D

J. Chem. Chem. Eng. 6 (2012) 984-988

DAVID

PUBLISHING

Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracking of 316 Austenitic

Stainless Steel
Samir Milad Elsariti1*, Haftirman1 and Mazlee2
1. School of Mechatronic Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, Perlis 01000, Malaysia
2. School of Materials Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, Perlis 01000, Malaysia

Received: September 05, 2012 / Accepted: September 29, 2012 / Published: November 25, 2012.
Abstract: SCC (stress corrosion cracking) is environmentally well-known as a failure caused by exposure to a corroding while under a
sustained tensile stress. SCC is most often rapid, unpredictable. Failure can occur in a short time as a few hours or take years and
decades to happen. Most alloys are liable to SCC in one or more environments requiring careful consideration of alloy type in
component design. In aqueous chloride environments austenitic stainless steels and many nickel based alloys are common to perform
poorly. SCC of austenitic stainless steels of types 316 was investigated as a function of applied stress at room temperature in sodium
chloride solutions using a constant load method. The experiment uses a spring loaded fixture type and is based on ASTM G49 for
experiment method, and E292 for geometry of notched specimen. The stress depends on fracture appearance and parameters of time to
cracking, and cracking growth. The results explained in terms of comparison between the two concentrations of sodium chloride
solutions.
Key words: Stress corrosion cracking, austenitic stainless steels, sodium chloride.

1. Introduction
Stainless steel often perceived as the backbone of
modern industry [1]. Stainless steel has achieved
extensive applications in a wide range of industries and
has been employed as a reliable substitute for carbon
steel in corrosive environments ever since [2]. Stainless
steel was generally attributed as being an expensive,
high-technology alloy [1]. As material manufacturing
and fabrication technology advanced, large-scale
production of stainless steel components occurred.
This made stainless steel more cost-effective and
affordable [3].
All of these aforementioned factors, including cost
of corrosion, economical feasibility, and the desire to
operate in more severe environments, have encouraged
the wide-spread use of stainless steel.
The touchstone element accountable for the
*

Corresponding author: Samir Milad Elsariti, Postgraduate

Student, research field: corrosion engineering. E-mail:
[email protected].

statelessness is chromium. At least 12 wt% of

chromium is necessary to make steel eligible to be
classified as stainless steel [4].
Of all types of stainless steel, austenitic stainless
steel (300 series) is regarded as the most important
group [5]. Austenitic stainless steel is highly corrosion
resistant in many varied corrosion conditions without
the need for additional protective measures. It has
excellent work-hardening characteristic and excellent
mechanical ductility, which makes it suitable for many
manufacturing processes [5, 6] and is not vulnerable to
brittle fracture in classical applications [7]. The use of
austenitic stainless steel is highly diversified and it is
frequently used in demanding applications such as
steam power plants, chemical plants, petrochemical
facilities, nuclear applications, pulp and paper
industries, fossil fuel electric power plants, gas turbines,
jet propulsion units, heat exchanges, surface piping,
vessel cladding, and miscellaneous components in
equipment used for various purposes [3, 8, 9].

Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracking of 316 Austenitic Stainless Steel

