See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259346336

Measuring atmospheric corrosion of industrial

infrastructure using electrical resistance
corrosion sensors

Conference Paper · November 2007

READS

47

3 authors, including:

Scott A Wade
Swinburne University of Technology
150 PUBLICATIONS 1,272 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Scott A Wade

Retrieved on: 09 May 2016
Print Menu Go Back Next Page

MEASURING ATMOSPHERIC CORROSION

OF INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE
USING ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE
CORROSION SENSORS
S A Wade1, K J Begbie1 & A Trueman2
1
CRC for Integrated Engineering Asset Management, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Monash University, Australia
2
DSTO, Fishermans Bend, Victoria, Australia

SUMMARY: Sensors for the measurement of atmospheric corrosion of industrial infrastructure

have been developed based on the electrical resistance technique. These sensors have been designed
to measure corrosion over an extended time period without compromising measurement accuracy.
Field trials are currently underway at a number of locations at 5 different test sites on the East
coast of Australia. The results obtained to date at these test locations, which represent a broad
range of corrosive environments, will be presented and discussed.

Keywords: Corrosion monitoring, atmospheric, electrical resistance, industrial infrastructure.

1 INTRODUCTION
A significant amount of research has been undertaken to investigate the corrosion rates of metals in the atmosphere. One of the
aims of this work has been to provide information on the useful service life of structures, such as bridges and buildings.
Typically this has involved the exposure of metal samples to the atmosphere, with the weight change as a function of exposure
time being used to infer corrosion rates. Several standards for such tests have been developed such as the ASTM G50 standard.
Carbon steel is one of the most widely used engineering materials [1] and as such is the material which has been the focus of
this work.
As a rough rule of thumb the corrosion rates of steels are commonly generalised depending upon the atmospheric environment
in which the specimen is located. Atmospheric environments are commonly classified as rural, urban, industrial and marine
with the corrosion rate of steel typically increasing in that order [1, 2]. In an attempt to further define atmospheric
environments a number of classification schemes, including the ISO 9223 classification scheme have been developed [3].
In Australia atmospheric corrosion tests on steels have been carried out at a wide number of locations covering each of the
aforementioned atmospheric categories. Smith and co-workers, for example, measured the corrosion rates of steel and other
metals at defence bases in Eastern and Northern Australia [4]. Another example is the comprehensive corrosivity survey of
Melbourne by King et al where test specimens where placed in a 2×2 km grid covering an area of approximately 900 km2 [5].
These tests have typically been undertaken using test specimens facing a single orientation, commonly mounted vertically and
facing either North or to the nearest sea coast.
Some of the main factors that have been found to affect the corrosion rates of steel in the atmosphere is the local climate
(including, but not limited to, amount of rainfall, temperatures and relative humidity), pollutants (such as SO2 and airborne
chlorides), steel composition, time of deployment and the orientation of the material [1-3, 6]. The majority of these factors can
vary significantly with both time and location over a single structure or an industrial site and as such large variations in
corrosion rates can occur. This highlights one of the main limitations of the single orientation test method. Work by Jeffrey and
Melchers for example has shown how corrosion rates can vary depending upon specimen inclination, cardinal direction, height
and the season at the start of the exposure [7].
One of the difficulties with using the weight loss method for determining the time and location dependence of corrosion rates
over a structure or industrial site is the large number of test specimens needed and the time required to take the measurements.

Corrosion Control 2007 Paper 118 Page 1

 Menu Go Back Next Page

An alternative corrosion monitoring technique which circumvents such problems is the electrical resistance method, in which
the resistance of a test sample is used to infer thickness change and hence corrosion rate [8, 9]. This method allows corrosion
rates to be monitored as a function of time using a single sensor and requires only a simple resistance measurement.
In this work we report some preliminary results from the use of electrical resistance-based corrosion sensors to monitor
atmospheric corrosion rates at a number of test locations on the East coast of Australia. The test locations utilised represent a
wide range of general atmospheric environments. At several of the test sites multiple sensors have been installed to investigate
how the corrosion rate is affected by orientation and location.

