Practical aspects of atmospheric corrosion Trends, experiences from Europe, experiences from...
-
Upload
calvin-dorsey -
Category
Documents
-
view
224 -
download
0
Transcript of Practical aspects of atmospheric corrosion Trends, experiences from Europe, experiences from...
Practical aspectsof atmospheric corrosion
Trends, experiences from Europe,
experiences from Asia/Africa
Policy aspects, costs
History of evidence of effectsof air pollutants on materials
• In London an edict was issued in 1306 banning the use of 'sea-coal' as this is particularly high in chlorine
• Since the industrial revolution soiling and degradation of buildings in urban areas has been noticeable and often attributed to the effects of air pollution
• Systematic laboratory exposures in by Vernon in the 1930’s revealed the importance of SO2
• Field exposures in Germany by Schikorr in the 1940’s revealed the practical importance of SO2
• Field exposures in Nigeria by Ambler and Bain in the 1960’s revealed the practical importance of chlorides
• Field exposures within the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) lead to dose-response functions in the 1990’s
Zinc, Stockholm (Vanadis)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
1s
t ye
ar
co
rro
sio
n /
g m
-2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
SO
2 / µ
g m
-3
Zinc
SO2
Steel, Kopisty (Czeck Republic)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
1s
t ye
ar
co
rro
sio
n /
g m
-2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
SO
2 / µ
g m
-3
Steel
SO2
Corrosion trend
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Corr
osio
n r
ela
tive 1
98
7
Steel
Zinc
Limestone
Gas concentration trend
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Gas c
once
ntr
ati
on r
ela
tive 1
987
.
O3
NO2
SO2
ICP Materials - Test sites
39
38
37
9-11
17-20
621 2425
13
12
2622
4
3028
34
1413
2
5
7
8
15 16
23
27
29
31
32
33
35
36
39 (29) test sites in 12 (15) European countries and in the United States and Canada
List of test sitesNo Name Country Type
1 Prague-Letnany Czech Republic Urban2 Kasperske Hory Czech Republic Rural3 Kopisty Czech Republic Industrial4 Espoo Finland Urban5 Ähtäri Finland Rural6 Helsinki-Vallila Finland Industrial7 Waldhof-Langenbrügge Germany Rural8 Aschaffenburg Germany Urban9 Langenfeld-Reusrath Germany Rural
10 Bottrop Germany Industrial11 Essen-Leithe Germany Rural12 Garmisch-Partenkirchen Germany Rural13 Rome Italy Urban14 Casaccia Italy Rural15 Milan Italy Urban16 Venice Italy Urban17 Vlaardingen Netherlands Industrial18 Eibergen Netherlands Rural19 Vredepeel Netherlands Rural20 Wijnandsrade Netherlands Rural
No Name Country Type
21 Oslo Norway Urban22 Borregard Norway Industrial23 Birkenes Norway Rural24 Stockholm South Sweden Urban25 Stockholm Centre Sweden Urban26 Aspvreten Sweden Rural27 Lincoln Cathedral United Kingdom Urban28 Wells Cathedral United Kingdom Urban29 Clatteringshaws Loch United Kingdom Rural30 Stoke Orchard United Kingdom Rural Industry31 Madrid Spain Urban32 Bilbao Spain Industrial33 Toledo Spain Rural34 Moscow Russian Federation Urban35 Lahemaa Estonia Rural36 Lisbon Portugal Urban37 Dorset Canada Rural38 Research Triangle Park USA Rural39 Steubenville USA Industrial
Bronze corrosion, SO2 and NO2 concentrations 1987-1995
0
20
40
60
80
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
SO
2 /
µg
m-3
0
50
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
NO
2 /
µg
m-3
0
50
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
Mas
s lo
ss
/ g
m-2
Site number
Important pollution parameters
asheltered onlybunsheltered only
Material SO2 NO2 O3 H+ Cl- Carbon steel x xWeathering steel xZinc x xAluminium x xCopper x x xCast bronze x x xNickela x (x)Tina x (x)Alkyd/galvanisedb xSilicon alkyd/steelb xSandstone x xLimestone x xGlass x x x
Model for multi-pollutant impact and assessment of threshold levels for cultural heritage
Interaction of atmospheric pollutants,meteorological conditions and deposition mechanisms in
the process of atmospheric corrosion
Filled fields ( ): MULTI-ASSESSUnfilled fields: ICP Materials
13
5
7 41
8
13
15 16
14
2123
44
2624
46
27
3133
36
34
35
40
45
43
5049
10
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
HNO3
HNO3 concentration
Important parameters in the multi-pollutant situation
Material T Rh SO2 NO2 O3 HNO3 PM10 Rain pH
carbon steel X X X X X X
zinc X X X X X X
copper X X X X X X
bronze X X X X X X
limestone X X X X X X
glass X X X X
Comparison of corrosivity of HNO3 and SO2+O3 in laboratory exposure
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Zn Cu Csteel
Co
rro
sio
n s
ensi
tivi
ty /
mg
m-2
d-1
(10
0 p
pb
)-1
HNO3 SO2+O3
Mapping
T Rh Rain SO2 pH
Corrosion = f(T, Rh, Rain, SO2, pH)
Base maps
Corrosion map
Map of corrosion rate of bronze in Germany
Poland
Germany
Czech Republic
Source:Federal Environmental Agency, Berlin, Germany
Acceptable and tolerable levels, target levels and limit values
• The acceptable level is the maximum level at which an acceptable response occurs. The acceptable response should be based on technical and economic considerations.
