the materials formed alloy layers consisting of Fe2Al5 and -FeAl3. The formation of these alloy layers may have contributed to the fact that during the on-line corrosion tests in the Al-8Si and Zn-55Al, the 316L and Fe3Al alloys demonstrated similar corrosion rates. In the zinc bath, the 316L alloy formed a ternary alloy phase consisting of aluminum, iron, and zinc. The iron aluminide formed a single alloy layer consisting of FeAl3. In the zinc bath, the 316L showed significantly lower corrosion rates than the Fe3Al alloy, for both series of tests.

63

The FeCrSi alloy did not form any phases that were observed to form on the 316L and Fe3Al specimens. In the Al-8Si bath and the Zn-55Al bath the FeCrSi alloy formed ternary phases of aluminum, iron, and chromium. In the zinc bath the FeCrSi specimen formed no observable alloy layers. The FeCrSi alloy outperformed both the 316L and the Fe3Al alloy in the Al-8Si, zinc, and Zn-55Al baths during the static series of testing.

64

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Conclusions On-line and static corrosion tests were successfully completed on specimens of 316L, Fe3Al, and an FeCrSi alloy by immersion in various hot-dipping baths. The corrosion of the selected materials has been evaluated in Al-8Si, zinc, Zn-5Al, and Zn55Al hot-dip coating baths. The variations of temperature and time both produced

significant effects upon the corrosion of the test materials in each molten bath.

5.1.1 On-line Corrosion Tests For both the 316L and Fe3Al specimens that were examined during the first series of tests, linear time laws were found. In every case, the corrosion of both the iron aluminide sample and the stainless steel sample progressed at a linear rate with respect to time.

Al-8Si Bath: In the Type 1 aluminizing bath, the corrosion rates for the 316L and Fe3Al alloys were very similar. The corrosion rate for the stainless steel alloy, .0141

gm/cm2*hr, was slightly lower than that for the iron aluminide, .0151 gm/cm2*hr. It was in the Al-8Si bath that both materials showed their highest corrosion rates for the on-line series of tests.

Zinc Bath: In the zinc bath, the 316L alloy showed a higher resistance to corrosion than the iron aluminide. Upon corrosion testing in the zinc bath, the 316L specimen

65

demonstrated an extremely small amount of corrosion even after testing for 240 hours. The corrosion rate of the 316L alloy in the zinc bath was 3.56 x 10-5 gm/cm2*hr. The Fe3Al specimen however demonstrated a much higher corrosion rate in the zinc bath, 3.33 x 10-3 gm/cm2*hr, and approximately 78% of the specimens thickness had corroded after testing for 240 hours.

Zn-5Al Bath: The 316L alloy showed a greater resistance to corrosion in the galfan bath compared to the intermetallic alloy. The 316L stainless steel yielded a corrosion rate of 1.58 x 10-5 gm/cm2*hr in the galfan bath compared to a rate of 1.042 x 10-3 gm/cm2*hr for the Fe3Al alloy. The iron aluminide specimen demonstrated a lower corrosion rate in the galfan bath than it did in either the Al-8Si or pure zinc melts.

Zn-55Al Bath: The stainless steel yielded a lower corrosion rate (2.37 x 10-4 gm/cm2*hr) than the Fe3Al in the galvalume bath (1.109 x 10-3 gm/cm2*hr). In the galvalume bath, the 316L had a lower corrosion rate than it did in either the zinc or Zn-5Al baths. The corrosion rate of the iron aluminide was very close to the value received from the testing in galfan.

5.1.2 Static Corrosion Tests In several cases the corrosion rates received from the static immersion tests differed significantly from the corrosion rates received from the on-line corrosion tests. For example, corrosion tests were run in the zinc bath at 460C for both series of tests. The 316L and Fe3Al specimens showed lower corrosion rates after the on-line testing in

66

zinc than after the static testing in zinc at the same temperature and test duration. The discrepancy in these values is believed to arise from the calculation of the corrosion rates for the two cases. For the on-line series of tests, corrosion rates were calculated from the slope of a thickness loss vs. time plot. It is felt that this number helped give a more accurate depiction of the corrosion rate of the specimen in the selected bath. Conversely, for the static series of tests, all testing was conducted for 24-hour periods and the corrosion rate could only be calculated from this one point.

Al-8Si Bath: The 316L specimen had the highest corrosion rate after static testing in Al8Si for 24 hours, 5.0 x 10-3 gm/cm2*hr. The corrosion of the stainless steel specimen was much higher during the on-line series of tests, even though the tests were performed at the same temperature and duration. This effect was attributed to the saturation of the small static bath and the lack of bath movement in the laboratory tests. The FeCrSi specimen demonstrated a lower corrosion rate (2.3 x 10-3 gm/cm2*hr) than both the 316L and Fe3Al alloys during the static corrosion tests.

Zinc: In the zinc bath, the temperature effect on the corrosion of the three materials was most prevalent upon an increase in testing temperature from 560C to 660C. The FeCrSi alloy performed the best at each of the three testing temperatures and the iron aluminide alloy consistently showed the highest corrosion rate. The discrepancy between the

corrosion rate of the Fe3Al and the other two materials was most prominent at 660C. At 660C the corrosion rates for the 316L, Fe3Al, and FeCrSi alloys were 1.71 x 10-2, 3.56 x

67

10-2, and 1.56 x 10-2 gm/cm2*hr respectively. From 460C to 660C, the corrosion rates of the 316L, Fe3Al, and FeCrSi alloys appeared to increase parabolically.

Zn-5Al: An increase in testing temperature from 460C to 660C had very little effect upon the corrosion rate of the stainless steel specimen (refer to table 4.4). The FeCrSi alloy demonstrated the most drastic increase in corrosion rate due to the temperature increase. At 460C and 560C the FeCrSi specimen showed only small amounts of

corrosion, 1.8 x 10-3 and 1.8 x 10-3 gm/cm2*hr respectively, however at the 660C testing temperature the specimen showed total dissolution. The resistance of the alloy to

corrosion in the galfan bath drastically decreased above the 560C testing temperature.

Zn-55Al Bath: In the molten galvalume bath at 660C, the iron aluminide specimen had the highest corrosion rate after the 24-hour testing period, 3.56 x 10-2 gm/cm2*hr. The FeCrSi alloy had the lowest corrosion rate after the 24-hour duration, 2.4 x 10-3 gm/cm2*hr.

5.1.3 Bath/Material Interactions Alloy layers that formed on the surface of the corroded specimens were found to have decreasing iron concentrations from the inner to outermost layers. This trend held true for all specimens that formed multiple alloy layers.

Al-8Si: 316L and Fe3Al specimen were both found to form alloy layers of -Fe2Al5, and -FeAl3 upon immersion in the Type 1 aluminizing bath. The formation of these alloy

68

layers appears to be responsible for the similar performance of the two materials in the Al-8Si melt. The FeCrSi alloy formed a ternary alloy phase that consisted of aluminum, iron, and chromium upon corrosion in the aluminizing melt.

Zinc: Despite the fact that there was no aluminum contained in the zinc melt, the 316L and Fe3Al test materials formed Fe-Al-Zn intermetallic phases upon corrosion in the zinc bath. This aluminum is believed to be residual material that remained in the commercial hot-dip coating bath. The iron from the test specimens readily reacted with this residual aluminum to form Fe-Al-Zn phases, instead of the predicted Fe-Zn phases. Though the 316L and Fe3Al each formed a single intermetallic alloy layer in the zinc bath, the 316L specimen formed a ternary phase consisting of aluminum, iron, and zinc while the iron aluminide specimen formed a layer of -FeAl3. The FeCrSi alloy formed no alloy layers upon corrosion in the zinc bath. The fact that alloy layers were not readily formed on the surface of this material possibly aided in its resistance to corrosion in the molten zinc bath.

Zn-55Al: The 316L and Fe3Al materials formed similar alloy strata upon corrosion testing in the galvalume melt. Both materials formed an inner alloy layer of Fe2Al5 and an outer alloy layer of FeAl3. The FeCrSi alloy formed two alloy layers, which were composed of aluminum, iron, and chromium ternary phases.

69

5.1.4 Summary None of the three specimen materials studied can be declared as superior in any single bath. Each testing case needs to be looked at and examined individually to determine each materials usefulness with a specific set of testing parameters. Fe3Al does not appear to be a universal replacement for 316L in the bath hardware application of the hot-dip coating industry, but the alloy has possibility within certain cases. Iron aluminide showed particular potential for use in the Type 1

aluminizing bath, where the alloy shared a similar performance to that of the 316L alloy. The FeCrSi alloy seems to have high potential for use in the hot-dip coating industry. The material showed a greater resistance to corrosion than the 316L alloy in several of the static corrosion tests. Further corrosion testing and examination of the FeCrSi alloy is certainly warranted.

5.2 Future Work 1.) Conduct static immersion testing in larger test baths to examine the difference in corrosion rates when compared to the small baths used in this study. Dynamic

laboratory tests, which simulate the on-line tests, should be performed to compare the corrosion results with the results from the on-line corrosion tests. This would

determine if laboratory corrosion tests could accurately simulate the on-line tests. 2.) Conduct time effect tests in static immersion baths to examine the effect on the corrosion rate. 3.) Perform SEM analysis and phase identification of all test specimens: on-line specimens and static immersion specimens.

70

4.) Examine corrosion data to determine if weight loss rate (dw/dt) shows linear or parabolic behavior. 5.) Examine the mechanisms dictating the corrosion of the alloys in the molten baths and the formation of the alloy layers. 6.) Conduct more extensive research on the FeCrSi alloy including on-line corrosion testing. 7.) Conduct corrosion research and testing on various other alloys.

71

References 1. Galvanizing Performance and Economics. The Southern Galvanizing Company. http://www.southerngalvanizing.com/why.htm 2. Hot Dip Galvanizing. American Galvanizers Association. http://www.galvanizeit.org/publications/specgalv/GCL97.htm 3. R.W. Richards, R.D. Jones, P.D. Clements, and H. Clarke, Metallurgy of Continuous Hot-Dip Aluminizing, The Institute of Materials and ASM International, 1994, 191212. 4. M. S. Brunnock, R. D. Jones, G. A. Jenkins, D. T. Llewellyn, Supermeniscus Interactions Between Molten Zinc and Bath Hardware Materials in Galvanizing, Ironmaking and Steelmaking, Vol. 24 No. 1, 1997, The Institute of Materials, 1997, 40-46. 5. F. E. Goodwin, Design and Performance of Pot Hardware Bearings, ed. D. R. Adams, L. Battiston, International Lead Zinc Research Organization, Inc., 1997, 128139. 6. K. M. Chang, W. Yang, M. Burris, N. Rampura, V. K. Sikka, Liquid Metal Corrosion Behavior of Iron Aluminide Alloys in Aluminising Baths. 7. M. P. Brady, D. A. Pint, P. F. Tortorelli, I. G. Wright, High-Temperature Oxidation and Corrosion of Intermetallics, Corrosion and Environmental Degradation of Materials, ed. R. W. Cahn, P. Haasen, E. J. Dramer, M. Schutze, 20-27. 8. Vinod K. Sikka, Intermetallics for Structural Applications, 49-66. 9. C. G. McKamey, Iron Aluminides. Chapter 9, 351-385.

