Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
In
Industrial Engineering
At
Jordan University of Science and Technology
Student
Mohammad Ahmad Gharaibeh
20040029019
Supervisor
Dr. Mohammed Hayajneh
Examiners
Prof. Adel M. Hassan
Dr. Abdullah Al-Rashdan
To my brother Faris, who helped me to build this project step by step, he provided me
information I need.
project.
This project aimed to compare the corrosion resistance behavior of AISI 316 and AISI 304
stainless steels in the hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid and the Dead Sea water. Several
specimens of steels were immersed in different concentration of the acids and in the Dead
Sea water, for a period of three months, the mass was measured weekly. The results showed
that the acid concentration increases the mass loss when it increases. Also; the Hydrochloric
acid is more corrosive than the Sulfuric acid and the Dead Sea water, and the AISI 304
Stainless steel more resistive to chemicals and water used than the AISI 316 stainless steel.
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Table 1. Comparison between slopes of the acids curves effecting on AISI 304. 23
Table 2. Comparison between slopes of the acids curves effecting on AISI 316. 24
Table B1. Chemical Composition of AISI 304. 33
Table B2. Mechanical Properties of AISI 304. 33
Table B3. Thermal Properties of AISI 304. 33
Table B4. Electrical Properties of AISI 304. 34
Table B5. Chemical Composition of AISI 316. 34
Table B6. Mechanical Properties of AISI 316. 34
Table B7. Thermal Properties of AISI 316. 35
Table B8. Electrical Properties of AISI 316. 35
Table C1. Properties of Hydrochloric Acid. 37
Table C2. Properties of Sulfuric Acid. 38
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Figure 1. The experimental setup: steels, medium and plastic container. 12
Figure 2. The sensitive balance showing 0.1 mg precision. 13
Figure 3. The effect of HCl on AISI 304 at different concentrations 14
Figure 4. The effect of HCl on AISI 316 at different concentrations 15
Figure 5. The effect of H2SO4 on AISI 304 at different concentrations 16
Figure 6. The effect of H2SO4 on AISI 316 at different concentrations 17
Figure 7. The effect of HCl on AISI 316 and AISI 304 at 0.1M 18
Figure 8. The effect of HCl on AISI 316 and AISI 304 at 0.3M 18
Figure 9. The effect of HCl on AISI 316 and 304 at 0.7M 19
Figure 10. The effect of H2SO4 on AISI 316 and AISI 304 at 0.1M 20
Figure 11. The effect of H2SO4 on AISI 316 and AISI 304 at 0.3M 21
Figure 12. The effect of H2SO4 on AISI 316 and AISI 304 at 0.7M 21
Figure 13. The effect of HCl and H2SO4 on AISI 304 22
Figure 14. The effect of HCl and H2SO4 on AISI 316 23
Figure 15. The effect of the Dead Sea water on AISI 316 and AISI 304 24
NOMENCLATURE
Symbols
ao Y-axis intercept g
a1 Coefficient of X mg/week
a2 Coefficient of X2 mg/week2
a3 Coefficient of X3 mg/week3
b Slope of the linear function mg/week
R2 Coefficient of determination -
St The total sum of squared the residuals between the data points and the
mean. g2
Sr The sum of squared residuals between the data points and regression curve. g2
X Time Week
Y Specimen Mass g
Abbreviations
AISI 304 AISI 304 stainless steel
AISI 316 AISI 316 stainless steel
HCl Hydrochloric Acid
H2SO4 Sulfuric Acid
M Molar
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. THEORY 3
2.1 CORROSION AND CORROSION RESISTANCE 3
2.2 MATHEMATICAL APPROACH 9
3. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS 11
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 14
4.1 THE EFFECTS BASED ON THE ACIDS CONCENTRATION 14
4.2 THE EFFECTS BASED ON THE STEEL TYPE 17
4.3 THE EFFECTS BASED ON THE ACID USED 22
5. CONCLUSIONS 26
6. RECOMMENDATIONS 27
7. REFERENCES 28
APPENDIX A 29
APPENDIX B 32
APPENDIX C 36
1. INTRODUCTION
Many industrial applications especially in chemical plants, such as fertilizer factories,
have harsh environments such as hydrochloric acid and sulfuric acid. Also in Jordan many
plants use the Dead Sea water in their processes like the salt producing plants.
