The atmospheric corrosion behavior of aluminum alloy 6063-T5 with exposure to FeCl3 containing droplet deposits to simulate direct contact with steel corrosion product droplets has been investigated. Experiments were performed at 50°C and compared to room temperature exposure conditions to assess the behavior of aluminum heatsink materials. The evolution of corrosion sites, penetration rates, and corrosion product chemistry was analyzed using x-ray computed tomography, Raman spectroscopy, and electron microscopy techniques. The measured corrosion rates were lower when the temperature was raised, even when exposed to multiple wet-dry periods. The lower corrosion rates were attributed to a reduced propensity to form iron oxyhydroxides/oxides at the aluminum surface, which were present after room temperature exposure. The results are discussed in light of the galvanic corrosion behavior of aluminum alloy in contact with liquid steel corrosion products.

Aluminum is used extensively in urban and marine environments at elevated temperatures or over temperature gradients. The material is chosen for its high thermal conductivity, durability, and competitive price with the typical application as heatsink in radiators or air conditioning units.1  These applications, for example, result in the aluminum being maintained at elevated temperatures for longer periods of time to distribute or dissipate heat. This usage can result in contact with higher-strength steel-based connectors and fasteners. Exposures over longer time periods generally result in the formation of both, aluminum and steel-based corrosion products, particularly in humid air or marine environments. In particular, the appearance of a red-to-brown steel corrosion product occurs where exposure to higher humidity results in the formation of iron oxides and oxyhydroxides.

Exposure to challenging marine environments can result in the corrosion of aluminum which is usually obscured by the presence of corrosion products on the aluminum surface. This creates a dynamic localized environment that can potentially result in the acceleration or deceleration of corrosion. Steels corrode to form ferrous ions which are then transformed to ferric ions by the oxygen present. This results in the formation of FeCl2 and FeCl3 when undergoing corrosion in the presence of oxygen and chlorides, with both ferrous and ferric chloride being highly soluble in lower pH aqueous environments. The corresponding oxides, oxyhydroxides, and hydroxides typically form more insoluble corrosion products, with the pH of the environment playing a crucial role. Aluminum exposed to droplets of FeCl3 results in the formation of AlCl3 and a variety of iron oxyhydroxides, providing an electrochemical driving force for the dissolution of aluminum.2-3 

A recent study investigating the effect of FeCl3 on aluminum corrosion clearly showed the formation of Fe-rich deposits within the corrosion product layers, often resulting in a coherent layer of iron oxyhydroxides and oxides directly in contact with the aluminum surface.4  The observed corrosion product cap was very porous and could not prevent further corrosion to occur. The porosity and volume of the corrosion products were affected by the hydration periods, with samples exposed to multiple droplets showing greater levels of corrosion than those exposed to single droplets.3 

The role of temperature on corrosion varies on the material and the reactive agents present. This behavior is because the temperature has a variety of influences on various components such as the oxygen solubility, electrochemical half-potentials, and precipitation rates in a corrosion system. Higher exposure temperatures reduce the oxygen solubility in aqueous solutions slowing the rate of the cathodic reaction (if driven by oxygen reduction) and the formation of a protective surface film.4  This behavior can result in a maximum corrosion rate at a given temperature.5  The changes in the pH of water, for example, becoming more acidic at higher temperatures would play a role as well as the formation of inhibitive surface films reducing corrosion rates. When aluminum is exposed to pure water and the temperature is increased, the corrosion rate increases, with a maximum corrosion rate reached at around 80°C.3  Al-2A02 exposed to marine environments with NaCl results in a maximum corrosion rate at temperatures of around 60°C. This peak in corrosion rate is related to the solubility of oxygen and the formation of an Al(OOH) protective layer.6 

Similar behavior is also observed with Mg-alloy AM50 showing a strong temperature dependence, caused by the inhibitive effect of CO2 at low temperatures as its solubility increases with decreasing temperature.7  This inhibitive effect of CO2 is also the case for aluminum treated with NaCl, which corrodes rapidly in CO2 free air due to the enhanced anodic dissolution of aluminum, here caused by the formation of high pH areas due to the cathodic reduction of oxygen.8  The chemical and electrochemical reactions of high-purity aluminum alloys in chloride-containing environments typically become faster as the temperature increases.9 

This paper sets out to investigate the exposure of aluminum alloy 6063-T5 to Fe-containing solutions at elevated temperatures up to 50°C, here simulated in our experiments by using FeCl3 droplet exposures. The corrosion product formation is explored using a quasi in situ x-ray computed tomography (XCT) approach,10  allowing for a detailed analysis of the development of corrosion in a nondestructive manner.10-11  A combination of Raman spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and energy dispersive x-ray analysis (EDX) is used to analyze corrosion product formation, with a series of techniques combined to provide detailed information on the degradation mechanism.12 