72

10. Vinod K. Sikka, Processing and Applications of Iron Aluminides, Processing, Properties, and Applications of Iron Aluminides, ed. J. H. Schneibel and M. A. Crimp, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, 1994, 3-18. 11. M. S. Brunnock, R. D. Jones, G. A. Jenkins, D. T. Llewellyn, Investigation of the Interactions Between Liquid Zinc and Stainless Steels for Use in Continuous Galvanizing Hardware, Zinc-Based Steel Coating Systems: Production and Performance, ed. F. E. Goodwin, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, 1998, 51-62. 12. A. R. B. Verma, W. J. van Ooij High-temperature batch hot-dip galvanizing. Part 1. General description of coatings formed at 560C, Surface and Coatings Technology 89, 1997, 132-142. 13. V. Lampe, H. Roos, M. Svensson, The Attack of Molten Zinc on Steels, Werkstoffe und Korrosion 28, 1977, 226-232. 14. A. R. B. Verma, W. J. van Ooij High-temperature batch hot-dip galvanizing. Part 2. Comparison of coatings formed in the temperature range 520C - 555C, Surface and Coatings Technology 89, 1997, 143-150. 15. R. D. Jones, S. G. Denner, Hot-Dip Aluminising of Steel Theory and Practice, Proceedings of INTERFINISH 80, 371-376. 16. Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy. Handbook of Analytical Methods http://www.mee-inc.com/eds.html 17. Vander Voort, Metallography: Principles and Practice. Materials Science and Engineering Series, McGraw-Hill, 1984, 610-655.

73

18. P. F. Tortorelli, Fundamentals of High-Temperature Corrosion in Liquid Metals, Fundamentals of Corrosion. Office of Fusion Energy, U. S. Department of Energy, 56-60.

74

Appendix A: Thickness Loss Graphs

75

On-line Corrosion Tests

Figure A.1: Thickness Loss of 316L in Al-8Si for On-line Tests

76

Thickness Loss of 316L in Al-8Si (Level 1)

3.500 3.000

thickness loss (mm)

2.500 2 hr 2.000 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T10 T1 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 C -0.500 B10 8 hr 24 hr 72 hr

specimen location

Thickness Loss of 316L in Al-8Si (Level 2)

3.500 3.000

thickness loss (mm)

2.500 2.000 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T10 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 -0.500 B10 2 hr 8 hr 24 hr 72 hr

specimen location

Thickness Loss of 316L in Al-8Si (Level 3)

3.500 3.000

thickness loss (mm)

2.500 2 hr 2.000 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 T10 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 C -0.500 B10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 8 hr 24 hr 72 hr

specimen location

Figure A.2: Thickness Loss of Fe3Al in Al-8Si for On-line Tests

Thickness Loss of Fe3Al in Al-8Si (Level 1)
3.500 3.000

77

thickness loss (mm)

2.500 2 hr 2.000 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T10 T1 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 C -0.500 B10 8 hr 24 hr 72 hr

specimen location

Thickness Loss of Fe3Al in Al-8Si (Level 2)

3.500 3.000

thickness loss (mm)

2.500 2.000 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T10 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 -0.500 B10 2 hr 8 hr 24 hr 72 hr

specimen location

Thickness Loss of Fe3Al in Al-8Si (Level 3)

3.500 3.000

thickness loss (mm)

2.500 2.000 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T10 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 -0.500 B10 2 hr 8 hr 24 hr 72 hr

specimen location

Figure A.3: Thickness Loss of 316L in Zinc for On-line Tests

Thickness Loss of 316L in Zinc (Level 1)

78

3.500 3.000

thickness loss (mm)

2.500 2.000

2 hr 8 hr 24 hr

1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 T8 T6 T4 T10 T2 B2 B4 B6 B8 C -0.500 B10

72 hr 240 hr

specimen location

Thickness Loss of 316L in Zinc (Level 2)

3.500 3.000

thickness loss (mm)

2.500 2.000

2 hr 8 hr 24 hr

1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000

72 hr 240 hr

B2

B4

B6

B8

-0.500

specimen location

Thickness Loss of 316L in Zinc (Level 3)

3.500 3.000

thickness loss (mm)

B10

T8

T6

T4

T2

T10

2.500 2.000

2 hr 8 hr 24 hr

1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 T8 T6 T4 T10 T2 B2 B4 B6 B8 C -0.500 B10

72 hr 240 hr

specimen location

Figure A.4: Thickness Loss of Fe3Al in Zinc for On-line Tests

Thickness Loss of Fe3Al in Zinc (Level 1)
3.500 3.000

79

thickness loss (mm)

2.500 2.000 1.500 24 hr 1.000 0.500 0.000 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T10 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 -0.500 B10 72 hr 240 hr 2 hr 8 hr

specimen position

Thickness Loss of Fe3Al in Zinc (Level 2)

3.500 3.000

thickness loss (mm)

2.500 2 hr 2.000 8 hr 1.500 24 hr 1.000 0.500 0.000 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T10 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 -0.500 B10 72 hr 240 hr

specimen position

Thickness Loss of Fe3Al in Zinc (Level 3)

3.500 3.000

thickness loss (mm)

2.500 2 hr 2.000 8 hr 1.500 24 hr 1.000 0.500 0.000 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T10 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 -0.500 B10 72 hr 240 hr

specimen position

Figure A.5: Thickness Loss of 316L in Zn-55Al for On-line Tests

Thickness Loss of 316L in Zn-55Al (Level 1)
3.500 3.000 2 hr 8 hr 24 hr 72 hr 240 hr

80

thickness loss (mm)

2.500 2.000 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 C -0.500 B10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T10 T1

specimen location

Thickness Loss of 316L in Zn-55Al (Level 2)

3.500 3.000 2 hr 8 hr 24 hr 72 hr 240 hr

thickness loss (mm)

2.500 2.000 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 C -0.500 B10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T10 T1

specimen location

Thickness Loss of 316L in Zn-55Al (Level 3)

3.500 3.000 2 hr 8 hr 24 hr 72 hr 240 hr

thickness loss (mm)

2.500 2.000 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 C -0.500 B10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T10 T1

specimen location

Figure A.6: Thickness Loss of Fe3Al in Zn-55Al for On-line Tests

Thickness Loss of Fe3Al in Zn-55Al (Level 1)
3.500 3.000

81

thickness loss (mm)

2.500 2.000 1.500 1.000 240 hr 0.500 0.000 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T10 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 -0.500 B10 2 hr 8 hr 24 hr

specimen location

Thickness Loss of Fe3Al in Zn-55Al (Level 2)

3.500 3.000

thickness loss (mm)

2.500 2.000 1.500 1.000 240 hr 0.500 0.000 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T10 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 -0.500 B10 2 hr 8 hr 24 hr

specimen location

Thickness Loss of Fe3Al in Zn-55Al (Level 3)

3.500 3.000

thickness loss (mm)

2.500 2.000 1.500 1.000 240 hr 0.500 0.000 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T10 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 -0.500 B10 2 hr 8 hr 24 hr

specimen location

Figure A.7: Thickness Loss of 316L in Zn-5Al for On-line Tests

Thickness Loss of 316L in Zn-5Al (Level 1)
3.500 3.000

82

2 hr 8 hr 24 hr 72 hr 240 hr

thickness loss (mm)

2.500 2.000 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T10 T1 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 C -0.500 B10

specimen location

Thickness Loss of 316L in Zn-5Al (Level 2)

3.500 3.000

2 hr 8 hr 24 hr 72 hr 240 hr

thickness loss (mm)

2.500 2.000 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T10 T1 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 C -0.500 B10

specimen location

Thickness Loss of 316L in Zn-5Al (Level 3)

3.500 3.000

2 hr 8 hr 24 hr 72 hr 240 hr

thickness loss (mm)

2.500 2.000 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T10 T1 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 C -0.500 B10

specimen location

Figure A.8: Thickness Loss of Fe3Al in Zn-5Al for On-line Tests

Thickness Loss of Fe3Al in Zn-5Al (Level 1)
3.500 3.000

83

thickness loss (mm)

2.500 2.000 2 hr 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T10 T1 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 C -0.500 B10 8 hr 24 hr 72 hr 240 hr

specimen location

Thickness Loss of Fe3Al in Zn-5Al (Level 2)

3.500 3.000

thickness loss (mm)

2.500 2.000 2 hr 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T10 T1 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 C -0.500 B10 8 hr 24 hr 72 hr 240 hr

specimen location

Thickness Loss of Fe3Al in Zn-5Al (Level 3)

3.500 3.000

thickness loss (mm)

2.500 2.000 2 hr 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T10 T1 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 C -0.500 B10 8 hr 24 hr 72 hr 240 hr

specimen location

84

Static Corrosion Tests

Figure A.9: Thickness Loss in Al-8Si for Static Tests

85

Thickness Loss of 316L in Al-8Si for 24 hrs.

3.100 2.900 2.700 2.500 2.300 2.100 1.900 1.700 1.500 1.300 1.100 0.900 0.700 0.500 0.300 0.100 -0.100

thickness loss (mm)

660 C

T9

T8

T7

T6

T5

T4

T3

T2

T10

T1

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9

specimen location

Thickness Loss of Fe3Al in Al-8Si for 24 hrs.

3.100 2.900 2.700 2.500 2.300 2.100 1.900 1.700 1.500 1.300 1.100 0.900 0.700 0.500 0.300 0.100 -0.100

thickness loss (mm)

B10
660 C

T9

T8

T7

T6

T5

T4

T3

T2

T10

T1

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9

specimen location

Thickness Loss of FeCrSi in Al-8Si for 24 hrs.

3.100 2.900 2.700 2.500 2.300 2.100 1.900 1.700 1.500 1.300 1.100 0.900 0.700 0.500 0.300 0.100 -0.100

thickness loss (mm)

B10
660 C

T9

T8

T7

T6

T5

T4

T3

T2

T10

T1

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9

specimen location

B10

Figure A.10: Thickness Loss in Zinc for Static Tests

86

Thickness Change of 316L in Zinc for 24 hrs.

3.100 2.900 2.700 2.500 2.300 2.100 1.900 1.700 1.500 1.300 1.100 0.900 0.700 0.500 0.300 0.100 -0.100

thickness change (mm)

460 C

560 C

660 C

T9

T8

T7

T6

T5

T4

T3

T2

T10

T1

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9

specimen location

Thickness Change of Fe3Al in Zinc for 24 hrs.

3.100 2.900 2.700 2.500 2.300 2.100 1.900 1.700 1.500 1.300 1.100 0.900 0.700 0.500 0.300 0.100 -0.100

thickness change (mm)

B10

460 C

560 C

660 C

T9

T8

T7

T6

T5

T4

T3

T2

T10

T1

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9

specimen location

Thickness Change of FeCrSi in Zinc for 24 hrs.

