Submitted:
28 March 2024
Posted:
29 March 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Experimental Material and Methods
2.1. Experiment Preparation
2.2. Accelerated Methods for Corrosion Testing
2.2.1. Continuous Immersion in Solution
2.2.2. Accelerated Aging Chambers
2.2.3. Scab Test
2.3. Standard Coupon Test
2.4. XRD Analysis
2.5. Meteorological Parameters
2.6. Atmospheric Pollutants
2.7. SEM Analysis
3. Results of Experimental Research
3.1. Analysis Using X-ray Diffraction
3.2. Corrosion of the S235JR Steel
3.3. Mass and Load Bearing Loss
4. Finite Element Analysis of Corroded Steel Specimens
4.1. Constitutive Modelling under Corrosion
4.2. Determination of Model Parameters
- Constitutive parameters: q1, q2 and q3;
- The initial material and nucleation parameters, fo, fN, and sN;
- Critical and final failure parameters, fc and fF.
4.3. Finite Element Model
4.4. Numerical Simulation Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions and Recommendation for Future Work
- The tests that were carried out are important in the analysis of the possibility of applying the constitutive model in predicting the degradation due to corrosion and, finally, the ductile fracture of the structural steel elements;
- The obtained experimental results and numerical data will contribute to the understanding and study of the problem of bearing capacity and durability of steel structures weakened by corrosion in industrial environments. It has been shown that in precisely controlled laboratory conditions, the atmospheric corrosion of industrial environments can be simulated, with acceptable accuracy, thus simplifying and speeding up the experimental process;
- Long-term prediction of corrosion rate for industrial environments such as in Bor, at two locations with different SO2 deposition are given, as well. This can be very useful for everyday engineering practice.
- In this study, it is clearly shown that the adopted CGM parameters and proposed UMAT subroutine satisfy and can describe the behaviour of corroded material subjected to tension loading and material softening, associated with changes in the material microstructure. This is especially valid for the C3 corrosivity category and the defined sulphur content, which coincides with ISO 9224:2012. The calibrated parameters fully describe the behaviour and deterioration of the material due to corrosion, both in terms of load-bearing capacity and in terms of ductility, while for corrosivity category C4 with a higher mass loss and severe atmospheric conditions in the industrial environment, it is necessary to perform a new calibration of the parameters. This leads to the conclusion that different parameters should be applied to the corrosivity category C4.
- Based on these results, it is possible to predict the structural behaviour of S235JR steel elements exposed to the influence of corrosion in industrially aggressive environments in Bor and at a specific location with the same corrosivity category and concentrations of air pollutants SO2.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Mendoza A., Corvo F., Outdoor and indoor atmospheric corrosion of carbon steel, Corrosion Science 41 (1999) 75-86.
- Gurson, A.L. Continuum theory of ductile rupture by void nucleation and growth: Part I-Yield criteria and flow rules for porous ductile media. J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 1977, 99, 2–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tvergaard, V. Influence of voids on shear band instabilities under plane strain conditions. Int. J. Fract. 1981, 17, 389–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tvergaard, V. On localization in ductile materials containing spherical voids. Int. J. Fract. 1982, 18, 237–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tvergaard, V.; Needleman, A. Analysis of the cup-cone fracture in a round tensile bar. Acta Met. 1984, 32, 157–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.L.; Thaulow, C.; Ødegård, J. A complete Gurson model approach for ductile fracture. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2000, 67, 155–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ABAQUS Analysis User’s Manual; Version 6.14; ABAQUS. Inc.: Paris, France, 2014.
- Zhang, Z.L. A practical micro-mechanical model-based local approach methodology for the analysis of ductile fracture of welded T-joints. Ph.D. Thesis, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Z.L.; Niemi, E. A new failure criterion for the Gurson-Tvergaard dilational constitutive model. Int. J. Fract. 1995, 70, 321–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.L.; Niemi, E. Studies on the ductility predictions by different local failure criteria. Eng. Fract. Mech. 1994, 48, 529–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, B., Liu, X., Du, J., Experimental Research and Simulation on the Mechanical Performance Degradation of Corroded Stud Shear Connectors. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2019, 1–12. [CrossRef]
- Xu Y., Qian C., Application of Gurson–Tvergaard–Needleman Constitutive Model to the Tensile Behaviour of Reinforcing Bars with Corrosion Pits. PLoS ONE, 2013, 8(1), e54368. [CrossRef]
- Guo Y., Wu S.Q., Study on the relationship between corrosion damage and residual strength of Al 7075-T6 Alloy, Proceedings of the 26TH International congress of the aeronautical sciences, USA, Anchorage, Alaska, 14 - 19 September 2008.
