[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Next Article in Journal
Effect of Precipitates on Dislocation Loops in Vanadium Alloy After Irradiation with 60 keV Deuterium Ions at Room Temperature
Next Article in Special Issue
Corrosion Inhibition of Carbon Steel Immersed in Standardized Reconstituted Geothermal Water and Individually Treated with Four New Biosourced Oxazoline Molecules
Previous Article in Journal
Cracking Behaviour of René 80-Type Superalloy During Laser-Based Directed Energy Deposition
Previous Article in Special Issue
Ruta graveolens Plant Extract as a Green Corrosion Inhibitor for 304 SS in 1 M HCl: Experimental and Theoretical Studies
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Metals
Volume 14
Issue 12
10.3390/met14121436
metals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Heat Treatment on the Corrosion Behavior of Weld-Deposited Chromium Carbide-Based Hardfacing Alloys

by
Cedric Tan
,
Kannoorpatti Krishnan
* and
Naveen Kumar Elumalai
*
Advanced Manufacturing Alliance, Energy and Resources Institute, Faculty of Science and Technology, Charles Darwin University, Darwin 0909, Australia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Metals 2024, 14(12), 1436; https://doi.org/10.3390/met14121436
Submission received: 3 November 2024 / Revised: 5 December 2024 / Accepted: 13 December 2024 / Published: 14 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Corrosion and Protection of Metallic Materials)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>As-deposited Surface of Alloy H0 for (<b>a</b>) 3000× magnification and (<b>b</b>) 6000× magnification, showing the 1. primary carbide, 2. eutectic austenite, and 3. eutectic carbides.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Surface of Alloy H650 for (<b>a</b>) 3000× magnification (<b>b</b>) 6000× magnification.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>As-deposited Surface of Alloy H950 for (<b>a</b>) 3000× magnification and (<b>b</b>) 6000× magnification.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Hardness values for carbides and eutectic carbide/matrix mix.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>XRD for H0, H650, and H950 Cu radiation.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Potentiodynamic curves for Samples H0, H650, and H950.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Potentiostatic schematic points as illustrated for Sample H0.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>SEM imagery for Sample H0 at (<b>a</b>) −330 mV, (<b>b</b>) 800 mV, and (<b>c</b>) 1100 mV.</p> "> Figure 9
<p>SEM Imagery for Sample H650 at (<b>a</b>) −330 mV, (<b>b</b>) 800 mV, and (<b>c</b>) 1100 mV.</p> "> Figure 10
<p>SEM imagery for Sample H950 at (<b>a</b>) −330 mV, (<b>b</b>) 800 mV, and (<b>c</b>) 1100 mV.</p> "> Figure 11
<p>Nyquist plot for Samples H0, H650, and H950.</p> "> Figure 12
<p>Bode plot with respect to the phase angle.</p> "> Figure 13
<p>Bode plot with respect to the magnitude.</p> "> Figure 14
<p>Schematic of the expected EIS coating model.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The effects of heat treatment on the microstructure and corrosion behavior of chromium carbide-based hardfacing alloys deposited via gas metal arc welding were investigated. The hardfacing alloy, high chromium white iron (HCWI), containing 27 wt% Cr and 4.8 wt% C, was heat treated at 650 °C and 950 °C for six hours followed by natural cooling to room temperature. Microstructural characterization revealed that heat treatment promoted the transformation of austenite to ferrite and increased carbide precipitation. X-ray diffraction analysis identified the primary carbides as Cr7C3, which remained stable during heat treatment. Electrochemical corrosion testing in artificial seawater, including potentiodynamic polarization and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), demonstrated progressively improved corrosion resistance with heat treatment temperature. Both techniques confirmed that the specimen treated at 950 °C exhibited superior corrosion resistance compared to the 650 °C treatment and as-deposited condition, with the specimen treated at 950 °C exhibiting the highest charge transfer resistance (4711 Ω·cm2) compared to the 650 °C treatment (2608 Ω·cm2) and as-deposited condition (374.6 Ω·cm2). The enhanced corrosion resistance was attributed to the increased carbide precipitation and optimization of the matrix composition. While heat treatment at both temperatures improved corrosion performance, the 950 °C treatment yielded superior results, suggesting this could be an optimal temperature for enhancing the corrosion resistance of chromium carbide-based hardfacing alloys.