3.100 2.900 2.700 2.500 2.300 2.100 1.900 1.700 1.500 1.300 1.100 0.900 0.700 0.500 0.300 0.100 -0.100

thickness change (mm)

B10

460 C

560 C

660 C

T9

T8

T7

T6

T5

T4

T3

T2

T10

T1

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9

specimenlocation

B10

Figure A.11: Thickness Loss in Zn-5Al for Static Tests

Thickness Loss of 316L in Zn-5Al for 24 hrs.
3.100 2.900 2.700 2.500 2.300 2.100 1.900 1.700 1.500 1.300 1.100 0.900 0.700 0.500 0.300 0.100 -0.100

87

thickness loss (mm)

460 C 560 C 660 C

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9

specimen location

Thickness Loss of Fe3Al in Zn-5Al for 24 hrs.

3.100 2.900 2.700 2.500 2.300 2.100 1.900 1.700 1.500 1.300 1.100 0.900 0.700 0.500 0.300 0.100 -0.100

thickness loss (mm)

B10

T9

T8

T7

T6

T5

T4

T3

T2

T10

T1

460 C 560 C 660 C

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9

specimen location

Thickness Loss of FeCrSi in Zn-5Al for 24 hrs.

7.000 6.000

thickness loss (mm)

5.000 4.000 3.000 2.000 1.000 0.000 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T10 T1 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 C B10 460 C 560 C 660 C

specimen location

B10

T9

T8

T7

T6

T5

T4

T3

T2

T10

T1

Figure A.12: Thickness Loss in Zn-55Al for Static Tests

Thickness Loss of 316L in Zn-55Al for 24 hrs.
3.100 2.900 2.700 2.500 2.300 2.100 1.900 1.700 1.500 1.300 1.100 0.900 0.700 0.500 0.300 0.100 -0.100

88

thickness loss (mm)

660 C

T9

T8

T7

T6

T5

T4

T3

T2

T10

T1

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9

specimen location

Thickness Loss of Fe3Al in Zn-55Al for 24 hrs.

3.100 2.900 2.700 2.500 2.300 2.100 1.900 1.700 1.500 1.300 1.100 0.900 0.700 0.500 0.300 0.100 -0.100

thickness loss (mm)

B10

660 C

T9

T8

T7

T6

T5

T4

T3

T2

T10

T1

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9

specimen location

Thickness Loss of FeCrSi in Zn-55Al for 24 hrs.

3.100 2.900 2.700 2.500 2.300 2.100 1.900 1.700 1.500 1.300 1.100 0.900 0.700 0.500 0.300 0.100 -0.100

thickness loss (mm)

B10

660 C

T9

T8

T7

T6

T5

T4

T3

T2

T10

T1

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9

specimen location

B10

89

Appendix B: Raw Data

90

Figure B.1: Level 1 Thickness Measurements in Al-8Si for On-line Corrosion Tests

316L in Al-8Si
2 hours T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2.908 2.902 2.908 2.896 2.890 2.883 2.890 2.896 2.902 2.896 2.902 2.908 2.908 2.908 2.908 2.908 2.914 2.908 2.902 2.890 2.896 8 hours 2.724 2.724 2.736 2.748 2.730 2.755 2.742 2.785 2.736 2.730 2.736 2.736 2.724 2.724 2.724 2.742 2.767 2.712 2.724 2.730 2.748 24 hours 2.104 2.172 2.172 2.184 2.178 2.153 2.147 2.196 2.215 2.196 2.227 2.258 2.239 2.270 2.202 2.239 2.245 2.264 2.245 2.276 2.147 72 hours 240 hours 0.000 0.000 0.356 0.374 0.399 0.472 0.515 0.583 0.583 0.601 0.632 0.620 0.601 0.607 0.540 0.515 0.417 0.270 0.141 0.000 0.000 T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours 3.074 3.061 3.025 3.031 3.080 3.086 3.067 3.086 3.067 3.067 3.055 3.086 3.074 3.067 3.074 3.092 3.092 3.080 3.055 3.074 3.080

Fe3Al in Al-8Si
8 hours 2.865 2.896 2.920 2.908 2.908 2.908 2.914 2.920 2.896 2.883 2.920 2.933 2.933 2.914 2.926 2.926 2.877 2.908 2.908 2.822 2.840 24 hours 1.258 1.429 1.515 1.583 1.601 1.620 1.638 1.644 1.650 1.656 1.675 1.656 1.644 1.644 1.644 1.626 1.620 1.577 1.534 1.442 1.245 72 hours 240 hours

Thickness Measurements (mm)

316L in Al-8Si
T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours -0.116 -0.122 -0.116 -0.128 -0.134 -0.141 -0.134 -0.128 -0.122 -0.128 -0.122 -0.116 -0.116 -0.116 -0.116 -0.116 -0.110 -0.116 -0.122 -0.134 -0.128 8 hours 24 hours 72 hours 240 hours -0.254 -0.885 -2.991 -0.254 -0.817 -2.991 -0.242 -0.817 -2.635 -0.230 -0.805 -2.617 -0.248 -0.811 -2.592 -0.223 -0.836 -2.519 -0.236 -0.842 -2.476 -0.193 -0.793 -2.408 -0.242 -0.774 -2.408 -0.248 -0.793 -2.390 -0.242 -0.762 -2.359 -0.242 -0.731 -2.371 -0.254 -0.750 -2.390 -0.254 -0.719 -2.384 -0.254 -0.787 -2.451 -0.236 -0.750 -2.476 -0.211 -0.744 -2.574 -0.266 -0.725 -2.721 -0.254 -0.744 -2.850 -0.248 -0.713 -2.991 -0.230 -0.842 -2.991 T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours -0.045 -0.058 -0.094 -0.088 -0.039 -0.033 -0.052 -0.033 -0.052 -0.052 -0.064 -0.033 -0.045 -0.052 -0.045 -0.027 -0.027 -0.039 -0.064 -0.045 -0.039

Fe3Al in Al-8Si
8 hours -0.277 -0.246 -0.222 -0.234 -0.234 -0.234 -0.228 -0.222 -0.246 -0.259 -0.222 -0.209 -0.209 -0.228 -0.216 -0.216 -0.265 -0.234 -0.234 -0.320 -0.302 24 hours -1.864 -1.693 -1.607 -1.539 -1.521 -1.502 -1.484 -1.478 -1.472 -1.466 -1.447 -1.466 -1.478 -1.478 -1.478 -1.496 -1.502 -1.545 -1.588 -1.680 -1.877 72 hours 240 hours -3.089 -3.089 -3.089 -3.089 -3.089 -3.089 -3.089 -3.089 -3.089 -3.089 -3.089 -3.089 -3.089 -3.089 -3.089 -3.089 -3.089 -3.089 -3.089 -3.089 -3.089

Thickness Change (mm)

91

Figure B.2: Level 2 Thickness Measurements in Al-8Si for On-line Corrosion Tests

316L in Al-8Si
2 hours T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2.926 2.926 2.920 2.933 2.939 2.926 2.939 2.939 2.939 2.939 2.933 2.939 2.939 2.939 2.945 2.945 2.939 2.939 2.939 2.939 2.933 8 hours 2.761 2.785 2.828 2.834 2.914 2.902 2.865 2.859 2.877 2.853 2.859 2.785 2.767 2.840 2.840 2.840 2.840 2.742 2.736 2.748 2.798 24 hours 72 hours 240 hours 2.663 2.429 2.632 2.718 2.436 2.313 2.460 2.270 2.368 2.411 2.399 2.362 2.411 2.337 2.313 2.270 2.411 2.362 2.374 2.227 2.252 1.049 1.160 1.086 1.049 1.184 1.307 1.387 1.411 1.472 1.282 1.104 1.092 1.092 1.110 1.172 1.006 0.810 0.730 0.656 0.638 0.607 T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours 3.067 3.061 3.061 3.092 3.092 3.092 3.067 3.092 3.098 3.098 3.104 3.104 3.104 3.080 3.104 3.098 3.098 3.098 3.104 3.098 3.098

Fe3Al in Al-8Si
8 hours 2.736 2.724 2.773 2.730 2.706 2.742 2.798 2.767 2.785 2.779 2.785 2.816 2.748 2.718 2.767 2.810 2.773 2.724 2.706 2.712 2.687 24 hours 3.080 2.902 2.902 2.712 2.699 2.485 2.656 2.607 2.534 2.571 2.509 2.423 2.319 2.276 2.411 2.245 2.503 2.448 2.589 2.644 2.546 72 hours 3.067 3.098 3.098 3.092 3.067 2.914 2.975 2.871 2.896 2.939 2.994 2.871 2.791 2.988 2.804 2.859 2.785 2.871 2.859 3.037 3.000 240 hours

Thickness Measurements (mm)

316L in Al-8Si
T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours -0.098 -0.098 -0.104 -0.091 -0.085 -0.098 -0.085 -0.085 -0.085 -0.085 -0.091 -0.085 -0.085 -0.085 -0.079 -0.079 -0.085 -0.085 -0.085 -0.085 -0.091 8 hours 24 hours 72 hours 240 hours -0.217 -0.326 -1.942 -0.193 -0.560 -1.831 -0.150 -0.357 -1.905 -0.144 -0.271 -1.942 -0.064 -0.553 -1.807 -0.076 -0.676 -1.684 -0.113 -0.529 -1.604 -0.119 -0.719 -1.580 -0.101 -0.621 -1.519 -0.125 -0.578 -1.709 -0.119 -0.590 -1.887 -0.193 -0.627 -1.899 -0.211 -0.578 -1.899 -0.138 -0.652 -1.881 -0.138 -0.676 -1.819 -0.138 -0.719 -1.985 -0.138 -0.578 -2.181 -0.236 -0.627 -2.261 -0.242 -0.615 -2.335 -0.230 -0.762 -2.353 -0.180 -0.737 -2.384 T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours -0.052 -0.058 -0.058 -0.027 -0.027 -0.027 -0.052 -0.027 -0.021 -0.021 -0.015 -0.015 -0.015 -0.039 -0.015 -0.021 -0.021 -0.021 -0.015 -0.021 -0.021

Fe3Al in Al-8Si
8 hours -0.406 -0.418 -0.369 -0.412 -0.436 -0.400 -0.344 -0.375 -0.357 -0.363 -0.357 -0.326 -0.394 -0.424 -0.375 -0.332 -0.369 -0.418 -0.436 -0.430 -0.455 24 hours -0.042 -0.220 -0.220 -0.410 -0.423 -0.637 -0.466 -0.515 -0.588 -0.551 -0.613 -0.699 -0.803 -0.846 -0.711 -0.877 -0.619 -0.674 -0.533 -0.478 -0.576 72 hours 240 hours -0.022 0.009 0.009 0.003 -0.022 -0.175 -0.114 -0.218 -0.193 -0.150 -0.095 -0.218 -0.298 -0.101 -0.285 -0.230 -0.304 -0.218 -0.230 -0.052 -0.089

Thickness Change (mm)

