MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391662938 · doi:10.1149/ma2023-02111071mtgabs

Computer Simulation of Pitting Corrosion in Galvanostatic Conditions

2023· article· en· W4391662938 on OpenAlexaff
Vishal Metri, Van Anh Nguyen, V Valliappan, Nicholas Laycock, Taha Kubbar, Roger Newman

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Properties and Failure Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPitting corrosionCorrosionMetallurgyMaterials scienceComputer scienceEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pitting corrosion of stainless steels has been the subject of substantial research over many years. The overall mechanism can be separated into nucleation and propagation stages, and the development of a reliable predictive model requires a robust treatment for both these processes. Over the years, several purely stochastic models have been developed, including those by Shibata and Takeyama [1], Williams et al. [2], Baroux [3] and Wu et al. [4]. Alternatively, Macdonald and co-workers [e.g., 5] have focused on a deterministic approach, based on the point defect model of passivity breakdown. Newman, Laycock and co-workers developed a deterministic model for the propagation of individual corrosion pits [6-8], which was then combined with a stochastic model of pit nucleation to enable simulation of pitting potential measurements [9]. Li, Scully and Frankel later published a series of papers based on a similar approach [e.g., 10-11]. The majority of the prior modelling work has focused on potential-controlled conditions, where the pitting outcomes are determined mainly by the pit propagation element; for example, a limiting lower bound distribution of the pitting potential can be calculated without any consideration of pit nucleation processes [9]. However, real corrosion does not occur under potential control; rather, there is a limited supply of cathodic current that must be shared between all simultaneously propagating pits [12,13]. This situation is closer to that of experiments under galvanostatic control [14]. Krouse et al [15] described simulations that included possible interactions between multiple simultaneously propagating pits under galvanostatic conditions, supporting earlier suggestions that pits compete for the available current, and that ‘champion pits’ will ultimately use all available resources (see, e.g., Figure 1). In more recent work [16], we have further developed the earlier propagation model [6-9] to include the interactions and possible mergers between two simultaneously propagating pits. Here we expand on the work of Krouse et al [15] to carry out simulations of galvanostatic experiments that now incorporate the possibility of mergers between propagating pits. References Shibata, T. Takeyama, Corrosion 33 (1997) 243. E. Williams, C. Westcott, M. Fleischmann, J. Electrochem. Soc. 132 (1985) 1796. Baroux, Corros. Sci. 28 (1988) 969. Wu, J.R. Scully, J.L. Hudson, A.S. Mikhailov, J. Electrochem. Soc. 144 (1997) 1614. Engelhardt, D.D. Macdonald, Corrosion 54 (1998) 469. Ernst, N.J. Laycock, M.H. Moayed, R.C. Newman, Corros. Sci. 39 (1997) 1133. J. Laycock, S.P. White, J.S. Noh, P.T. Wilson, R.C. Newman, J. Electrochem. Soc. 145 (1998) 1101. J. Laycock, S.P. White, J. Electrochem. Soc. 148 (2001) B264. J. Laycock, J.S. Noh, S.P. White and D.P. Krouse, Corros. Sci, 47, 3140 (2005). S. Frankel, T. Li, and J. R. Scully, Journal of the Electrochemical Society, 164, C180 (2017). Li, J. R. Scully, and G. S. Frankel, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 165, C484 (2018). Y. Chen, F. Cui and R.G. Kelly, J. Electrochem. Soc., 155, C360-C368 (2008). Y. Chen and R.G. Kelly, J. Electrochem. Soc., 157, C69 (2010). I. Suleiman and R. C. Newman, Corros. Sci., 36, 1657 (1994). Krouse, P. McGavin and N. Laycock, in Proceedings of Corrosion & Prevention 2008, Paper # 97, ACA, Wellington, 16-19 November (2008). A Nguyen, R.C. Newman and N.J. Laycock, J. Electrochem. Soc., 169, 081503 (2022) Figure 1

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting AbstractsSame topicMaterial Properties and Failure MechanismsFrench-language works237,207