Mild Steel CO2
Mild Steel CO2
Mild Steel CO2
TABLE 1
Chemical Composition of the Steels Used for the WE (mass%)
C Mn Si P S Cr Cu Ni Mo Al
X-65 0.065 1.54 0.25 0.013 0.001 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.007 0.041
St52 0.130 1.25 0.35 0.022 0.004 0.12 0.31 0.08 0.02 0.035
Effect of CO2
followed immediately after immersion. Depending on Measurements at pH 4 — In Figure 2, potentiody-
the conditions, the potential stabilized within ± 1 mV namic sweeps done on St52 steel are compared for
in 1 min to 10 min. two solutions at pH 4, first for one purged with N2
Polarization resistance (Rp) measurements were (pH adjusted by adding HCl) and the other for one
conducted by polarizing the WE ± 5 mV from the free purged with CO2 (pH adjusted with NaHCO3).(3) Ex-
corrosion potential and scanning at 0.1 mV/s. In perimental results are overlaid with the predictions of
most experiments, automatic IR drop compensation individual reactions generated with the model pre-
was used. In other cases, solution resistance was sented. The solution containing CO2 produced higher
measured independently using alternating current cathodic currents, probably because of the additional
(AC) impedance, and the measured Rp then was cor- cathodic reaction in the direct reduction of H2CO3.11
rected. AC impedance measurements were done by This was investigated using potentiostatic mea-
applying an oscillating potential ± 5 mV around the surements where the potential was kept in the
free corrosion potential to the WE using the fre- limiting current (ilim) region while the rotation speed
quency range 1 mHz to 100 kHz. was varied (Figure 3). The gap between the two
At the end of each experiment, the potentiody- curves even at stagnant conditions confirmed the
namic sweeps were conducted, starting 500 mV to assumption of Schmitt and Rothman15 and Eriksrud
600 mV below and finishing 100 mV to 200 mV over and Søntvedt16 that there is a flow-independent com-
the free corrosion potential. The typical scanning rate ponent of ilim in CO2 solutions that probably is
was 0.1 mV/s to 0.2 mV/s. In some cases, the ca- controlled by a chemical step (i.e., the hydration of
thodic and anodic sweeps were conducted separately CO2 to H2CO3). However, the present work concerned
starting from the free corrosion potential. The ca- the turbulent region comprising all the points above
thodic sweeps sometimes were repeated by sweeping > 50 rpm. In this region, a linear relationship was
in the opposite direction, without significant differ- observed for ilim vs 0.7 in both CO2 and HCl solutions,
ence in the result. In each experiment, the anodic which was to be expected from theory.19 At a given
sweeps were conducted only once for a single WE flow rate, ilim for a CO2 solution tentatively can be
specimen and a given electrolyte (starting from the separated into three components: one relating to the
free corrosion potential) since they altered the speci- diffusion of H+, one to the hydration of CO2, and one
men surface and contaminated the electrolyte with to the diffusion of H2CO3 respectively; in agreement
significant amounts of dissolved iron (Fe2+ > 3 ppm). with the proposals of Schmitt and Rothman.15
Typically, the Fe2+ concentration was kept at < 1 ppm. Figure 2 shows that the H2O reduction was
under charge-transfer control and did not seem to be
(3)
Current is shown throughout this work in A/m2. This is
affected significantly by addition of CO2. The same
convenient as for iron dissolution: 1 mm/y = 1.155 A/m2. was true for the anodic dissolution of Fe2+. The Tafel
FIGURE 2. CO2 effect at pH 4, water + 3% NaCl, PCO2 = 1 bar FIGURE 3. Effect of CO2 on ilim obtained with a RCE, pH 4, water +
(100 kPa), t = 20°C, 1,000 rpm, τ = 1.7 Pa, Re = 5,235, and St52 steel. 3% NaCl, PCO2 = 1 bar (100 kPa), t = 20°C, and St52 steel.
FIGURE 6. Effect of CO2 on icorr obtained with a RCE, pH 5, water + FIGURE 7. Velocity effect in HCl solution at pH 3, water + 3% NaCl,
3% NaCl, PCO2 = 1 bar (100 kPa), t = 20°C, and St52 steel. PN2 = 1 bar (100 kPa), t = 20°C, and St52 steel.