92

Figure B.3: Level 3 Thickness Measurements in Al-8Si for On-line Corrosion Tests

316L in Al-8Si
2 hours T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2.994 2.994 2.994 3.000 3.000 3.000 2.994 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.006 3.006 3.006 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.006 3.000 3.000 2.994 8 hours 2.951 2.951 2.957 2.975 2.988 2.982 2.982 2.975 2.988 2.982 2.982 2.963 2.957 2.969 2.957 2.975 2.963 2.975 2.945 2.957 2.957 24 hours 72 hours 240 hours 3.000 3.000 3.012 2.994 2.988 2.975 2.982 2.982 2.988 2.975 2.982 2.994 2.982 2.982 2.982 2.994 2.994 2.988 2.994 2.963 2.975 2.871 2.902 2.902 2.975 2.982 2.963 2.982 2.975 2.963 2.933 2.926 2.957 2.988 2.951 2.975 2.975 2.951 2.920 2.908 2.982 2.982 T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours 3.049 3.037 3.037 3.055 3.055 3.049 3.055 3.055 3.055 3.061 3.067 3.067 3.067 3.061 3.067 3.067 3.067 3.067 3.067 3.061 3.067

Fe3Al in Al-8Si
8 hours 3.098 3.104 3.104 3.104 3.104 3.098 3.098 3.104 3.104 3.104 3.098 3.098 3.098 3.092 3.067 3.092 3.092 3.104 3.080 3.092 3.098 24 hours 3.123 3.098 3.110 3.086 3.110 3.117 3.117 3.110 3.110 3.123 3.104 3.110 3.117 3.110 3.110 3.117 3.117 3.098 3.037 3.031 3.110 72 hours 3.104 3.104 3.000 2.853 2.853 2.883 2.853 2.896 2.914 2.847 2.877 2.945 2.890 2.969 2.847 2.945 2.975 3.110 3.110 2.699 2.798 240 hours

Thickness Measurements (mm)

316L in Al-8Si
T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours -0.030 -0.030 -0.030 -0.024 -0.024 -0.024 -0.030 -0.024 -0.024 -0.024 -0.024 -0.018 -0.018 -0.018 -0.024 -0.024 -0.024 -0.018 -0.024 -0.024 -0.030 8 hours 24 hours 72 hours 240 hours -0.027 0.011 -0.120 -0.027 0.011 -0.089 -0.021 0.023 -0.089 -0.003 0.005 -0.016 0.010 -0.001 -0.009 0.004 -0.014 -0.028 0.004 -0.007 -0.009 -0.003 -0.007 -0.016 0.010 -0.001 -0.028 0.004 -0.014 -0.058 0.004 -0.007 -0.065 -0.015 0.005 -0.034 -0.021 -0.007 -0.003 -0.009 -0.007 -0.040 -0.021 -0.007 -0.016 -0.003 0.005 -0.016 -0.015 0.005 -0.040 -0.003 -0.001 -0.071 -0.033 0.005 -0.083 -0.021 -0.026 -0.009 -0.021 -0.014 -0.009 T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours -0.070 -0.082 -0.082 -0.064 -0.064 -0.070 -0.064 -0.064 -0.064 -0.058 -0.052 -0.052 -0.052 -0.058 -0.052 -0.052 -0.052 -0.052 -0.052 -0.058 -0.052

Fe3Al in Al-8Si
8 hours -0.044 -0.038 -0.038 -0.038 -0.038 -0.044 -0.044 -0.038 -0.038 -0.038 -0.044 -0.044 -0.044 -0.050 -0.075 -0.050 -0.050 -0.038 -0.062 -0.050 -0.044 24 hours 0.001 -0.024 -0.012 -0.036 -0.012 -0.005 -0.005 -0.012 -0.012 0.001 -0.018 -0.012 -0.005 -0.012 -0.012 -0.005 -0.005 -0.024 -0.085 -0.091 -0.012 72 hours 240 hours 0.015 0.015 -0.089 -0.236 -0.236 -0.206 -0.236 -0.193 -0.175 -0.242 -0.212 -0.144 -0.199 -0.120 -0.242 -0.144 -0.114 0.021 0.021 -0.390 -0.291

Thickness Change (mm)

93

Figure B.4: Level 1 Thickness Measurements in Zinc for On-line Corrosion Tests

316L in Zinc
2 hours T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2.982 2.982 2.982 2.994 2.988 2.982 2.982 2.988 2.982 2.982 2.988 2.988 2.988 2.982 2.988 2.982 2.988 2.988 2.988 2.982 2.988 8 hours 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.982 2.969 2.963 2.969 2.982 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.975 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 24 hours 2.963 2.963 2.969 2.969 2.975 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.969 2.975 2.975 2.969 2.975 72 hours 240 hours 2.963 2.963 2.963 2.969 2.969 2.963 2.963 2.963 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.963 2.963 2.963 2.969 2.969 2.963 2.969 2.963 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.963 2.963 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.975 2.969 2.969 2.975 2.975 2.982 2.975 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.963 T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours 3.202 3.209 3.209 3.202 3.202 3.209 3.209 3.202 3.202 3.202 3.202 3.202 3.190 3.202 3.196 3.202 3.196 3.196 3.196 3.160 3.190

Fe3Al in Zinc
8 hours 3.067 3.067 3.074 3.074 3.074 3.061 3.043 3.012 3.061 3.074 3.049 3.074 3.067 3.037 3.055 3.067 3.049 3.006 3.092 3.098 3.074 24 hours 2.767 2.791 2.798 2.840 2.816 2.767 2.724 2.767 2.755 2.840 2.847 2.877 2.816 2.859 2.896 2.804 2.828 2.847 2.736 2.834 2.853 72 hours 2.509 2.515 2.534 2.534 2.503 2.460 2.540 2.515 2.607 2.497 2.540 2.583 2.466 2.571 2.552 2.534 2.601 2.491 2.558 2.534 2.607 240 hours 0.675 0.712 0.804 0.546 0.816 0.926 0.656 0.742 0.479 0.896 0.963 0.982 1.252 1.239 1.202 1.190 0.908 0.896 1.006 0.724 0.558

Thickness Measurements (mm)

316L in Zinc
T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours -0.004 -0.004 -0.004 0.008 0.002 -0.004 -0.004 0.002 -0.004 -0.004 0.002 0.002 0.002 -0.004 0.002 -0.004 0.002 0.002 0.002 -0.004 0.002 8 hours 24 hours 72 hours 240 hours -0.003 0.005 -0.043 -0.019 -0.003 0.005 -0.043 -0.013 -0.003 0.011 -0.043 -0.013 0.010 0.011 -0.037 -0.013 -0.003 0.017 -0.037 -0.013 -0.009 0.011 -0.043 -0.019 -0.003 0.011 -0.043 -0.019 0.010 0.011 -0.043 -0.013 -0.003 0.011 -0.037 -0.013 -0.003 0.011 -0.037 -0.013 -0.003 0.017 -0.037 -0.007 -0.003 0.017 -0.037 -0.013 -0.003 0.017 -0.037 -0.013 -0.003 0.017 -0.037 -0.007 -0.003 0.017 -0.043 -0.007 0.003 0.017 -0.043 0.000 -0.003 0.011 -0.043 -0.007 -0.003 0.017 -0.037 -0.013 -0.003 0.017 -0.037 -0.013 -0.003 0.011 -0.043 -0.013 -0.003 0.017 -0.037 -0.019 T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours -0.014 -0.007 -0.007 -0.014 -0.014 -0.007 -0.007 -0.014 -0.014 -0.014 -0.014 -0.014 -0.026 -0.014 -0.020 -0.014 -0.020 -0.020 -0.020 -0.056 -0.026

Fe3Al in Zinc
8 hours -0.085 -0.085 -0.078 -0.078 -0.078 -0.091 -0.109 -0.140 -0.091 -0.078 -0.103 -0.078 -0.085 -0.115 -0.097 -0.085 -0.103 -0.146 -0.060 -0.054 -0.078 24 hours -0.452 -0.428 -0.421 -0.379 -0.403 -0.452 -0.495 -0.452 -0.464 -0.379 -0.372 -0.342 -0.403 -0.360 -0.323 -0.415 -0.391 -0.372 -0.483 -0.385 -0.366 72 hours 240 hours -0.721 -2.551 -0.715 -2.514 -0.696 -2.422 -0.696 -2.680 -0.727 -2.410 -0.770 -2.300 -0.690 -2.570 -0.715 -2.484 -0.623 -2.747 -0.733 -2.330 -0.690 -2.263 -0.647 -2.244 -0.764 -1.974 -0.659 -1.987 -0.678 -2.024 -0.696 -2.036 -0.629 -2.318 -0.739 -2.330 -0.672 -2.220 -0.696 -2.502 -0.623 -2.668

Thickness Change (mm)

94

Figure B.5: Level 2 Thickness Measurements in Zinc for On-line Corrosion Tests

316L in Zinc
2 hours T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2.988 2.975 2.994 2.994 2.982 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.988 2.975 2.969 2.902 2.951 2.982 2.982 2.994 2.994 2.957 2.988 2.969 2.914 8 hours 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.975 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.975 2.975 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.963 2.969 2.963 24 hours 2.963 2.963 2.963 2.969 2.963 2.963 2.963 2.969 2.969 2.963 2.969 2.975 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.963 72 hours 240 hours 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.963 2.957 2.969 2.963 2.963 2.969 2.969 2.963 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.969 2.963 2.963 2.963 2.969 2.957 2.957 2.957 2.933 2.963 2.963 2.957 2.975 2.963 2.963 2.969 2.963 2.933 2.933 2.963 2.969 2.963 2.945 2.963 2.951 2.963 T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours 3.196 3.190 3.196 3.196 3.196 3.196 3.196 3.202 3.202 3.196 3.209 3.202 3.196 3.190 3.196 3.209 3.196 3.190 3.196 3.202 3.196

Fe3Al in Zinc
8 hours 3.018 3.025 3.037 3.074 3.049 3.012 3.012 3.006 3.067 2.957 2.982 3.012 3.018 3.012 3.006 3.055 3.098 3.031 3.067 3.080 3.012 24 hours 2.900 2.804 2.816 2.840 2.712 2.736 2.804 2.742 2.748 2.798 2.785 2.791 2.791 2.785 2.865 2.810 2.804 2.816 2.840 2.804 2.853 72 hours 2.552 2.552 2.583 2.509 2.491 2.546 2.509 2.521 2.521 2.601 2.577 2.638 2.595 2.577 2.595 2.595 2.589 2.571 2.577 2.607 2.607 240 hours 0.534 0.626 0.454 0.883 0.988 0.975 0.491 0.558 0.871 1.184 1.166 1.209 1.141 0.975 1.209 1.196 1.098 0.822 0.577 0.344 0.767

Thickness Measurements (mm)

316L in Zinc
T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours 0.002 -0.011 0.008 0.008 -0.004 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.002 -0.011 -0.017 -0.084 -0.035 -0.004 -0.004 0.008 0.008 -0.029 0.002 -0.017 -0.072 8 hours 24 hours 72 hours 240 hours -0.003 0.005 -0.037 -0.025 -0.003 0.005 -0.037 -0.025 -0.003 0.005 -0.037 -0.025 -0.003 0.011 -0.037 -0.049 0.003 0.005 -0.037 -0.019 -0.003 0.005 -0.043 -0.019 -0.003 0.005 -0.049 -0.025 -0.003 0.011 -0.037 -0.007 -0.003 0.011 -0.043 -0.019 -0.003 0.005 -0.043 -0.019 -0.003 0.011 -0.037 -0.013 0.003 0.017 -0.037 -0.019 0.003 0.011 -0.043 -0.049 -0.003 0.011 -0.031 -0.049 -0.003 0.011 -0.031 -0.019 -0.003 0.011 -0.031 -0.013 -0.003 0.011 -0.037 -0.019 -0.003 0.011 -0.043 -0.037 -0.009 0.011 -0.043 -0.019 -0.003 0.011 -0.043 -0.031 -0.009 0.005 -0.037 -0.019 T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours -0.020 -0.026 -0.020 -0.020 -0.020 -0.020 -0.020 -0.014 -0.014 -0.020 -0.007 -0.014 -0.020 -0.026 -0.020 -0.007 -0.020 -0.026 -0.020 -0.014 -0.020