Austenitic stainless steels are widely used for

construction of nuclear power and chemical plant
components and in marine construction due to the
combination of mechanical properties, fabric-ability,
weld-ability and corrosion resistance.
SCC (stress corrosion cracking) is a form of failure
of material having specific characteristics. This is a
represent able cause of dominant damage at one
particular component or material structure, so that it is
reckoned in design at a construction industry. Stress
corrosion cracking behavior in austenitic stainless
steels in solution has been extensively investigated
using a constant load method.
Tsai et al. [10] reported that the material 2,205
duplex stainless steel is immune to stress corrosion
cracking in near neutral NaCl solution at
concentrations up to 26 wt% in the temperature range
from 25 C to 908 C. Pitting corrosion has assisted the
initiation and the elective dissolution was involved in
the propagation of stress corrosion cracking in
concentrated NaCl solution at 908 C.
Li et al. [11] reported that the contamination of the
water with SO4H2 has increased the stress corrosion
cracking susceptibility of the weld by both decreasing
the minimum potential for cracking and by increasing
crack growth rate at the same potential.
Nishimura et al. [12] reported that the relationships
between applied stress and the three parameters were
divided into three regions that are dominated by either
stress corrosion cracking or corrosion. Sulphate ions
were found to become more aggressive than chloride
ions for the stress corrosion cracking susceptibility of
the specimens with the most severe sensitization. Thus,
stress corrosion cracking on austenitic steel in chloride
solution with various concentration of chloride at room
temperature has not been clarified completely.
The mainly aim of this paper is to identify stress
corrosion cracking of 316 austenitic stainless steels in
sodium chloride solutions (3.5 wt% & 9.35 wt%) at
room temperature under constant stress including:
To investigate the stages of stress corrosion cracking

985

behaviour related to austenitic stainless steels;

To identify requirement for the experimental part in
this research;
To

setup the

necessary equipment

for

the

experimental part;
To make analysis of stress corrosion cracking of
austenitic

stainless

steels

in

two

different

concentrations of NaCl;
To gather data for time-to-crack nucleation and
time-to-fracture of specimen such as weight lost, crack
growth and length.
This research will apply the stress corrosion
cracking of 316 austenitic stainless steels type which
will particularly in sodium chloride solutions (3.5 wt%
& 9.35 wt%) approximately equal to NaCl
concentration in sea water and Sabkha (salt-flat).

2. Experimental Procedure
The all series of experiments was conducted using
new specimens of 316 austenitic stainless steel types
that were newly ordered during the time of the
experiment. The materials and specimens used for the
constant load test are explained in this section. The
parameters used in the design and setup of the
experiment were obtained from reviews of several
similar stress corrosion cracking tests available from
the ASTM (American Society for Testing and
Materials), NACE (National Association of Corrosion
Engineers), and similar tests conducted by other
researchers.
2.1 Materials and Specimen
The experiment utilized type 316 austenitic stainless
steel material ordered at the time of this program.
Specimens austenitic stainless steel with a thickness of
3.2 mm were used. The yield and ultimate strengths of
the material are summarized in Table 1. Most constant
load stress corrosion cracking tests were conducted at a
stress level of 0.9 yield. The chemical composition for
this material is as listed in Table 2.
For the purpose of this experiment, smooth and

Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracking of 316 Austenitic Stainless Steel

986

Table 1 Mechanical properties of 316 austenitic.

Materials

Yield strength 0.2% Ultimate tensile

offset MPa
strength MPa

SS316

205

515

Table 2 Chemical properties of 316 austenitic stainless steel.

Materials
SS316

C
0.081

Cr
15.31

Ni
8.975

Mo
0.042

notched specimens were used. Notched and standard

specimens are beneficial because of size also which
easy to conduct the dimensions changes, and ultimate
failure of the specimen is more probable than for
larger specimens. In addition, shorter failure time
generally results with notched standard specimens
compared to sub-sized specimens. The basic
geometry and dimensions of the tension specimens
are shown in Fig. 1.
2.2 Test Solution

concentration solution to produce cracks in a

laboratory environment comparable to those in
accelerated tests was not preferred in this test program.
Two different percentages NaCl solutions were used as
a reasonable intensity and falls within the range of most
actual service condition. It is where austenitic stainless
steel is susceptible to pitting and stress corrosion
cracking at the room temperature or elevated
temperature.