- Wcislik W., Experimental determination of critical void volume fraction fF for the Gurson Tvergaard Needleman (GTN) model, 21ST European Conference on Fracture, ECF21, Catania, Italy, 20-24 June 2016.
- Kossakowski, P.G., Analysis of the void volume fraction for S235JR steel at failure for low initial stress triaxiality, Archives of Civil Engineering, 2018, 64 (1), 101-115.
- Kiran, R.; Khandelwal, K. Gurson model parameters for ductile fracture simulation in ASTM A992 steels. Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures 2014, 2, 171–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faleskog, J.; Gao, X.; Shih, C.F. Cell model for nonlinear fracture analysis-I. Micromechanics Calibration. Int. J. Fract. 1998, 89, 355–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Organization for Standardization. Corrosion tests in artificial atmospheres, Salt spray tests (ISO/DIS Standard No. 9227); International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- S. P. Parekh, A. V. Pandya, H. K.Kadiya, Progressive Atmospheric Corrosion Study of Metals Like Mild Steel, Zinc and Aluminum in Urban Station of Ahmedabad District, International Journal of ChemTech Research, CODEN (USA), Vol. 4, No. 4, Oct-Dec 2012,1700-1774.
- International Organization for Standardization. Corrosion of metals and alloys, Corrosion tests in artificial atmosphere, Accelerated outdoor test by intermittent spraying of a salt solution (Scab test) (ISO/DIS Standard No. 11474); International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- International Organization for Standardization. Corrosion of Metals and Alloys: Corrosivity of atmospheres: Removal of Corrosion Products from Corrosion Test Specimens (ISO/DIS Standard No. 8407); International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- De la Fuente D., Díaz I., Simancas J., Chico B., Morcillo M. Long-term atmospheric corrosion of mild steel. Corrosion Science 2011, 53, 604–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Organization for Standardization. Corrosion of metals and alloys — Corrosivity of atmospheres — Determination of corrosion rate of standard specimens for the evaluation of corrosivity (ISO/DIS Standard No. 9226); International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Morcillo M., Chico B., Díaz I., Cano H., de la Fuente D. Atmospheric corrosion data of weathering steel. A review. Corrosion Science 2013, 77, 6–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Organization for Standardization. Corrosion of metals and alloys — Corrosivity of atmospheres — Guiding values for the corrosivity categories (ISO/DIS Standard No. 9224); International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- International Organization for Standardization. Corrosion of metals and alloys — Corrosivity of atmospheres — Classification, determination and estimation (ISO/DIS Standard No. 9223); International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Chu, C.; Needleman, A. Void nucleation effects in biaxially stretched sheets. Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology 1980, 102, 249–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomason, P.F. Ductile fracture of Metals, 1st ed.; Pergamon Press: Oxford, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Kossakowski P.G., Influence of initial porosity on strength properties of S235JR steel at low stress triaxiality, Archives of civil engineering, LVIII, 3, 2012.
- Franklin, A.G. Comparison between a quantitative microscopic and chemical methods for assessment on non-metallic inclusions. The Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute 1969, 207, 181–186. [Google Scholar]
- Younise, B.S. ; Micromechanical fracture analysis of high strength steel weldments. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Belgrade, Serbia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Međo, B.I. ; Local approach to ductile fracture of low alloy steel welded joints. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Belgrade, Serbia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Miloud H., Imad M., Benseddiq A., Bachir Bouiadjra N., Bounif B., and Serier A., A numerical analysis of relationship between ductility and nucleation and critical void volume fraction parameters of Gurson– Tvergaard–Needleman model, Proc IMechE Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science, IMechE, 2013, 227(11), 2634–2646.
- Hollomon, J.H., Tensile Deformation, Transactions of the Mettallurgical Society of AIME, 1945, 162, 268-290.