Fe3Al in Zinc
8 hours -0.134 -0.127 -0.115 -0.078 -0.103 -0.140 -0.140 -0.146 -0.085 -0.195 -0.170 -0.140 -0.134 -0.140 -0.146 -0.097 -0.054 -0.121 -0.085 -0.072 -0.140 24 hours -0.319 -0.415 -0.403 -0.379 -0.507 -0.483 -0.415 -0.477 -0.471 -0.421 -0.434 -0.428 -0.428 -0.434 -0.354 -0.409 -0.415 -0.403 -0.379 -0.415 -0.366 72 hours 240 hours -0.678 -2.692 -0.678 -2.600 -0.647 -2.772 -0.721 -2.343 -0.739 -2.238 -0.684 -2.251 -0.721 -2.735 -0.709 -2.668 -0.709 -2.355 -0.629 -2.042 -0.653 -2.060 -0.592 -2.017 -0.635 -2.085 -0.653 -2.251 -0.635 -2.017 -0.635 -2.030 -0.641 -2.128 -0.659 -2.404 -0.653 -2.649 -0.623 -2.882 -0.623 -2.459

Thickness Change (mm)

95

Figure B.6: Level 3 Thickness Measurements in Zinc for On-line Corrosion Tests

316L in Zinc
2 hours T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2.914 2.988 2.988 2.975 2.994 2.890 2.988 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.982 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.982 2.994 2.963 2.920 2.963 2.994 2.939 8 hours 2.969 2.969 2.963 2.975 2.969 2.963 2.969 2.969 2.963 2.963 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.975 2.975 2.969 2.963 2.969 2.957 2.939 2.969 24 hours 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.975 2.969 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.963 2.969 2.975 2.969 72 hours 240 hours 2.963 2.963 2.963 2.969 2.963 2.963 2.963 2.975 2.969 2.969 2.963 2.963 2.969 2.963 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.963 2.969 2.969 2.975 2.963 2.963 2.963 2.957 2.963 2.951 2.951 2.951 2.957 2.957 2.951 2.951 2.945 2.957 2.957 2.957 2.957 2.951 2.963 2.963 2.969 T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours 3.172 3.190 3.202 3.202 3.202 3.196 3.196 3.196 3.196 3.172 3.196 3.209 3.202 3.202 3.178 3.160 3.166 3.160 3.160 3.166 3.141

Fe3Al in Zinc
8 hours 3.104 3.025 3.055 3.012 3.006 3.098 3.098 3.053 3.018 3.000 3.025 3.086 3.074 3.080 3.104 3.061 3.086 3.067 3.110 3.123 3.147 24 hours 2.798 2.810 2.840 2.816 2.865 2.847 2.791 2.779 2.761 2.871 2.834 2.865 2.791 2.742 2.871 2.871 2.847 2.810 2.847 2.834 2.798 72 hours 2.626 2.515 2.613 2.632 2.571 2.583 2.663 2.620 2.620 2.644 2.607 2.601 2.638 2.571 2.564 2.546 2.644 2.693 2.626 2.632 2.681 240 hours 0.319 0.822 0.742 0.963 0.810 1.319 1.117 1.129 1.129 0.822 0.877 0.988 1.006 0.957 0.890 0.675 0.798 0.816 0.687 0.890 0.779

Thickness Measurements (mm)

316L in Zinc
T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours -0.072 0.002 0.002 -0.011 0.008 -0.096 0.002 0.008 0.008 0.008 -0.004 0.008 0.008 0.008 -0.004 0.008 -0.023 -0.066 -0.023 0.008 -0.047 8 hours 24 hours 72 hours 240 hours -0.003 0.011 -0.043 -0.019 -0.003 0.011 -0.043 -0.019 -0.009 0.011 -0.043 -0.019 0.003 0.011 -0.037 -0.025 -0.003 0.017 -0.043 -0.019 -0.009 0.017 -0.043 -0.031 -0.003 0.017 -0.043 -0.031 -0.003 0.017 -0.031 -0.031 -0.009 0.011 -0.037 -0.025 -0.009 0.011 -0.037 -0.025 -0.003 0.011 -0.043 -0.031 -0.003 0.017 -0.043 -0.031 -0.003 0.011 -0.037 -0.037 0.003 0.017 -0.043 -0.025 0.003 0.017 -0.037 -0.025 -0.003 0.017 -0.037 -0.025 -0.009 0.017 -0.037 -0.025 -0.003 0.005 -0.043 -0.031 -0.015 0.011 -0.037 -0.019 -0.033 0.017 -0.037 -0.019 -0.003 0.011 -0.031 -0.013 T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours -0.044 -0.026 -0.014 -0.014 -0.014 -0.020 -0.020 -0.020 -0.020 -0.044 -0.020 -0.007 -0.014 -0.014 -0.038 -0.056 -0.050 -0.056 -0.056 -0.050 -0.075

Fe3Al in Zinc
8 hours -0.048 -0.127 -0.097 -0.140 -0.146 -0.054 -0.054 -0.099 -0.134 -0.152 -0.127 -0.066 -0.078 -0.072 -0.048 -0.091 -0.066 -0.085 -0.042 -0.029 -0.005 24 hours -0.421 -0.409 -0.379 -0.403 -0.354 -0.372 -0.428 -0.440 -0.458 -0.348 -0.385 -0.354 -0.428 -0.477 -0.348 -0.348 -0.372 -0.409 -0.372 -0.385 -0.421 72 hours 240 hours -0.604 -2.907 -0.715 -2.404 -0.617 -2.484 -0.598 -2.263 -0.659 -2.416 -0.647 -1.907 -0.567 -2.109 -0.610 -2.097 -0.610 -2.097 -0.586 -2.404 -0.623 -2.349 -0.629 -2.238 -0.592 -2.220 -0.659 -2.269 -0.666 -2.336 -0.684 -2.551 -0.586 -2.428 -0.537 -2.410 -0.604 -2.539 -0.598 -2.336 -0.549 -2.447

Thickness Change (mm)

96

Figure B.7: Level 1 Thickness Measurements in Zn-5Al for On-line Corrosion Tests

316L in Galfan
2 hours T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.982 2.975 2.975 2.969 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.963 2.963 2.963 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 8 hours 3.000 2.994 3.000 3.000 2.994 3.000 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.994 3.000 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.994 3.000 3.000 2.994 2.994 3.000 2.994 24 hours 72 hours 240 hours 2.988 2.988 2.994 2.994 2.988 2.994 2.988 3.000 2.994 2.988 2.994 2.994 2.982 2.988 2.988 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.988 2.988 2.988 2.988 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.988 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.994 3.000 2.988 2.994 2.988 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.994 3.000 2.994 2.994 3.000 2.988 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.994 3.000 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.994 T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours 3.166 3.160 3.166 3.166 3.166 3.166 3.160 3.166 3.166 3.166 3.160 3.166 3.166 3.166 3.166 3.166 3.172 3.166 3.172 3.166 3.166

Fe3Al in Galfan
8 hours 3.215 3.221 3.215 3.221 3.221 3.209 3.215 3.215 3.215 3.215 3.215 3.221 3.221 3.221 3.215 3.221 3.221 3.215 3.221 3.215 3.215 24 hours 72 hours 240 hours 2.853 2.933 2.988 2.926 2.883 2.933 2.963 3.043 2.969 3.037 2.988 2.969 2.957 3.000 2.982 3.086 3.117 3.092 3.067 3.074 3.043 2.957 2.963 2.951 2.939 2.975 2.920 2.945 2.926 2.914 2.988 2.982 2.933 3.006 3.037 2.963 2.945 2.969 2.951 2.945 2.908 2.926 2.509 2.491 2.466 2.466 2.509 2.491 2.466 2.472 2.460 2.472 2.466 2.448 2.552 2.515 2.521 2.534 2.423 2.515 2.528 2.620 2.644

Thickness Measurements (mm)

316L in Galfan
T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours 8 hours 24 hours 72 hours 240 hours -0.002 -0.001 -0.014 -0.008 -0.009 -0.002 -0.007 -0.014 -0.002 -0.015 -0.002 -0.001 -0.008 -0.002 -0.009 -0.002 -0.001 -0.008 -0.002 -0.009 0.005 -0.007 -0.014 -0.002 -0.009 -0.002 -0.001 -0.008 -0.002 -0.009 -0.002 -0.007 -0.014 -0.002 -0.003 -0.008 -0.007 -0.002 -0.002 -0.009 -0.002 -0.007 -0.008 -0.002 -0.009 -0.002 -0.007 -0.014 -0.002 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 -0.008 -0.008 -0.015 -0.008 -0.007 -0.008 -0.002 -0.009 -0.008 -0.007 -0.020 -0.002 -0.009 -0.008 -0.007 -0.014 -0.002 -0.009 -0.014 -0.007 -0.014 -0.002 -0.009 -0.014 -0.001 -0.008 -0.002 -0.003 -0.014 -0.001 -0.008 -0.002 -0.009 -0.008 -0.007 -0.008 -0.002 -0.009 -0.008 -0.007 -0.014 -0.002 -0.009 -0.008 -0.001 -0.014 0.004 -0.009 -0.008 -0.007 -0.014 -0.008 -0.009 T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10

Fe3Al in Galfan
2 hours 8 hours 24 hours 72 hours 240 hours -0.041 0.003 -0.333 -0.264 -0.707 -0.047 0.009 -0.253 -0.258 -0.725 -0.041 0.003 -0.198 -0.270 -0.750 -0.041 0.009 -0.260 -0.282 -0.750 -0.041 0.009 -0.303 -0.246 -0.707 -0.041 -0.003 -0.253 -0.301 -0.725 -0.047 0.003 -0.223 -0.276 -0.750 -0.041 0.003 -0.143 -0.295 -0.744 -0.041 0.003 -0.217 -0.307 -0.756 -0.041 0.003 -0.149 -0.233 -0.744 -0.047 0.003 -0.198 -0.239 -0.750 -0.041 0.009 -0.217 -0.288 -0.768 -0.041 0.009 -0.229 -0.215 -0.664 -0.041 0.009 -0.186 -0.184 -0.701 -0.041 0.003 -0.204 -0.258 -0.695 -0.041 0.009 -0.100 -0.276 -0.682 -0.035 0.009 -0.069 -0.252 -0.793 -0.041 0.003 -0.094 -0.270 -0.701 -0.035 0.009 -0.119 -0.276 -0.688 -0.041 0.003 -0.112 -0.313 -0.596 -0.041 0.003 -0.143 -0.295 -0.572

Thickness Change (mm)

