Corrosion Science 141 (2018) 230–242

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Corrosion Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/corsci

Investigation on machining induced surface and subsurface modifications on T

the stress corrosion crack growth behaviour of super duplex stainless steel
⁎
J. Rajaguru, N. Arunachalam
Department of Mechanical Engineering, IIT Madras, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600036, India

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: After stress corrosion crack testing in a MgCl2 environment, turned surface of super duplex stainless steel showed
Super duplex stainless steel four types of cracks. The residual stress and surface defects such as feed marks and long grooves generated after
Machining machining played a significant role in the direction and orientation of these cracks. The generated cluster of
Stress corrosion cracking cracks acted as a precursor to the formation of pits. The biaxial tensile stress in the surface promoted successive
branching of cracks, which led to high crack density. The subsurface results showed that cracks passing per-
pendicular to feed marks found more detrimental than the other types.

1. Introduction residual stress and varying surface topography, as the tool-workpiece

Stress corrosion cracking (SCC) is the failure of a susceptible ma-
terial caused by the conjoint action of tensile stress and corrosive en-
vironment. SCC is considered to be a catastrophic form of environment
assisted corrosion, as the detection of fine cracks can be difficult at the
early stage and the failure cannot be predicted easily. Super duplex
stainless steel (SDSS) provides improved mechanical properties and
corrosion resistance in comparison with austenitic steels. The ideal
combination of ferrite and austenite phase results in achieving this
superior property. Hence, it is being widely used in nuclear power
plants and marine environments [1,2]. However, it is still susceptible to
SCC, when it is exposed to aggressive chloride environments [3,4].
During the final stage of manufacturing the SDSS components, surface
machining operations such as turning, milling, grinding plays an im-
portant role in attaining their required geometric and dimensional
specifications [5–7]. These machining operations determine the surface
integrity as it generates residual stresses and microstructural deforma-
tions in the component [8]. Also, SDSS is considered as a tough to
machine material, which further deteriorates the surface integrity
during machining [9].
During machining, the inhomogeneous plastic deformation of
workpiece occurs due to mechanical, thermal and metallurgical effects
in the cutting zone. These effects are influenced by the factors such as
the tool geometry, process parameters and material being machined.
The final nature and magnitude of residual stress generated in the
machined material depend on the above-mentioned factors [10,11].
Also, the different machining process can induce different magnitude of
interaction phenomena differ from one another [12,13]. Researchers
have investigated these machining induced residual stress and their
effect on different aspects of SCC crack propagation. The effect of dif-
ferent surface machining operations such as turning, milling and
grinding generated high tensile residual stress in austenitic steel and it
caused the reduction in SCC resistance under chloride environments
[14]. Lyon et al. [15] reported that the milling marks influenced the
nucleation of primary cracks and the generated secondary cracks were
arrested half way between primary cracks due to local stress relief
during cracking. Ghosh et al. [16] reported that strained surface by
machining results in dense surface cracks in a very short period of time,
as compared to the cold worked sample with a maximum crack length
of 150 μm in the subsurface.
Zhang et al. [17] observed that microcrack density increases with
residual stress on the milled surface of 316 austenitic steel. They also
showed that significant cracks can be initiated only when the residual
stress is higher than the critical stress value. The influence of surface
grinding on the SCC behaviour of duplex 2304 showed that the ground
surface was more susceptible to SCC in a magnesium chloride (MgCl2)
environment even without external loading. Moreover, the loading
perpendicular to the rolling direction increased their susceptibility
further, as the cracks propagated through both austenite and ferrite
phase [18]. Wickstrom et al. [19] indicated that dealloying (depletion
of Fe) in the nanocrystalline layer of SDSS generated by surface
grinding acted as a precursor for crack initiation. Also, the subsurface
analysis of machined samples revealed that crack branching was found
parallel to the applied stress direction and crack coalescence was found

