Work Order O99-9905
Cooperative Research Program
August 28, 1999
Notice:
This TECHNICAL REPORT
has been reviewed and is approved for publication and public release.
It may be reproduced for educational purposes provided acknowledgment
of the copyright holder is provided.
Prepared by:
W. Craig Willan, P.E.
Omega Research Inc.
Checked by:
Kenneth E. Mason
Omega Research Inc.
Caution
The notched samples
tested in this program were AISI 4340 low alloy steel, heat treated to
260-280 ksi, Kt factor of 3.1 nominal (standard embrittlement test sample
configuration) Other steel alloys and heat treat ranges may respond differently
to acid clean induced embrittlement. The reader and end user is solely
responsible for determining the applicability of this data to their specific
product and application.
* removed for proprietary reasons.
Introduction
The data contained in
this report has been generated under a Cooperative Research Program in
conjunction with * and Omega Research of Southlake Texas. The research
program was initiated due to ongoing confusion within the aircraft-aerospace
community on the effects of acid clean-pickling on high strength steels
and potential hydrogen embrittling effects on the parts subjected to the
acid clean. All test solutions were prepared by * All embrittlement testing
was performed at the laboratories of Omega Research, Southlake, Texas
with test samples provided by Green Specialty Service, Fort Worth, Texas.
The test sample matrix was jointly developed by *, and Craig Willan of
Omega Research.
Test Approach
The most common cleaning-pickling
acid, HCl, was utilized in 8 variations to evaluate its effect on hydrogen
embrittlement of high strength steels. Test variations were:
Non-Inhibited HCl acid @ 40 and 60% Concentration
(diluted from technical grade of 37%) each concentration non-aged and
aged with iron. (4 acid variations)
Inhibited HCl acid @ 40 & 60% concentration
(diluted from technical grade of 37%) each concentration non-aged and
aged with iron. (4 acid variations)
The embrittlement testing method was the standard sustained load, 200
hours at 75% of notched ultimate tensile strength, with time-to-failure
and applied load being the two controlled test variables. Each of the
8 acid variations were evaluated at various acid immersion times to produce
an algorithm matrix suitable for use in determining permissible acid cleaning
guidelines. Included in the 8 variation acid tests were HCl acids representing
"aged" or production type acid cleaning baths. These acid solutions were
prepared using 200 ppm of FeCl2 dissolved in the acid to simulate real
world acid cleaning solutions with normal iron pickup over time.
Prior guidelines concerning acid cleaning or pickling tend towards limiting
acid exposures to "..momentary..." without specific acid concentration
limits, or restrictions towards inhibited vs. uninhibited acid types.
In addition, the effects of iron build up over time in the acid solution
have never been evaluated to the knowledge of * or Omega Research. All
testing "momentary dips" was performed on standard stress rupture test
frames, with calibrated dead weight-reacted load application of stress.
Test frame calibration was per ASTM E-8, with maximum bending strain held
to +/- 2% per ASTM E292 (max allowed 10%) Laboratory temperatures were
held constant at 75 deg. F.
Discussion
Initial data points
generated brought to light an interesting embrittlement phenomenon, that
is room temperature bake or relief is observed on acid cleaned - bare
steel samples. An appreciable room temperature diffusion of hydrogen
out of the test samples is occurring during the transfer from acid exposure/rinse
to actual testing. Since this test program involves no subsequent metallic
or sealing coating applied after exposure, a free-surface diffusion gradient
is present for hydrogen escape. The diffusion thermodynamics at 75 deg.
F room temperature are sufficient for hydrogen migration either out of
the samples, or into the samples to concentrations below which embrittling
interactions do not occur (embrittlement threshold). It was not desired
to add another test variable to this program, i.e. a metallic or other
impermeable coating to prevent this hydrogen migration, as metallic coatings
would generate additional hydrogen and add another variable difficult
to quantify. From the initial stages of the test program, it was found
that transfer dwell times of 2 hours or more allowed room temperature
relief from embrittlement to occur. It must be emphasized that real
world plating shop practices would apply an impermeable coating (at room
temperature) quickly after acid clean. Entrapment of hydrogen from the
acid cleaning would occur, along with any hydrogen generated during the
actual plating process. Baking was not part of this test program,
as it is well known that quick elevated temperature baking of bare
steel samples would result in rapid alleviation of hydrogen effects.