So, this project aimed to compare the anti-corrosive behavior of the stainless steels AISI
304 and AISI 316 against these acids and the Dead Sea water, we selected the stainless steels
because they resist corrosion; this achieved by dissolving sufficient chromium in the iron to
produce film on the surface which isolates protects the steel from corrosion.[1,2]
The stainless character occurs when the concentration of chromium exceeds about 12
wt%. However, even this is not adequate to resist corrosion in acids such as HCl or H2SO4;
higher chromium concentrations and the judicious use of other solutes such as molybdenum,
engineering design. For this reason, there is a huge variety of alloys available, but they can
Many researches are now took place to improve the chemical and surface properties of
solid materials. Such as increasing the corrosion resistance, etching and cleaning. [5]. But
the mass loss rate. The regression techniques were performed in this work after the masses
are plotted on many figures to get the best fit to these data points according to the coefficient
of determination, the following paragraphs will illustrate the experiment used in this project
in a clear manner.
2. THEORY
The theoretical background in this project is divided into two main categories the first
one is the corrosion and the corrosion resistance and the other one is the mathematical
“statistical”, by using the techniques of least square regression to fit the data into good fits
The corrosion of metals has many definitions, one of them defining it as the destructive
and unintentional attack of a metal; it is electrochemical and ordinarily begins at the surface
[4], another definition says it is breaking down of essential properties in a material due to
chemical reactions with its surroundings [6], and a wide definition tells it is the erosion by
chemical reaction [7]. So from these three definitions we can summarize the principle of
corrosion as a chemical action that causes the gradual deterioration of the surface of a metal
reaction [4]
The site at which oxidation takes place is called the anode; oxidation
The electrons generated from each metal atom that is oxidized must
Any metal ions present in the solution may also be reduced; for ions
that can exist in more than one valence state (multivalent ions), reduction
may occur by
oxidation and one reduction reaction, and will be the sum of them; often
electrons and ions; that is, the total rate of oxidation must equal the total
the corrosion properties of the materials that are in contact with it. In
due to erosive effects. The rates of most chemical reactions rise with
increasing temperature; this also holds for the great majority of corrosion
deformation processes are used to shape the head and point of a nail;
consequently, these positions are anodic with respect to the shank region.
equivalent intensity over the entire exposed surface and often leaves
examples include general rusting of steel and iron and the tarnishing of
the least objectionable because it can be predicted and designed for with
inert metal, the cathode, will be protected from corrosion. For example,
or if copper and steel tubing are joined in a domestic water heater, the
dirt or corrosion products where the solution becomes stagnant and there
crevice must be wide enough for the solution to penetrate, yet narrow
small pits or holes form. They ordinarily penetrate from the top of a
for some alloys and in a specific environment. The net result is that a
to temperatures between 500 and 800oC (950 and 1450oF) for sufficiently
chromium and carbon in the stainless steel. These particles form along
the grain boundaries both the chromium and the carbon must diffuse to
only a porous mass of copper remains in the region that has been
copper color. Selective leaching may also occur with other alloy systems
forming a protective surface film; the abrasive action may erode away the
film, leaving exposed a bare metal surface. If the coating is not capable of
be severe. Relatively soft metals such as copper and lead are also
grooves and waves having contours that are characteristic of the flow of
stress, with the result that failure may eventually occur. Failure behavior
is characteristic of that for a brittle material, even though the metal alloy
order to fit the data points into good fits according to the value of the coefficient of
determination R2.
Y= bX + ao (8)
Where:
The third order polynomial is also used in the coming paragraphs in the form of [9]
Where:
To examine whether the fit is good or poor we used the coefficient of determination R2.