• The tolerable level is the maximum level at which a tolerable response occurs. The tolerable response should be based on experiences from restoration / maintenance work for cultural heritage objects.
• A target level is a specified level in a given context which should not be exceeded.
• A limit value is a target level that is legally binding.
Tolerable corrosion and pollution
Tolerable pollution levels in the multi-pollutant situation
Definition of a tolerable corrosion rate, Kt, depending on use and material, implicitly defines a tolerable multi-pollution situation, which can be reached by reducing one or several of the multi-pollutants:
Kt= fdry(T, RH, [SO2]t, [HNO3]t, ...)
+ fwet(Rain[H+]t)
Recent information on effects-based approaches for the Protocol reviews
Table 4.0 Effects, important parameters and proposed target levels for materials Effect
Material
SO2 HNO3 PM Tolerable effect
Target SO2 levela
Target PM10 level
Zinc X X 1.1 µm year-1 Corrosion Carbon steel X X 20 µm year-1 10 µg m-3 Limestone X X X 8 µm year-1 Painted steel X 35% loss of Soiling White plastic X reflectance 15 µg m-3 Limestone X in 10-15 years athis level will protect about 80% of the areas. For a complete protection, levels of N-pollutants, especially HNO3 also need to be considered.
Source: MULT-ASSESS Publishable final report, www.corr-institute.se/MULTI-ASSESS
Air Quality Directive 99/30/EC
SO2 NO2 PM10
Urban zones – health effects
Hourly limit value 350 200
Daily limit value 150 50
Annual limit value 40 40
Rural areas - ecosystems
Annual limit value 20 30
Limit values of pollutants, µg m-3
Assessing corrosion costs
Division into pollutionstrata
Materials inventoryand inspection ofphysical damage
Damage functions
Estimated change inservice life
Maintenance/Replacement cost
Estimated economicdamage
Corrosion costs
Specification of a level of corrosion attack where replacement or maintenance is necessary makes it possible to calculate the lifetime, t:
K = fdry(T, RH, [SO2], t) + fwet(Rain[H+], t)
Stock at risk + lifetime Corrosion costs
Sandstone
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time [years]
Rec
essi
on
[ m
]
1000 m, 78 years
5000 m, 456 years
Critical thickness for technical objects ornaments and inscriptionsRcrit = 5 mm = 5000 m Rcrit = 1 mm = 1000 m
Estimation of stock at risk
• Inspection (Individual building)
• Building Registers (District/City)
• Identikits (National)
• Allocation to census data (Regional)
Stock at risk of galvanised steel in
Germany in m2/km2
Yearly corrosion cost of galvanised steel in
Germany due to pollution (DM/km2)
Reduction of costs due to decreased corrosion damage after execution of the 2nd sulphur protocol (US$·106)
Rural areas Urban areas Total
Eastern Europe 3 700 2 100 5 800
Western Europe 3 000 700 3 700
Total 6 700 2 800 9 500
Quantification of costs and benefits for cultural heritage
Rock Carving in Tanum, Sweden
• Difficult to express in monetary terms the loss of objects of cultural heritage
• Indirect method for calculation of costs- willingness to pay (contingent valuation method)
• Direct benefits (reduced maintenance etc)
• Indirect benefits (incomes from tourism, increased employment etc)
Evidences of high corrosion rates
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Temperate Subtropical Wet tropical
Co
rro
sio
n r
ate
[ m
/ye
ar]
normal range extreme value
Results from Europe not transferable
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Temperature / °C
Pre
cip
ita
tio
n /
mm
ICP Materials (Europe)
RAPIDC/Corrosion (Asia and Africa)