A Comparison of Thermally Sprayed Aluminum (TSA) Degradation Behavior under Immersion and CUI Simulation Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Thermally Sprayed Aluminum (TSA) is used as a protective coating to protect against internal and external corrosion in different industrial applications. There has been not much work to understand the tribological and corrosion behavior of TSA from corrosion under insulation (CUI) at elevated temperatures. Most of the reported studies on TSA have either been focused either on immersion tests or ambient temperature CUI tests. This research work unveils comparative behavior of TSA at elevated temperatures when tested in CUI simulation cell (per ASTM G189-07) versus that in the immersion condition in an autoclave environment using thermal insulation's leachate extract. The corrosion tests were conducted using isothermal wet (IW) and cyclic wet (CW) conditions per ASTM G189-07 deploying linear polarization resistance (LPR) scanning, followed by detailed microstructural characterizations using confocal laser microscopy, surface topography, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS). TSA coating subjected to CUI environment manifested significant wear from the flashing moisture and active substrate corrosion unlike immersion conditions where there was merely dissolution of iron particles embedded in the TSA matrix.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".