FIGURE 8. Velocity effect in HCl solution at pH 4, water + 3% NaCl, FIGURE 9. Velocity effect in CO2 solution at pH 4, water + 3% NaCl,
PN2 = 1 bar (100 kPa), t = 20°C, and St52 steel. PCO2 = 1 bar (100 kPa), t = 20°C, and St52 steel.
was clear only for the highest rotating speed, with a adjusted by adding NaHCO3 (Figure 9). The potentio-
slope of ≈ 120 mV/decade. For higher overpotentials, dynamic sweeps with CO2 (Figure 9) had larger ilim
all three cathodic curves converged onto the same values when compared to HCl solutions (Figure 8) at
line, which was the direct reduction of H2O. The the same pH. Further, the effect of
three anodic curves displayed clear Tafel behavior, rotation speed was much smaller, suggesting that
with a slope of ≈ 40 mV/decade. No effect of rotating there was a flow-insensitive component to ilim. The
speed was noticed on the anodic reaction. ilim value for the reduction of H2CO3 was chemical
Measurements at pH 4 Without CO2 — Potentio- reaction-controlled and insensitive to flow. The flow
dynamic sweeps in a solution purged with N2 at sensitivity observed related to the contribution to ilim
pH 4 (obtained by adding HCl) are shown in Figure 8 by the reduction of H+, which was mass transport-
for St52 steel. The overall shape of the curves was controlled. This could be seen by comparing ilim at
similar to those in the experiments at pH 3 except 1,000 rpm and 4,000 rpm with and without CO2. In
that all ilim values were 10 times lower. This was the CO2 solution, the current increased by a factor of
expected as the bulk concentration of H+ ([H+]b) was 1.8. In the solution without CO2, the curent in-
10 times lower at pH 4. For the lowest rotating speed creased by a factor of 3.5. The anodic dissolution of
(100 rpm), no ilim was distinguishable as the dominat- iron was not affected by the flow.
ing cathodic reaction throughout the measured range Measurements at pH 5 with CO2 — Flow sensitiv-
was the direct reduction of H2O, which was under ity at pH 5 was tested for a solution purged with CO2
activation control. where the pH was adjusted by adding NaHCO3. A
Measurements at pH 4 with CO2 — Subsequent potentiodynamic sweep conducted on a St52 RCE at
experiments were conducted with the same steel in a 1,000 rpm is presented in Figure 10 along with indi-
solution purged with CO2 instead of N2. The pH was vidual cathodic reactions and the theoretical sweep
Effect of pH
Solution Without CO2 — The effect of pH is illus-
trated in Figure 11 for steel St52 in a solution purged
with N2 where the pH was adjusted by adding HCl.
The ilim values at 1,000 rpm were reduced proportion-
ately to the H+ concentration.
The position of the Tafel line for H2O reduction
stayed approximately the same over the whole pH
range, with a slope of ≈ 120 mV/decade. This was in
accordance with theory and agreed with the findings
of Gray, et al.13
This analysis showed that the Tafel line for
anodic dissolution of iron maintained the slope of FIGURE 11. pH effect in HCl solution, water + 3% NaCl, PN2 = 1 bar
(100 kPa), t = 20°C, 1,000 rpm, τ = 1.7 Pa, Re = 5,235, and St52 steel.
40 mV/decade over the whole pH range tested. The
exchange current density changed according to:
PHYSICAL MODEL
The experimental findings led to a mechanistic
model for CO2 corrosion.
Cathodic Reactions
When CO2 is added to an aqueous solution, it is
hydrated to form a weak acid (H2CO3): FIGURE 15. Temperature effect in CO2 solution, water + 1% NaCl,
PCO2 = 1 bar (100 kPa), pH 5, and static using X-65 steel.
CO2 + H2O ↔ H2CO3 (2)
Fe + OH → FeOH + e
– –
(8)
H +e → H
+ –
(5)
surface concentration of H+ ([H+]s) can be determined where PH is the partial pressure of hydrogen.
2
from the mass-transfer equation: Limiting Current Density — The diffusion limiting
component of the total current density appearing in
Equation (13) is:
i H+ = kmF H+ b – H+ s (12)
1 1 1
= + (13) kml
i H+ iα H+ idlim H+ Sh = = 0.0165 × Re0.86 × Sc0.33 (20)
D
where idlim(H+) is the diffusion limiting current density or from a rotating cylinder correlation of Eisenberg,
defined below (Equation [19]) and i␣(H+) is the activa- et al.:19
tion (charge transfer) current density in the absence
of resistance to mass transfer:
Sh = 0.0791 × Re0.7 × Sc0.356 (21)
η
–b
iα H+ = i0 × 10 c (14) or any other correlation for the given flow geometry.
