EVALUATION OF STEEL AND TSA

COATING IN A
CORROSION UNDER INSULATION
(CUI) ENVIRONMENT
by:
Russell Kane - Consultant
Honeywell Process Solutions

Monica Chauviere & Keith Chustz

ExxonMobil Research & Engineering
 Introduction

 Energy conservation has expanded the use

of thermal insulation to reduce energy loss.
 Insulation covering the metal surface can
create conditions conducive for corrosion
that can proceed in an insidious manner
 Because this damage occurs out-of-sight,
serious and sometimes unexpected
consequences can take place.
 Notable corrosion incidents under thermal
insulation have made this topic a major
concern for many companies involved in
petroleum refining and petrochemical
operations.

2
 Background (2)

 The mechanism of CUI involves

three requirements:
- Insulation produces a poultice CUI Corrosion Rates
that can hold moisture and
dissolved species on the metal
surface
- Variable and high temperatures
and heat transfer across metal
surfaces increases the rate of
corrosion reactions through
wet/dry conditions
- Moisture and corrosives can
enter from the surrounding
atmosphere and leach from the
thermal insulation.
 This special combination of
variables is what commonly
defines the CUI environment.
CUI corrosion rates
Greater than expected

3
 Schematic View of CUI

Water ingress

Covering

Soluble ions e.g. Chloride & Sulfides

Thermal gradient – Leads to concentration/drying of solution

Refluxing Refluxing
Corrosion of Pipe/Vessel Wall
Pipe / vessel wall

ΔT

High temperature process fluid

4
 CUI Testing

 The most challenging obstacle is

predicting the efficacy of coating
systems which are already in
service.
 A variety of polymeric and metallic
coatings are currently in use.
 However, long term performance
and efficacy must be proven.
 Recent developments in the field
of CUI have provided methods
that can be used to simulate CUI
in the laboratory under typical
conditions of exposure (e.g.
isothermal, wet/dry, cyclic
temperature).
- This activity has resulted in a new
standard – ASTM G189-07 Standard
Guide for Laboratory Simulation of
Corrosion Under Insulation.

5
 CUI Test Set-Up

Exposure Cell

Test Solution: DI Water + H2SO4 to pH 5; 100 ppm NaCl

Cyclic Wet-Dry conditions: 20 hrs/82 C and 4 hrs/120 C
Mineral Wool and Calcium Silicate Insulations tested

Electrochemical
Monitoring

SmartCET Online, Real-Time Corrosion Transmitter

6
 Purpose of this Study

 The present study was developed to utilize techniques as

described in ASTM G189 for the evaluation of CUI under
simulated service conditions.
 This study involved the use of Grade 1350 TSA coating on
carbon steel with a 3 mil anchor pattern and selected
insulative materials.
 The results from TSA coated specimens were compared to
those produced on bare carbon steel.
 Six CUI material conditions were used:
- Bare carbon steel
- TSA coated steel
- Defected TSA coated steel
- Each was tested with mineral wool and calcium silicate insulations.

7
 Test Methods

 ASTM CUI simulation procedures were used.

 This procedure involved the use of a 2-inch (51 mm) O.D.
pipe geometry with internal heating and external thermal
insulation.
 Ring specimens were exposed to CUI conditions on the
outer surface. Specimen evaluation included:
- Visual examinations
- Electrochemical corrosion
measurements
- Chemical analyses.
 The ring specimens were
isolated from each other
using TFE spacers.
 Specimens & insulations
were aged to simulate LT
service behavior.
8
 Aging Pre-Treatment

To simulate longer term service conditions, tests were conducted on

coated specimens and insulation that were aged prior to testing.

Material Aging Treatment Temperature Duration

(C / F) (hrs)
Bare Steel Immersion in test solution 23 / 75 48
TSA Coated Immersion in test solution 23 / 75 48
Steel
Defected TSA Immersion in test solution 23 / 75 48
Coated Steel
Mineral Wool Immersion in test solution 82 / 180 48
Insulation
Calcium Immersion in test solution 82 / 180 48
Silicate
Insulation
* Test Solutions – distilled water containing reagent sulfuric acid to pH 5.0 and 100 ppm NaCl