97

Figure B.8: Level 2 Thickness Measurements in Zn-5Al for On-line Corrosion Tests

316L in Galfan
2 hours T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.982 2.975 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.975 2.969 2.975 2.969 2.975 8 hours 2.994 2.994 3.000 2.994 3.000 2.994 2.994 2.994 3.000 2.994 2.994 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 2.994 2.994 2.988 2.994 2.994 24 hours 72 hours 240 hours 2.988 2.994 2.988 2.988 2.994 2.982 2.988 2.988 2.988 2.988 2.994 3.000 3.000 2.988 2.994 2.994 3.000 2.994 2.988 3.000 2.994 2.975 2.982 2.988 2.982 2.982 2.982 2.988 2.988 2.988 2.988 2.988 2.988 2.988 2.994 2.994 2.988 2.982 2.982 2.982 2.982 2.982 2.994 2.988 2.994 2.994 2.994 3.000 2.994 3.000 2.988 2.988 2.988 3.000 2.994 2.988 2.994 2.994 2.988 2.994 2.994 3.000 2.988 T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours 3.196 3.196 3.196 3.202 3.196 3.196 3.196 3.202 3.196 3.190 3.196 3.202 3.196 3.196 3.196 3.202 3.202 3.196 3.196 3.202 3.202

Fe3Al in Galfan
8 hours 3.209 3.209 3.209 3.215 3.209 3.209 3.209 3.209 3.209 3.209 3.209 3.209 3.215 3.215 3.209 3.215 3.215 3.209 3.209 3.209 3.209 24 hours 72 hours 240 hours 3.025 3.055 2.994 3.055 2.988 2.994 2.969 2.975 2.908 2.920 2.877 2.969 2.957 2.920 3.067 3.098 3.080 3.110 3.031 2.914 2.963 2.877 2.963 2.853 2.926 2.902 2.914 2.957 2.890 2.926 2.939 2.920 2.957 2.951 2.951 3.006 2.988 2.994 3.006 2.969 2.988 2.951 2.393 2.423 2.380 2.405 2.313 2.417 2.399 2.411 2.485 2.411 2.380 2.417 2.442 2.460 2.580 2.552 2.491 2.429 2.485 2.595 2.595

Thickness Measurements (mm)

316L in Galfan
T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours 8 hours 24 hours 72 hours 240 hours -0.002 -0.007 -0.014 -0.021 -0.009 -0.002 -0.007 -0.008 -0.014 -0.015 -0.002 -0.001 -0.014 -0.008 -0.009 -0.002 -0.007 -0.014 -0.014 -0.009 -0.002 -0.001 -0.008 -0.014 -0.009 -0.002 -0.007 -0.020 -0.014 -0.003 0.005 -0.007 -0.014 -0.008 -0.009 -0.002 -0.007 -0.014 -0.008 -0.003 -0.008 -0.001 -0.014 -0.008 -0.015 -0.008 -0.007 -0.014 -0.008 -0.015 -0.008 -0.007 -0.008 -0.008 -0.015 -0.008 -0.001 -0.002 -0.008 -0.003 -0.008 -0.001 -0.002 -0.008 -0.009 -0.008 -0.001 -0.014 -0.002 -0.015 -0.008 -0.001 -0.008 -0.002 -0.009 -0.008 -0.001 -0.008 -0.008 -0.009 -0.002 -0.007 -0.002 -0.014 -0.015 -0.008 -0.007 -0.008 -0.014 -0.009 -0.002 -0.013 -0.014 -0.014 -0.009 -0.008 -0.007 -0.002 -0.014 -0.003 -0.002 -0.007 -0.008 -0.014 -0.015 T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10

Fe3Al in Galfan
2 hours 8 hours 24 hours 72 hours 240 hours -0.011 -0.003 -0.161 -0.344 -0.823 -0.011 -0.003 -0.131 -0.258 -0.793 -0.011 -0.003 -0.192 -0.368 -0.836 -0.005 0.003 -0.131 -0.295 -0.811 -0.011 -0.003 -0.198 -0.319 -0.903 -0.011 -0.003 -0.192 -0.307 -0.799 -0.011 -0.003 -0.217 -0.264 -0.817 -0.005 -0.003 -0.211 -0.331 -0.805 -0.011 -0.003 -0.278 -0.295 -0.731 -0.017 -0.003 -0.266 -0.282 -0.805 -0.011 -0.003 -0.309 -0.301 -0.836 -0.005 -0.003 -0.217 -0.264 -0.799 -0.011 0.003 -0.229 -0.270 -0.774 -0.011 0.003 -0.266 -0.270 -0.756 -0.011 -0.003 -0.119 -0.215 -0.636 -0.005 0.003 -0.088 -0.233 -0.664 -0.005 0.003 -0.106 -0.227 -0.725 -0.011 -0.003 -0.076 -0.215 -0.787 -0.011 -0.003 -0.155 -0.252 -0.731 -0.005 -0.003 -0.272 -0.233 -0.621 -0.005 -0.003 -0.223 -0.270 -0.621

Thickness Change (mm)

98

Figure B.9: Level 3 Thickness Measurements in Zn-5Al for On-line Corrosion Tests

316L in Galfan
2 hours T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 2.994 2.994 3.000 3.000 3.000 2.969 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 2.994 2.994 3.000 3.000 2.994 2.994 8 hours 2.994 2.988 2.988 2.994 2.988 2.988 2.988 2.988 2.988 2.988 2.982 2.988 2.988 2.994 2.994 2.988 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.988 24 hours 2.988 2.988 2.988 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.988 3.000 2.988 2.994 2.994 2.988 2.988 3.000 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.988 2.988 2.994 2.988 72 hours 240 hours 3.000 2.994 2.994 3.000 2.994 2.994 2.988 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.994 3.000 2.994 3.000 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.994 3.000 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.988 2.994 2.988 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.988 2.994 2.994 2.988 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.994 2.988 2.988 T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours 3.233 3.233 3.239 3.227 3.227 3.233 3.233 3.221 3.233 3.233 3.233 3.239 3.239 3.233 3.233 3.233 3.233 3.233 3.239 3.233 3.233

Fe3Al in Galfan
8 hours 3.239 3.233 3.239 3.227 3.233 3.239 3.239 3.239 3.239 3.239 3.239 3.233 3.233 3.239 3.239 3.233 3.239 3.233 3.239 3.239 3.233 24 hours 3.043 2.914 2.926 2.975 3.061 3.025 2.963 3.006 2.890 2.933 2.951 2.951 2.969 2.896 2.982 2.975 2.988 3.006 2.945 2.951 2.920 72 hours 240 hours 2.871 2.890 2.883 2.896 2.902 2.883 2.896 2.951 2.939 2.933 2.933 2.890 2.926 2.957 2.951 2.975 2.945 2.957 2.933 2.945 2.926 2.393 2.393 2.405 2.405 2.405 2.374 2.331 2.319 2.301 2.294 2.429 2.387 2.325 2.344 2.337 2.294 2.294 2.380 2.331 2.356 2.380

Thickness Measurements (mm)

316L in Galfan
T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.017 0.017 0.023 0.023 0.023 -0.008 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.017 0.017 0.023 0.023 0.017 0.017 8 hours 24 hours 72 hours 240 hours -0.007 -0.014 0.004 -0.009 -0.013 -0.014 -0.002 -0.009 -0.013 -0.014 -0.002 -0.015 -0.007 -0.008 0.004 -0.009 -0.013 -0.008 -0.002 -0.015 -0.013 -0.008 -0.002 -0.009 -0.013 -0.014 -0.008 -0.009 -0.013 -0.002 -0.002 -0.009 -0.013 -0.014 -0.002 -0.009 -0.013 -0.008 -0.002 -0.009 -0.019 -0.008 -0.002 -0.009 -0.013 -0.014 0.004 -0.015 -0.013 -0.014 -0.002 -0.009 -0.007 -0.002 0.004 -0.009 -0.007 -0.008 -0.002 -0.015 -0.013 -0.008 -0.002 -0.009 -0.007 -0.008 -0.002 -0.009 -0.007 -0.014 -0.002 -0.009 -0.007 -0.014 -0.002 -0.009 -0.007 -0.008 0.004 -0.015 -0.013 -0.014 -0.002 -0.015 T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours 0.026 0.026 0.032 0.020 0.020 0.026 0.026 0.014 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.032 0.032 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.032 0.026 0.026

Fe3Al in Galfan
8 hours 24 hours 72 hours 240 hours 0.027 -0.143 -0.350 -0.823 0.021 -0.272 -0.331 -0.823 0.027 -0.260 -0.338 -0.811 0.015 -0.211 -0.325 -0.811 0.021 -0.125 -0.319 -0.811 0.027 -0.161 -0.338 -0.842 0.027 -0.223 -0.325 -0.885 0.027 -0.180 -0.270 -0.897 0.027 -0.296 -0.282 -0.915 0.027 -0.253 -0.288 -0.922 0.027 -0.235 -0.288 -0.787 0.021 -0.235 -0.331 -0.829 0.021 -0.217 -0.295 -0.891 0.027 -0.290 -0.264 -0.872 0.027 -0.204 -0.270 -0.879 0.021 -0.211 -0.246 -0.922 0.027 -0.198 -0.276 -0.922 0.021 -0.180 -0.264 -0.836 0.027 -0.241 -0.288 -0.885 0.027 -0.235 -0.276 -0.860 0.021 -0.266 -0.295 -0.836

Thickness Change (mm)

99

Figure B.10: Level 1 Thickness Measurements in Zn-55Al for On-line Corrosion Tests

316L in galvalume
2 hours T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2.988 2.982 3.000 3.006 3.006 3.006 3.006 3.006 3.006 3.000 3.000 2.994 2.988 2.994 2.994 2.988 2.994 2.994 3.000 3.000 3.000 8 hours 2.963 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.963 2.975 2.963 2.957 2.963 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.963 2.963 2.963 2.963 2.982 2.969 2.963 24 hours 2.926 2.920 2.933 2.920 2.926 2.926 2.926 2.926 2.926 2.933 2.926 2.926 2.926 2.926 2.939 2.933 2.933 2.939 2.945 2.951 2.939 72 hours 2.902 2.896 2.896 2.902 2.902 2.902 2.902 2.902 2.896 2.896 2.896 2.902 2.896 2.896 2.896 2.908 2.902 2.902 2.902 2.908 2.896 240 hours 2.859 2.853 2.853 2.859 2.859 2.853 2.853 2.853 2.859 2.853 2.853 2.847 2.853 2.853 2.853 2.853 2.853 2.853 2.853 2.853 2.853 T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10

Fe3Al in galvalume
2 hours 3.209 3.209 3.209 3.209 3.202 3.202 3.209 3.215 3.202 3.202 3.202 3.215 3.209 3.202 3.209 3.209 3.209 3.209 3.202 3.202 3.215 8 hours 3.178 3.172 3.178 3.190 3.178 3.178 3.178 3.184 3.190 3.190 3.184 3.190 3.190 3.172 3.172 3.190 3.178 3.172 3.190 3.184 3.178 24 hours 3.025 3.025 3.025 3.025 3.031 3.031 3.031 3.043 3.043 3.043 3.031 3.074 3.061 3.049 3.074 3.061 3.074 3.074 3.074 3.055 3.055 72 hours 240 hours 1.368 1.601 2.012 2.638 2.730 2.822 2.699 2.693 2.724 2.748 2.699 2.699 2.785 2.748 2.693 2.706 2.798 2.748 2.816 1.153 0.804

