Electrochemical Study of Corrosion Behavior of Stellite 6 Alloy and 17-4PH Stainless Steel in Amine Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stellite 6 alloy has been popularly employed as the material for the seat face of various control valves due to its excellent combined mechanical, corrosion, wear, and high temperature properties.However, a suggestion was made in an article that Stellite 6 alloy should be avoided in the amine containing feed water service of power plants, and Stellite 6 alloy should be replaced by stainless steels, such as 17-4PH stainless steel.To provide the power generation industry with scientific evidence, the corrosion behavior of Stellite 6 alloy and 17-4PH stainless steel is studied in morpholine solution, cyclohexylamine solution and sodium hydroxide solution at the same pH around 9.5 using electrochemical test methods such as potentiodynamic polarization, cyclic polarization, and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) in this research.The microstructures of the tested materials and corroded surfaces are analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) with energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectroscopy.The experimental results show that Stellite 6 alloy and 17-4PH stainless steel are generally resistant to corrosion in amine solutions by forming a Cr-rich oxide films on their surfaces, but they can be corroded when the oxide film is broken, leading to damage of the surfaces and the removal of the materials.The oxide film of 17-4PH stainless steel is more resistant to electron transferring than that of Stellite 6 alloy, thus has better resistance to corrosion.However, the oxide film of 17-4PH stainless steel has less durability and it works well only within a certain potential range.Otherwise, Stellite 6 alloy has better overall corrosion and pitting corrosion resistance than 17-4PH stainless steel in amine environments.
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".