St − S r
R2 = , (10)
St
Where:
St: is the total sum of the squared residuals between the data points and the mean.
Sr: is the sum of the squared residuals between the data points and the regression curve.
For this project seven similar specimens have been selected with dimensions of 4×7 cm
and 2 mm thickness, for each type of steel 7 specimens, these specimens to be arranged as
the following:
ml for pieces immersed in Dead Sea water, and they were contained in a plastic container.
See figure 1.
The mass was measured weekly, after removing the specimens from solutes using a
cheap plastic grabber; the specimens are dried using a clean dry cloth the left 10 minutes to
assure the dryness conditions of them, to avoid weighing the acids or water, and then using a
sensitive electronic balance (figure 2) with precision of 0.1 mg (0.0001 grams) the mass are
weighed and the data results are recorded, this operation was done during three months for
the steels immersed in acids and two months to the steels immersed in Dead Sea water.
Figure 2. The sensitive balance showing 0.1 mg precision.
Then the data points are collected and plotted on different figures using the MS-Excel
In this chapter 13 figures will be discussed in order to conclude the results of our
project, the equations appear in the figures are fitted using the MS-Excel.
The following 4 figures will show us the corrosive effect of the acid concentrations on
From the figure above it is clearly seen that is the higher concentration of HCl is the
higher corrosive effect (mass loss) in the steels specimens, a fit of third order polynomial is
used for the three curves, the equations and coefficient of determinations appear on the
different curves, the values or R2 represents that is the fit used fit is good one. At the higher
concentration (0.7M) the loss in mass starts in a rapid mode (up to week 5) and then it
Here also we can see that the higher HCl concentration is the higher corrosive effect on
the AISI 316 steel specimens, a linear regression is used here which provides a good fit
according to the R2 values. An observation is clear here, at low concentrations (0.1 M) the
slope is very low (-25.4 mg/week) but at the high concentration (0.7 M) it was (-399.7
A strange phenomenon occurred here, the lowest concentration of H2SO4 (0.1 M) has
the maximum mass loss rate in AISI 304 specimens at a slope of (-18.0 mg/week), at (0.3 M)
of concentration the slope is (-6.0 mg/week), it rises up again at (0.7 M) (-13.1 mg/week) but
Not unexpected results are shown here; the higher concentration of H2SO4 is the higher
mass loss rate in AISI 316 pieces, as shown from the slopes and the values of mass loss,with
a linear pattern that can be fitted linearly with a high accuracy, which can be evaluated from
R 2.
The following 6 figures will show us the corrosive effects according to the steel used in
the experiment of this project, 3 figures are for HCl and 3 figures are for H2SO4
Figure 7. The effect of HCl on AISI 304 and AISI 316 at 0.1M.
Figure 8. The effect of HCl on AISI 304 and AISI 316 at 0.3M.
Figure 9. The effect of HCl on AISI 304 and AISI 316 at 0.7M.
We can see clearly from the preceding 3 figures (7, 8 and 9) that is the AISI 316 has a
greater mass loss rate at the 3 different concentrations, which means the AISI 316 has less
corrosion resistance to HCl than the AISI 304, which is expected, the AISI 304 has a greater
chromium contents which helped it to resist the chemical effect of this acid, a third order
polynomial fit is used here in order to reduce the value of R2 as much as possible to have a
good comparison.
.
Figure 10. The effect of H2SO4 on AISI 316 and AISI 304 at 0.1M.
In this low concentration comparison (figure 10) the AISI 316 shows a higher
resistance to H2SO4 at this time, its curve is lying below the curve of AISI 304, Then the AISI
304 has lower resistance to H2SO4 at low concentrations and higher mass loss rate.
Figure 11. The effect of H2SO4 on AISI 316 and AISI 304 at 0.3M.
Figure 12. The effect of H2SO4 on AISI 316 and AISI 304 at 0.7M.