H+
The temperature effect on D can be found from
the Stokes-Einstein equation:
Tafel Slope — The cathodic Tafel slope (bc) for H+
reduction appearing in Equation 14 is:
T µref
D = Dref × × (22)
2.303RT Tref µ
bc = (15)
αcF
For the reference temperature tref = 20°C, the
20
According to Bockris, et al., for H reduction, + dynamic viscosity of water is µ ref = 1.002 kg/(m s),25
␣c = 0.5 giving bc = 0.118 V at 25°C. This agreed well and the diffusion coefficient for H+ ions is Dref(H+) =
with the present findings. 9.31 x 10–9 m2/s.26
Exchange Current Density — From the present Water density as a function of temperature was
experiments at the reference temperature (tref ) = 20°C calculated as:13
at pH 4, it was determined that the exchange current
ρ = 1,152.3 – 0.5116 × T (23)
0(H+) ≈ 5 x 10
density for hydrogen ion reduction is iref –2
2
A/m . The pH dependence adopted from Bockris,
et al.:20 and water viscosity:25
density in the absence of chemical reaction resis- layer. Details on this correction will be published in
tance: the future.
The bulk concentration (b) of dissolved carbon
η
–b dioxide ([CO2]b) can be obtained from PCO2:
iα H = i0 H × 10 c (26)
2CO3 2CO3
H2O reduction is i0(H2O) ≈ 3 x 10–5 A/m2. No systematic As shown by West, the relationship between Erev
dependence of the exchange current density for this and i0 for the anodic dissolution of a metal is:36
reaction was found for 3 < pH < 6. The temperature
sensitivity was modeled according to Equation (17), i0
and a similar activation enthalpy was found as for Erev – Elrev = b log (37)
the previous two reactions: ∆H(H2O) ≈ 30 kJ/mol. The il0
Tafel slope for H2O reduction was found to be the
same as that for H+ reduction (≈ 120 mV/decade Thus, if the value of i0 is known at any concen-
at 20°C). tration of ferrous ions, from experimental data for a
given electrolyte, the Tafel line can be plotted which
Oxygen Reduction will apply regardless of the concentration of ferrous
Oxygen reduction was included in the model to ions in solution.
enable estimation of the effect of any oxygen pres- In the present experiments, no dependence of
ence in CO2 systems (laboratory or field) on the the iron dissolution rate on Fe2+ concentration was
corrosion rate. Since Erev for oxygen reduction is found, in agreement with the above. This finding was
much higher than for the other mentioned reactions, used in the model to construct the curve for Fe2+
pure mass-transfer control can be assumed for this dissolution. Since it was shown experimentally that
reaction in the electrode potential region of interest. the anodic line for both steels was not affected sig-
The diffusion limiting current density for oxygen nificantly by pH over the pH range 4 to 6, it was
reduction, O2 + 4H+ + 4e = 2H2O, is: sufficient to extract from the experiments the i0(Fe)
value for one reference potential, and the anodic
idlim(O ) = 4kmF × O2 (34) dissolution line was defined.
2 b
The activation enthalpy for this reaction was
found to be ∆H(Fe2+) ≈ 40 kJ/mol for lower tempera-
km can be determined from a correlation relating tures (20°C to 50°C). As previously mentioned, at
the Sherwood, Reynolds, and Schmidt numbers, as higher temperatures (> 50°C) this trend was reversed,
shown above for H+ reduction. For tref = 20°C, the so no firm conclusion on the effect of temperature on
diffusion coefficient for O2 is Dref(O2) = 2.09 x 10–9 m2/s.26 iron dissolution could be reached at the present
stage.