Coupons of AA6063-T5 with dimensions of 20 mm × 20 mm × 8 mm (l × w × t) were prepared from a block of extruded aluminum alloy, with a chemical composition of (wt%) 0.56% Si, 0.03% Mn, 0.20% Fe, 0.02% Ti, 0.02% Zn, and 0.53% Mg and Al (bal.). The material had a hardness of 92 HV1. All exposed surfaces were first ground to 4000 grit, followed by a diamond polish to 1 µm finish, and then electropolished in a 20:80 (vol%) perchloric acid-ethanol solution. The solution was kept in an ice bath to keep the temperature below 5°C. Electropolishing involved an application of 20 V for 1 min, followed by immersion in distilled water, and drying in hot air.

A single 35 µL droplet of aqueous FeCl3 was applied to each electropolished sample surface, with the exposure regimes summarized in Table 1. The rectangular coupons were placed in airtight plastic containers, with one container of each set placed in an oven where the temperature was kept at 50°C. The other container was kept at room temperature. The humidity was maintained close to 75% relative humidity (RH) using NaCl saturated salt solutions and monitored inside the containers using EL-USB-2+ humidity and temperature loggers. The RH of saturated NaCl at room temperature varies between 75% and 75.6% with the RH at 50°C being slightly lower at 74.4%.11  The high RH results in the presence of liquid FeCl3 droplets at the aluminum surface, which over time then convert into solid corrosion products due to changes in droplet chemistry.

Table 1.

Exposure Conditions with Sample Sets (a) Reflecting the First Droplet Exposure of the Aluminum Samples After 14 d and (b) The Same Samples but After an Additional Droplet Applied and then a Further 14 d (28 d Total) of Exposure Directly After the First XCT Scan Being Performed(A)

Exposure Conditions with Sample Sets (a) Reflecting the First Droplet Exposure of the Aluminum Samples After 14 d and (b) The Same Samples but After an Additional Droplet Applied and then a Further 14 d (28 d Total) of Exposure Directly After the First XCT Scan Being Performed(A)
Exposure Conditions with Sample Sets (a) Reflecting the First Droplet Exposure of the Aluminum Samples After 14 d and (b) The Same Samples but After an Additional Droplet Applied and then a Further 14 d (28 d Total) of Exposure Directly After the First XCT Scan Being Performed(A)

The equilibrium concentration of FeCl3 at 75% RH is approximately 2.5 mol/kg.13  The different droplet concentrations result in changes in the overall droplet volume, with droplet concentrations below the equilibrium concentration reducing their volume via water evaporation, and concentrations above the equilibrium absorbing water from the surrounding environment, thereby growing in volume. It must also be noted that the maximum concentration of moisture that the air can support varies significantly between 20°C and 50°C. At 20°C the maximum water content in the air is only 17.3 ×10−3 kg/m3, whereas at 50°C the maximum water content reaches up to 83 × 10−3 kg/m3.14  As such, the droplet volume would change from the initial 35 µL to its equilibrium volume with respect to the set RH and exposure temperature. If the droplet had a concentration of 5 M it would equilibrate to 70 µL or if the initial concentration was 0.5 M it would equilibrate to 7 µL in volume.

The first set of samples (1a, 2a) were removed after 14 d of controlled humidity exposure, and then XCT scans were performed. During the XCT scans, all samples were kept under normal room temperature conditions without humidity control. Directly after completing the first scan, a second droplet was applied to the same sites and the samples immediately placed in their airtight containers back in their respective environmental conditions. One container was again placed in an oven at 50°C and the second container was kept at room temperature for another 14 d. All samples were scanned in sequence so that the only difference between them was the droplet FeCl3 concentration and exposure temperature.

A Nikon Custom Bay Scanner with 225 KeV x-ray source with a 2 mm copper filter was used for all scans. The parameters used for XCT scans were 150 kV at 120 mA, capturing 5,014 radiographs, reconstructed into a 3D volume using a filtered back-projection algorithm. The radiographs were converted to 8 bits, then various filters applied in the following sequence: nonlocal means filter, bilateral filter, despeckle, and a delineate filter. These filters allowed for the smoothening and removal of noise while sharpening the boundaries allowing for an effective segmentation of the various materials using Avizo software. The segmentation was performed by separating the regions between the base and corrosion products located above the base, and then measuring what volumes each component consisted of as shown in a typical reconstructed cross section of a dried droplet in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1.