2 CORROSION SENSORS
The electrical resistance (ER) method of corrosion sensing is based on the change in the electrical resistance of a conductor
due to the reduction of thickness as corrosion takes place [8, 9]. This resistance of a conductor is described by:
ρl
R= (1)
A
where R is the resistance, ρ is the resistivity, l is the length and A is the cross-sectional area of the conductor (i.e. A = width ×
thickness, for a thin flat strip of metal). The relative change in the resistance of the conductor in a corrosive environment will
depend upon the initial thickness of the material. Thinner materials will initially be more sensitive but will also corrode
through and ultimately fail in a shorter time frame.
Corrosion sensor boards based on the electrical resistance method have been developed, an example of which is shown in
Figure 1. The sensor boards (dimensions 105×110 mm) consist of thin strips of mild steel and a weather proof connector for
resistance measurements. Steel shims with thicknesses ranging from 25 µm to 250 µm have been used in this work. The
resistances of the sensor elements are currently measured using a hand held meter, however automatic data logging devices are
being developed. The ER sensor boards include an inbuilt correction to account for the temperature dependence of the
resistance of the sensor elements.

Figure 1: Example of electrical resistance-based corrosion sensor board.

At several of the test sites weight loss specimens were deployed to provide a cross comparison with the electrical resistance
sensor corrosion rate measurements. The weight loss specimens used were mild steel 1 cm2 and 0.5 mm thick. One of the
advantages of the electrical resistance sensing method is that it is able to make measurements in relative short time periods.
The size of the weight loss coupons used in this work was chosen to allow comparison over such time scales. Additional tests
comparing the relatively small weight loss samples used in this work with larger size coupons are also underway. Prior to
deployment the weight loss specimens were cleaned thoroughly with ethanol, dried and weighed using a Sartorius R160D
balance (readability 0.01 mg). After removal the samples were cleaned using Clarke’s solution (see ASTM G1), dried and
reweighed. Blanks were used to correct for any weight loss during the cleaning process.

3 TEST LOCATIONS
Details of the locations at which ER corrosion sensor boards have been deployed are listed in Table 1 and shown in Figure 2.
Sensors have been deployed at distances ranging from ~5 m to ~ 70 km from the coast at locations which experience a
reasonably wide range of climactic conditions. The weather data shown in Table 1 was obtained from the Australian Bureau of
Meteorology website using the 1971-2000 time period. At the industrial sites sensor boards were located close to points where
corrosion rates were of specific interest, e.g. close to a process facility, with the sensors typically mounted vertically on a
support column. For the tests carried out at Gladstone the majority of the boards have been installed outdoors, while at the
Hunter Valley test sites the sensors are mostly located indoors. The sensor boards at Williamstown (shown in Figure 3a) are
mounted vertically on a wharf facing Port Phillip Bay (North East) while at the DSTO site the test boards are mounted on a
corrosion rack at an angle of 30º from the horizontal. The boards at the Williamstown and DSTO sites face North to within an
angle of approximately 15º. The Monash University test site has a relatively large number of ER sensor boards installed at

Corrosion Control 2007 Paper 118 Page 2

 Menu Go Back Next Page

several different locations to investigate the effects of both location and orientation. An example of one of the test locations at
Monash University, the roof of the 11 storey Menzies building, is shown in Figure 3b.

Table 1: Details of atmospheric corrosion test sites.

Test Site Location(s) Distance to Climate Rainfall Days rain Tmax (ºC)
coast (km) (mm) >1 mm
Monash Uni. Multiple sites, 11 Temperate 856 115 19.6
Clayton, VIC
DSTO Fishermans Bend, 1.6 Temperate, 654 99 20.1
VIC marine
Shipyard Williamstown, VIC 0.005 Temperate, 654 99 20.1
marine
Industry 1 Multiple sites, 0.005 - 1 Subtropical, 917 69 27.5
(Metal production) Gladstone, QLD marine
Industry 2 Multiple sites, 70 Temperate, 731 79 24.4
(Mining industry) Hunter Valley, NSW inland

Gladstone test site

Hunter Valley
test site

Monash University, DSTO

and shipyard test sites

Figure 2: Locations of atmospheric corrosion test sites.

(a) (b)

Sensor boards

Figure 3: Photo of sensor boards and weight loss coupons (a) at Williamstown, with the city of Melbourne in the
background, (b) on the roof of the Menzies building at Monash University.