- Montoya P., Díaz I., Granizo N., de la Fuente D., Morcillo M. An study on accelerated corrosion testing of weathering steel. Materials Chemistry and Physics 2013, 142, 220–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]















| Element | C | Si | Mn | Cr | Mo | Ni | P | S |
| Weight % | 0.12 | 0.012 | 0.27 | 0.012 | 0.003 | 0.013 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Al | Cu | B | Nb | V | Ti | Sn | Fe | |
| 0.036 | 0.041 | 0.0003 | <0.004 | <0.0005 | <0.001 | 0.0006 | 99.40 |
| Label | Specimens | Specimens location | Exposure time | Exposure period |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E | E1-E6 | Etalon (laboratory) | 6 months | November-May |
| A | A1-A6 | Specimens immersed in electrolyte from Electrolysis | 1 month | April-May |
| EF | EF1-EF6 | Electrolytic refining plant (Electrolysis) | 6 months | November-May |
| AF | AF1-AF6 | Sulphuric acid factory | 6 months | November-May |
| MP | MP1-MP6 | Automatic air quality monitoring station in Bor | 6 months | November-May |
| SSI | SSI1-SSI6 | Specimens from the salt chamber I | 120 h | |
| SSII | SSII1-SSII6 | Specimens from the salt chamber II | 240 h |
| Month | T (°C) | RH (%) | TOW (h) | Fall (mm/m2) | Atmosphere Pressure (mbar) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| November 2016 | 6.9 | 70 | 168 | 50 | 976.3 |
| December 2016 | 2.5 | 69 | 192 | 7.4 | 984.1 |
| January 2017 | 0.4 | 83 | 144 | 47 | 970.5 |
| February 2017 | 6.7 | 79 | 360 | 24.7 | 970.1 |
| March 2017 | 6.6 | 79 | 240 | 21.1 | 967.5 |
| April 2017 | 12.4 | 72 | 120 | 42.7 | 968.1 |
| Month | Air Quality Monitoring Station in Mining and Metallurgy Institute Bor | Air Quality Monitoring Station in City Park |
|---|---|---|
| November 2016 | 26.41 | 26.242 |
| December 2016 | 29.025 | 26.02 |
| January 2017 | 54.073 | 66.766 |
| February 2017 | 24.691 | 59.286 |
| March 2017 | 20.368 | 43.595 |
| April 2017 | 15.962 | 42.262 |
| the maximum measured value during the test period | 272.58 (measured on 01.02.2017) | 299.95 (measured on 01.05.2017) |
| Atmosphere | Test Site | γ-FeOOH (lepidocrocite) | α-FeOOH (goethite) | FeSO4(H2O)4 (rozenite) | KFe3(SO4)2(OH)6 (jarosite) | Fe3O4 (magnetite), γ-Fe2O3 (maghemite) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| near to Sulphuric acid plant | Bor | 57 % | 43 % | / | / | Without quantify |
| into the Electrolytic refining plant | Bor | / | 33 % | 20 % | 47 % | Without quantify |
| next to the automatic air quality monitoring station in Mining and Metallurgy Institute Bor | Bor | 68 % | 32 % | / | / | Without quantify |
| Nominal thickness | Specimens label | Mass loss (g) | Mass loss ratio r | (g/(m2*a)) | (µm/a) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≠4 | A1 | 27.24 | 0.119 | 290.85 | 37.00 | |
