Corrosion Behavior of Detonation Gun Sprayed Fe-Al Type Intermetallic Coating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The detonation gun sprayed Fe-Al type coatings as an alternative for austenitic valve steel, were investigated using two different methods of testing corrosion resistance. High temperature, 10-hour isothermal oxidation experiments at 550, 750, 950 and 1100 °C show differences in the oxidation behavior of Fe-Al type coatings under air atmosphere. The oxide layer ensures satisfying oxidation resistance, even at 950 and 1100 °C. Hematite, α-Al2O3 and metastable alumina phases were noticed on the coatings top surface, which preserves its initial thickness providing protection to the underlying substrate. In general, only negligible changes of the phase composition of the coatings were noticed with simultaneous strengthening controlled in the micro-hardness measurements, even after 10-hours of heating at 1100 °C. On the other hand, the electrochemical corrosion tests, which were carried out in 200 ppm Cl− (NaCl) and pH ~4 (H2SO4) solution to simulate the acid-rain environment, reveal higher values of the breakdown potential for D-gun sprayed Fe-Al type coatings than the ones for the bulk Fe-Al type alloy and Cr21Mn9Ni4 austenitic valve steel. This enables these materials to be used in structural and multifunctional applications in aggressive environments, including acidic ones.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".