1. Introduction

Hardfacing is often used as a method to improve surface properties of a substrate metal. One common method of hardfacing is by welding deposition onto a substrate. This process improves various surface properties such as of hardness, wear, and corrosion resistance. Australian standards such as AS/NZS 2576:2005 can be used to select appropriate hardfacing materials based on applications. [1].
One type of hardfacing material is based on high chromium white iron (HCWI) weld deposit. This material contains iron with high amounts of chromium content (nominally above >12% and carbon content above 3 wt%) [2,3]. This allows it to form polygonal chromium carbides in the material, surrounded by a eutectic matrix. High chromium alloys are often studied and used in industries such as mining and mineral processing due to their high wear resistance [4]. However, it can be noted that due to its high chromium content, these alloys can also form protective Cr2O3 films that can passivate against further corrosion, with increased corrosion resistance seen in materials containing chromium contents above 20% [5].
Heat treatment can be utilized to modify the properties of hardfacing layers. This may be used to relieve not only stress but also increase the toughness of materials and modify the microstructure of alloys [6,7]. Control of the form and type of carbides present within the material can optimize the performance of materials. For instance, it is speculated that cast heat treatment-induced spheroidization may lead to carbides being more globular in shape, enhancing the toughness of the material [3,8].
The effects of heat treatment on microstructure and hardness are well-studied for HCWI. A review for HCWI describes the as-deposited state as typically consisting of austenitic dendrites, with austenite and M7C3 carbides, with the carbide volume fraction determined by both chromium and carbon content [3]. Heat treatment has been found to decrease the stability of austenite due to precipitation of carbides, reducing the carbon and chromium content in the austenite. This leads to the transformation of austenite into martensite; however, austenite can still be retained, with an increased austenite proportion found at higher destabilization temperatures [9]. Chromium content is also expected to affect the form of carbides precipitated, with one study finding 20%Cr only forming M7C3 carbides, whilst 27%Cr led to the formation of both M23C6 and M7C3 carbides [10]. Precipitated carbides improved matrix strength, as well as provided support for other carbides [6,11].
While heat treatment is generally agreed to improve properties compared to its as-cast state, some debate remains concerning the temperatures and processes required for the optimization of its properties [12,13]. For instance, one study found that heat treatment over increased holding times (6 h) led to improved wear resistance; however, hardness at the same time also decreased [14]. This effect was attributed by the authors to have been caused by the simultaneous modification of matrix toughness, whilst hardness decreased from carbide coarsening. Lower destabilization temperatures at subcritical levels such as at 600 °C have been associated with greater carbide precipitation and lower retained austenite, leading toward reduced hardness compared to destabilization temperatures such as 1000 °C [3,15]. The precipitation of secondary carbides has also been found to be affected by heating rate and temperatures [16]. In general, however, it is thought that control of carbide size is critical for controlling wear [17,18].
Limited studies regarding the corrosion behavior of heat treatment for cast HCWI alloys appear to have been conducted. For instance, Sarac et al. investigated the effects of heat treatment on cast HCWI alloys in alkaline and acidic conditions [19]. Their results for heat treatment at 900 °C found refinement of primary carbides and precipitation of excessive carbides, with further tempering at 240 °C resulting in more homogenous carbide dispersion. These heat treatment effects were attributed to improving corrosion resistance compared to the as-cast sample. Generally, it has been found that heat treatment reduces the corrosion of as-cast samples; however, it has also been noted that heat treatment at subcritical temperatures produced better corrosion resistance [10,20].
In contrast to as-cast alloys, research into the corrosion effects of heat-treated chromium carbide-based weld hardfaced deposits is still to be investigated, at least to the best of the author’s knowledge. In this study, the effects of heat treatment of chromium carbide-based weld hardfaced deposits were investigated [21].

2. Experimental Procedure

2.1. Material Preparation

Commercially available Supershield CrC (Hyundai, sourced from Sydney, Australia) was deposited onto a base mild steel substrate by gas metal arc welding. As per its datasheet, this alloy can be described as iron-containing chromium carbides, as designed for use cases against severe abrasion/erosion and moderate impacts [22]. This alloy is also designed to be self-shielding, not requiring a shielding gas under regular conditions for ease of portable deposition. The expected composition of this welding alloy is shown in Table 1 below.
This weld metal was manually deposited using a Cigweld MIG welding machine (sourced from Sydney, Australia). A mean voltage of 32 V and current of 350 A was also used, with a wire feed speed of 11.5 m/min. A minimum of four welding layers was also deposited to reduce the effects of dilution, as per AS/NZS 2576:2005 [1], with a total deposited height of 1.5 cm.
The topmost layer of three different samples was cut off to expose a flat 2 × 2 cm surface. The heat treatment of samples was undertaken toward target temperatures as listed in Table 2. This was conducted in a furnace from room temperature up to the target temperature in the air, which was then held for six hours once the target temperature was reached. Once completed, samples were then left in the furnace to cool back to room temperature. Samples are nominally labeled as H0 to describe the as-deposited state H650 for the sample undergoing heat treatment at 650 °C and H950 for the sample with heat treatment at 950 °C. Earlier studies have found that heat treatment at 650 °C would produce the precipitation of carbides while heat treatment at 950 °C resulted in the dissolution of the carbides [21].
Before each surface characterization or electrochemical test, samples were polished to a 1 µm finish. These samples were then etched using 5% nital.
Artificial seawater was also prepared for analysis as the main electrolytic test medium for exposing prepared metal samples. This was created as per ASTM D1141-98, with compositional ingredients as shown in Table 3 below [23].

2.2. Surface Characterisation and Compositional Analysis

Deposited and heat-treated samples were characterized using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). A PhenomXL (Thermofisher, Adelaide, Australia) scanning electron microscope was used to achieve these goals, taking images of the microstructural surface both before and after electrochemical testing. Pre-corrosion images were prepared via polishing under up to 1 µm diamond paste, as further detailed under the material preparation in Section 2.1. Further analysis of SEM images was conducted using ImageJ software (version 1.54). The PhenomXL machine was also used to simultaneously perform Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectrocopy (EDS) measurements to further characterize the chemical composition of microstructural features.
X-ray Diffraction (XRD) was performed using a PANanalytical Empyrean (Malvern Panalytical, Sydney, Australia) to gauge the composition of the non-heat treated sample. This utilized a copper target under a range of 2θ = 20–90°, with a step size of 0.0394° and a time of 300 s per step.
Microhardness values were also taken for each sample using a DuraScan 70 machine (Struers, sourced from Milton, Australia). This utilized a load of 0.05 kg for indentation on the carbides, as well as a eutectic carbide/matrix mix. Microhardness had to be conducted on a eutectic carbide/matrix mix due to its small size preventing hardness of the matrix and eutectic carbides from being measured independently.

2.3. Electrochemical Testing

Electrochemical testing was conducted on the metal samples using a Gamry 3000 potentiostat (sourced from Menai, Australia). A three-electrode setup was used, with the metal samples acting as the working electrode, artificial seawater as the electrolyte, Ag/AgCl reference electrode, and a platinum-coated counter electrode.
Potentiodynamic tests were performed on the samples. Before each potentiodynamic test, samples were polished with up to 1 µm diamond paste as described via the material preparation in Section 2.1. These samples were then left exposed to the artificial seawater medium for one hour to allow the system to normalize. Open Circuit Potential (OCP) was then run over ten minutes before beginning potentiodynamic testing. The range of potential values used was −0.2 V below OCP to 1.3 V, with a scan rate of 0.167 mV/s. Similarly, electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) was also run over the range of 0.1–10,000 Hz after polishing the samples and leaving them exposed to artificial seawater after an hour. An amplitude of ±10 mV was used.