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: chalam@iitm.ac.in (N. Arunachalam).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2018.07.012
Received 1 December 2017; Received in revised form 4 July 2018; Accepted 6 July 2018
Available online 17 July 2018
0010-938X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Rajaguru, N. Arunachalam
Table 1
Chemical composition of SDSS.
Element C N Si P S Cr Mn Ni Mo
Wt% 0.03 0.25 2.06 0.03 0.02 24.6 1.20 6.1 4.00
perpendicular to the surface. A roughly machined surface was more
susceptible to crack initiation than a fine surface, due to the residual
stress introduced during machining process [20]. Huanchun et al. [21]
showed that the residual stress and roughness values increased with
feed rate, and intergranular cracks were observed in austenitic steel
during MgCl2 exposure after the milling operation. Also, the suscept-
ibility to SCC increased with the transformation of martensite in the
strain hardened region, as their dissolution rate is higher than austenite
[22]. Consolidating the knowledge from the discussion in the literature
[14–22], it is evident that extensive work has been reported on SCC
crack propagation of milled and ground samples. However, a detailed
investigation is required to understand the effect of turning process
induced surface and subsurface damages on the SCC crack propagation.
This study may provide an insight in to the crack growth behaviour of
machined SDSS samples with varying surface and subsurface char-
acteristics.
Hence, this work aims at a detailed investigation of surface and
subsurface crack growth behaviour of SDSS turned samples, while ex-
posing to magnesium chloride (MgCl2) environment. Also, the crack
behaviour of these turned samples was investigated at the early stage of
exposure to the chloride environment. Initially, the dry turning ex-
periments were conducted, and then the machined and unmachined
samples were exposed to chloride solution at a different exposure time
of 1 and 2 h as per ASTM G36. Before exposing to the solution, the
surface roughness and residual stress of the component were measured.
After the test, the different types of crack generated on the surface and
subsurface were analysed in detail. The effect of surface defects on
crack directions, the role of residual stress on crack density, length and
width, the influence of microstructure on the crack path and crack in-
itiation beneath the surface was also investigated.
2. Experimental procedure
2.1. Material
Super duplex stainless steel (SDSS) grade 2507 was investigated in
this study. The material was solution annealed at 1050 °C and quenched
to remove all the internal stresses in the material. The composition of
the material is shown in Table 1. The circular bar with a diameter of
35 mm and a length of 400 mm was used for the machining operation.
Fig. 1(a) and (b) shows the microstructure of material parallel and
perpendicular to the rolling direction respectively. The EBSD study in
Fig. 1(c) indicates the phase distribution of 48% ferrite (BCC) and a
52% austenite (FCC) perpendicular to the rolling direction. The
Fig. 1. Microstructure – SDSS (α-ferrite, γ-austenite) (a) parallel to rolling direction, (b) perpendicular to rolling direction, (c) EBSD image showing phase map of
ferrite and austenite perpendicular to rolling direction.
Corrosion Science 141 (2018) 230–242
measured values of mechanical properties such as tensile strength (Rm)
and hardness (HB) at room temperature are 830 MPa and 248 respec-
Fe tively.
Remaining
2.2. Machining
The dry turning operation was carried out on the SDSS workpiece as
shown in Fig. 2(a). The tungsten carbide tool from Kennametal with the
geometry of TNMG 160408 was used throughout the study. The insert
had a dual layer coating (MT-TiCN (top) /Al2O3 (bottom)) over the
tungsten carbide substrate. The cutting conditions include constant
values of cutting velocity- 120 m/min and depth of cut- 1 mm. The feed
rate (mm/rev) was varied with the values of 0.10, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4. The
uniform machining length of 20 mm was maintained and a new cutting
edge was used for each process parameter. The tool movement with
respect to the workpiece is represented as feed direction (Parallel to the
machining direction) and cutting directions (Perpendicular to the ma-
chining direction) is shown in Fig. 2(c).
2.3. Residual stress measurement
The residual stress measurement in SDSS was carried by the X-ray
diffraction method [23]. The portable Proto iXRD system with PROTO
XRD Win2.0 software was used for data collection and stress analysis.
The setup parameters used for the measurement are mentioned in
Table 2. The sin2 ψ method along with multi-exposure technique was
used to determine the magnitude of residual stress on the surface. The
X-ray radiation source of Cr-kα (20 KV, 4 mA) was used to measure the
stress in the ferrite phase with a diffraction angle of 156.41° and (211)
plane. The residual stresses in the surface before and after machining
was measured along cutting and feed direction as shown in Fig. 2(c).
The measurements were done at three different spots in both the di-
rections. To improve the accuracy of results, 11 tilt angles (ψ) were
used for each detector as mentioned in Table 2. The depth of penetra-
tion is approximately around 5 μm for chromium (Cr) source in the
ferrite phase of stainless steel [24].
2.4. Stress corrosion test
The SCC test procedure was carried out as per the recommendations
of ASTM G36. To prepare the 42% MgCl2 (Magnesium Chloride) test
solution, 600 g of reagent grade MgCl2·6H2O (Magnesium Chloride
Hexahydrate) and 15 ml of reagent water was added to the 1 L
Erlenmeyer flask. The flask had an attachment for inserting the ther-
mometer to monitor the temperature of the test solution. The condenser
unit was mounted with the flask, and the whole unit was placed on a
hot plate for heating. When the MgCl2 started boiling, the desired
temperature of 155 °C was attained by adding a few drops of water. The
water circulated through the condenser to maintain the concentration
of solution by condensing the vapour. Proper care was taken to monitor
231
J. Rajaguru, N. Arunachalam Corrosion Science 141 (2018) 230–242

Fig. 2. Schematic illustration: (a) Turning process indicating Fx – Feed direction & Fy – Cutting direction, (b) Top of machined surface sliced by Electric Discharge
Machining (EDM) for SCC test, (c) Machined surface indicating residual stress measurement directions with respect to rolling direction and feed mark.

Table 2
XRD measurement values.
Target Chromium

Wavelength (Å) 2.291

Voltage (kv) 20
Current (mA) 4.0
Aperture size (mm) 2
Braggs angle, (2θ) (°) 156.41
Diffraction plane (211)
ψ angles (°) - detector 1 −41.80, −36.59, −31.08, −23.59, −17.34,
−11.80, −6.25, 0, 7.49, 13.0, 18.20.
ψ angles (°) - detector 2 −18.20, −13.0, −7.49, 0, 6.25, 11.80, 17.34, 23.59,
31.08, 36.59, 41.80
Φ angle (°) 0 and 90
X-ray elastic constant, S1 1.28 × 10−6 MPa
X-ray elastic constant, S2 5.92 × 10−6 MPa

Fig. 4. Effect of feed on surface roughness.

propagation.

2.5. Specimen characterization

To determine surface roughness of machined sample, non-contact

Fig. 3. Effect of feed rate on residual stress.
the temperature, as a small loss in water vapour could result in an in-
crease of boiling point with a reduction in failure time of the specimen.
Once the solution reached the stabilized temperature, the top of the
machined surface sliced by electric discharge machining (EDM), with
the geometry as shown in Fig. 2 (b) was added into the flask. Then, the
samples were periodically inspected to determine the rate of crack
optical surface profiler (Veeco NT-1100) was used. It utilizes white light
interferometry principle to scan the topography of the surface and
quantifies the roughness of the sample. To analyse the morphology of
cracks generated on the machined surface and sub-surface, Field
Emission Scanning Electron Microscope (Inspect F50) was used. The
samples were observed under a Secondary Electron Mode (SE),
Backscattered Electron Mode (BSE) and Electron Backscattered
Diffraction (EBSD) mode. In order to determine the crack density of
machined samples, the cracks were analysed in a uniform surface area
of 1 mm2 after SCC testing under SEM. The crack density is the length of
cracks (μm) generated in the specimen of a uniform surface area (mm2).
The total length of the cracks was measured using the SEM images
through image analyser to get an approximate crack density. The length
of the individual primary crack was also measured to observe the
maximum crack length. For that, the average of ten different cracks was
measured in varying places in each test sample. Besides, the crack
widths of primary and secondary crack were measured with respect to
the different exposure time. The subsurface analysis was done to study