| A2 | 24.70 | 0.107 | 263.71 | 33.55 | ||
| EF1 | 0.81 | 0.003 | 8.64 | 1.10 | ||
| EF2 | 0.83 | 0.003 | 8.81 | 1.12 | ||
| AF1 | 6.42 | 0.026 | 68.59 | 8.73 | ||
| AF2 | 6.39 | 0.026 | 68.19 | 8.68 | ||
| MP1 | 2.05 | 0.008 | 21.89 | 2.79 | ||
| MP2 | 2.00 | 0.008 | 21.31 | 2.71 | ||
| SSI1 | 1.44 | 0.005 | 15.39 | 1.96 | ||
| SSI2 | 1.29 | 0.006 | 13.81 | 1.76 | ||
| SSII1 | 1.57 | 0.006 | 16.80 | 2.14 | ||
| SSII2 | 1.69 | 0.007 | 18.05 | 2.30 | ||
| ≠6 | A3 | 30.52 | 0.086 | 304.14 | 38.69 | |
| A4 | 25.87 | 0.072 | 257.76 | 32.79 | ||
| EF3 | 0.97 | 0.003 | 9.69 | 1.23 | ||
| EF4 | 0.99 | 0.002 | 9.86 | 1.26 | ||
| AF3 | 7.35 | 0.020 | 73.26 | 9.32 | ||
| AF4 | 7.21 | 0.019 | 71.80 | 9.13 | ||
| MP3 | 2.28 | 0.006 | 22.69 | 2.89 | ||
| MP4 | 2.30 | 0.006 | 22.96 | 2.92 | ||
| SSI3 | 1.32 | 0.003 | 13.15 | 1.67 | ||
| SSI4 | 1.36 | 0.003 | 13.50 | 1.72 | ||
| SSII3 | 2.17 | 0.006 | 21.59 | 2.75 | ||
| SSII4 | 1.69 | 0.004 | 16.80 | 2.14 | ||
| ≠8 | A5 | 32.01 | 0.065 | 298.98 | 38.04 | |
| A6 | 33.23 | 0.068 | 310.34 | 39.48 | ||
| EF5 | 0.89 | 0.002 | 8.27 | 1.05 | ||
| EF6 | 1.04 | 0.002 | 9.69 | 1.23 | ||
| AF5 | 7.75 | 0.015 | 72.35 | 9.20 | ||
| AF6 | 7.53 | 0.015 | 70.30 | 8.94 | ||
| MP5 | 2.31 | 0.004 | 21.58 | 2.75 | ||
| MP6 | 1.58 | 0.003 | 14.71 | 1.87 | ||
| SSI5 | 1.24 | 0.002 | 11.62 | 1.48 | ||
| SSI6 | 1.37 | 0.003 | 12.75 | 1.62 | ||
| SSII5 | 1.94 | 0.004 | 18.11 | 2.30 | ||
| SSII6 | 1.76 | 0.003 | 16.41 | 2.09 | ||
| Atmosphere | Test site | TOW) (h/year) ) 1 | SO2 deposition (mg/m2) ) 2 | First year corrosion rate (μm) | ISO 9223 corrosivity category | Corrosivity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industrial | AF | 2640 | 44.03 | 70.75 | C4 | High |
| Industrial | MP | 2640 | 28.42 | 20.86 | C3 | Medium |
| Etalon specimens before cleaning | Etalon specimens after cleaning | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nominal thickness | Specimens label | Mass0 (g) | do (mm) | Mass1 (g) | d1 (mm) | Fmax (N) |
| ≠4 | E1 | 254.654 | 4.044 | 254.570 | 4.043 | 32158.0 |
| E2 | 250.437 | 3.977 | 250.393 | 3.976 | 31090.0 | |
| ≠6 | E3 | 387.606 | 6.156 | 387.563 | 6.155 | 51727.0 |
| E4 | 385.880 | 6.128 | 385.843 | 6.127 | 49944.0 | |
| ≠8 | E5 | 521.467 | 8.281 | 521.440 | 8.281 | 63597.0 |
| E6 | 513.088 | 8.148 | 513.056 | 8.148 | 62120.0 | |
| Specimens before expose to corrosion | Specimens after expose to corrosion | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thickness | Specimens label | Mass0 (g) | d0 (mm) | Mass1 (g) | d1 (mm) | Mass loss (%) | Δdmass (mm) | Fmax (N) |
| ≠4-nominal | A1 | 256.977 | 4.081 | 229.676 | 3.647 | 10.5990% | 0.4336 | 27989.00 |
| A2 | 255.465 | 4.057 | 230.706 | 3.664 | 9.6667% | 0.3932 | 27905.00 | |