3. Results

3.1. Microstructural Characterisation and Hardness

SEM images of Sample H0, H650, and H950 are shown in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3. These images display a mix of larger carbides and smaller eutectic carbides and austenite microstructure, as annotated in Figure 1b. It can be seen in the higher magnification images that heat treatment resulted in a greater proportion of smaller carbides (or secondary carbides) being precipitated than in the as-deposited sample. Sample H950 also exhibited tiny carbide flecks as labeled in Figure 3b. Limited spheroidization may have occurred in the H950 sample, as carbides seem to have slightly rounded sides compared to the samples in Figure 2a,b.
Quantitative analysis using ImageJ software was conducted using three equal-sized images enumerating the number of carbides (Table 4). This confirmed a significant increase in the total number of carbides due to precipitation, increasing from 674 in Sample H0 to 1012 and 1444 in Sample H650 and H950, respectively. Some refinement of the carbides also occurred, with the maximum carbide size decreasing from 207 µm2 in Sample H0 to 167 µm2 and 160 µm2 in Sample H650 and H950, respectively.
The hardness of the samples was measured using a 0.05 kgf load for the carbides and a eutectic carbide/mix (recalling as per the experimental section that the eutectic carbides/matrix could not be measured independently due to small size); the average of three separate points was found. These results are provided in Table 5 and Figure 4. Notably, the hardness was greatest in the eutectic carbide/matrix mix for the as-deposited sample (1030 HV0.05) than in the heat-treated samples (707 HV0.05 and 949 HV0.05 for Sample H650 and H950, respectively). Meanwhile, heat treatment at 650 °C resulted in a slight decrease in primary carbide hardness compared to the as-deposited sample (1349 HV0.05 and 1536 HV0.05, respectively), whilst Sample H950 displayed the highest carbide hardness at 1536 HV0.05).

3.2. EDS and XRD Results

EDS results are shown in Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8 for the carbides, eutectic carbides, and austenite/ferrite in Samples H0, H650, and H950.
As per Table 7, the chromium content in the primary carbides appeared to marginally decrease with increasing heat treatment (45.4 wt% to 43.6 wt% to 43.0 wt% for H0, H650, and H950, respectively). The chromium content in the austenite/ferrite decreases slightly from 14.3 wt% in Sample H0 to 14.2 wt% in H950 and 12.9 wt% in H650. The loss of chromium and carbon from the primary carbides and eutectic austenite resulted in the precipitation of secondary carbides with an increase in chromium content from 34 wt% in Sample H0 to 35.2 wt% and 37 wt% in Sample H650 and H950, respectively. The total number of carbides has increased from 674 to 1012 to 1444 for H0, H650, and H950, respectively, as shown in Table 4.
The results from XRD testing are shown in Figure 5. Notably, the non-heat-treated Sample H0 displayed primary carbides of the form Cr7C3 and austenite. Heat treatment does not appear to have transformed Cr7C3 to any other form of carbides. However, the H650 and H950 samples appear to display the transformation of austenite into ferrite/martensite. This behavior is in line with other studies for HCWI alloys, which describe transformation to ferrite [24,25] and martensite [26] upon cooling due to chromium depletion from the matrix.

3.3. Potentiodynamic and Potentiostatic Results

Potentiodynamic tests were undertaken for Samples H0, H650, and H950 using a three-electrode setup to investigate the corrosion behavior. The results from this testing are as shown in Figure 6, with corrosion parameters Ecorr and Icorr as shown in Table 9 as found from Tafel plot analysis in Gamry Echem Analyst software (ver 7.9.0). From this, it appears that H650 had only a slightly better corrosion potential Ecor than Sample H0 (−545 mV and −528 mV for H0 and H650, respectively), whilst heat treatment at 950 °C displayed the best corrosion resistance with an Ecor of −492 mV.
Notably, after open circuit potential has been passed, all samples appear to display two different major points of inflection on the curve; one around −0.2 V and another at approximately past 1.0 V. Using this as a guide, potentiostatic points were chosen for etching at different potentials for 15 min to further observe corrosion behavior within these sections. These points are labeled in Figure 7 for Sample H0, with a table of these values as shown in Table 10.
Samples were etched at these potentials using the electrolyte shown in Table 3, and SEM pictures after etching are shown in Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10. The EDS results of carbides and the matrix are shown in Table 11 and Table 12. Carbides did not appear to be particularly affected by etching at different potentials, with all chromium content lying between a 45 and 48 wt% range. However, increases of at least 4 wt% can be observed for matrix (ferrite/austenite) chromium when increasing the etching potential from −330 mV to 800 mV for all samples (e.g., 12.3 wt% -> 16.8 wt% for Sample H0, 12.3 wt% -> 17.9 wt% for Sample H650 and 11.5 wt% -> 18.3 wt% for Sample H950). Meanwhile, the iron content in the matrix decreased by ~30 wt% for all samples when increasing the potential from −330 mV to 800 mV (e.g., 82.7 wt% -> 49.5 wt% for Sample H0, 82.8 wt% -> 53.1 wt% for Sample H650 and 87.1 wt% -> 49.5 wt% for Sample H950). This may suggest that whilst the iron matrix preferentially corroded, chromium remained mostly untouched. Furthermore, the oxygen content in the matrix increased between the potentiostatic points of −300 and 800 mV (e.g., 0.9 wt% -> 18.5 wt% for Sample H0), suggesting that the loss of iron was due to the formation of iron oxides.