As such, it became necessary to develop a test scenario that could realistically
attempt to evaluate only acid cleaning effects. After exploratory testing,
it was decided that utilizing a five minute dwell transfer time from acid/clean
rinse to test loading would be appropriate. This 5 minute time began upon
removal from acid/fast water rinse, to the time of actual application
of test loads. The five minute dwell was deemed realistic in that real
world plating shops in this time delay range. Dwell transfer timing was
accomplished via digital devices, calibrated to N.I.S.T. WWV 10MHz broadcasts,
and was held to a time tolerance of +/- 5 sec. Immersion timing was accomplished
with a tolerance of +/- 2 sec.
It is generally believed that with bare surface, any embrittlement relief
is effected via a free surface-to-atmosphere transfer, i.e. surface outgassing
proceeds with lower energy requirements. This room temperature bake or
relief effect has also been observed and addressed in the technical requirements
of DOD-P-16232, Phosphate Coatings.
Acid inhibitors tend to be organic compounds, viscous in nature, and generally
not liked by many metal finishing companies. This can be due to adhesion
problems sometimes encountered with inhibited acid baths, on-going viscosity
increases during time or aging, and also the fact that an inhibited acid
bath tends to not clean and activate a ferrous surface as quickly as straight
acid bath formulations. However, the result of this research program again
verifies the ability of inhibitors to prevent embrittlement on high strength
steels from HCl cleaning-pickling solutions.
Summary & Conclusions
- Acid inhibitors such as Rodine 213 appear to provide
good protection against hydrogen absorption during acid cleaning, the
mechanism being hydrogen pickup by the organic inhibitor compounds.
- An acid bath aged with iron appears to provide
similar protection against hydrogen absorption, most probably through
hydrogen interaction with iron oxides. Additional test work should be
accomplished prior to allowance of this chemical phenomenon in lieu
of actual proven inhibitors.
- Non-inhibited acid immersion times of 10 seconds
maximum did not produce failures on high strength 4340 low alloy steel
heat treated to 260-280 ksi. Martensitic steels of lower hardness/tensile
strength would normally respond with even less sensitivity to embrittlement
than the test samples used for this program.
- The effect of acid bath inhibitor aging was not
explored in this program, and its effect of diminished protection against
embrittlement over time is unknown.
- This test program was intended to investigate
only the effects of acid cleaning on embrittlement. As such it was found
prudent to eliminate any additional embrittling effect of top coatings
or plating. The application of subsequent platings or coatings on
top of the acid cleaned surface most probably will generate additional
hydrogen pickup; thus prudent baking embrittlement relief is needed.
Non-porous platings or coating may not allow sufficient hydrogen embrittlement
relief, with the possibility of failures occurring where unexpected.
Test Matrix
Non-Inhibited Acid
| SAMPLE I.D. |
AGED / NON AGED |
ACID CONCEN. |
IMMERSION TIME |
FAILURE TIME |
|
|
|
|
|
| AA |
non-aged |
60% |
120 sec. |
5 sec. |
| BB |
non-aged |
60% |
120 sec. |
98 min |
| GGG |
aged |
60% |
120 sec. |
nf |
| HHH |
aged |
60% |
120 sec. |
nf |
| Y |
non-aged |
40% |
120 sec. |
6sec |
| Z |
non-aged |
40% |
120 sec. |
5 sec |
| EEE |
aged |
40% |
120 sec. |
nf |
| FFF |
aged |
40% |
120 sec. |
nf |
| GGG-A |
aged |
60% |
120 sec. (1min transfer) |
nf |
| HHH-A |
aged |
60% |
120 sec. (1min transfer) |
nf |
Conclusions: An aged
acid clean bath acts as an inhibitor, appearing to prevent embrittlement.
