Computer Simulation of Pitting Corrosion in Galvanostatic Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".