3.4. Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy Results

Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) was carried out using a three-electrode setup in artificial seawater. Nyquist and Bode plots are shown in Figure 11, Figure 12 and Figure 13.
Equivalent circuit models can be fit over this data. For coatings, these are typically expected to be in the form Rsoln[Cc[Rpo[CcorRcor]] [27]. In this model, Rsoln represents solution resistance, Cc represents the capacitance of the overall coating, Rpo represents the resistance of coating pores, Ccor represents the double-layer capacitance, and Rcor represents charge transfer resistance. It was also found that these models became more accurate when modeling the capacitors as complex phase elements (Q), likely due to non-homogenous elements in the system, and as such may be better described by the model Rsoln[Qc[Rpo[QcorRcor]], as seen in Figure 14. Parameters as obtained via this model are as shown in Table 13.
From Table 13, it was found that all models had a chi2 value of ~1 × 10−3 or less, indicating a good value of fit.
The EIS analysis reveals significant differences in the corrosion behavior between the as-deposited (H0) and heat-treated (H650 and H950) samples of the chromium carbide-based hardfacing alloy. The Nyquist plots (Figure 11) and corresponding EIS parameters (Table 12) provide valuable insights into the electrochemical characteristics and corrosion resistance of these samples.
The most striking observation is the substantial increase in charge transfer resistance (Rcor) following heat treatment. The H0 sample exhibits the lowest Rcor value of 374.6 Ω.cm2, while H650 and H950 show dramatically higher values of 2608 Ω.cm2 and 4711 Ω.cm2, respectively. This progressive increase in Rcor indicates enhanced corrosion resistance with heat treatment, particularly at the higher temperature of 950 °C. The larger Rcor values suggest that the heat-treated samples form more stable passive films, which act as better barriers against charge transfer processes at the metal–solution interface.
The solution resistance (Rsoln) shows a slight decrease from 34.11 Ω.cm2 for H0 to approximately 25 Ω.cm2 for both heat-treated samples. This minor variation in Rsoln suggests that the electrolyte conditions remained relatively consistent during testing, allowing for reliable comparison of other parameters.
A particularly interesting trend is observed in the porous resistance (Rpo) values. The as-deposited H0 sample shows a relatively high Rpo of 1381 Ω.cm2, which drastically decreases to 73.82 Ω.cm2 for H650 and further drops to 38.75 Ω.cm2 for H950. This trend correlates well with the microstructural changes observed, particularly the increase in carbide count and decrease in carbide size with heat treatment. The higher number of smaller carbides likely creates more interfaces and potential pathways through the passive film, resulting in lower Rpo values.
The constant phase element parameters (Qc and nc) for the coating layer show a consistent trend toward more ideal capacitive behavior with heat treatment. The nc value increases from 0.7153 (H0) to 0.9283 (H950), approaching unity, which indicates the formation of a more uniform and stable passive film. Simultaneously, the Qc values decrease by almost two orders of magnitude from H0 (0.00358) to H950 (5.30 × 10−5), suggesting the formation of a thicker or more compact passive layer.
These EIS results align well with the potentiodynamic findings, where both heat-treated samples showed significantly lower corrosion current densities (Icorr) compared to the as-deposited condition. The improvement in corrosion resistance can be attributed to several factors revealed in the microstructural analysis. (a) The redistribution of chromium during heat treatment, particularly in the matrix and eutectic regions, likely contributes to the formation of a more effective passive film. (b) The increased number of finer carbides (1444 carbides for H950 vs. 674 for H0) creates a more uniform distribution of chromium-rich phases, potentially leading to more consistent passive film formation. (c) The changes in matrix composition, particularly the optimization of chromium content (14.2 wt% in H950), appear to provide an ideal balance for corrosion resistance.
Analysis of the Bode plot (Figure 12) provides complementary insights into the frequency-dependent electrochemical behavior of the hardfacing alloy samples, revealing distinct phase angle responses across the frequency spectrum (0.1 Hz to 10 kHz).
The phase angle profiles demonstrate characteristic differences between the as-deposited and heat-treated conditions. At lower frequencies (0.1–1 Hz), H650 exhibits the most negative phase angle maximum (approximately −55°), followed by H950 (−50°), while H0 shows a notably less negative maximum (around −48°). This behavior in the low-frequency region corresponds to the diffusion-controlled processes and indicates that H650 achieves the most effective capacitive behavior in this range, suggesting a more stable passive film formation.
In the intermediate frequency range (1–100 Hz), there is a clear shift in the phase angle maxima positions. The H0 sample shows its maximum phase angle at a higher frequency compared to both heat-treated samples, indicating faster charge transfer kinetics but potentially less stable passive film behavior. This observation aligns with the previously noted lower charge transfer resistance (Rcor) for the H0 sample.
The high-frequency region (>1000 Hz) shows convergence of phase angles toward zero for all samples, though with subtle differences in their decay patterns. The H950 sample maintains slightly more negative phase angles in this region, suggesting better retention of capacitive behavior even at higher frequencies. This characteristic correlates well with its highest nc value (0.9283) among the three conditions, indicating the near-ideal capacitive behavior of its passive film. A notable feature is the broader phase angle peak for H950 compared to both H0 and H650, suggesting a wider range of effective capacitive behavior. This broadening of the frequency response indicates a more complex and potentially more effective barrier against corrosion, consistent with the microstructural refinement observed in the H950 sample. The gradual transition in phase angles across the frequency spectrum for heat-treated samples, particularly H950, indicates a more homogeneous electrochemical response. This homogeneity can be attributed to the refined carbide distribution and optimized matrix composition achieved through heat treatment, resulting in more uniform corrosion protection.
The Bode magnitude plot (Figure 13) provides additional insights into the impedance behavior of the hardfacing alloy samples across the frequency spectrum. The impedance magnitude (|Z|) versus frequency representation reveals several distinctive characteristics that complement our previous electrochemical analyses.
At the lowest frequencies (0.1 Hz), both heat-treated samples (H650 and H950) exhibit slightly higher impedance magnitudes (approximately 2000 Ω·cm2) compared to the as-deposited H0 sample (approximately 1500 Ω·cm2). This higher low-frequency impedance correlates with the enhanced barrier properties of the heat-treated surfaces, particularly their improved passive film characteristics. A notable feature is the slope of the impedance curves in the mid-frequency range (1–100 Hz). All three samples show a characteristic linear decrease in impedance with increasing frequency but with subtle differences in their slopes. The heat-treated samples demonstrate a slightly steeper decline in this region, suggesting a more pronounced capacitive behavior of their surface films. In the high-frequency domain (>1000 Hz), the impedance values converge to similar magnitudes (around 25–30 Ω·cm2) for all samples, corresponding to the solution resistance (Rsoln) values previously noted. This convergence indicates that at high frequencies, the electrical response is dominated by the electrolyte properties rather than the surface characteristics of the samples.
The overall shape of the magnitude plots, when considered alongside the previously discussed phase angle responses, suggests a two-time-constant system. This indicates the presence of both a surface film capacitance and a double-layer capacitance, with the heat-treated samples showing a more distinct separation between these time constants as discussed below.
The electrochemical analysis of the two-time constants can be better understood through the quantification of their characteristic frequencies (fc), which can be calculated using the relationship fc = 1/(2π(RQ)^(1/n)), where R represents the respective resistance (Rpo or Rcor), Q is the constant phase element parameter (Qc or Qcor), and n is the corresponding exponential factor (nc or ncor). For the porous layer (first time constant), this calculation yields characteristic frequencies of approximately 185 Hz for H0, increasing to 2.1 kHz for H650 and further to 4.8 kHz for H950. The charge transfer processes (second-time constant) show distinctly lower characteristic frequencies of 1.2 Hz, 0.25 Hz, and 0.08 Hz for H0, H650, and H950, respectively. The first time constant, manifesting at higher frequencies, corresponds to the porous layer characteristics, while the second time constant at lower frequencies represents the charge transfer processes. The evolution of these time constants with heat treatment demonstrates a systematic transformation of the corrosion protection mechanism. In the as-deposited condition (H0), the porous layer exhibits a relatively low nc value of 0.7153, indicating moderate film homogeneity, with a high capacitance (Qc) of 0.00358 Ω−1 cm−2 s^n. Heat treatment progressively enhances the passive film quality, as evidenced by the increase in nc to 0.9283 for H950, accompanied by a significant decrease in Qc to 5.30 × 10−5 Ω−1cm−2s^n, suggesting the formation of a thicker more compact oxide layer. The characteristic frequencies of these processes show remarkable separation, with the separation factor (ratio of higher to lower characteristic frequencies) increasing from 154 for H0 to approximately 60,000 for H950, indicating increasingly distinct electrochemical processes at the surface and interface. The resistance distribution undergoes a fundamental shift, as indicated by the Rpo/Rcor ratio changing from 3.687 in H0 to 0.008 in H950, signifying a transition from a porous layer-dominated protection mechanism to one predominantly controlled by charge transfer resistance. This transition aligns with the microstructural evolution, where the increase in carbide count from 674 to 1444 and reduction in average carbide size from 2.56 to 1.06 μm2 creates a more uniform corrosion barrier. The decreasing ncor values from 0.8741 (H0) to 0.6252 (H950) reflect increased surface heterogeneity at the charge transfer interface, attributable to the refined carbide distribution. The capacitive behavior shows increasingly distinct interfacial processes, with the Qcor/Qc ratio rising from 1.047 in H0 to 11.509 in H950. These quantitative parameters collectively demonstrate that heat treatment, particularly at 950 °C, fundamentally enhances corrosion resistance through the development of a more effective layered protection mechanism characterized by a homogeneous passive film and well-defined electrochemical processes at different interfaces.