Corrosion Control 2007 Paper 118 Page 3

 Menu Go Back Next Page

4 RESULTS

4.1 Influence of location on industrial site corrosion rates

Examples of the change in the resistances of sensor boards located at several test locations at the Gladstone industrial test site
are shown in Figure 4a. The seaside sensor is mounted on infrastructure on a wharf ~10 m above sea level, the interior
(manufacturing) sensor is located above a high temperature furnace in a building which has large open doors and the interior
(non-manufacturing) sensor is situated in a building kept relatively free from the outside environment. The results shown in
Figure 4 are for sensors deployed during April 2007. The variations in the initial resistance values reflect that different sensor
board configurations have been used due to expected differences in the corrosivity of the environment of interest. The
resistances for the seaside and the interior (manufacturing) sensors show increases with time indicating that corrosion is
occurring, while the resistance of the interior (non-manufacturing) sensor is relatively constant which indicates little or no
corrosion.

250 80
Seaside (a) Seaside (b)
Interior - manufacturing 70 Interior - manufacturing
200 Interior - non-manufacturing

Corrosion Rate (µm/yr)

Interior - non-manufacturing
60
Resistance (mΩ)

150 50

40
100
30

20
50
10

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (days) Time (days)

Figure 4: Examples of the (a) resistances and (b) subsequent corrosion rates recorded at various locations on the
Gladstone industrial test site.
The corrosion rates of the 3 different test locations rates at the Gladstone industrial test site, calculated using the measured
resistance data, are shown in Figure 4b. As can be seen from the results the corrosion rates for the 3 different sites vary
significantly. A comparison of the corrosion rates approximately 3.5 months after deployment is given in Table 2. The large
variations in corrosion rates of the different sites reported are not unexpected. The corrosion rate of the seaside sensor is
expected to be relatively high due to the influence of chlorides being so close to the sea. The interior (manufacturing) test site
is approximately 1 km from the sea and may still be somewhat affected by wind swept chlorides as the building has large doors
which are typically left open. The low corrosion rate of the interior (non-manufacturing) site, also approximately 1 km from
the sea, indicates how precluding the influences of the external environment can potentially increase the lifetime of equipment
and the structure drastically.

Table 2: Comparison between corrosion rates and corrosion categories from ER corrosion sensors at various locations
on the Gladstone industrial test site after approximately 3.5 months.
Location Corrosion Rate Corrosion Rate Corrosive Categories
(µm/yr) Ratio ISO9223 / AS/NZS2312
Seaside 67 183 C4 / High
Interior (manufacturing) 17 47 C2 / Low
Interior (non-manufacturing) 0.4 1 C1 / Very low
4.2 Influence of inclination on corrosion rate
The corrosion rates measured by horizontally and vertically mounted ER sensor boards are shown in Figure 5 for two different
test locations on the Monash University site. The results shown are for boards that were installed in May 2007. During this test
period rainfall was recorded on more than half of the days of the test. As can be seen the skyward facing horizontal ER sensors
recorded significantly higher corrosion rates which is to be expected as the time-of-wetness of the horizontal sensor should be
much longer than for the vertically mounted ER sensors.

Corrosion Control 2007 Paper 118 Page 4

 Menu Go Back Next Page

200 200
Vertical Vertical
Horizontal Horizontal

Corrosion Rate (µm/yr)

Corrosion Rate (µm/yr)

150 150

100 100

50 50

0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (days)
Time (days)

Figure 5: Corrosion rates measured by horizontal and vertical orientated ER sensor boards at two different test sites
at Monash University.
A further illustration of the influence of the inclination of the sensor on corrosion rate is shown in Figure 6a. Data is shown for
both 25 µm and 50 µm thick ER sensor elements and is also compared with the results from weight loss coupons. For each of
the sensing methods the corrosion rates decreased as the angle of inclination increased from 0º (i.e. horizontal) to 90º (i.e.
vertical). Again the differences are expected to be largely related to the influence on inclination on the time-of-wetness of the
specimens.
200 35
(a) 25 micron ER sensor ER sensor data (b)
50 micron ER sensor 30 Weight loss coupons
Corrosion Rate (µm/yr)
Corrosion Rate (µm/yr)