Procedure used for carrying out the segmentation of XCT data.

FIGURE 1.

Procedure used for carrying out the segmentation of XCT data.

Close modal

After terminating exposure experiments, Raman spectroscopy of samples was performed using an inVia micro-Raman microscope. A 633 nm laser was used, with an 1,800 L/mm grating, exposure time of 10 s, an objective lens of 20× and a laser power of 5%. Raman was used to identify the iron-containing compounds formed on the aluminum surface to provide an understanding of the corrosion reactions that are occurring.

SEM and EDX analyses were performed on a Zeiss Merlin. EDX maps were obtained with a resolution of 2,048 pixel, 60 frames, and a pixel dwell time of 5 µs. The scan was performedt at 5 keV with a working distance of 4.5 mm. The technique provided detailed information on the corrosion product morphology and elemental breakdowns helping to identify the various aluminum and iron compounds formed.

The concentration of FeCl3 at 75% RH will equilibrate to 2.5 mol/kg, with the aqueous FeCl3 droplets resulting in the dissolution of aluminum. This in turn affects the overall droplet composition. XCT was here used to measure the total volume of corroded aluminum as a function of exposure temperature (RT vs. 50°C) and FeCl3 concentrations. These results are summarized in Figure 2, pointing toward a significant effect of temperature and droplet volume on the measured corrosion behavior. The presence of higher FeCl3 concentrations resulted in more corrosion of the aluminum substrate, which was linked to the increase in droplet volume.
FIGURE 2.

Total volume of aluminum corroded when exposed to FeCl3 comparing exposures at 50°C (red line) to room temperature (black line). The first droplet exposure is represented with solid lines, and the second droplet exposure is represented by dashed lines.

FIGURE 2.

Total volume of aluminum corroded when exposed to FeCl3 comparing exposures at 50°C (red line) to room temperature (black line). The first droplet exposure is represented with solid lines, and the second droplet exposure is represented by dashed lines.

Close modal

Interestingly, aluminum exposed to FeCl3 at 50°C experiences significantly less corrosion regardless of the concentration of exposure. This behavior continues even after the second droplet exposure of FeCl3. These experiments suggest that the temperature is playing a significant role in reducing the corrosion rates. The data also show that the corrosion rates at these higher temperatures are significantly lower, one of the factors at play may also be related to the time of wetness, with higher temperatures resulting in faster water evaporation to reach the droplets equilibrium volume.15  This would be dependent, however, on the time taken for the droplet to reach its equilibrium concentration, with droplets exposed to samples at 50°C would reach their equilibrium concentrations significantly faster.

Another key result of Figure 2 is that all samples showed similar changes in the volume corroded with increasing FeCl3 concentration when the sample was exposed to the same temperature and droplet cycle. The exposure of the sample to a second droplet results in a very large increase in the corrosion rate of the aluminum regardless of the temperature. This is due to an increase in the number of wet dry cycles and materials for corrosion to occur. The corrosion products formed on the surface have a volume many times greater than the volume of aluminum dissolved. This is due to the nature of the corrosion products formed which are very porous and have a low density and consist of a mixture of different corrosion products such as Al(OH)3, Al2O3, FeOOH, Fe2O3, etc. When the products are exposed to a second droplet a rapid increase in the corrosion products similar to the increase in corroded volume is not observed. This is potentially due to the pores formed in the corrosion products being filled with a new corrosion product thereby becoming denser and slightly less porous as has been observed.16 

The same trend of much lower corrosion rates at elevated temperature exposures is also observed. When the volumes of the corrosion products formed on the aluminum surface are accounted for, the volume of corrosion products measured in Figure 3 is distinctly more (e.g., 24 mm3 [50°C] vs. 48 mm3 [20°C] after one droplet at 5 M and 30 mm3 [50°C] vs. 60 mm3 [20°C] after two droplet exposures) for the samples kept under room temperature conditions. The trend lines also show that the corrosion product volume is significantly more for the samples corroded at room temperature than for those corroded at an elevated temperature. Higher corrosion rates correlate with an increase in the formation of corrosion products. Variations between individual samples are observed, but the overall behavior shows a clear trend. A relationship between the volume of observed corrosion products and droplet exposures is apparent, indicating that the corrosion product development follows a trend. This trend is also impacted by whether the sample has been exposed to one droplet of FeCl3 or two droplets. Within these voluminous corrosion product layers, a clear separation of Fe-containing compounds has been reported for RT exposure, typically accumulating at the surface of the aluminum alloy.16  Figure 4 gives the volume of Fe-containing products accumulated at the aluminum surface. At higher initial concentrations in particular for those samples kept at elevated temperatures, the iron films at the surface seem to be far smaller. This ties in with lower corrosion rates that are observed.
FIGURE 3.