4. Discussion

4.1. Effect of Heat Treatment on Microstructure

When hardfacing material with high carbon and chromium contents is deposited by welding, the fast cooling rates experienced lead toward the undiluted top layer consisting of Cr7C3 primary carbides and austenite. This is reflected in studies such as by Atamert and Bhadeshia [24], who have conducted in-depth microstructure and stability studies of similar hardfacing alloys. These researchers found in their study that when weld deposited, the top undiluted layer consists of M7C3 and an eutectic mixture of more M7C3 carbides with austenite. Austenite is stable at temperatures above 1150 °C. When returning from these high temperatures, some austenite is retained due to fast cooling, imparting some toughness. The remainder of the non-austenite equilibrium constituents should be ferrite and a higher volume fraction of M7C3 carbides, as shown via XRD. On heating to temperatures below 1150 °C, the most likely transformation of austenite would be to ferrite [24] [25]. As ferrite dissolves much less carbon than austenite, the excess carbon should produce more carbides. This was found in this study, as the samples were heated to 650 and 950 °C, the total number of carbides increased as shown in Table 3. The number of carbides precipitated after 950 °C is much higher than the number of carbides after 650 °C. Fontana and Greene, when describing knife-line attacks, state that at around 950 °C, M23C6 carbides in stainless steels dissolve and will reform when slowly cooled [21]. Whilst no M23C6 carbides were found in this study, Atamert and Bhadeshia [25] found that the secondary carbides that form when cooling from heat treatment are initially M23C6 carbides due to their good lattice matching relationship with austenite, before transforming to the more stable M7C3 carbides. Thus, it is possible that similar dissolution and reformation of carbides may have occurred in this study.
The austenite decomposition occurred more fully after the heat treatment at 950 °C and hence the matrix ferrite content is lower than that of 650 °C heat treated samples. Other researchers have found that in casting high chromium white irons, the dissociation of austenite after heat treatment produced martensite [3,6]. Speculatively, the reason for this difference could be the coarseness of the microstructure produced by casting compared to weld hardfacing. The XRD results suggest the presence of martensite or ferrite, which is difficult to distinguish due to similar crystal structures and lattice parameters [28]. Given ferrite’s limited carbon solubility, which may be speculated to not align with the matrix containing up to 5.3% carbon after heat treatment at 950 °C, more investigation is needed to confirm the presence of martensite.