150 Weight loss coupon

25

20
100
15

10
50

0 0
0º (horizontal) 34º 90º (vertical) North East South West

Figure 6: Corrosion rates measured by ER sensor boards and weight loss coupons as a function of (a) inclination and
(b) cardinal direction at the Monash University test site.
A comparison between the corrosion rates versus angle of inclination is given in Table 3. The increased corrosion rate as the
angle of inclination increases, with respect to the horizontal, has been reported by others [1, 7, 10]. The main difference
between the previous reports and the data presented here is the magnitude of the difference (shown in Table 3 as ratios) of the
corrosion rates for the different angles of orientation. One possible explanation for this is that the corrosion rates obtained in
previous tests may have been heavily affected by pollutants (e.g. chlorides and SO2). In such situations corrosion can occur
when the relative humidity exceeds the critical relative humidity for the particular pollutant (e.g. ~ 60% for iron in an
atmosphere containing SO2 [1]). Therefore pollutants attached to a vertical surface could cause corrosion for similar time
periods to a horizontal surface without requiring the presence of visible moisture droplets on the surface. This would even out
the differences in corrosion rates between the surfaces at different inclinations. In addition the reported results are for relatively
short exposure periods, during which the corrosion rates are typically higher prior to the development of rust coatings.
Another interesting result shown in Figure 6a is the difference between the corrosion rates measured by the 25 µm and 50 µm
thick ER sensor elements. In previous work [11], the corrosion rate of steel has been found to be affected by the amount of
cold work the sample has been subjected to, with increased corrosion rates for higher levels of cold work. The thinner 25 µm
sensor elements are believed to have had more cold work and as such follow this expected trend. The thicker 50 µm sensor
elements appear to more closely match the corrosion rates as measured by the weight loss coupons when compared to the
25 µm sensor elements, especially for the horizontal orientation. This may be due to the steel of the 50 µm sensor elements
having a more closely related morphology to the weight loss coupon material than the 25 µm sensor steel. The reason for the

Corrosion Control 2007 Paper 118 Page 5

 Menu Go Back Next Page

increased difference in the corrosion rates measured by the 25 µm sensor element at the horizontal orientation is unclear at
present.

Table 3: Comparison between corrosion rates and corrosion categories from ER sensors at various orientations on the
Monash University test site.
Orientation Corrosion Rate (µm/yr) Corrosion Rate Ratio Corrosive Categories
ISO9223 / AS/NZS2312
25 µm sensor 50 µm sensor 25 µm sensor 50 µm sensor 25 µm sensor 50 µm sensor
0º (Horizontal) 160 78 10.3 5.4 C5 / Very high C4 / High
34º 58 32 3.7 2.2 C4 / High C3 / Medium
90º (Vertical) 16 14 1.0 1.0 C2 / Low C2 / Low
4.3 Influence of cardinal direction on corrosion rate
The effect of cardinal direction on corrosion rates measured by both ER corrosion sensors and weight loss coupons is shown in
Figure 6b. This data was obtained at the Monash University test site using ER sensor boards, and weight loss coupons,
vertically mounted facing various directions on a roof top water tank (~2 m diameter). The results for the first approximately 2
month period following deployment are also given in Table 4. In general the ER sensor and weight loss coupon results match
quite well with the South facing results being approximately double the North facing results and the East and West data being
roughly in-between. It is believed that the drying effect of the sun is the explanation for the lower corrosion rate on the North
facing side. In the work by Jeffrey and Melchers [7] relatively little differences between weight loss coupons facing different
orientations were observed for a severe marine atmosphere. The effect of pollutants, as discussed previously, may help to
explain the limited variations with orientation.

Table 4: Comparison between corrosion rates and corrosion categories from sensors facing various directions at the
Monash University test site.
Direction Corrosion Rate Corrosion Rate Corrosive Categories
(µm/yr) Ratio ISO9223 / AS/NZS2312
North 16 1.0 C2 / Low
East 20 1.3 C2 / Low
South 33 2.1 C3 / Medium
West 22 1.4 C2 / Low
4.4 Influence of distance from sea on corrosion rates
The variation in corrosion rates as a function of the distance from the sea measured using ER corrosion sensors is shown in
Figure 7. The values shown were for vertically mounted ER sensor boards except for the 1.6 km data point which was obtained
for a 30º inclined mounting. The later mentioned data was corrected to the equivalent vertical corrosion rate using a
multiplying factor obtained during the work reported previously in Section 4.3. The nearest marine body to the test sites
reported is Port Phillip Bay in Victoria. As has been observed in other similar tests the corrosion rate drops off dramatically as
distance from the sea increases. In the work reported by King for example the corrosion rate of mild steel decreases initially
with distance from the sea and then reaches a relatively constant value for distances approximately greater than 1 km from the
sea [12].
125

100
Corrosion Rate (µm/yr)

75

50

25

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Distance (km)

Figure 7: Corrosion rates as a function of distance from Port Phillip Bay (Victoria) measured by ER corrosion
sensors.