3. Results and Discussion

Stress corrosion cracking cracks were not achievable
in the constant load stress corrosion cracking tests
performed for all 316 austenitic stainless steel
specimens at time of 404 h. When the tests were setup
and eventually commenced, though it was not totally
expected, difficulties in reproducing cracks were not a
surprise when actually confronted. The test of the all
types in first stage (404 h) has demonstrated that the

Austenitic stainless steel has a tendency to crack at

stress points when exposed to certain corrosive
environments, such as those involving chloride ions.
Chloride ions can concentrate at stress locations and
catalyze the formation of a crack. In this test, 3.5 wt%
& 9.35 wt% NaCl solutions were used. The test
solution was prepared by dissolving some of NaCl in
sufficient amount of tap water to make about ten liters
of test solution.
NaCl solution was used in this of other type
of chloride solutions as NaCl is everywhere such
as sea water and Sabkha (salt-flat). The use of a higher

Fig. 1 The basic geometry of the 316 austenitic stainless steel

specimen.

materials were quite resistant to surface attack and

indicated that this material was highly corrosion
resistant as in Figs. 2 & 3. It is this material that was
used in the experiment. Longer time recommended in
other research studies.
As previously commented, more than one reason
could have led to the unsuccessful production of cracks
at

first

stage,

and

many

may

have

worked

cooperatively. The following paragraphs discuss

possible explanation of the results obtained.
316 austenitic stainless steel has addition of
molybdenum which is accountable for the superior
stress corrosion cracking resistance and may lead to the
long-drawn-out incubation period required. Materials
that were made in more recent years may have better
stress corrosion cracking resistance due to the
advancement in metal making process. Also, the
potential during stress corrosion cracking tests may not
encourage pitting for the 316 austenitic stainless steels
tested.
Stress corrosion cracking of the specimen 316 notch
areas surface was detected on the third stage (1,244 h)

Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracking of 316 Austenitic Stainless Steel

987

stainless steels on the notch surface area and were

investigated by SEM as well in both NaCl solutions.

4. Conclusions
A stress corrosion cracking constant load test
method was used. Two different tests were conducted
related to chloride stress corrosion cracking of 316
Austenitic stainless steels in 3.5 wt% & 9.35 wt%
Fig. 2 Crack growth of 316 austenitic stainless steel in 3.5
wt% & 9.35 wt% NaCl solutions.

NaCl solution in a room temperature environment.

Though cracks were not produced during the first stage
of the first experiment in 3.5 wt% NaCl solution, this
no crack result is still consistent in regards to some
literature and published data gathered. The outcome of
this test series does not mean that stress corrosion
cracking is immune in the test condition used; instead,
it demonstrated the difficulty in conducting stress
corrosion cracking research as testing under constant
conditions can provide simulation more closely aligned
to the actual environment (sea water & salt-flat)
encountered in practice while sufficient patience and

Fig. 3 Crack on the surface of type 316 with 0.9 yield

strength in sodium chloride concentration of 3.5 wt% at room
temperature ( 1,000).

time is required to gather crack data for analysis.

Keeping in mind that environmental cracks are usually
accompanied with a large degree of diffusion and

of the 3.5 wt% NaCl test despite of the 316 where

cracks appeared and at the second stage (838 h), they

variation in data, which calls for numerous specimens

cracks occurred in all specimens in 9.35 wt% NaCl

solution. Crack growth of the specimen 316 crack time
to crack length on Figs. 2 & 3 showed that a longer
time-to-failure was recorded in this test comparing to
the other test data in 9.35 wt% NaCl solution. This
longer failure time may be due to the following

certainties of the measurement attained, it only further

reasons:
As noted in Fig. 2 stress corrosion cracking is highly
sensitive to concentration of NaCl. The test conducted
was carried out at a NaCl lower than the concentration
of the other test solution;
Different

specimen

configuration,

surface

preparation and other differences in test conditions

may result in diffusion of data;
At the time of 1,244 & 1,678 h, there were
appearance of cracks on all specimens of 316 austenitic

to be tested under the same condition to increase the

confirms the obstacles that researchers see every day in
dealing with stress corrosion cracking in general.
Reasons for not being able in short term to generate
stress corrosion cracking in constant load tests are
summarized as following in point forms:
(1) The use of low concentration test environment
for the series of stress corrosion cracking constant load
tests probably require an incubation period that is
longer than the experiment duration of two months;
(2) Surface of specimen was smooth. Features such
as stress notch do exist to encourage the generation of
localized aggressive environment for stress corrosion
cracking to occur;
(3) Machining of the specimens gauge section may
have resulted in compressive residual stress on the

Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracking of 316 Austenitic Stainless Steel

988

surface which suppresses the initiation of cracks;

(4) Reaction of fixture material due to corrodant may
have interfered stress corrosion cracking process that
was aimed in this experiment;
(5) The potential at which the test was conducted
may not have encouraged the occurrence of stress
corrosion cracking within the span of the test duration.
The difficulties of detecting cracks may also due to the
incubation period required being longer than the test
period set for this test program.
For stress corrosion cracking constant load tests,
helical springs and test chamber were specifically used
and applied. Using of the equipment and test procedure
were completed to resolve problems encountered
during the tests. The equipment that was specifically
selected which was verified to be capable of generating
stress corrosion cracking given a susceptible
material-environment combination and an exposure
time that is longer than the incubation time required for
stress corrosion cracking to initiate.

Acknowledgments
All authors thanks will be firstly to Dr. Haftirman
and Dr. Mazlee for their support and guidance in this
research work. Thanks for all the help that authors got
from Universiti Malaysia Perlis and its staff including
CGS and labs technician. Finally, authors would like
to thank Libyan Education Department for their
support.

References
[1]

Khatak, H. S.; Baldev, R. Corrosion of Austenitic

Stainless Steels: Mechanism, Mitigation and Monitoring;

ASM International Narosa Publishing House, 2002.

Oberndorfer, M.; Kaestenbauer, M.; Thayer, K.
Application Limits of Stainless Steels in the Petroleum
Industry, Proceeding of the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, October 1999.
[3] Marshall, P. Austenitic Stainless Steels: Microstructure
and Mechanical Properties; Elsevier Applied Science
Publishers Ltd: New York, 1984.
[4] Brown, B. F. NBS Monograph 156: Stress Corrosion
Cracking Control Measures; U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, 1977.
[5] Balk, A. H. T.; Boon, J. W.; Etienne, C. F. Stress
Corrosion Cracking in Austenitic Stainless Steel Fixings
for Facade Panels. British Corrosion Journal (Quarterly)
1974, 1, 5-9.
[6] Truman, J. E. The Influence of Chloride Content, pH and
Temperature of Test Solution on the Occurrence of Stress
Corrosion Cracking with Austenitic Stainless Steel.
Corrosion Science 1977, 17, 737-746.
[7] Tyzack, C. Index of Susceptibility to Stress Corrosion for
Austenitic Steels Basedon the Electromechanical Model.
British Corrosion Journal 1972, 7, 268-272.
[8] Bruce, D. Selection Guidelines for Corrosion Resistant
Alloys in the Oil and Gas Industry. Materials Selection for
the Oil and Gas Industry, October 2009. Accessed:
<www.stainless-steel world.net/pdf/ 10073.pdf>.
[9] Russell, H. J. Stress-Corrosion Cracking Materials
Performance and Evaluation, USA: ASM International,
1992, pp 1-40, 91-130.
[10] Wen, T. T.; Ming, S. C. Stress Corrosion Cracking
Behavior of 2205 Duplex Stainless Steel in
Concentrated Nacl Solution. J. Corrosion Science 2000,
42, 545-559.
[11] Li, G. F.; Congleton, J. Stress Corrosion Cracking of a
Low Alloy Steel to Stainless Steel Transition Weld in
PWR Primary Waters at 292 C. J. Corrosion Science
2000, 42, 1005-1021.
[12] Nishimura, R.; Sulaiman, A.; Maeda, Y. Stress Corrosion
Cracking Susceptibility of Sensitized Type 316 Stainless
Steel in Sulphuric Acid Solution. J. Corrosion Science
2003, 45, 465-484.
[2]