9
 Data Analysis
 Electrochemical Evaluation
- Corrosion rates were plotted
versus time using a
combination of linear
polarization (LPR) and
harmonic distortion analysis
(HDA).
- The B value correction was
based on the HDA
measurements made during
the actual exposure test.
- Pitting Factor (PF) was
assessed using the standard
deviation of the corrosion
current divided by the average
corrosion current during
measurement cycle (7 min.)
 PF > 0.1 (Localized Corrosion)
 PF < 0.01 (General Corrosion)
 Corrosion Analyses
- The ring specimens were
visually examined for corrosion
or coating damage.
- The working electrode was
used for a destructive
examination including:
 Metallographic sectioning
 Examination of the corrosion
- The TSA coating thickness was
assessed by metallographic
cross-sectioning and
microscopical measurements.
- Scrapings from the surface
deposits on the ring specimens
and pH measurements of the
insulation were taken after
testing.
10
 Steel in Mineral Wool & Calcium Silicate

Mineral Wool
Test 1 - LPRCorrosion Rates for Steel - Cyclic Temperature Wet Dry

100.000

LPR Corrosion Rate

- Initial Corrosion rates 10.000

were high

Corrosion Rate (mpy)

1.000

- Distinct wet/dry periods 0.100

 Each wet/dry cycle produced

a corrosion rate spike 0.010

Calcium Silicate 0.001

8-Jan-07 9-Jan-07 10-Jan-07 11-Jan-07 12-Jan-07 13-Jan-07 14-Jan-07 15-Jan-07 16-Jan-07 17-Jan-07 18-Jan-07 19-Jan-07
Date/Time

- Maximum corrosion rates Test 2 - LPRCorrosion Rates for Steel - Cyclic Temperature Wet Dry

more consistent with time 1.000

LPR Corrosion Rate

- No evidence of distinct
wet/dry periods Corrosion Rate (mpy) 0.100

- Corrosion rate is low but

actually highly variable 0.010

0.001
8-Feb-07 9-Feb-07 10-Feb-07 11-Feb-07 12-Feb-07 13-Feb-07 14-Feb-07 15-Feb-07 16-Feb-07 17-Feb-07 18-Feb-07 19-Feb-07
Date/Time

11
 Corrosion of Carbon Steel in Mineral Wool

LPR Corrosion Rate (w/B value = 25 mV from HDA)

Pitting Factor (Test 1: C. Steel - Cyclic Temperature Wet Dry)
100.000 1.000

LPR Corr Rate (default B)

Pitting Factor

10.000 0.100
Corrosion Rate (mpy)

Pitting Factor
1.000 0.010

0.100 0.001

Isothermal drying
period
0.010 0.000
21-Dec-06 10-Jan-07 30-Jan-07 19-Feb-07 11-Mar-07 31-Mar-07 20-Apr-07 10-May-07
Time (Date / Time)

 Corrosion rate decreased with time of exposure.

 Corrosion rate initially up to 40 mpy (1 mm/yr) decreasing to <0.1 mpy (0.03 mm/yr)
 Pitting tendency is initially high but also reduced with time.
 Corrosion decreases to baseline rate during drying period at end of the test. No
evidence of complete dry out.
12
 Corrosion of Carbon Steel in Calcium Silicate

LPR Corr Rate (default B) LPR Corrosion Rate (w/B value = 26 mV from HDA)
Pitting Factor Pitting Factor (Test 2: C. Steel - Cyclic Wet Dry)
10.000 1.000

0.100

1.000
Corrosion Rate (mpy)

Isothermal drying

Pitting Factor
period

0.010

0.100

0.001

0.010 0.000
16-Jan-07 26-Jan-07 5-Feb-07 15-Feb-07 25-Feb-07 7-Mar-07 17-Mar-07 27-Mar-07 6-Apr-07 16-Apr-07 26-Apr-07 6-May-07
Time (Date / Time)

 Corrosion rates generally between 0.1 to 1.0 mpy (0.003 to 0.03 mm/yr)
 Some spikes during rehydration to higher rates
 Corrosion rate becomes variable during final drying period.
 High PF caused by highly variable corrosion rates and not pitting.
13
 TSA Coated Steel in Mineral Wool

LPR Corrosion Rate (w/B value = 15 mV from HDA) & Pitting Factor
(Test 1: TSA Coated Steel - Cyclic Temperature Wet Dry)
10.000 1.000

LPR Corr Rate (default B)

Pitting Factor

1.000 0.100
Corrosion Rate (mpy)

Pitting Factor
0.100 0.010

Isothermal drying
period

0.010 0.001

0.001 0.000
21-Dec-06 10-Jan-07 30-Jan-07 19-Feb-07 11-Mar-07 31-Mar-07 20-Apr-07 10-May-07
Time (Date / Time)

 Initial corrosion rates around 0.01 mpy (0.003 mm/yr)

 Corrosion rates decrease to detection limit – near 0.001 mpy (0.0003 mm/yr)
 Corrosion became intermittent likely due to passivation of the aluminum.