| EF1 | 253.268 | 4.022 | 252.395 | 4.008 | 0.3194% | 0.0139 | 31020.00 | |
| EF2 | 254.246 | 4.038 | 253.357 | 4.024 | 0.3245% | 0.0141 | 31527.00 | |
| AF1 | 254.398 | 4.040 | 247.911 | 3.937 | 2.5248% | 0.1030 | 30291.00 | |
| AF2 | 252.915 | 4.017 | 246.465 | 3.914 | 2.5250% | 0.1024 | 30001.00 | |
| MP1 | 256.429 | 4.072 | 254.315 | 4.039 | 0.7994% | 0.0336 | 31164.00 | |
| MP2 | 253.477 | 4.025 | 251.417 | 3.993 | 0.7874% | 0.0327 | 30800.00 | |
| SSI1 | 256.108 | 4.067 | 254.603 | 4.043 | 0.5627% | 0.0239 | 30475.15 | |
| SSI2 | 259.190 | 4.116 | 257.833 | 4.095 | 0.4989% | 0.0216 | 31461.09 | |
| SSII1 | 255.815 | 4.063 | 254.178 | 4.037 | 0.6149% | 0.0260 | 31150.02 | |
| SSII2 | 255.907 | 4.064 | 254.153 | 4.036 | 0.6604% | 0.0279 | 31047.15 | |
| ≠6-nominal | A3 | 387.425 | 6.153 | 356.863 | 5.667 | 7.8789% | 0.4854 | 45217.00 |
| A4 | 382.985 | 6.082 | 357.117 | 5.671 | 6.7447% | 0.4108 | 47073.00 | |
| EF3 | 385.470 | 6.122 | 384.458 | 6.106 | 0.2529% | 0.0161 | 50533.00 | |
| EF4 | 384.272 | 6.103 | 383.282 | 6.087 | 0.2480% | 0.0157 | 49602.00 | |
| AF3 | 383.004 | 6.082 | 375.612 | 5.965 | 1.9203% | 0.1174 | 48012.00 | |
| AF4 | 387.129 | 6.148 | 379.884 | 6.033 | 1.8619% | 0.1151 | 50293.00 | |
| MP3 | 385.095 | 6.116 | 382.778 | 6.079 | 0.5921% | 0.0368 | 50174.00 | |
| MP4 | 383.985 | 6.098 | 381.641 | 6.061 | 0.6008% | 0.0372 | 52322.00 | |
| SSI3 | 386.304 | 6.135 | 384.944 | 6.113 | 0.3425% | 0.0216 | 51963.00 | |
| SSI4 | 387.833 | 6.159 | 386.478 | 6.138 | 0.3398% | 0.0215 | 49375.00 | |
| SSII3 | 384.556 | 6.107 | 382.349 | 6.072 | 0.5643% | 0.0350 | 50296.00 | |
| SSII4 | 387.568 | 6.155 | 385.842 | 6.128 | 0.4358% | 0.0274 | 50532.00 | |
| ≠8-nominal | A5 | 521.264 | 8.278 | 489.223 | 7.769 | 6.1411% | 0.5088 | 57798.00 |
| A6 | 518.690 | 8.237 | 485.432 | 7.709 | 6.4062% | 0.5282 | 57479.00 | |
| EF5 | 521.256 | 8.278 | 520.341 | 8.264 | 0.1699% | 0.0145 | 63154.00 | |
| EF6 | 503.781 | 8.001 | 502.714 | 7.984 | 0.2059% | 0.0169 | 61382.00 | |
| AF5 | 519.034 | 8.243 | 511.258 | 8.119 | 1.4925% | 0.1235 | 61680.00 | |
| AF6 | 521.248 | 8.278 | 513.691 | 8.158 | 1.4441% | 0.1200 | 61972.00 | |
| MP5 | 521.210 | 8.277 | 518.870 | 8.240 | 0.4433% | 0.0372 | 63303.00 | |
| MP6 | 513.096 | 8.148 | 511.491 | 8.123 | 0.3071% | 0.0255 | 62127.00 | |
| SSI5 | 522.374 | 8.296 | 521.100 | 8.276 | 0.2382% | 0.0202 | 62563.00 | |
| SSI6 | 521.472 | 8.281 | 520.077 | 8.259 | 0.2619% | 0.0222 | 62126.00 | |
| SSII5 | 507.020 | 8.052 | 505.051 | 8.021 | 0.3825% | 0.0313 | 60053.00 | |
| SSII6 | 510.228 | 8.103 | 508.441 | 8.075 | 0.3445% | 0.0284 | 60791.00 | |
| Mass loss ratio r | 0.02 | 0.25 | 0.05 | 0.40 | 1.8965 | 0.90 | 3.5967 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).