232
J. Rajaguru, N. Arunachalam
Fig. 5. Surface profile representation of a machined surface by non contact optical surface profiler (a & b) For the feed of 0.4 mm/rev and 0.1 mm/rev respectively.
Fig. 6. Schematic representation of different types of crack in surface.
the crack propagation path and crack depth. During this analysis, spe-
cimens were cut perpendicular to the direction of crack and mechani-
cally polished by emery papers of different grades in sequence. It was
followed by alumina and diamond polishing to get the surface without
scratches. Then the samples were etched with gylcergia reagent fol-
lowed by microscopic inspection to detect the crack path in different
phases. To understand the microcrack evolution in the subsurface, the
machined surface layer after the SCC test was polished and etched using
the above mentioned procedure.
233
Corrosion Science 141 (2018) 230–242
3. Results
3.1. Residual stress
The residual stresses on the surface were measured along both the
cutting and feed direction, before and after machining. Before ma-
chining, the surface was found to have biaxial compressive residual
stress along both the cutting (-346 ± 11 MPa) and feed direction
(-371 ± 41 MPa). The obtained stress values after machining are
shown in Fig. 3. It is observed that, at the feed rate of 0.10 mm/rev, the
work surface had compressive (−271 MPa) and tensile (741 MPa) re-
sidual stress along the feed and cutting direction respectively. As the
feed rate was increased to 0.20 mm/rev, biaxial tensile stresses were
observed on the work surface. With further increase in the feed rate to
0.40 mm/rev, maximum tensile stress values of 1039 MPa and 849 MPa
were observed along cutting and feed direction respectively. Also, it is
observed from Fig. 3 that the magnitude of residual stress is higher
along the cutting direction than the feed direction in all the machined
samples.
3.2. Surface roughness
The surface quality after machining influences the levels of stress
concentration on the surface. The surface finish is affected by the ir-
regularities on the surface generated during and after machining.
During machining, feed rate has a higher impact on the surface
J. Rajaguru, N. Arunachalam
Fig. 7. SEM images showing type 1 and 2 crack on the surface after 1 h exposure time: (a) Feed rate of 0.10 mm/rev showing only type 1 crack, (b,c&d) Feed rate of
0.20, 0.30 and 0.4 mm/rev showing both type 1 crack and type 2 crack respectively.
roughness than the other process parameters [10]. The surface rough-
ness, (Ra) values were measured along the feed direction after ma-
chining. Fig. 4 shows that the surface roughness value increases with
increase in the feed rate. The maximum value of 5.28 μm was obtained
for the feed rate of 0.4 mm/rev. In addition, Fig. 5(a)and(b) shows the
roughness profile of machined surface obtained for the feed rate of 0.4
& 0.1 mm/rev and indicating the feed marks with peaks and troughs
generated after machining. The feed marks are inherent surface defects
present in a machined surface, but the nature of variation is dictated by
the combined action of the tool and workpiece movement. In addition
to this, Fig. 5(a) also shows the long grooves, cavity and surface irre-
gularities generated on the surface.
3.3. Surface crack morphology
Both the machined and unmachined samples were exposed to the
MgCl2 solution and the SCC cracks were analysed for two different
exposure time of 1 and 2 h. Four different types of cracks were observed
on the machined surfaces. The obtained crack pattern was classified
based on their orientation and direction as shown in Fig.6.
3.3.1. Types of crack
After an exposure time of 1 h, the cracks were found only along the
direction perpendicular to feed marks (type1) for the feed rate of
0.10 mm/rev, as shown in Fig.7(a). On the contrary, for the surfaces
machined with a feed rate of 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 mm/rev, the cracks were
generated along both the directions; perpendicular (type 1) and parallel
to feed marks (type 2) as highlighted in Fig. 7(b)–(d). These figures also
234
Corrosion Science 141 (2018) 230–242
reveal that the number of type 1 cracks were more in the perpendicular
direction to feed marks for all the machined samples. Also, it showed a
zigzag pattern on the surface. With an increase in the exposure time to
2 h, the branching of crack increased, as new cracks developed from the
existing cracks. Fig. 8(b) highlights the branching of type 1 crack for the
feed rate of 0.10 mm/rev.
The branching of both type 1 and 2 cracks for the feed rate of
0.20 mm/rev is shown in Fig. 8(c). Fig. 8(d) indicates the type 2 cracks
developed in long grooves on the work surface. The unmachined
sample with compressive residual stress showed no cracks after 2 h as
shown in Fig. 8(a). In addition to the type 1 and 2 cracks, some clusters
of cracks (type 3) found in the vicinity of the surface discontinuities are
shown in Fig. 9(a). The density of such clusters increased with an in-
crease in exposure time as shown in Fig. 9(b). From these figures, it is
observed that the cracks were appearing to be shorter with more
number of cracks in that region. The exposure time of 2 h resulted in
localized pitting corrosion, which is evident from the multiple pits (type
4) shown in Fig. 9(c). It is also observed that these pits were associated
with the clusters and found along the crack path.
3.3.2. Crack density, length and width
The density, length, and width of the cracks on the machined sur-
faces were analysed for a different exposure time. While measuring the
crack density, type 3 was not considered since the length of their in-
dividual crack is much smaller than the other types of crack. The var-
iations in the crack density of different machined samples with respect
to feed and different exposure time are shown in Fig.10. For the feed
rate of 0.10 mm/rev and an exposure time of 1 h, the surface had a low
J. Rajaguru, N. Arunachalam
Fig. 8. SEM images showing type 1 and 2 crack on surface after the interval of 2 h: (a) Unmachined surface with no crack after SCC test, (b) Feed rate 0.10 mm/rev
shows branching of type 1 crack, (c) Feed rate of 0.20 mm/rev showing branching of type 1 and type 2 crack, (d) Type 2 - straight crack developed inside long groove.
crack density of 4492 μm/mm2. Similarly, for the feed rate of 0.2, 0.3
and 0.4 mm/rev, the crack densities observed were 7781, 10,679 and
12,255 μm/mm2 respectively. For the feed rate of 0.4 mm/rev and an
exposure time of 2 h, maximum crack density of 26,318 μm/mm2 was
observed.
The typical stress corrosion crack on the surface shown in Fig.11
indicates the type 1 crack with primary and secondary crack. The pri-
mary crack length analysis showed that for a feed rate of 0.4 mm/rev
and an exposure time of 2 h, type 2 crack showed a maximum crack
length of 760 μm as shown in Fig.12. Similarly, for a feed rate of
0.1 mm/rev and an exposure time of 2 h, the maximum primary crack
length of 430 μm was measured along the type 1 crack. The width of
primary and secondary crack on the machined surface was also ex-
amined after SCC test. Fig.13 indicates the change in primary and
secondary crack width for an exposure time of 1 and 2 h. Fig.14 shows
that at a feed rate 0.4 mm/rev and an exposure time of 2 h, the max-
imum value of primary and secondary crack width on the machined
surface are 0.798 μm, 0.527 μm respectively. The percentage increase in
crack width with an hour increase in exposure time is listed in Table 3.
From Table 3, it is also observed that the secondary crack width grows
at a faster rate after 2 h.
3.4. Subsurface crack analysis
The subsurface analysis of SCC specimens was done after metallo-
graphic polishing. To analyse the type 1 and 2 cracks in the subsurface,
the samples were cut perpendicular to the crack direction. The crack
depth, crack path and microcrack evolution are discussed in detail to
understand the formation and propagation of the crack beneath the
235
Corrosion Science 141 (2018) 230–242
surface.
3.4.1. Crack depth and path
The depth of type 1 and 2 crack with varying morphology is shown
in Fig.15. The crack depth with respect to changes in exposure time is
shown in Fig.16. From Fig.15(a)and(b), it can be observed that the type
1 cracks found in the subsurface have a greater depth and smaller width
than the type 2 cracks. These cracks grew with multiple branches be-
neath the surface. The maximum crack depth observed was 63 μm after
2 h of exposure for the sample machined with 0.4 mm/rev feed rate. On
the other hand, the type 2 crack shown in Fig.15(c)and(d) revealed a
different morphology. These cracks were observed with higher width,
lesser depth and fewer branches. Also, it had a maximum depth of
37 μm for the feed of 0.4 mm/rev after 2 h of exposure. The cracks in
the subsurface were also analysed after polishing and etching to un-
derstand their path in the subsurface. Fig. 17(a)and(b) shows that crack
passes either through the ferrite phase or the phase boundary. However,
in a few cases, the crack also passes through the austenite phase as
shown in Fig. 17(c).
3.4.2. Microcrack evolution
The microcrack evolution study was carried out to understand the
microcrack initiation in different phases beneath the surface. The ma-
chined surface was polished after the SCC test and examined under high
magnifications (> 100000x) to detect the formation of the sub-surface
cracks. Fig. 18(a) shows the crack free subsurface before exposing to
MgCl2 solution. From Fig. 18 (b), it is obvious that microcracks are
initiated in both the phases after chloride exposure. Even though mi-
crocracks were found in both phases, Fig. 18(c & d) indicates that the
J. Rajaguru, N. Arunachalam Corrosion Science 141 (2018) 230–242