Corrosion Control 2007 Paper 118 Page 6

 Menu Go Back Next Page

4.5 Reproducibility of ER sensor corrosion measurements

An indication of the reproducibility of corrosion rate measurements using ER corrosion sensor boards is illustrated in Figure 8
where the corrosion rates of 2 different ER sensor boards co-located at the DSTO test site are shown. Over the range of time
displayed the average difference between the 2 sensors is less that 4%.

80
Sensor A
70 Sensor B

Corrosion Rate (µm/yr)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 50 100 150
Time (days)

Figure 8: Comparison between 2 different ER sensor board readings co-located at the DSTO test site.

5 CONCLUSIONS
The results presented show the successful use of electrical resistance-based corrosion sensor boards to monitor corrosion rates
at various test sites on the East coast of Australia. In addition the work has shown some of the range of influences that need to
be taken into account when monitoring corrosion rates at industrial test sites. These influences include:
• the level of exposure to the environment,
• the angle of inclination, and,
• the cardinal direction that the sensor is facing.
The relative large variations in corrosion rates observed for the different locations/orientations tested highlight the difficult in
trying to apply a generic atmospheric model to the corrosion rate across an industrial site.
Initial results indicate good correlation between the corrosion rates measured using the ER corrosion sensors and using the
weight loss methods. Excellent reproducibility of corrosion rate measurements when using multiple ER corrosion sensors at
the same test site has been observed. Some differences in the corrosion rates between different ER sensor readings made using
different shim thicknesses has been observed, but can be explained by the effect of cold working.
This work is ongoing including the extension to other test locations and the investigation of longer term exposure periods.

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work reported herein was funded by the CRC for Integrated Engineering Asset Management (CIEAM). The authors would
like to gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the staff at the industrial test locations, and David Desiatov and Tim Kehoe at
Monash University for helping with the deployment and sensor readings.

7 REFERENCES
1. J.H. Bryson, A.G. Preban and S.K. Coburn, “Corrosion of carbon steels”, in ASM Metals Handbook, pub ASM
International, Volume 13 (1987)
2. M. Tullmin and P.R. Roberge, “Atmospheric Corrosion”, in Uhlig’s Corrosion Handbook, Ed. R. Winston Revie, pub
John Wiley and Sons, Chapter 18 (2000)
3. P.R. Roberge, R.D. Klassen, P.W. Haberecht, Materials and Design, 23, pp321-330 (2002)
4. B.S. Smith, E.J. Duxbury and B.T. Moore, DSTO Report DSTO-GD-0123 (1997)
5. G.A. King, K.G. Martin and J.F. Moresby, “A detailed corrosivity survey of Melbourne”, pub CSIRO (Australia)
(1982)

Corrosion Control 2007 Paper 118 Page 7

 Menu Go Back

6. P.W. Brown and L.W. Masters, “Factors Affecting the Corrosion of Metals in the Atmosphere”, in Atmospheric
Corrosion, Ed. W.H. Ailor, pub John Wiley and Sons, p31-49 (1982)
7. R. Jeffrey and R.E. Melchers, Corrosion and Prevention 2006 - ACA Conference, Hobart, pp28 (2006)
8. M. McKenzie and P.R. Vassie, British Corrosion Journal, 20, pp117-124 (1985)
9. G.L. Cooper, “Sensing Probes and Instruments for Electrochemical and Electrical Resistance Corrosion Monitoring”,
ASTM STP 908, pub ASTM, pp237-250 (1986)
10. R. Vera, B.M. Rosales and C. Tapia, Corrosion Science, 45, pp321-337 (2003) – Inclination angle ref
11. N.D. Greene and G.A. Saltzman, Corrosion, 20, pp293-298 (1964)
12. G.A. King, Corrosion Australasia, pp5-14 (1988)

Corrosion Control 2007 Paper 118 Page 8