Corrosion product volumes present on the aluminum surface consisting of aluminum oxides and iron oxides/oxyhydroxide. Exposures conditions compared are 50°C (red lines) to room temperature (black lines). The first droplet exposure is represented with solid lines, and the second exposure is represented with dashed lines.

FIGURE 3.

Corrosion product volumes present on the aluminum surface consisting of aluminum oxides and iron oxides/oxyhydroxide. Exposures conditions compared are 50°C (red lines) to room temperature (black lines). The first droplet exposure is represented with solid lines, and the second exposure is represented with dashed lines.

Close modal
FIGURE 4.

Volume of iron directly on the aluminum surface. The exposure conditions compared are at 50°C (red line) to room temperature (black line). The first droplet exposure is represented by a solid line, and the second droplet exposure is represented by a dashed line.

FIGURE 4.

Volume of iron directly on the aluminum surface. The exposure conditions compared are at 50°C (red line) to room temperature (black line). The first droplet exposure is represented by a solid line, and the second droplet exposure is represented by a dashed line.

Close modal
The effect of iron is potentially linked to corrosion reactions happening directly on the surface of aluminum, with the formation of voluminous aluminum corrosion products (discussed in more detail in one of the next sections). These then result in corrosion product build-up over time, but all higher temperature exposures have fewer corrosion products than samples exposed at room temperature. The latter is supported by measurement of the maximum depth of attack in Figure 5 with higher temperatures experiencing a much lower penetration into the aluminum.
FIGURE 5.

Maximum corrosion penetration when exposed to FeCl3. The exposure conditions compared are at 50°C (red line) to room temperature (black line). The first droplet exposure is represented by a solid line, and the second droplet exposure is represented by a dashed line.

FIGURE 5.

Maximum corrosion penetration when exposed to FeCl3. The exposure conditions compared are at 50°C (red line) to room temperature (black line). The first droplet exposure is represented by a solid line, and the second droplet exposure is represented by a dashed line.

Close modal
The corrosion products formed on the aluminum surfaces are shown in Figure 6 after exposure to two droplets of FeCl3. The images show very brittle dark-red corrosion products formed on the droplet deposit site. The corrosion products also show a lot of white salt deposits across the aluminum surface. The red color throughout the majority of this brittle corrosion product suggests iron-rich deposits present in these upper layers. There are also lots of white, thread-like pieces on the surface from the aluminum, suggesting some part of the reaction had initially started. The distributions seen in these images contrast sharply with what is observed for samples where the corrosion occurred at room temperature.
FIGURE 6.

Images taken after exposure to two droplets of FeCl3 at 50°C. Image (a) sample exposed to 2 M droplets after 28 d (b) sample exposed to 5 M droplets after 28 d. Both samples show a flaky, dry product, with a white dry product formed across the aluminum surface.

FIGURE 6.

Images taken after exposure to two droplets of FeCl3 at 50°C. Image (a) sample exposed to 2 M droplets after 28 d (b) sample exposed to 5 M droplets after 28 d. Both samples show a flaky, dry product, with a white dry product formed across the aluminum surface.

Close modal
Visualization of the XCT data helps to provide an understanding of the observations in the previous figures, wherein particular iron-containing compounds are present to a greater degree in the corrosion products and not on the aluminum surface. Figures 7 through 9 provide a 3D overview of samples that were exposed to 2 M FeCl3 droplets. These views were chosen to provide a detailed comparison of the distribution of compounds (in particular iron) within the voluminous corrosion products. When the images are compared, we can observe key differences, with more iron scattered within the corrosion products at higher temperatures and no coherent iron film formed surface at the exposed surface. These figures show the same for samples exposed to 5 M droplets at 50°C, indicating a lack of iron-containing film at the interface between corrosion products and an aluminum surface. At 50°C the iron compound, possibly in the form of oxides/hydroxides, is pushed into the upper layers of the corrosion products, with a gap and distance from the aluminum surface.
FIGURE 7.

XCT images of tests performed at room temperature and 50°C viewed from above the corrosion products and iron deposits after exposure to 2 M droplets, the first scan represents the first droplet exposure after 14 d, and the second scan, after an additional 14 d after the second droplet exposure.

FIGURE 7.

XCT images of tests performed at room temperature and 50°C viewed from above the corrosion products and iron deposits after exposure to 2 M droplets, the first scan represents the first droplet exposure after 14 d, and the second scan, after an additional 14 d after the second droplet exposure.