Fig. 9. SEM images showing type 3 and 4 on the surface near the feed mark: (a) Type 3, cluster of cracks with less density at the feed rate of 0.1 mm /rev after 1 h, (b)
Type 3 cracks with increased density at the feed rate of 0.1 mm /rev after 2 h, (c) Type 3 and 4 (pits) at the feed rate of 0.2 mm /rev after.2 h.

Fig. 10. Effect of feed on crack density on surface at different exposure time.
Fig. 11. Typical SCC type 1 crack on the surface after 2 h at the feed rate of
0.2 mm/rev.

236
J. Rajaguru, N. Arunachalam Corrosion Science 141 (2018) 230–242

Fig. 14. Effect of feed rate on primary and secondary crack width of type 1
crack on surface at different exposure time.

Fig. 12. Effect of feed on primary crack length on surface at different exposure
Table 3
time.
Percentage increase (growth rate) in crack width of type 1 crack with respect to
increase in time from 1 h to.2 h
Feed rate, mm/rev 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

Primary crack (%) 3.3 3.0 2.5 3.5

Secondary crack (%) 15.0 14.1 10.2 8.5

Fig. 13. SEM images of primary crack and secondary crack width of type 1 cracks on surface after different exposure time,(a)Primary crack width after 1 h for the
feed rate 0.4 mm/rev, (b) Primary crack width after 2 h for the feed rate 0.4 mm/rev, (c) Secondary crack width after 1 h for the feed rate 0.1 mm/rev, (d) Secondary
crack width after 2 h for the feed rate 0.1 mm/rev.

237
J. Rajaguru, N. Arunachalam Corrosion Science 141 (2018) 230–242

Fig. 15. SEM images showing cross section (subsurface) of type 1 and 2 crack (a) Type 1 crack after 1 h at the feed rate 0.2 mm/rev, (b) Type 1 crack after 2 h at the
feed rate 0.4 mm/rev, (c) Type 2 crack after 1 h at the feed rate 0.2 mm/rev, (d) Type 1 crack after 2 h at the feed rate 0.3 mm/rev.

steady propagating crack originated along the phase boundary after 2 h.

Fig. 18(e) shows that the microcrack 1 initiated in the ferrite phase
joins with microcrack 2 resulting in coalescence of cracks.

4. Discussion

4.1. Effect of residual stress

Generally, the residual stresses are induced on the surface by

Fig. 16. Depth of type 1 and 2 crack (subsurface) with respect to feed rate and
at different exposure time.
thermal gradients and mechanical load generated during machining.
Although compressive stress seems to be beneficial, the tensile stress
can reduce the material resistance to SCC. The residual stress results
from Fig. 3 indicates that the value increases along cutting and feed
direction when the feed rate is varied from low to high. Also, biaxial
tensile stress state is observed from the feed of 0.2 mm/rev onwards.
These tensile stress values were found to be relatively higher along
cutting direction for all the process parameters. The non-uniform sur-
face with high roughness and deformities contributes to this variation
in residual stress along both the directions [12]. The obtained stress
values in this work were also in agreement with literature reported
earlier [10,25]. For the feed rate of 0.1 mm/rev, the better heat dis-
sipation through the chip favours compressive stress along feed direc-
tion and tensile stress along cutting direction. At a feed rate of
0.20 mm/rev and above, the nature of residual stress changes from
compressive to tensile state along both the directions with values ap-
proaching towards the tensile strength of the material.
This high tensile stress values indicate the dominance of thermal