4.2. Effect of Heat Treatment on Corrosion

Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10 show that the matrix corroded in preference to the carbides. One reason is that the carbide numbers increased after heat treatment, as shown in Table 3, which resulted in the matrix volume decreasing. It was found that heat treatment after 950 °C produced the greatest number of carbides and the least amount of matrix ferrite. As the matrix was galvanically corroding in preference to carbides, 950 °C heat treatment produced the best corrosion performance.
In the study by Varmaa and Kannoorpatti [29], it was found that by using a pH 7 solution containing NaCl, the matrix was corroded in preference to the carbide. They explained this behavior by superimposing the Pourbaix diagrams of Cr7C3 and Fe on each other to show that the potentials of 1.1 V (vs. Ag/AgCl) would fall in the active or corrosion regions for the Fe and Cr. M7C3 carbides contain about 43% Fe on average and this was also found by other investigators [24]. The matrix contains, on average, about 77% Fe as shown in Table 6. It was also found in other investigations that the corrosion of high chromium white irons is dominated by the formation of FeO [30], with Salasi et al. hypothesizing that the presence of chloride irons disrupts passive layers and initiates dissolution from the carbide/matrix interface [31]. Given the large differences in the chromium contents of the carbides and the matrix, it is likely that this compositional difference resulted in the corrosion of the matrix. However, when the pH is high and iron is more stable than chromium, it is possible that carbides would instead dissolve in preference to the matrix, as shown by other studies through the use of Pourbaix diagrams [29,32].
While the corrosion resistance was improved after the heat treatment at 950 °C, it is possible that the toughness of the hardfacing may be degraded due to the dissociation of austenite to ferrite and carbides, as also reflected by the reduction in matrix hardness in Figure 4. However, in certain applications where higher corrosion resistance is required, heat treatment would be beneficial. More work is needed to understand the phase transformation of the hardfacing alloys due to heat treatment.