Close modal

Figure 7 shows the distribution of iron-rich compounds (green) being influenced by the temperature. As discussed, at high temperatures we can see that these iron compounds are scattered across the aluminum surface, with only 0.38 mm3of Fe compounds in contact with the surface (scan 1). In contrast, the first droplet exposure at room temperature results in a clear separation of iron-rich deposits. These separate from the deposits of aluminum-based corrosion products that form above the aluminum. At high temperatures, the corrosion products appear to form around these iron-rich deposits. These act as a barrier separating the iron-containing compounds from the aluminum substrate.

Figure 8 shows a cross section highlighting corrosion occurring in the aluminum (red), with the formation of shallower pits rather than more profound narrower pits. The iron deposits seem scattered around the corrosion products. The aluminum after the second exposure appears to have formed some shallower undercutting pits but in general, due to the arrangement of the Fe compound deposits do not go very deep (0.25 mm max. depth at 50°C after 1 droplet exposure vs. 0.51 mm max depth at 20°C after one droplet exposure). The iron-containing compounds, in particular, form a film of 0.9 mm3 at the aluminum surface after the first exposure at room temperature. At the second exposure, we can observe the formation of local islands, and an expansion of the affected region. The corrosion occurs adjacent to these iron-rich deposits where the majority of pits have some undercutting deeper into the aluminum and are as a result more profound.
FIGURE 8.

XCT cross sections of tests performed at room temperature and 50°C allowing the corroded aluminum of the corrosion products and iron deposits after exposure to 2 M droplets, the first scan represents the first droplet exposure after 14 d, and the second scan, after an additional 14 d after the second droplet exposure.

FIGURE 8.

XCT cross sections of tests performed at room temperature and 50°C allowing the corroded aluminum of the corrosion products and iron deposits after exposure to 2 M droplets, the first scan represents the first droplet exposure after 14 d, and the second scan, after an additional 14 d after the second droplet exposure.

Close modal
The iron-rich layers (green) in Figure 9 are apparent when looking at the exposure sites from within the sample below the corrosion product. The deposits are more coherent at room temperature where after the first droplet a dense deposit is observed surrounded by corrosion sites in the aluminum (red). The second droplet results in a much larger affected region but the iron deposits are surrounded by corrosion. This distribution contrasts with the samples exposed to higher temperatures where the iron deposits are more disparate than those at room temperature. There is corrosion, but due to only a tiny portion (0.4 mm3 after the first droplet and 0.7 mm3 after the second) of iron-rich deposits sticking to the aluminum surface, this results in significantly less corrosion occurring with 3.2 mm3 at 50°C vs. 7.6 mm3 for 20°C after two droplet exposures on the aluminum surface. Further corrosion is observed due to the increased presence of these iron-rich deposits, resulting in a similar corrosion rate to what is experienced by the aluminum after one droplet of FeCl3 at room temperature. This is caused by an increased number of iron-rich deposits coming into contact with the aluminum. In particular, at lower FeCl3 concentrations (0.5 M to 3 M) where the volume of iron that is in direct contact with the aluminum is similar for the samples exposed to two droplets at 50°C and the samples exposed to one droplet at room temperature.
FIGURE 9.

XCT cross sections of tests performed at room temperature and 50°C directly showing the surface of aluminum from below corrosion products allowing us to observe the corroded aluminum and iron deposits after exposure to 2 M droplets, the first scan represents the first droplet exposure after 14 d, and the second scan, after an additional 14 d after the second droplet exposure.

FIGURE 9.

XCT cross sections of tests performed at room temperature and 50°C directly showing the surface of aluminum from below corrosion products allowing us to observe the corroded aluminum and iron deposits after exposure to 2 M droplets, the first scan represents the first droplet exposure after 14 d, and the second scan, after an additional 14 d after the second droplet exposure.

Close modal
The 5 M droplet exposure in Figure 10 shows the corrosion products being more flake-like and curved but still do not contain iron-rich deposits at room temperature, however, at 50°C these deposits appear to form dense iron-rich layers, but these layers do not come into contact with the aluminum surface. They appear to be floating around several mm above the surface at the furthest point on the flakes, supported by the aluminum corrosion products preventing direct contact with the aluminum.
FIGURE 10.

XCT images of tests performed at room temperature and 50°C viewed from above the corrosion products and iron deposits after exposure to 5 M droplets, the first scan represents the first droplet exposure after 14 d, and the second scan, after an additional 14 d after the second droplet exposure.

FIGURE 10.

XCT images of tests performed at room temperature and 50°C viewed from above the corrosion products and iron deposits after exposure to 5 M droplets, the first scan represents the first droplet exposure after 14 d, and the second scan, after an additional 14 d after the second droplet exposure.