238
J. Rajaguru, N. Arunachalam
Fig. 17. BSE images of crack path obtained in the subsurface for type 1 crack, (α-ferrite, γ-austenite), (a&b) crack passes through either ferrite or phase boundary at
the feed rate of 0.1 mm/rev and 0.2 mm/rev respectively, (c) Crack passes through ferrite, austenite and phase boundary at the feed rate of 0.2 mm/rev.
deformation over mechanical load during machining. While machining,
the chips after passing through the primary shear zone will engage in
contact with the rake face of the tool. With the increase in feed rate,
tool wear and chip thickness increases causing the friction at the tool-
chip interface to increase. The heat generated from this frictional en-
ergy is primarily responsible for the rise in temperature at the cutting
zone and promoting tensile residual stress into the workpiece [26]. The
mean temperature of the chip surface along the tool face, θT is given us,
θT = θS + ΔθF
where θS is the mean shear plane temperature, ΔθF is the mean tem-
perature rise due to friction [27]. In addition to these factors, the low
thermal conductivity of the material further increased the temperature
in the cutting zone and tensile stress also reached up to a maximum
value of 1039 MPa. This higher residual stress in the material can be
accommodated by a significant reduction in grain size and work
hardening due to machining effects near the surface [28].
4.2. Surface crack characteristics
The different types of cracks observed on the surface after SCC test is
one of the interesting observations in this study. The type 1 and 2 cracks
are generated as a result of the high magnitude tensile residual stress
along the cutting and feed direction respectively. These cracks are
generated perpendicular to dominant stress direction. Zhang et al. [17]
reported the presence of type 1 cracks passing perpendicular to feed
mark while performing milling on austenitic stainless steel in MgCl2
environments. Their study also showed the presence of biaxial tensile
stress on the surface. However, no observation on the formation of type
2 cracks was reported [17]. In the present study, the type 2 cracks
observed on the surface were completely straight and parallel to feed
marks. The number of type 2 crack formed for the feed rates of 0.2, 0.3,
and 0.4 mm/rev were lesser than the type 1 crack, due to the relatively
lower tensile residual stress along the feed direction. At a the feed rate
of 0.1 mm/rev, compressive residual stress was observed along the feed
direction, due to which there was no formation of type 2 cracks in the
long grooves of surface (the formation of long grooves is discussed in
Section 4.3). As the feed rate is increased to 0.2 mm/rev, the nature of
the residual stress along the cutting direction changes from compressive
to tensile state, leading to the formation of type 2 cracks in the long
grooves. This tensile stress increases with increase in feed rate above
0.2 mm /rev as discussed in Section 4.1, which in turn causes the in-
dividual primary crack length to increase. Lyon et al [15] reported that
for a milled surface, the cracks were generated predominantly in the
trough of the surface with a maximum primary crack length of
∼450 μm after 2 weeks of MgCl2 exposure. In the present study, the
maximum crack length of 760 μm was observed at the feed rate of
0.4 mm/rev after 2 h exposure, as shown in Fig. 12. Also, the dis-
tributions of the type 1 and 2 cracks are found in both peak and trough
Corrosion Science 141 (2018) 230–242
of the surface.
With an increase in exposure time, the type 1 and 2 cracks grew
further by secondary crack branching out from the primary cracks in an
orthogonal direction. Even though this kind of branching occurred in
both type 1 and 2 cracks, the type 2 cracks resulted in a tree-like
structure with numerous branches as shown in Fig. 8(c). The mor-
phology of the generated primary and secondary cracks was examined
to understand their growing nature. The crack width results indicated
that primary cracks have a higher width than their secondary coun-
(1)
terparts. However, the percentage increase in crack width at a different
exposure time showed that the secondary crack width grows at a higher
rate than the primary cracks. This indicates that the growth of gener-
ated primary crack reaches a steady state after an exposure of 1 h by the
significant release of surface tensile stress [15,18]. From these results, it
is evident the crack width of the newly formed crack (secondary crack)
grows at a faster rate than their precursors (primary crack) with an
increase in the exposure time.
The successive branching of type 1 and 2 cracks results in increased
crack density values. After 2 h exposure, the value of the crack density
was found to be more than twice the initial values obtained in 1 h ex-
posure. The maximum crack density of 26,318 μm/mm2 was observed
after 2 h for the feed rate of 0.4 mm/rev, due to the highest tensile
residual stress. But in austenitic steel after milling, a maximum crack
density of 5110 μm/mm2 was reported after 5 h, and the crack initiation
stopped as the crack density reached the saturation level with more
time [17]. These details suggest that susceptibility of turned samples to
SCC is more in comparison with the milling process. The morphology of
type 3 and 4 cracks are discussed in the following sections.
4.3. Effect of surface defects
The interaction between tool and the workpiece results in the for-
mation of a surface with various defects such as feed marks, surface
cavity, grooves, surface plucking and smearing [29]. These defects can
make the surface electrochemically active and susceptible to SCC [30].
As the distance between the feed marks increases with an increase in
the feed rate, the irregularities on the surface and roughness value in-
crease. These feed marks played a major role in deciding the orientation
of type 1 cracks. At a feed rate of 0.1 mm/rev, the type 1 cracks were
found to have a zigzag path perpendicular to the feed mark. As the feed
rate increases, the distance between the feed marks increases altering
the crack path from a zigzag to a relatively straight one. Fig. 8(d) shows
that the type 2 cracks are formed in the long grooves. These long
grooves are generated as a consequence of ploughing caused by the
chips bonded to the tool surface and also by tool wear [29]. These
grooves which act as stress risers accelerated the crack propagation of
type 2 crack. In addition to this, the grooves were also responsible for
increasing the length of these cracks as shown in Fig. 12. The combined
action of high tensile stress along the feed direction and accumulation
239
J. Rajaguru, N. Arunachalam Corrosion Science 141 (2018) 230–242