Thickness Measurements (mm)

316L in galvalume
T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours -0.001 -0.007 0.011 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.011 0.011 0.005 -0.001 0.005 0.005 -0.001 0.005 0.005 0.011 0.011 0.011 8 hours 24 hours 72 hours 240 hours -0.028 -0.058 -0.081 -0.135 -0.022 -0.064 -0.087 -0.141 -0.022 -0.051 -0.087 -0.141 -0.022 -0.064 -0.081 -0.135 -0.022 -0.058 -0.081 -0.135 -0.022 -0.058 -0.081 -0.141 -0.028 -0.058 -0.081 -0.141 -0.016 -0.058 -0.081 -0.141 -0.028 -0.058 -0.087 -0.135 -0.034 -0.051 -0.087 -0.141 -0.028 -0.058 -0.087 -0.141 -0.022 -0.058 -0.081 -0.147 -0.022 -0.058 -0.087 -0.141 -0.022 -0.058 -0.087 -0.141 -0.028 -0.045 -0.087 -0.141 -0.028 -0.051 -0.075 -0.141 -0.028 -0.051 -0.081 -0.141 -0.028 -0.045 -0.081 -0.141 -0.009 -0.039 -0.081 -0.141 -0.022 -0.033 -0.075 -0.141 -0.028 -0.045 -0.087 -0.141 T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10

Fe3Al in galvalume
2 hours 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 -0.005 -0.005 0.002 0.008 -0.005 -0.005 -0.005 0.008 0.002 -0.005 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 -0.005 -0.005 0.008 8 hours 24 hours 72 hours 240 hours -0.032 -0.173 -1.820 -0.038 -0.173 -1.587 -0.032 -0.173 -1.176 -0.020 -0.173 -0.550 -0.032 -0.167 -0.458 -0.032 -0.167 -0.366 -0.032 -0.167 -0.489 -0.026 -0.155 -0.495 -0.020 -0.155 -0.464 -0.020 -0.155 -0.440 -0.026 -0.167 -0.489 -0.020 -0.124 -0.489 -0.020 -0.137 -0.403 -0.038 -0.149 -0.440 -0.038 -0.124 -0.495 -0.020 -0.137 -0.482 -0.032 -0.124 -0.390 -0.038 -0.124 -0.440 -0.020 -0.124 -0.372 -0.026 -0.143 -2.035 -0.032 -0.143 -2.384

Thickness Change (mm)

100

Figure B.11: Level 2 Thickness Measurements in Zn-55Al for On-line Corrosion Tests

316L in galvalume
2 hours T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 3.000 3.000 3.006 3.000 3.006 2.994 3.000 3.000 2.994 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.006 3.000 3.000 3.006 2.994 3.000 3.006 3.000 3.000 8 hours 2.969 2.963 2.963 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.963 2.969 2.963 2.957 2.969 2.963 2.963 2.963 2.969 2.963 2.963 2.957 2.963 2.957 24 hours 2.920 2.920 2.920 2.926 2.920 2.920 2.920 2.920 2.920 2.920 2.926 2.926 2.920 2.920 2.920 2.920 2.920 2.920 2.920 2.920 2.914 72 hours 2.902 2.902 2.902 2.902 2.902 2.902 2.902 2.908 2.902 2.902 2.908 2.908 2.902 2.902 2.902 2.902 2.902 2.902 2.896 2.902 2.902 240 hours 2.834 2.834 2.840 2.853 2.853 2.853 2.847 2.847 2.853 2.853 2.853 2.853 2.853 2.847 2.847 2.847 2.847 2.847 2.847 2.853 2.847 T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10

Fe3Al in galvalume
2 hours 3.202 3.209 3.215 3.202 3.202 3.209 3.209 3.209 3.209 3.202 3.209 3.202 3.202 3.190 3.190 3.190 3.190 3.202 3.209 3.202 3.196 8 hours 3.190 3.178 3.184 3.166 3.184 3.160 3.172 3.184 3.184 3.184 3.184 3.190 3.178 3.178 3.190 3.190 3.172 3.178 3.166 3.190 3.166 24 hours 3.049 3.043 3.043 3.061 3.055 3.049 3.055 3.037 3.037 3.043 3.043 3.055 3.055 3.055 3.055 3.061 3.061 3.049 3.055 3.055 3.037 72 hours 240 hours 2.742 2.767 2.669 2.663 2.693 2.712 2.699 2.687 2.706 2.736 2.687 2.773 2.693 2.681 2.699 2.693 2.730 2.681 2.718 2.718 2.699

Thickness Measurements (mm)

316L in galvalume
T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours 0.011 0.011 0.017 0.011 0.017 0.005 0.011 0.011 0.005 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.017 0.011 0.011 0.017 0.005 0.011 0.017 0.011 0.011 8 hours 24 hours 72 hours 240 hours -0.022 -0.064 -0.081 -0.160 -0.028 -0.064 -0.081 -0.160 -0.028 -0.064 -0.081 -0.154 -0.022 -0.058 -0.081 -0.141 -0.022 -0.064 -0.081 -0.141 -0.022 -0.064 -0.081 -0.141 -0.022 -0.064 -0.081 -0.147 -0.028 -0.064 -0.075 -0.147 -0.022 -0.064 -0.081 -0.141 -0.028 -0.064 -0.081 -0.141 -0.034 -0.058 -0.075 -0.141 -0.022 -0.058 -0.075 -0.141 -0.028 -0.064 -0.081 -0.141 -0.028 -0.064 -0.081 -0.147 -0.028 -0.064 -0.081 -0.147 -0.022 -0.064 -0.081 -0.147 -0.028 -0.064 -0.081 -0.147 -0.028 -0.064 -0.081 -0.147 -0.034 -0.064 -0.087 -0.147 -0.028 -0.064 -0.081 -0.141 -0.034 -0.070 -0.081 -0.147 T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10

Fe3Al in galvalume
2 hours -0.005 0.002 0.008 -0.005 -0.005 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 -0.005 0.002 -0.005 -0.005 -0.017 -0.017 -0.017 -0.017 -0.005 0.002 -0.005 -0.011 8 hours 24 hours 72 hours 240 hours -0.020 -0.149 -0.446 -0.032 -0.155 -0.421 -0.026 -0.155 -0.519 -0.044 -0.137 -0.525 -0.026 -0.143 -0.495 -0.050 -0.149 -0.476 -0.038 -0.143 -0.489 -0.026 -0.161 -0.501 -0.026 -0.161 -0.482 -0.026 -0.155 -0.452 -0.026 -0.155 -0.501 -0.020 -0.143 -0.415 -0.032 -0.143 -0.495 -0.032 -0.143 -0.507 -0.020 -0.143 -0.489 -0.020 -0.137 -0.495 -0.038 -0.137 -0.458 -0.032 -0.149 -0.507 -0.044 -0.143 -0.470 -0.020 -0.143 -0.470 -0.044 -0.161 -0.489

Thickness Change (mm)

101

Figure B.12: Level 3 Thickness Measurements in Zn-55Al for On-line Corrosion Tests

316L in galvalume
2 hours T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2.982 2.975 2.982 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.982 2.975 2.969 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.969 2.975 2.969 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.982 2.982 8 hours 2.975 2.969 2.975 2.975 2.982 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.969 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.969 2.975 2.969 2.969 2.969 2.975 24 hours 2.951 2.951 2.951 2.957 2.963 2.951 2.969 2.957 2.951 2.951 2.951 2.951 2.945 2.951 2.957 2.957 2.957 2.945 2.951 2.957 2.963 72 hours 2.920 2.914 2.920 2.920 2.914 2.920 2.920 2.914 2.914 2.908 2.908 2.908 2.908 2.908 2.908 2.908 2.908 2.908 2.914 2.908 2.902 240 hours 2.877 2.877 2.871 2.877 2.871 2.871 2.877 2.877 2.877 2.871 2.877 2.877 2.877 2.877 2.877 2.877 2.877 2.877 2.871 2.877 2.871 T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10

Fe3Al in galvalume
2 hours 3.190 3.190 3.190 3.190 3.196 3.202 3.202 3.202 3.196 3.196 3.190 3.196 3.196 3.196 3.202 3.202 3.202 3.196 3.190 3.196 3.196 8 hours 3.178 3.153 3.172 3.178 3.190 3.178 3.184 3.178 3.178 3.172 3.184 3.190 3.178 3.172 3.190 3.190 3.178 3.184 3.172 3.190 3.178 24 hours 3.135 3.129 3.141 3.129 3.135 3.129 3.129 3.123 3.135 3.141 3.135 3.141 3.129 3.129 3.098 3.092 3.135 3.129 3.135 3.135 3.135 72 hours 240 hours 2.785 2.779 2.810 2.822 2.779 2.773 2.834 2.810 2.828 2.761 2.816 2.791 2.767 2.785 2.798 2.840 2.804 2.767 2.816 2.798 2.828

Thickness Measurements (mm)

316L in galvalume
T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2 hours -0.007 -0.014 -0.007 -0.014 -0.014 -0.014 -0.007 -0.014 -0.020 -0.014 -0.014 -0.014 -0.020 -0.014 -0.020 -0.014 -0.014 -0.014 -0.014 -0.007 -0.007 8 hours 24 hours 72 hours 240 hours -0.016 -0.033 -0.063 -0.117 -0.022 -0.033 -0.069 -0.117 -0.016 -0.033 -0.063 -0.123 -0.016 -0.027 -0.063 -0.117 -0.009 -0.021 -0.069 -0.123 -0.016 -0.033 -0.063 -0.123 -0.016 -0.015 -0.063 -0.117 -0.016 -0.027 -0.069 -0.117 -0.022 -0.033 -0.069 -0.117 -0.016 -0.033 -0.075 -0.123 -0.016 -0.033 -0.075 -0.117 -0.016 -0.033 -0.075 -0.117 -0.016 -0.039 -0.075 -0.117 -0.016 -0.033 -0.075 -0.117 -0.016 -0.027 -0.075 -0.117 -0.022 -0.027 -0.075 -0.117 -0.016 -0.027 -0.075 -0.117 -0.022 -0.039 -0.075 -0.117 -0.022 -0.033 -0.069 -0.123 -0.022 -0.027 -0.075 -0.117 -0.016 -0.021 -0.081 -0.123 T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10

Fe3Al in galvalume
2 hours -0.017 -0.017 -0.017 -0.017 -0.011 -0.005 -0.005 -0.005 -0.011 -0.011 -0.017 -0.011 -0.011 -0.011 -0.005 -0.005 -0.005 -0.011 -0.017 -0.011 -0.011 8 hours 24 hours 72 hours 240 hours -0.032 -0.063 -0.403 -0.057 -0.069 -0.409 -0.038 -0.057 -0.378 -0.032 -0.069 -0.366 -0.020 -0.063 -0.409 -0.032 -0.069 -0.415 -0.026 -0.069 -0.354 -0.032 -0.075 -0.378 -0.032 -0.063 -0.360 -0.038 -0.057 -0.427 -0.026 -0.063 -0.372 -0.020 -0.057 -0.397 -0.032 -0.069 -0.421 -0.038 -0.069 -0.403 -0.020 -0.100 -0.390 -0.020 -0.106 -0.348 -0.032 -0.063 -0.384 -0.026 -0.069 -0.421 -0.038 -0.063 -0.372 -0.020 -0.063 -0.390 -0.032 -0.063 -0.360