For this two figures (11 and 12) a higher concentrations is used, the AISI 304 again
shows a high corrosion resistance behavior to the H2SO4 acid. For example the slope of AISI
304 curve at 0.7M is (-13.1 mg/week) where it is (-22.8 mg/week) for the other steel type.
The following two figures (for figure for each steel type) show 6 curves in each, the 3
dashed styles are used to represent the HCl immersed specimens, and the other 3 solid curves
We can summarize the figure above by, the HCl curves are showing faster corrosion
rates (mass losses) than the H2SO4 curves in AISI 304 specimens, for example if we
approximated the equation of the curve of AISI 304 at 0.1M HCl by omitting the first two
terms which are almost Zero, to have a linear relation, we get a slope of (-76.2 mg/week)
which is greater than the slope of the lower concentration of H2SO4 (maximum mass loss)
which it is (-18.0 mg/week), that’s means the HCl is more corrosive to this steel.
Table 1. Comparison between slopes of the acids curves effecting on AISI 304.
As stated in the preceding paragraphs describing the fig. 13, here also we can make the
same description; in other words, the HCl curves of AISI 316 shows rapid growing up (mass
loss) more than the H2SO4 curves did. Also, and by comparing the slopes of the lowest
concentration of HCl and highest one for H2SO4 we make the same conclusion made before.
Table 2. Comparison between slopes of the acids curves effecting on AISI 316.
Figure 15. The effect of Dead Sea water on AISI 316 and AISI 304.
This figure (fig.15) shows the effect of the Dead Sea water on both types of steels, we
can identify here that the effect of this medium is low compared with the acids effects,
another note here should be added, that the effects on both types is equal somehow, with
more increasing biases to AISI 304 (slope of -4.9 mg/week), as not expected, because it
contains greater chromium contents so it should resist more than AISI 316 (slope of -4.1
mg/week).
5. CONCLUSIONS
• The concentration of the acids used is strongly affects the mass loss rate (Figures3, 4,
5 and 6)
• The HCl concentration effect: the higher HCl concentration is the higher corrosive
• The H2SO4 concentration effect: in AISI 316 steel, the higher H2SO4 concentration is
the higher mass loss rate, (Figure 6), but in AISI 304 the lowest H2SO4 concentration
• The HCl has extra corrosive effects on AISI 316 more than AISI 304 at all
• The H2SO4 is more corrosive on AISI 304 at low concentrations (Figure 10), but more
• HCl has more corrosive trends on both steels greater than H2SO4 at all concentrations
• The effect of Dead Sea water is very low compared to the acids ones, and it is equal
for both steels with small increase in AISI 304, (Figure 15).
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
Many recommendations can be stated here in order to improve the functionality of this
project, first of all, more concentration may shall use in higher values, the usage of pure acids
Maybe some heat treatments ought to be done to the steels in order to improve the
surface resistive properties, with more data points the fits will be more descriptive and
7. REFERENCES
[1]. “Introduction to Engineering Materials”, V. B. John, 4th edition,
[3]. http://www.cam.ac.com
[6]. http://www.wikipedia.com
[7]. http://www.corrosion-doctors.org
[8]. http://www.efunda.com
[10]. http://www.engineershandbook.com.
APPENDIX A
Please note that , , , ..., and are unknown coefficients while all and are
given. To obtain the least square error, the unknown coefficients , , , ..., and
Conditions
Properties
T (°C)
Thermal Expansion (10-6/ºC) 17.2 0-100 more
Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) 16.2 100 more
Specific Heat (J/kg-K) 500 0-100
Hydrochloric acid
Identifiers
Properties
Molecular
HCl in water (H2O)
formula
Boiling point 110 °C (383 K), 20.2% solution;,48 °C (321 K), 38% solution.
Solubility in
Miscible.
water
Acidity (pKa) −8.0
APPENDIX C: PREPERTIES OF HYDROCHLORIC ACID AND SULFURIC ACID
Sulfuric acid
Identifiers
Properties