Fig. 18. BSE images show the evolution of micro cracks in subsurface at the feed of 0.2 mm/rev after 2 h, (α-ferrite, γ-austenite), (a) No micro cracks before exposing
to MgCl2 solution, (b)Microcracks initiated in both the phases (c) Growth of micro cracks along phase boundary, (d) Development of steady propagating micro crack
near phase boundary, (e) Coalescence of microcrack.

of chloride ions in the grooves favoured the formation of type 2 cracks
[28,31].
The surface with high roughness and residual stress also promoted
localized corrosion through the surface defects. From Fig. 9 it is no-
ticeable that the cluster of cracks (type 3) and pits (type 4) are found
predominantly along the peaks of the surface profile generated after
machining. These peaks are highly strained layers causing a high cor-
rosion rate [32]. The convergence of different cracks in the cluster leads
to the formation of pit in the crack junction. Also, the density of these
clusters increased due to the high chloride concentration and low pH
values in the defects [28,33]. As a result, more pits were initiated from
these clusters. The formation of pits near the crack decreases the pH
value in the cluster area in comparison to the surrounding environment
[31]. This pit formation also leads to increased stress concentration,
accelerating the crack propagation rate. Previous research works show
that the formation of pits and cracks can coexist together along with the
surface defects [34]. The crack evolution and transition behaviour can
be well appreciated by understanding the source of crack and pit for-
mation. In milled and ground surfaces the presence of pits acts as an
initiator for the crack generation [15,28]. But in this turned surface, the
convergence of different cracks in the cluster leads to the formation of
pit. This indicates that the type of machining process highly influences
the cracking mechanism through the surface profile generated after
machining.