Thickness Change (mm)

102

Figure B.13: Thickness Measurements in Al-8Si for Static Tests

316L in Al-8Si
460 C T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 560 C 660 C 2.705 2.664 2.685 2.726 2.788 2.740 2.651 2.630 2.610 2.712 2.685 2.678 2.644 2.630 2.616 2.658 2.671 2.678 2.671 2.623 2.630 760 C T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 460 C

Fe3Al in Al-8Si
560 C 660 C 2.260 2.247 2.247 2.247 2.260 2.274 2.295 2.315 2.356 2.342 2.336 2.363 2.336 2.315 2.315 2.308 2.301 2.281 2.363 2.270 2.270 760 C dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10

FeCrSi in Al-8Si
460 C 560 C 660 C 6.221 6.209 6.209 6.178 6.209 6.160 6.221 6.220 6.209 6.221 6.209 6.221 6.159 6.160 6.209 6.178 6.209 6.221 6.209 6.178 6.209 760 C

Thickness measurements (mm)

316L in Al-8Si
460 C T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 560 C 660 C 0.268 0.309 0.288 0.247 0.185 0.233 0.322 0.343 0.363 0.261 0.288 0.295 0.329 0.343 0.357 0.315 0.302 0.295 0.302 0.350 0.343 0.302 760 C T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 460 C

Fe3Al in Al-8Si
560 C 660 C 0.281 0.294 0.294 0.294 0.281 0.267 0.246 0.226 0.185 0.199 0.205 0.178 0.205 0.226 0.226 0.233 0.240 0.260 0.178 0.271 0.271 0.241 760 C T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10

FeCrSi in Al-8Si
460 C 560 C 660 C 0.131 0.143 0.143 0.174 0.143 0.192 0.131 0.132 0.143 0.131 0.143 0.131 0.193 0.192 0.143 0.174 0.143 0.131 0.143 0.174 0.143 0.151 760 C

Thickness Loss (mm)

103

Figure B.14: Thickness Measurements in Zinc for Static Tests

316L in Zinc
460 C T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2.761 2.761 2.779 2.761 2.767 2.779 2.767 2.810 2.773 2.761 2.755 2.767 2.761 2.761 2.779 2.761 2.761 2.767 2.773 2.767 2.761 560 C 2.699 2.706 2.699 2.699 2.706 2.699 2.699 2.699 2.699 2.706 2.699 2.699 2.693 2.699 2.699 2.699 2.693 2.706 2.699 2.699 2.693 660 C 1.939 1.939 1.914 1.920 1.908 1.908 1.920 1.920 1.914 1.914 1.920 1.945 1.945 1.945 1.926 1.939 1.939 1.945 1.926 1.939 1.982 760 C T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 460 C

Fe3Al in Zinc
560 C 2.098 2.086 2.049 2.037 2.055 2.037 2.043 2.018 2.012 2.018 2.055 2.037 2.061 2.025 2.012 2.006 2.031 2.012 2.025 2.006 2.012 660 C dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved 760 C ------------------------------------------T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10

FeCrSi in Zinc
460 C 6.313 6.313 6.300 6.300 6.301 6.300 6.307 6.307 6.313 6.313 6.313 6.313 6.313 6.313 6.315 6.307 6.313 6.313 6.307 6.313 6.307 560 C 6.018 6.018 6.012 5.994 5.994 6.012 5.994 5.963 5.994 5.969 5.982 6.006 6.019 6.012 5.994 5.994 6.012 6.018 5.994 6.012 5.994 660 C 5.337 5.412 5.430 5.405 5.430 5.509 5.356 5.355 5.412 5.337 5.362 5.301 5.313 5.294 5.258 5.270 5.319 5.277 5.270 5.343 5.356

2.184 2.196 2.190 2.202 2.196 2.166 2.196 2.190 2.166 2.196 2.166 2.153 2.178 2.184 2.172 2.123 2.172 2.184 2.190 2.172 2.190

Thickness measurements (mm)

316L in Zinc
T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 460 C 0.237 0.237 0.219 0.237 0.231 0.219 0.231 0.188 0.225 0.237 0.243 0.231 0.237 0.237 0.219 0.237 0.237 0.231 0.225 0.231 0.237 560 C 0.299 0.292 0.299 0.299 0.292 0.299 0.299 0.299 0.299 0.292 0.299 0.299 0.305 0.299 0.299 0.299 0.305 0.292 0.299 0.299 0.305 660 C 1.034 1.034 1.059 1.053 1.065 1.065 1.053 1.053 1.059 1.059 1.053 1.028 1.028 1.028 1.047 1.034 1.034 1.028 1.047 1.034 0.991 760 C T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10

Fe3Al in Zinc
460 C 0.357 0.345 0.351 0.339 0.345 0.375 0.345 0.351 0.375 0.345 0.375 0.388 0.363 0.357 0.369 0.418 0.369 0.357 0.351 0.369 0.351 560 C 0.443 0.455 0.492 0.504 0.486 0.504 0.498 0.523 0.529 0.523 0.486 0.504 0.480 0.516 0.529 0.535 0.510 0.529 0.516 0.535 0.529 660 C 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 760 C T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10

FeCrSi in Zinc
460 C 0.064 0.064 0.077 0.077 0.076 0.077 0.070 0.070 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.062 0.070 0.064 0.064 0.070 0.064 0.070 560 C 0.207 0.207 0.213 0.231 0.231 0.213 0.231 0.262 0.231 0.256 0.243 0.219 0.206 0.213 0.231 0.231 0.213 0.207 0.231 0.213 0.231 660 C 1.015 0.940 0.922 0.947 0.922 0.843 0.996 0.997 0.940 1.015 0.990 1.051 1.039 1.058 1.094 1.082 1.033 1.075 1.082 1.009 0.996

Thickness Loss (mm)

104

Figure B.15: Thickness Measurements in Zn-5Al for Static Tests

316L in Galfan
460 C T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 2.975 2.975 2.982 2.975 2.969 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.969 2.969 2.975 2.975 2.969 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.982 560 C 2.969 2.969 2.975 2.975 2.969 2.969 2.975 2.969 2.969 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.969 2.969 2.975 2.969 2.969 2.975 2.975 2.975 2.975 660 C 2.939 2.945 2.939 2.945 2.939 2.939 2.939 2.945 2.939 2.945 2.939 2.939 2.939 2.939 2.939 2.939 2.945 2.939 2.945 2.939 2.945 760 C T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 460 C

Fe3Al in Galfan
560 C 0.859 0.859 0.834 0.914 0.883 1.022 0.902 0.908 0.951 0.939 0.939 0.920 0.951 0.902 0.939 0.933 0.994 0.871 0.865 0.840 0.779 660 C dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved 760 C ------------------------------------------T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10

FeCrSi in Galfan
460 C 6.257 6.252 6.270 6.264 6.264 6.264 6.264 6.252 6.270 6.270 6.282 6.270 6.270 6.270 6.264 6.264 6.264 6.270 6.264 6.257 6.257 560 C 6.159 6.190 6.196 6.104 6.220 6.160 6.148 6.197 6.172 6.092 6.210 6.165 6.184 6.135 6.184 6.220 6.196 6.196 6.196 6.160 6.184 660 C dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved

2.613 2.601 2.595 2.595 2.595 2.601 2.583 2.583 2.583 2.583 2.583 2.571 2.571 2.577 2.577 2.583 2.577 2.583 2.583 2.583 2.577

Thickness measurements (mm)

316L in Galfan
T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 460 C 0.000 0.000 -0.007 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.007 560 C 0.006 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.006 0.000 0.006 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.006 0.000 0.006 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 660 C 0.021 0.015 0.021 0.015 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.015 0.021 0.015 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.015 0.021 0.015 0.021 0.015 760 C T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10

Fe3Al in Galfan
460 C -0.023 -0.011 -0.005 -0.005 -0.005 -0.011 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.019 0.019 0.013 0.013 0.007 0.013 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.013 560 C 1.682 1.682 1.707 1.627 1.658 1.519 1.639 1.633 1.590 1.602 1.602 1.621 1.590 1.639 1.602 1.608 1.547 1.670 1.676 1.701 1.762 660 C 2.554 2.554 2.554 2.554 2.554 2.554 2.554 2.554 2.554 2.554 2.554 2.554 2.554 2.554 2.554 2.554 2.554 2.554 2.554 2.554 2.554 760 C T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10

FeCrSi in Galfan
460 C 0.120 0.125 0.107 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.125 0.107 0.107 0.095 0.107 0.107 0.107 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.107 0.113 0.120 0.120 560 C 0.193 0.162 0.156 0.248 0.132 0.192 0.204 0.155 0.180 0.260 0.142 0.187 0.168 0.217 0.168 0.132 0.156 0.156 0.156 0.192 0.168 660 C 6.212 6.212 6.212 6.212 6.212 6.212 6.212 6.212 6.212 6.212 6.212 6.212 6.212 6.212 6.212 6.212 6.212 6.212 6.212 6.212 6.212

Thickness Loss (mm)

105

Figure B.16: Thickness Measurements in Zn-55Al for Static Tests

316L in galvalume
460 C T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 560 C 660 C 2.540 2.491 2.626 2.595 2.607 2.613 2.564 2.534 2.589 2.571 2.577 2.521 2.552 2.650 2.638 2.601 2.613 2.577 2.589 2.546 2.564 760 C T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10

Fe3Al in galvalume
460 C 560 C 660 C dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved dissolved 760 C -------------------------------------------

FeCrSi in galvalume
460 C T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 560 C 660 C 6.123 6.123 6.129 6.123 6.129 6.129 6.117 6.153 6.135 6.123 6.123 6.129 6.135 6.141 6.147 6.141 6.147 6.123 6.141 6.123 6.135 760 C

Thickness measurements (mm)

316L in galvalume
460 C T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 560 C 660 C 0.433 0.482 0.347 0.378 0.366 0.360 0.409 0.439 0.384 0.402 0.396 0.452 0.421 0.323 0.335 0.372 0.360 0.396 0.384 0.427 0.409 760 C T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10

Fe3Al in galvalume
460 C 560 C 660 C 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 2.541 760 C T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 C B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10

FeCrSi in galvalume
460 C 560 C 660 C 0.166 0.166 0.160 0.166 0.160 0.160 0.171 0.136 0.154 0.166 0.166 0.160 0.154 0.148 0.142 0.148 0.142 0.166 0.148 0.166 0.154 760 C

Thickness Loss (mm)

106

Vita

Name: Date of Birth: Place of Birth: Education:

Matthew L. Burris May 27, 1976 Lynchburg, Virginia Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering West Virginia University, Morgantown WV Graduated: May 2000

Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering West Virginia University, Morgantown WV Graduated: May 1998

Hurricane High School, Hurricane WV Graduated: June 1994