14
 TSA Coated Steel in Calcium Silicate

LPR Corrosion Rate (w/B value = 15 mV from HDA) Pitting Factor

(Test 2: TSA Coated Steel - Cyclic Temperature Wet Dry)
10.000 1.000

LPR Corr Rate (default B)

Pitting Factor

Isothermal drying
period 0.100

1.000
Corrosion Rate (mpy)

Pitting Factor
0.010

0.100

0.001

0.010 0.000
16-Jan-07 5-Feb-07 25-Feb-07 17-Mar-07 6-Apr-07 26-Apr-07 16-May-07
Time (Date / Time)

 Corrosion rates were higher than in mineral wool and were in the range
0.1 - 1 mpy (0.003 – 0.03 mpy)
 Highly variable corrosion rates result in high PF not due to localized corrosion
 During final drying period corrosion rate reduce to < 0.010 mpy (0.0003 mm/yr)

15
 Corrosion of Defected TSA

 Corrosion of defected TSA was likely driven by corrosion

of exposed steel areas however, it could have been an
acceleration of the TSA corrosion rate.
 Corrosion rates were generally higher tested with calcium
silicate versus mineral wool:
- Initially 1 – 10 mpy (0.03 – 0.3 mm/yr) in both types of insulation
- Corrosion rates decreased with time to 0.01 – 0.1 mpy (0.0003 –
0.003 mm/yr) in mineral wool
- Corrosion rates stayed higher in calcium silicate in the range of
1 – 10 mpy (0.03 – 0.3 mm/yr).
 Corrosion did not result in measureable sacrificial loss of
TSA.
 Good adhesion was observed for the TSA around the
defected areas.

16
 Other Observations

 Forced aeration of the test solution did not change the

corrosion rate of carbon steel, TSA or defected TSA
specimens.
 CUI corrosion rates varied with the level of water availability
- When the water injection was stopped corrosion rates decreased very
low levels
- But, once hydrated, the mineral wool insulation could sustain
corrosion of steel at 82 C without water injection for a prolonged
period. Not so in calcium silicate.
 Post-test pH measurements
- The pH of the mineral wool after testing averaged 5.1.
- The pH of the calcium silicate after testing was only slightly higher
with an average value of 5.5 versus initial readings of near 10.
 Post-test surface deposit analyses using SEM/EDS showed
evidence of elements contained in the corrosion products,
test solution and the thermal insulation with no evidence of
unexpected species.
17
 Conclusions

 The highest corrosion rates observed during CUI exposures

occurred for bare steel during the initial month under mineral
wool insulation. Corrosion rates were in the range of 1 to 40
mpy (0.03 to 1.0 mm/yr).
 TSA coated specimens showed the lowest corrosion rates
for all cases with corrosion rate of < 0.01 mpy (0.0003
mm/y) under mineral wool insulation and between 0.1 and 1
mpy (0.003 to 0.03 mm/y) for calcium silicate insulation.
 Defected TSA coated specimens showed higher corrosion
rates than non-defected TSA. This was primarily due to the
increased activity of the carbon steel in the defected region
or increased activity of the TSA.
 No measurable sacrificial reduction in the TSA coating was
noted or could be confirmed by post-test evaluation.

18
 Conclusions (2)

 Post-test analyses of surface deposits showed only

evidence of elements contained in the corrosion products,
test solution and the thermal insulation.
 Air purging of the test solution used in the CUI tests, did not
increase the corrosion rates in the test over those obtained
in tests using the test solution exposed to ambient air.
 Mineral wool and calcium silicate responded differently to
the wet and iso-thermal drying periods.
- Corrosion rates were more variable with time in the calcium silicate insulation.
- The corrosion rate of the bare steel in the test with mineral wool was
maintained at the low but finite rate during drying indicating that drying of the
insulation was not achieved at 82 C.
- By comparison, the corrosion rate of the bare steel in the calcium silicate test
dropped to a very low rate and became intermittent suggesting drying of the
insulation.

19