Close modal
These layers containing Fe-compounds become more apparent when looked at from a cross-sectional view in Figure 11. Wherein the corrosion products there are no iron-rich regions at room temperature contrasting with the iron-rich film floating and being inside the corrosion products at 50°C. The corrosion occurring also can be seen as much more varied at room temperature whereas the corrosion at 50°C consists of shallow pits in general, but where the maximum depth reached is 0.48 mm after two droplet exposures whereas it reaches a maximum depth of 0.7 mm at 20°C. At higher concentrations, the corrosion of aluminum can lead to the iron-rich film formation being pushed high up into the corrosion products, and this potentially causes a reduction in the corrosion occurring. The film of iron on the aluminum cannot induce galvanic corrosion of the aluminum due to lack of contact. The second exposure, in particular, shows how this iron-rich film is moved and raised above the corrosion products, thereby preventing further corrosion.
FIGURE 11.

XCT cross-sectional images of the corrosion products and iron deposits after exposure to 5 M droplets, the first scan represents the first droplet exposure after 14 d, and the second scan, after an additional 14 d after the second droplet exposure. The tests were performed at room temperature and 50°C.

FIGURE 11.

XCT cross-sectional images of the corrosion products and iron deposits after exposure to 5 M droplets, the first scan represents the first droplet exposure after 14 d, and the second scan, after an additional 14 d after the second droplet exposure. The tests were performed at room temperature and 50°C.

Close modal

Also, there is a possibility of corrosion-driven drying reactions occurring where some of the soluble species are converted into solid products, ultimately resulting in a reduction of the FeCl3. This reduction may then cause the droplet to lose water to maintain the equilibrium with the humidity, with such processes expected much faster at higher temperatures resulting in lower corrosion in general.

A thick iron-rich film is formed on the aluminum where after one droplet exposure 1 mm3 of iron is deposited, and after two exposures we see almost 2 mm3 of iron deposits directly on the surface, as shown in Figure 12 for samples exposed to room temperature. The formation of these deposits contrasts significantly when the sample is exposed to 50°C the iron-rich deposits form in small quantities, after both the first (0.1 mm3) and second droplet exposure (0.5 mm3), which results in corrosion that is less deep (0.5 mm maximum depth) but more uniform. These observations correlate with all observed data. The corrosion mechanism at high temperatures shows that the lack of iron film formation at the aluminum surface and associated formation of iron-containing films and regions within the upper regions of the corrosion products lead to a significantly lower corrosion rate. The iron film’s role in regard to the corrosion of aluminum is shown to possibly be the cause of more corrosion due to potential galvanic effects which at high temperatures is limited.17 
FIGURE 12.

XCT images of tests performed at room temperature and 50°C viewed from below the corrosion products and iron deposits after exposure to 5 M droplets, the first scan represents the first droplet exposure after 14 d, and the second scan, after an additional 14 d after the second droplet exposure. Small patches of iron-rich deposits were observed when exposed to 50°C whereas when exposed to room temperature the iron-rich deposits form coherent deposits.

FIGURE 12.

XCT images of tests performed at room temperature and 50°C viewed from below the corrosion products and iron deposits after exposure to 5 M droplets, the first scan represents the first droplet exposure after 14 d, and the second scan, after an additional 14 d after the second droplet exposure. Small patches of iron-rich deposits were observed when exposed to 50°C whereas when exposed to room temperature the iron-rich deposits form coherent deposits.

Close modal
Corrosion products with a spherical morphology have been observed, consistent with the presence of alumina (Al2O3).18  These are shown in Figure 13, and EDX analysis (Figure 14) showed they are made up of aluminum, oxygen, and some iron. The spheres are surrounded by iron-rich deposits with also chlorides present. This elemental distribution suggests a mixed structure of aluminum oxide and various other aluminum, iron, and chloro-silicates are being formed. The images where these floral structures (Figure 15) are observed directly on the aluminum substrates surface; these floral structures are chiefly composed of Fe, with the EDX map confirming the presence of iron, oxygen, and chlorides, with the appearance suggesting that it is composed of either goethite or lepidocrocite.
FIGURE 13.

Spheres of aluminum shown to be formed on chlorides are aluminum oxide spheres. Images taken on a Zeiss Merlin SEM at 1 kV with a 0.5 mm working distance for a sample exposed to 5 M droplets of FeCl3. Image (a) shows the presence of aluminum oxide spheres. Image (b) aluminum oxide spheres magnified.

FIGURE 13.