Anodic Dissolution of Iron The steel type had the largest effect on anodic
In the present experiments, the corrosion of two
dissolution. Very different i0(Fe) values were found
low-carbon steels was studied. For both steels, the
for the two steels tested (Figure 16). At a reference
anodic dissolution of iron at the corrosion potential
potential Erev = –0.488 V in the case of the St52
(and up to 200 mV above) was under activation con-
steel, the exchange current density was found to be
trol. Thus, pure Tafel behavior can be assumed close
i0(Fe) ≈ 0.1 A/m2, while for the X-65 steel, it was an
to the corrosion potential:
order of magnitude higher at i0(Fe) ≈ 1 A/m2. Such
η
variations in the values of i0 between different steels
i(Fe) = i0(Fe) × 10b a (35) was not unexpected.
Tafel Slope — The anodic Tafel slope (ba) for an- IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MODEL
odic iron dissolution is:
The present electrochemical model was imple-
mented in Microsoft Excel 5.0 for Windows† to exploit
2.303RT the user friendly interface and the advanced graphi-
ba = (36)
αaF cal capabilities. The built-in equation solver is
somewhat slow, so use of other programming lan-
According to Bockris, et al.,20 ␣a = 1.5 giving guages can be beneficial.
ba = 40 mV at 25°C, which agreed very well with the The model requires as input: temperature, pH,
experimental findings. PCO2, oxygen concentration, type of steel, and the
Exchange Current Density — The concentration flow geometry. Pipe flow or a rotating cylinder flow
of ferrous ions in solution does not affect the can be selected. For pipe flow, the inputs are water
dissolution kinetics of iron in the absence of film velocity and pipe diameter, while for rotating cylinder
formation.32,35 The Tafel line for the anodic dissolu- flow, the inputs are the rotating speed and cylinder
tion is not affected by the rise in the concentration of diameter.
ferrous ions required for their transport away from Once the input parameters are determined, the
the anode.32 To construct the anodic dissolution po- program generates an updated graph with the indi-
larization line for iron, the exchange current density vidual and total cathodic and anodic curves. The
is required along with ba. intersection of the total cathodic curve with the
i H+ + i H +iH + i O = i Fe (38)
2CO3 2O 2
MODEL VALIDATION
Performance of the model was validated by com-
paring the predictions with results from independent
glass loop experiments. Experimental data were ob-
tained for flow through a straight pipe, dpipe = 15 mm
(0.59 in.) at v = 2 m/s (6.56 ft/s) and PCO2 = 1 bar
(100 kPa) with no protective films present. A more
detailed description of these experiments has been
given elsewhere.33 Comparisons for t = 20°C, 50°C, FIGURE 17. Comparison of the model predictions with results from
and 80°C and pH 4, 5, and 6 are shown in Figure 17. independent glass loop experiments with X-65 steel in water + 1 %
Reasonably good agreement was obtained over the NaCl at v = 2 m/s (6.56 ft/s), τ = 12 Pa, PCO2 = 1 bar (100 kPa), and
whole range. In some experiments (which typically Re = 30,000.
lasted a few days), the corrosion rate varied as films
formed at higher temperatures.33
Subsequently, predictions made with the present made with the models of deWaard and Lotz and
model were compared with the experimentally based Dugstad, et al., except at pH < 3.5. In this range, the
models of deWaard and Lotz1 and with the model of H+ reduction becomes the dominant reaction as pre-
Dugstad, et al.2 The latter two models are semi- viously shown. The models of deWaard and Lotz and
empirical, and each is calibrated with a different set Dugstad, et al., are not valid in this domain.
of experimental data with somewhat different steels.
Predictions with the present model were made by Effect of Flow Rate
using i0(Fe) = 0.1 A/m2 determined for the St52 steel A comparison of the flow effect predictions made
used in the present experiments. with different models is presented in Figure 19 for pH
4, t = 20°C, PCO2 = 1 bar (100 kPa). Agreement of the
pH Effect present model with the deWaard and Lotz model was
The predictions of the pH effect on the CO2 nearly complete except at very low velocities. This
corrosion were made for the case of a solution satu- was a result of the velocity corrections implemented
rated with 1 bar (100 kPa) CO2, t = 20°C, v = 1 m/s in the latest version of the deWaard and Lotz model,
(3.2 ft/s), dpipe = 25 mm (0.98 in.) giving Re = 25,000. through the so-called “resistance model,” which re-
A comparison of the predictions made with different sembles in form the present Equations (13) and (25).
models is presented in Figure 18. The present predic- However, the deWaard and Lotz model lacks the
tions were somewhere in between the predictions physical background presented here, which is com-