Non-aged acids at both 40 and 60% concentrations will produce failures
when immersed for 2 min. (120 sec.). Additional tests (GGG-a and HHH-a)
to confirm long immersion times times in aged baths as acceptable were
performed with a quicker 1 minute transfer dwell time to make sure any
embrittling effects were not masked by a 5 minute transfer dwell. No failures
occured here either.
| SAMPLE I.D. |
AGED / NON AGED |
ACID CONCEN. |
IMMERSION TIME |
FAILURE TIME |
|
|
|
|
|
| S |
non-aged |
60% |
60 sec. |
43 min. |
| T |
non-aged |
60% |
60 sec. |
49 min. |
| YY |
aged |
60% |
60 sec. |
nf |
| ZZ |
aged |
60% |
60 sec. |
nf |
| Q |
non-aged |
40% |
60 sec. |
52 min. |
| R |
non-aged |
40% |
60 sec. |
50 min. |
| WW |
aged |
40% |
60 sec. |
nf |
| XXX |
aged |
40% |
60 sec. |
nf |
Conclusions: An aged
acid bath acts as an inhibitor, appearing to prevent embrittlement with
immersion times of 60 seconds. Non-aged, non-inhibited acids at both 40
and 60% concentrations produced failures.
| SAMPLE I.D. |
AGED / NON-AGED |
ACID CONCEN. |
IMNMERSION TIME |
FAILURE TIME |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
non-aged |
60% |
30 sec. |
170 min |
| 2 |
non-aged |
60% |
30 sec. |
133 min |
| 3 |
aged |
60% |
30 sec. |
nf |
| 4 |
aged |
60% |
30 sec. |
nf |
| 5 |
non-aged |
40% |
30 sec. |
28.6 hr |
| 6 |
non-aged |
40% |
30 sec. |
35.1 hr |
| 7 |
aged |
40% |
30 sec. |
nf |
| 8 |
aged |
40% |
30 sec. |
nf |
Conclusions: An aged
acid clean bath acts as an inhibitor, appearing to prevent embrittlement
with immersion times of 30 seconds. However, non-aged acids at both 40
and 60% concentrations will produce failures.
| SAMPLE I.D. |
AGED / NON-AGED |
ACID CONCEN. |
IMMERSION TIME |
FAILURE TIME |
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
non-aged |
60% |
20 sec. |
nf |
| 10 |
non-aged |
60% |
20 sec. |
143.2 hr. |
| 11 |
aged |
60% |
20 sec. |
nf |
| 12 |
aged |
60% |
20 sec. |
nf |
| 13 |
non-aged |
40% |
20 sec. |
nf |
| 14 |
non-aged |
40% |
20 sec. |
nf |
| 15 |
aged |
40% |
20 sec. |
nf |
| 16 |
aged |
40% |
20 sec. |
nf |
Conclusions: Immersion
times of 20 seconds resulted in failures in one non-aged 60% concentration
sample. No failures were recorded with aged solutions, nor were any failures
recorded with 40% acid concentrations.
| SAMPLE I.D. |
AGED / NON-AGED |
ACID CONCEN. |
IMMERSION TIME |
FAILURE TIME |
|
|
|
|
|
| K |
non-aged |
60% |
10 sec. |
nf |
| L |
non-aged |
60% |
10 sec. |
nf |
| QQ |
aged |
60% |
10 sec. |
nf |
| RR |
aged |
60% |
10 sec. |
nf |
| I |
non-aged |
40% |
10 sec. |
nf |
| J |
non-aged |
40% |
10 sec. |
nf |
| OO |
aged |
40% |
10 sec. |
nf |
| PP |
aged |
40% |
10 sec. |
nf |
Conclusions: Immersion
times of 10 seconds are not sufficient to induce embrittlement at 60%
concentrations, non-inhibited acid, aged or non-aged bath.
| SAMPLE I.D. |
AGED / NON-AGED |
ACID CONCEN. |
IMMERSION TIME |
FAILURE TIME |
|
|
|
|
|
| EE |
non-aged |
60% |
120 sec. |
nf |
| FF |
non-aged |
60% |
120 sec. |
nf |
| KKK |
aged |
60% |
120 sec. |
nf |
| LLL |
aged |
60% |
120 sec. |
nf |
| CC |
non-aged |
40% |
120 sec. |
nf |
| DD |
non-aged |
40% |
120 sec. |
nf |
| III |
aged |
40% |
120 sec. |
nf |
| JJJ |
aged |
40% |
120 sec. |
nf |
Conclusions: Organic
type inhibitor, such as Rodine 213, appears to provide effective protection
against hydrogen absorption. Additional tests of inhibited acids at immersion
times of less than 2 min (120 sec.) were not performed as no failures
were recorded at the longer immersion times.
|