Spheres of aluminum shown to be formed on chlorides are aluminum oxide spheres. Images taken on a Zeiss Merlin SEM at 1 kV with a 0.5 mm working distance for a sample exposed to 5 M droplets of FeCl3. Image (a) shows the presence of aluminum oxide spheres. Image (b) aluminum oxide spheres magnified.

Close modal
FIGURE 14.

EDX map of sphere image showing the presence of aluminum and oxygen at the site of spheres with iron directly below.

FIGURE 14.

EDX map of sphere image showing the presence of aluminum and oxygen at the site of spheres with iron directly below.

Close modal
FIGURE 15.

SEM image and EDX overlay map showing the presence of iron in the region of these needles. The floral structure suggests goethite or lepidocrocite.

FIGURE 15.

SEM image and EDX overlay map showing the presence of iron in the region of these needles. The floral structure suggests goethite or lepidocrocite.

Close modal
The Raman analysis in Figure 16 shows the presence of predominantly goethite (α-FeO(OH)). This iron oxyhydroxide can undergo conversion to magnetite through solid-state transformation and dissolution precipitation.19  This conversion is more natural to occur when the oxyhydroxide undergoes various reactions with the aluminum due to the effects of changes in the pH.20  The structure and distribution of the aluminum flakes in the corrosion products show that the flakes are very rugged and consist of boehmite.21  These flakes undergo various phase changes to form a stable α-Al2O3; these phase changes can be stimulated by exposure to iron compounds resulting in the formation of goethite formation occurring via aluminum ferrihydrite solution phases.22 
FIGURE 16.

Raman analysis of the iron-rich deposits on the aluminum surface. Goethite (G) has characteristic peaks that are shown in the spectra and confirm its presence.

FIGURE 16.

Raman analysis of the iron-rich deposits on the aluminum surface. Goethite (G) has characteristic peaks that are shown in the spectra and confirm its presence.

Close modal

This occurs because Fe3+ would reduce to Fe2+ in such an acidic environment. Then other cathodic reactions would take over so that the Fe2+ forms a variety of ferrous compounds (hydroxides to then oxides) driving multiple reactions. As the iron-rich deposits still consist of goethite (α-FeO(OH)) shown in Figure 16, it indicates that the iron is still in a temporary phase where it has the potential to form iron oxides and, in particular , magnetite/maghemite. However, the corrosion potential is reduced due to the distance from the aluminum of these iron deposits. This results in a reduction in the amount of corrosion occurring. The formation of spheres of aluminum nestled into iron surroundings suggests that the higher temperatures drive the reaction of the aluminum to favor these sphere-like structures and thereby cause the dispersal of iron. In Figure 6 (images [a] and [b]), we observe white dry products formed on the surfaces and the corrosion products having a dark brown color suggesting that it is composed of iron oxides (maghemite) that have reacted onwards.23  In contrast, Figure 6 (image [b]) also shows the corrosion products closest to the surface having that dark brown color. However, the raised regions have a bright orange color with many white regions at the edges showing that a smaller portion of the iron undergoes reactions with the aluminum at higher concentrations due to lack of contact with the aluminum. These correspond to what is being observed in the Raman where we see the formation of the goethite (iron hydroxide) thereby having the potential to react further to form iron oxides.24  Under standard conditions at room temperature iron oxides (dark brown color) are observed in contrast at 50°C iron hydroxides are mostly observed.

This paper provides evidence of the role of temperature in the corrosion of aluminum when exposed to FeCl3. The key observations from experiments performed when aluminum samples were exposed are:

  • Lower rates of corrosion were observed at higher temperatures, with less penetration into the aluminum alloy for samples exposed to the higher temperatures.

  • Less iron/goethite was present on the aluminum surface when exposed to higher temperature. Potentially a reduction in corrosion-driven drying processes.

  • Goethite was formed on the aluminum alloy surface, and aluminum oxide was formed above it.

  • For samples exposed to 50°C, 2 M droplet exposures show platelets of iron or iron-containing compounds that were deposited across the aluminum surface and that was not in direct contact with the aluminum base, and the samples exposed to 5 M droplet exposures showing the formation of an iron-rich layer which is raised above the aluminum surface and pushed up within the corrosion products formed.

Trade name.

NGN EPSRC Grant number EP/L015390/1, Sellafield Ltd. for financial funding. We acknowledge the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) for funding the Henry Moseley X-Ray Imaging Facility which has been made available through the Royce Institute for Advanced Materials through Grants EP/F007906/1, EP/F001452/1, EP/I02249X, EP/M010619/1, EP/F028431/1, EP/M022498/1, and EP/R00661X/1.