5. Conclusions

This study sought to investigate the effects of heat treatment on high chromium white iron alloys and their electrochemical corrosion behavior as deposited via welding. A comparison was made from as-deposited samples toward those treat treated in a normal atmosphere at 650 °C, as well as 950 °C. Overall, it was found that
  • Heat treatment led to the transformation of austenite to ferrite;
  • Heat treatment at both 650 °C and 950 °C led to carbide precipitation within the matrix, with 950 °C also leading to the formation of small flecks;
  • Galvanic corrosion was found to occur with preferential corrosion of the matrix with respect to the carbides;
  • Heat treatment led to improved corrosion resistance compared to the as-deposited sample, with heat treatment at 950 °C displaying the best performance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.T. and K.K.; Formal analysis, C.T.; Investigation, C.T.; Methodology, C.T. and K.K.; Supervision, K.K. and N.K.E.; Validation, C.T.; Writing—original draft, C.T.; Writing—review and editing, C.T., K.K. and N.K.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship through Charles Darwin University.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. AS 2576-1982; Welding Consumables for Build-Up and Wear Resistance—Classification System. The Standards Association of Australia: Sydney, Australia, 2023. Available online: https://infostore.saiglobal.com/ (accessed on 31 July 2024).
  2. Singh, R. Applied Welding Engineering: Processes, Codes, and Standards; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  3. Tabrett, C.P.; Sare, I.R.; Ghomashchi, M.R. Microstructure-property relationships in high chromium white iron alloys. Int. Mater. Rev. 1996, 41, 59–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ngqase, M.; Pan, X. An overview on types of white cast irons and high chromium white cast irons. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1495, 012023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Nelson, G. The influence of Microstructure on the Corrosion and Wear Mechanisms of High Chromium White Irons in Highly Caustic Solutions. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia, January 2010. [Google Scholar]
  6. Jain, A.-S.; Chang, H.; Tang, X.; Hinckley, B.; Zhang, M.-X. Refinement of primary carbides in hypereutectic high-chromium cast irons: A review. J. Mater. Sci. 2021, 56, 999–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tan, C.; Krishnan, K.; Elumalai, N.K. Corrosion Behaviour of Heat-Treated Cold Spray Nickel Chromium/Chromium Carbides. Metals 2024, 14, 1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Karantzalis, A.; Lekatou, A.; Mavros, H. Mavros, Microstructural modifications of as-cast high-chromium white iron by heat treatment. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2009, 18, 174–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tabrett, C.; Sare, I. Effect of high temperature and sub-ambient treatments on the matrix structure and abrasion resistance of a high-chromium white iron. Scr. Mater. 1998, 38, 1747–1753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wiengmoon, A.; Pearce, J.T.H.; Chairuangsri, T. Relationship between microstructure, hardness and corrosion resistance in 20 wt.% Cr, 27 wt.% Cr and 36 wt.% Cr high chromium cast irons. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2011, 125, 739–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Duppin, P.; Saverna, J.; Schissler, J. A structural study of chromium white cast iron. AFS Trans. 1982, 90, 711–718. [Google Scholar]
  12. Chen, Z.; Guo, Q.; Fu, H.; Zhi, X. Effect of heat treatment on microstructure and properties of modified hypereutectic high chromium cast iron. Mater. Test. 2022, 64, 33–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Khamroev, N.; Egamberdiev, I.; Ashurov, K.; Asatov, S.; Khamidov, B. Exploring the influence of the casting process, structural components and heat treatment on the mechanical properties of high-chromium cast irons: A review. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Modern Problems of Applied Science and Engineering: MPASE2024, Samarkand, Uzbekistan, 2–3 May 2024; AIP Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  14. Liu, Q.; Hedström, P.; Zhang, H.; Wang, Q.; Jönsson, P.G.; Nakajima, K. Effect of heat treatment on microstructure and mechanical properties of Ti-alloyed hypereutectic high chromium cast iron. ISIJ Int. 2012, 52, 2288–2294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Maratray, F.; Poulalion, A.; Fillit, R.; Bruyas, H. The role of vanadium in high chromium white irons. In Proceedings of the Colloque Internationale sur les Matériaux Résistants à L’usure, Saint-Etienne, QC, Canada, 23–25 November 1983. [Google Scholar]
  16. Guitar, M.A.; Nayak, U.P.; Schneider, L.C.; Schmauch, J.; Mücklich, F. Analysis of the carbide precipitation and microstructural evolution in HCCI as a function of the heating rate and destabilization temperature. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 9549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Kusumoto, K.; Shimizu, K.; Purba, R.H.; Momma, Y. Effect of carbide refinement on high temperature erosive wear behavior of high chromium white cast iron with different titanium and carbon additions. Mater. Today Commun. 2024, 39, 109276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. LI, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Li, Y.; Chen, H.; Tang, Z.; Yang, Z.; Luo, Y.; Wu, C.; Liao, Y.; Wu, J. Effect of Quenched-Tempered Heat Treatment on the Wear Resistance Mechanism of Zta Ceramic Particles Reinforced Hcci-Based Architecture Composite. Available at SSRN 4264085. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4264085 (accessed on 31 July 2024).
  19. Sarac, M.F.; Dikici, B. Effect of heat treatment on wear and corrosion behavior of high chromium white cast iron. Mater. Test. 2019, 61, 659–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Poolthong, N.; Nomura, H.; Takita, M. Effect of heat treatment on microstructure and properties of semi-solid chromium cast iron. Mater. Trans. 2004, 45, 880–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fontana, M.G. Corrosion Engineering, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  22. HyundaiWelding. Supershield CrC. 2024. Available online: https://www.hyundaiwelding.com/data/file/consumables/catalog/Supershield%20CrC_en_eng.pdf (accessed on 31 July 2024).
  23. ASTM. D1141-98; Standard Practice for the Preparation of Substitute Ocean Water. ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1998. Available online: https://www.astm.org/d1141-98r21.html (accessed on 31 July 2024).
  24. Svensson, L.-E.; Gretoft, B.; Ulander, B.; Bhadeshia, H.K.D.H. Fe-Cr-C hardfacing alloys for high-temperature applications. J. Mater. Sci. 1986, 21, 1015–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Atamert, S.; Bhadeshia, H. Microstructure and stability of FeCrC hardfacing alloys. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 1990, 130, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Karantzalis, A.; Lekatou, A.; Kapoglou, A.; Mavros, H.; Dracopoulos, V. Phase transformations and microstructural observations during subcritical heat treatments of a high-chromium cast iron. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2012, 21, 1030–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Liu, W.; Pu, Y.; Liao, H.; Lin, Y.; He, W. Corrosion and wear behavior of PEO coatings on D16T aluminum alloy with different concentrations of graphene. Coatings 2020, 10, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Woo, W.; Em, V.; Kim, E.-Y.; Han, S.; Han, Y.; Choi, S.-H. Stress–strain relationship between ferrite and martensite in a dual-phase steel studied by in situ neutron diffraction and crystal plasticity theories. Acta Mater. 2012, 60, 6972–6981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Marimuthu, V.; Kannoorpatti, K. Corrosion Behaviour of High Chromium White Iron Hardfacing Alloys in Acidic and Neutral Solutions. J. Bio Tribo Corros. 2016, 2, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Marimuthu, V.; Gore, P.; Raja, V.S.; Kannoorpatti, K. Analysis of Film Formation in High Chromium White Iron Hardfacing Alloys in Alkaline Solution Using EIS and SIMS. J. Bio Tribo Corros. 2018, 4, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Salasi, M.; Stachowiak, G. Three-body tribocorrosion of high-chromium cast irons in neutral and alkaline environments. Wear 2011, 271, 1385–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Marimuthu, V.; Dulac, I.; Kannoorpatti, K. Significance of Pourbaix Diagrams to Study the Corrosion Behaviour of Hardfacing Alloys Based on Chromium Carbides at 298 K (25 °C). J. Bio Tribo Corros. 2016, 2, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Metals 14 01436 g001