240
J. Rajaguru, N. Arunachalam
4.4. Effect of sub-surface deformation
The growth of SCC cracks below the surface is due to the high
magnitude of tensile stress generated in the adjacent surface layer
during the machining process. The plastic deformation during ma-
chining leads to high dislocation pile-up and a huge amount of locked
up stresses near the surface, which can increase their SCC susceptibility
[30]. As the size of the plastic deformation zone increases, the stress
concentration gets deeper into the subsurface, eventually increasing the
crack depth generated. The cross-sectional analysis results in Fig.15
showed that type 1 and 2 crack have different morphological char-
acteristics below the surface. The type 1 crack was observed with a
narrow crack tip leading to more stress concentration at the tip. This
causes the crack to grow at high speed with more branches. It also in-
creased the crack depth to a maximum of 63 μm in the subsurface.
In contrast, type 2 cracks had a broader crack tip as it is generated
from the long grooves on the surface. This blunt crack with lower stress
concentration at the tip favoured a relatively smaller crack depth of
37 μm with fewer branches. As the material deformation differs along
the cutting and feed direction, it leads to varying magnitude of residual
stress along both the directions in subsurface [18]. It also contributes to
the differences in stress concentration of type 1 and 2 cracks. The
turning process in 304 L SS gave rise to high-density deformation bands
and twins near the surface, which led to strain induced martensite
formation. Also, a subsurface crack length of 142 ± 75 μm was ob-
served [14]. This information suggests that the depth of type 1 and 2
cracks may further grow with exposure time, although no martensite
formation is observed in the subsurface.
4.5. Role of microstructure
Along with the corrosive environment and residual stress, micro-
structure plays an important role in the crack initiation and crack path
beneath the surface. The duplex steel with inhomogeneous micro-
structure and different slip systems provides more resistance to SCC
than the single-phase alloys. From Fig.17, the crack path in subsurface
indicates the austenite phase with high resistance to SCC in MgCl2
environments. Also, the crack passes either through the ferrite phase or
phase boundary. The investigation of SCC of DSS in NaCl solution also
showed that ferrite phase is more susceptible to crack initiation and
crack propagation [35]. The hydrogen embrittlement in chloride en-
vironment can also be a possible reason for SCC in SDSS [36,37]. The
hydrogen atoms are generated on the steel surface as a result of in-
creased cathodic polarization reactions and get trapped in the voids,
dislocations, microscopic rifts, grain boundaries promotes hydrogen
induced cracking [38,39]. Also, the ferrite phase is more susceptible to
embrittlement as a result of their BCC crystal structure, which further
promotes the cracking in ferrite phase. The high resistance of austenite
can be explained by the concept that it acts as a noble phase and
cathodically protected by continuous ferrite phase [37,40]. The dif-
ference in thermal expansion coefficient between ferrite and austenite
lead to compressive and tensile stress level in their phases respectively
[23]. Since austenite phase is surrounded by continuous ferrite phase, a
crack can pass through it only when a high load applied in the matrix
ferrite phase. However, in a few regions, the crack also passed through
the austenite phase, when residual stress in the localized region is high
for austenite [41]. At this high-stress level, anodic sites could develop in
the austenite phase. These mechanically induced stresses and other
factors such as electrochemical interactions and environmental condi-
tions could have favoured the formation of cracks in the austenite phase
in a few regions [42,43].
Even though austenite exhibited better resistance in the crack path
study, microcracks were initiated in both the phases as shown in
Fig. 18(b). The stress intensity factor, K, describes the magnitude of
stress distribution around the crack tip. When it is below the threshold
stress intensity level, KISCC (i.e minimum stress level) the cracks will not
241
Corrosion Science 141 (2018) 230–242
propagate even after their initiation [44]. As the crack path study in-
dicated that the major cracks are not found in austenite (except few
cases), it is clear that the required KISCC is not reached in austenite. The
cracking in ferrite could have also occurred as a result of twin formation
during loading [45]. The initiated microcracks are grown further by
means of coalescence, and also by the growth of individual cracks as
shown in Fig. 18(e). This leads to the formation of macrocrack [46].
Also, the steady propagating microcracks were originated only at the
phase boundary as shown in Fig. 18(c & d). Many researchers have
already studied the effect of both grain and phase boundary on crack
growth as they block the dislocation motion and thus affect the plastic
deformation [47,48]. The dislocation pile-up leads to accumulation of
stresses in the phase boundary. When this accumulated stress exceeds
the resistance to cracking, the steady microcracks were initiated in the
phase boundary [49].
5. Conclusion
In this work, SDSS samples before and after dry turning were ex-
posed to the MgCl2 solution for SCC test, at a different exposure time of
1 and 2 h. After the test, the effect of residual stress on the crack growth
behaviour of surface and subsurface was analysed in detail. The fol-
lowing are the conclusions drawn from this work,
• The surface analysis reveals that four different types of cracks are
developed on the machined surface, while the unmachined surface
showed no cracks.
• The cracks passing perpendicular (type 1) and parallel to feed marks
(type 2) are mainly influenced by the high magnitude of tensile
residual stress along cutting and feed direction respectively.
• The surface defects like feed marks and long grooves generated after
machining also influence the crack initiation and orientation over
the surface.
• The successive branching of type 1 and 2 cracks led to a high crack
density of 26,318 μm/mm2 in 2 h. Also, a maximum crack length of
760 μm was observed for type 2 crack as it is formed inside the long
grooves.
• The cluster of cracks (type 3) generated near the surface defect acts
as a precursor to the formation of pits (type 4).
• The cracks formed perpendicular to feed marks (type 1) found more
detrimental than the other types, due to their higher depth and more
branches in the subsurface.
• Even though the austenite exhibited better crack resistance than
ferrite, microcracks were initiated in both the phases.
Thus, this study provides a deeper insight into the mechanism of
SCC crack initiation on the machined surface in the early stage of ex-
posure to the MgCl2 solution.
References
[1] J. Charles, Duplex Stainless Steels, A Review after DSS’ 07 held in Grado, Aperam,
2017.
[2] J.D. Tucker, M.K. Miller, G.A. Young, Assessment of thermal embrittlement in du-
plex stainless steels 2003 and 2205 for nuclear power applications, Acta Mater. 87
(2015) 15–24.
[3] F. King, Corrosion Resistance of Austenitic and Duplex Stainless Steels in
Environments Related to UK Geological Disposal, (2009).
[4] J.O. Nilsson, Super duplex stainless steels, Mater. Sci. Technol. 8 (1992) 685–700.
[5] Y. Sueishi, A. Kohyama, H. Kinoshita, M. Narui, K. Fukumoto, Microstructure and
nano-hardness analyses of stress corrosion cracking, utilizing 316L core shroud of
BWR power reactors, Fusion Eng. Des. 81 (2006) 1099–1103.
[6] A. Vinoth Jebaraj, L. Ajaykumar, C.R. Deepak, K.V.V. Aditya, Weldability, ma-
chinability and surfacing of commercial duplex stainless steel AISI2205 for marine
applications – a recent review, J. Adv. Res. 8 (2017) 183–199.
[7] R. Francis, G. Byrne, Experiences With Super Duplex Stainless Steel in Seawater,
NACE International, San Diego, California, 2003 03255.
[8] N. Zhou, R.L. Peng, R. Pettersson, Surface integrity of 2304 duplex stainless steel
after different grinding operations, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 229 (2016) 294–304.
[9] J. Nomani, A. Pramanik, T. Hilditch, G. Littlefair, Machinability study of first
J. Rajaguru, N. Arunachalam
generation duplex (2205), second generation duplex (2507) and austenite stainless
steel during drilling process, Wear 304 (2013) 20–28.
[10] E. Capello, Residual stresses in turning: part I: influence of process parameters, J.
Mater. Process. Technol. 160 (2005) 221–228.
[11] A.R.C. Sharman, J.I. Hughes, K. Ridgway, The effect of tool nose radius on surface
integrity and residual stresses when turning inconel 718™, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 216 (2015) 123–132.
[12] J. Sun, Y.B. Guo, A comprehensive experimental study on surface integrity by end
milling Ti–6Al–4V, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 209 (2009) 4036–4042.
[13] V. García Navas, I. Ferreres, J.A. Marañón, C. Garcia-Rosales, J. Gil Sevillano,
Electro-discharge machining (EDM) versus hard turning and grinding—Comparison
of residual stresses and surface integrity generated in AISI O1 tool steel, J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 195 (2008) 186–194.
[14] P.S. Kumar, S.G. Acharyya, S.V.R. Rao, K. Kapoor, Distinguishing effect of buffing
vs. Grinding, milling and turning operations on the chloride induced SCC suscept-
ibility of 304L austenitic stainless steel, Mater. Sci. Eng.: A 687 (2017) 193–199.
[15] K.N. Lyon, T.J. Marrow, S.B. Lyon, Influence of milling on the development of stress
corrosion cracks in austenitic stainless steel, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 218 (2015)
32–37.
[16] S. Ghosh, V. Kain, Effect of surface machining and cold working on the ambient
temperature chloride stress corrosion cracking susceptibility of AISI 304L stainless
steel, Mater. Sci. Eng.: A 527 (2010) 679–683.
[17] W. Zhang, K. Fang, Y. Hu, S. Wang, X. Wang, Effect of machining-induced surface
residual stress on initiation of stress corrosion cracking in 316 austenitic stainless
steel, Corros. Sci. 108 (2016) 173–184.
[18] N. Zhou, L.R. Peng, M. Schönning, R. Pettersson, SCC of 2304 duplex stainless
steel—microstructure, residual stress and surface grinding effects, Materials
(2017) 10.
[19] L. Wickström, K. Mingard, G. Hinds, A. Turnbull, Microcrack clustering in stress
corrosion cracking of 22Cr and 25Cr duplex stainless steels, Corros. Sci. 109 (2016)
86–93.
[20] S. Rahimi, K. Mehrez, T.J. Marrow, Effect of surface machining on intergranular
stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) in sensitised type 304 austenitic stainless steel,
Corros. Eng. Sci. Technol. 51 (2016) 383–391.
[21] W. Huanchun, L. Chengtao, F. Kewei, X. Fei, Z. Guodong, L. Kunjie, W. Li, Effect of
machining on the stress corrosion cracking behavior in boiling magnesium chloride
solution of austenitic stainless steel, Mater. Corros. 69 (2018) 519–526.
[22] S. Ghosh, V. Kain, Microstructural changes in AISI 304L stainless steel due to sur-
face machining: effect on its susceptibility to chloride stress corrosion cracking, J.
Nucl. Mater. 403 (2010) 62–67.
[23] C. Örnek, D.L. Engelberg, Towards understanding the effect of deformation mode
on stress corrosion cracking susceptibility of grade 2205 duplex stainless steel,
Mater. Sci. Eng.: A 666 (2016) 269–279.
[24] J. Johansson, M. Odén, X.H. Zeng, Evolution of the residual stress state in a duplex
stainless steel during loading, Acta Mater. 47 (1999) 2669–2684.
[25] R.S. Pawade, S.S. Joshi, P.K. Brahmankar, Effect of machining parameters and
cutting edge geometry on surface integrity of high-speed turned inconel 718, Int. J.
Mach. Tools Manuf 48 (2008) 15–28.
[26] V. García Navas, O. Gonzalo, I. Bengoetxea, Effect of cutting parameters in the
surface residual stresses generated by turning in AISI 4340 steel, Int. J. Mach. Tools
Manuf 61 (2012) 48–57.
[27] M.C. Shaw, Metal Cutting Principles, seond edition, Oxford University press,
London, 2004, pp. 206–264.
[28] A. Turnbull, K. Mingard, J.D. Lord, B. Roebuck, D.R. Tice, K.J. Mottershead,
N.D. Fairweather, A.K. Bradbury, Sensitivity of stress corrosion cracking of stainless
steel to surface machining and grinding procedure, Corros. Sci. 53 (2011)
242
Corrosion Science 141 (2018) 230–242
3398–3415.
[29] A. Thakur, S. Gangopadhyay, State-of-the-art in surface integrity in machining of
nickel-based super alloys, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf 100 (2016) 25–54.
[30] S.G. Acharyya, A. Khandelwal, V. Kain, A. Kumar, I. Samajdar, Surface working of
304L stainless steel: impact on microstructure, electrochemical behavior and SCC
resistance, Mater. Charact. 72 (2012) 68–76.
[31] T. Shoji, Progress in mechanistic understanding of BWR SCC and its implication to
prediction of SCC growth behavior in plants, Proceedings of the 11th International
Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems-
Water Reactors, Stevenson, WA, 2003, pp. 588–598.
[32] W. Li, D.Y. Li, Variations of work function and corrosion behaviors of deformed
copper surfaces, Appl. Surf. Sci. 240 (2005) 388–395.
[33] W. Wu, Z. Liu, S. Hu, X. Li, C. Du, Effect of pH and hydrogen on the stress corrosion
cracking behavior of duplex stainless steel in marine atmosphere environment,
Ocean Eng. 146 (2017) 311–323.
[34] A. Turnbull, Corrosion pitting and environmentally assisted small crack growth,
Proc. R. Soc.A: Math., Phys. Eng. Sci. (2014) 470.
[35] W.-T. Tsai, S.-L. Chou, Environmentally assisted cracking behavior of duplex
stainless steel in concentrated sodium chloride solution, Corros. Sci. 42 (2000)
1741–1762.
[36] S.-L. Chou, W.-T. Tsai, Hydrogen embrittlement of duplex stainless steel in con-
centrated sodium chloride solution, Mater. Chem. Phys. 60 (1999) 137–142.
[37] K. van Gelder, J.G. Erlings, J.W.M. Damen, A. Visser, The stress corrosion cracking
of duplex stainless steel in H2S/CO2/Cl− environments, Corros. Sci. 27 (1987)
1271–1279.
[38] A.M. Elhoud, N.C. Renton, W.F. Deans, Hydrogen embrittlement of super duplex
stainless steel in acid solution, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 35 (2010) 6455–6464.
[39] A. Turnbull, M. Saenz de Santa Maria, N.D. Thomas, The effect of H2S concentra-
tion and pH on hydrogen permeation in AISI 410 stainless steel in 5% NaCl, Corros.
Sci. 29 (1989) 89–104.
[40] J. Hochmann, A. Desestret, P. Jolly, R. Mayoud, Stress corrosion cracking and hy-
drogen embrittlement of iron Base alloys, Proc. NACE-5 (1977) 956.
[41] S. Shimodaira, M. Takano, Y. Takizawa, H. Kamide, Stress Corrosion Cracking and
Hydrogen Embrittlement of Iron Base Alloys, NACE International, Houston, TX,
USA, 1977, p. 1003.
[42] R. Cottis, R.C. Newman, Stress Corrosion Cracking Resistance of duplex Stainless
Steels, Offshore Technology Report OTH, HSE Books 94 (1995), p. 440.
[43] P. Kangas, J.M. Nicholls, Chloride‐induced stress corrosion cracking of Duplex
stainless steels. Models, test methods and experience, Mater. Corros. 46 (1995)
354–365.
[44] R.H. Jones, Stress Corrosion Cracking Materials Performance and Evaluation,
second edition, ASM International, 2017, pp. 1–42.
[45] T. Magnin, J.M. Lardon, Cyclic deformation mechanisms of a two-phase stainless
steel in various environmental conditions, Mater. Sci. Eng.: A 104 (1988) 21–28.
[46] T. Fujii, K. Tohgo, A. Kenmochi, Y. Shimamura, Experimental and numerical in-
vestigation of stress corrosion cracking of sensitized type 304 stainless steel under
high-temperature and high-purity water, Corros. Sci. 97 (2015) 139–149.
[47] R. Strubbia, S. Hereñú, A. Giertler, I. Alvarez-Armas, U. Krupp, Experimental
characterization of short crack nucleation and growth during cycling in lean duplex
stainless steels, Int. J. Fatigue 65 (2014) 58–63.
[48] M.W. Tofique, J. Bergström, K. Svensson, S. Johansson, R.L. Peng, ECCI/EBSD and
TEM analysis of plastic fatigue damage accumulation responsible for fatigue crack
initiation and propagation in VHCF of duplex stainless steels, Int. J. Fatigue 100
(2017) 251–262.
[49] C. Bjerkén, The influence of biaxial loading on branching of a dissolution driven
stress corrosion crack, Eng. Fract. Mech. 77 (2010) 1989–1997.