1.
Atkins
P.
,
de Paula
J.
,
Physical Chemistry
(
Oxford, United Kingdom
:
W. H. Freeman
,
2006
).
2.
Krawczyk
B.
,
Cook
P.
,
Hobbs
J.
,
Engelberg
D.L.
,
Corrosion
73
(
2017
):
p
.
1346
1358
.
3.
Uhlig
,
Corrosion Hand-Book
(
New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons
,
1948
), https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zIYxxgEACAAJ.
4.
de Klein
J.J.M.
,
Overbeek
C.C.
,
Juncher Jørgensen
C.
,
Veraart
A.J.
,
Wetlands
37
(
2017
):
p
.
975
983
.
5.
Hackerman
N.
,
Ind. Eng. Chem.
44
(
1952
):
p
.
1752
1755
.
6.
Cao
M.
,
Liu
L.
,
Fan
L.
,
Yu
Z.
,
Li
Y.
,
Oguzie
E.E.
,
Wang
F.
,
Materials (Basel)
11
(
2018
):
p.
1
16
.
7.
Esmaily
M.
,
Shahabi-Navid
M.
,
Svensson
J.E.
,
Halvarsson
M.
,
Nyborg
L.
,
Cao
Y.
,
Johansson
L.G.
,
Corros. Sci.
90
(
2015
):
p
.
420
433
.
8.
Blücher
D.B.
,
Svensson
J.E.
,
Johansson
L.G.
,
J. Electrochem. Soc.
150
(
2003
):
p.
B93
B98
.
9.
Sharifi-Asl
S.
,
Mao
F.
,
Lu
P.
,
Kursten
B.
,
Macdonald
D.D.
,
Corros. Sci.
98
(
2015
):
p
.
708
715
.
10.
Tsuru
T.
,
Tamiya
K.I.
,
Nishikata
A.
,
Electrochim. Acta
49
(
2004
):
p
.
2709
2715
.
11.
Greenspan
L.
,
J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand. Sect. A Phys. Chem.
81A
(
1977
):
p
.
89
.
12.
Burnett
T.L.
,
McDonald
S.A.
,
Gholinia
A.
,
Geurts
R.
,
Janus
M.
,
Slater
T.
,
Haigh
S.J.
,
Ornek
C.
,
Almuaili
F.
,
Engelberg
D.L.
,
Thompson
G.E.
,
Withers
P.J.
,
Sci. Rep.
4
(
2014
):
p
.
1
6
.
13.
Woldemedhin
M.T.
,
Shedd
M.E.
,
Kelly
R.G.
,
J. Electrochem. Soc.
161
(
2014
):
p
.
E3216
E3224
.
14.
Engineering Toolbox
, “
Air: Maximum Moisture Carrying Capacity
,”
Engineering Toolbox
(
2008
), https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/maximum-moisture-content-air-d_1403.html (
March 24, 2022
).
15.
Mansfeld
F.
,
Mater. Corros. Und Korros.
30
(
1979
):
p
.
38
42
.
16.
Mahmood
S.
,
Engelberg
D.
,
Gallagher
C.
,
Corrosion
76
,
10
(
2020
):
p
.
985
994
.
17.
Calabrese
L.
,
Proverbio
E.
,
Pollicino
E.
,
Galtieri
G.
,
Borsellino
C.
,
Corros. Eng. Sci. Technol.
50
(
2015
):
p
.
10
17
.
18.
Zhang
J.
,
Chen
Z.
,
Zhao
J.
,
Jiang
Z.
,
Mech. Adv. Mater. Mod. Process. 4
(
2018
):
p.
1
9
.
19.
Usman
M.
,
Abdelmoula
M.
,
Faure
P.
,
Ruby
C.
,
Hanna
K.
,
Geoderma
197–198
(
2013
):
p
.
9
16
.
20.
Schwertmann
U.
,
Clays Clay Miner.
31
(
2006
):
p
.
277
284
.
21.
AlSairafi
S.H.
,
AlNajdi
N.
,
AlSheeha
H.
,
Rana
M.S.
,
React. Kinet. Mech. Catal.
(
2019
), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11144-019-01706-6.
22.
Schwertmann
U.
,
Clays Clay Miner.
27
(
1979
):
p
.
105
112
.
23.
Legodi
M.
,
Dewaal
D.
,
Dye. Pigment.
74
(
2007
):
p
.
161
168
.
24.
Ahn
T.
,
Kim
J.H.
,
Yang
H.-M.
,
Lee
J.W.
,
Kim
J.-D.
,
J. Phys. Chem. C
116
(
2012
):
p
.
6069
6076
.