Figure 1. As-deposited Surface of Alloy H0 for (a) 3000× magnification and (b) 6000× magnification, showing the 1. primary carbide, 2. eutectic austenite, and 3. eutectic carbides.
Figure 1. As-deposited Surface of Alloy H0 for (a) 3000× magnification and (b) 6000× magnification, showing the 1. primary carbide, 2. eutectic austenite, and 3. eutectic carbides.
Metals 14 01436 g001
Metals 14 01436 g002
Figure 2. Surface of Alloy H650 for (a) 3000× magnification (b) 6000× magnification.
Figure 2. Surface of Alloy H650 for (a) 3000× magnification (b) 6000× magnification.
Metals 14 01436 g002
Metals 14 01436 g003
Figure 3. As-deposited Surface of Alloy H950 for (a) 3000× magnification and (b) 6000× magnification.
Figure 3. As-deposited Surface of Alloy H950 for (a) 3000× magnification and (b) 6000× magnification.
Metals 14 01436 g003
Metals 14 01436 g004
Figure 4. Hardness values for carbides and eutectic carbide/matrix mix.
Figure 4. Hardness values for carbides and eutectic carbide/matrix mix.
Metals 14 01436 g004
Metals 14 01436 g005
Figure 5. XRD for H0, H650, and H950 Cu radiation.
Figure 5. XRD for H0, H650, and H950 Cu radiation.
Metals 14 01436 g005
Metals 14 01436 g006
Figure 6. Potentiodynamic curves for Samples H0, H650, and H950.
Figure 6. Potentiodynamic curves for Samples H0, H650, and H950.
Metals 14 01436 g006
Metals 14 01436 g007
Figure 7. Potentiostatic schematic points as illustrated for Sample H0.
Figure 7. Potentiostatic schematic points as illustrated for Sample H0.
Metals 14 01436 g007
Metals 14 01436 g008
Figure 8. SEM imagery for Sample H0 at (a) −330 mV, (b) 800 mV, and (c) 1100 mV.
Figure 8. SEM imagery for Sample H0 at (a) −330 mV, (b) 800 mV, and (c) 1100 mV.
Metals 14 01436 g008
Metals 14 01436 g009
Figure 9. SEM Imagery for Sample H650 at (a) −330 mV, (b) 800 mV, and (c) 1100 mV.
Figure 9. SEM Imagery for Sample H650 at (a) −330 mV, (b) 800 mV, and (c) 1100 mV.
Metals 14 01436 g009
Metals 14 01436 g010
Figure 10. SEM imagery for Sample H950 at (a) −330 mV, (b) 800 mV, and (c) 1100 mV.
Figure 10. SEM imagery for Sample H950 at (a) −330 mV, (b) 800 mV, and (c) 1100 mV.
Metals 14 01436 g010
Metals 14 01436 g011
Figure 11. Nyquist plot for Samples H0, H650, and H950.
Figure 11. Nyquist plot for Samples H0, H650, and H950.
Metals 14 01436 g011
Metals 14 01436 g012
Figure 12. Bode plot with respect to the phase angle.
Figure 12. Bode plot with respect to the phase angle.
Metals 14 01436 g012
Metals 14 01436 g013
Figure 13. Bode plot with respect to the magnitude.
Figure 13. Bode plot with respect to the magnitude.
Metals 14 01436 g013
Metals 14 01436 g014
Figure 14. Schematic of the expected EIS coating model.
Figure 14. Schematic of the expected EIS coating model.
Metals 14 01436 g014
Table 1. Expected composition of Supershield CrC.
Table 1. Expected composition of Supershield CrC.
Cr (wt%)C (wt%)Mn (wt%)Si (wt%)Fe (wt%)
274.81.60.4Balanced
Table 2. Targeted heat treatment temperatures.
Table 2. Targeted heat treatment temperatures.
NameHeat Treatment Temperature
Sample H0(No heat treatment)
Sample H650650 °C
Sample H950950 °C
Table 3. Artificial seawater composition.
Table 3. Artificial seawater composition.
CompoundConcentration (g/L)
NaCl24.53
MgCl25.20
Na2SO44.09
CaCl21.16
KCl0.695
NaHCO30.201
KBr0.101
H3BO30.027
SrCl20.025
NaF0.03
Table 4. Table of Enumerated Carbides (primary, seconday, and eutectic).
Table 4. Table of Enumerated Carbides (primary, seconday, and eutectic).
AlloyAverage Carbide Size (µm2)Max Carbide Found
(µm2)		Total No. of Carbides
H02.56207674
H6501.491671012
H9501.061601444
Table 5. Hardness values for carbides and the eutectic carbide/matrix mix.
Table 5. Hardness values for carbides and the eutectic carbide/matrix mix.
AreaAlloyHardness (HV0.05)
Point 1Point 2Point 3Average
CarbideH01622141515671536
H6501258138914001349
H9502226165419441941
Eutectic Carbide/MatrixH01009105810231030
H650687672761707
H9508699631016949
Table 6. EDS results of austenite/ferrite microstructure.
Table 6. EDS results of austenite/ferrite microstructure.
AlloyCarbon (wt%)Oxygen (wt%)Silicon (wt%)Chromium (wt%)Iron (wt%)
H07.61.10.914.376.1
H6506.890.10.912.979.2
H9505.310.10.614.279.8
Table 7. EDS results of primary carbide microstructure.
Table 7. EDS results of primary carbide microstructure.
AlloyCarbon (wt%)Oxygen (wt%)Chromium (wt%)Manganese (wt%)Iron (wt%)
H09.21.245.42.441.8
H65010.51.1043.62.2042.5
H9508.191.4043.01.9045.6
Table 8. Eutectic carbide microstructure composition via EDS.
Table 8. Eutectic carbide microstructure composition via EDS.
AlloyCarbon (wt%)Oxygen (wt%)Chromium (wt%)Manganese (wt%)Iron (wt%)
H09.920.9342.153.1
H6509.410.935.22.352.2
H95011.51.3372.647.6
Table 9. Corrosion parameters from the potentiodynamic plot.
Table 9. Corrosion parameters from the potentiodynamic plot.
AlloyEcorr (mV/cm2)Icorr (µA/cm2)
Sample H0−54511.5
Sample H650−5283.32
Sample H950−4923.24
Table 10. Potentiostatic points as used for Samples H0, H650, and H950.
Table 10. Potentiostatic points as used for Samples H0, H650, and H950.
Etched PointEtched Voltage (mV)
Point A−330
Point B800
Point C1100
Table 11. Matrix EDS composition at varying potentiostatic points.
Table 11. Matrix EDS composition at varying potentiostatic points.
AlloyPot. Point (mV)Element (wt%)
CarbonOxygenSiliconChromiumIronChlorineSodium
H0 −3302.30.9112.382.70.8-
8004.218.51.316.849.554.6
H650 −3303.70.40.512.382.80.3-
8003.712.6117.953.17.74
H950 −3304.80.40.611.587.10.4-
8004.415.92.318.349.57.52.108
Table 12. Carbide EDS composition at varying potentiostatic points.
Table 12. Carbide EDS composition at varying potentiostatic points.
AlloyPot. Point (mV)Element (wt%)
CarbonOxygenChromiumIronSodium
H0 −3305.30.148.145.8-
8004.82.447.6441.2
11004.51.345.345.63.3
H650 −3304.60.845.448.5-
8004.34.745.844.21.0
11003.71.248.144.52.5
H950 −3306.10.946.946.1-
8004.13.245.146.70.9
11004.21.048.045.81.0
Table 13. Table of parameters found for EIS analysis.
Table 13. Table of parameters found for EIS analysis.
AlloyRsoln (Ω.cm2)Qc
(Ω−1cm−2sn)		ncRpo (Ω.cm2)Qcor
(Ω−1cm−2sn)		ncorRcor
(Ω.cm2)		Chi2
H034.110.003580.715313810.003750.8741374.68.10 × 10−5
H65025.230.000210.795173.820.000240.764226080.00105
H95025.15.30 × 10−50.928338.750.000610.625247110.00118
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tan, C.; Krishnan, K.; Elumalai, N.K. Effect of Heat Treatment on the Corrosion Behavior of Weld-Deposited Chromium Carbide-Based Hardfacing Alloys. Metals 2024, 14, 1436. https://doi.org/10.3390/met14121436

AMA Style

Tan C, Krishnan K, Elumalai NK. Effect of Heat Treatment on the Corrosion Behavior of Weld-Deposited Chromium Carbide-Based Hardfacing Alloys. Metals. 2024; 14(12):1436. https://doi.org/10.3390/met14121436

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tan, Cedric, Kannoorpatti Krishnan, and Naveen Kumar Elumalai. 2024. "Effect of Heat Treatment on the Corrosion Behavior of Weld-Deposited Chromium Carbide-Based Hardfacing Alloys" Metals 14, no. 12: 1436. https://doi.org/10.3390/met14121436

APA Style

Tan, C., Krishnan, K., & Elumalai, N. K. (2024). Effect of Heat Treatment on the Corrosion Behavior of Weld-Deposited Chromium Carbide-Based Hardfacing Alloys. Metals, 14(12), 1436. https://doi.org/10.3390/met14121436

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop