Impact of Experimental Parameters on Degradation Mechanism and Service Life Prediction of CFRP Anode during Simulated ICCP Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In actual building structure, it usually takes tens of years for the degradation to be significantly observed during impressed current cathodic protection (ICCP) process. Thus, simulated ICCP with aqueous electrolyte (instead of concrete) was used as an accelerated method to study degradation mechanism and make service life prediction. In this work, the impact of parameters including current (density) and NaCl electrolyte concentration on the degradation mechanism and service life prediction was evaluated for a simulated ICCP system with CFRP as anode. Experiments were performed with different levels of applied current (4, 10, and 20 mA) as well as with different NaCl electrolyte concentrations (3, 10, and 20% by mass). Test results showed that under all the designed conditions, both chlorination and oxidation reaction occurred during the simulated ICCP process, ensuring consistency of mechanism. From the aspect of service life prediction of CFRP, it was found that the system was not sensitive to the concentration of NaCl electrolyte but was much more influenced by the current (density) applied. Thus, for the simulated ICCP system, the current (density) should be carefully chosen since a tiny change in level of current may cause a large variation in service life prediction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".