MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409538191 · doi:10.5006/c2004-04102

Boundary Element Evaluation of Shipboard Cathodic Protection Systems

2004· article· en· W4409538191 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Y. Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCathodic protectionMaterials scienceBoundary element methodCorrosionGalvanic anodeMetallurgyForensic engineeringMarine engineeringFinite element methodEngineeringElectrochemistryStructural engineeringChemistryElectrode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The shaft grounding systems used on board HMC ships have substantially reduced the shaft-to-hull resistance and, thus, improved the performance of the shipboard impressed current cathodic protection (ICCP) system. Under some circumstances, however, the shaft grounding systems have been left on while the ICCP system was turned off. This led to the accelerated corrosion of the exposed steel ship hull on paint holidays because of the substantial difference of the electric potentials between the steel ship hull and the nickel-aluminum bronze propellers. The extent of the increased corrosion rate of the steel ship hull depends on a variety of conditions including the locations and areas of the paint holidays on the ship hull, the overall paint degradation, and seawater domain where the ship is located. A boundary element code, named CPBEM, developed at Defence R&D Canada – Atlantic was used to numerically simulate the galvanic corrosion of the steel hull under the afore-mentioned various conditions. A box model was also used to demonstrate the effect of fluid domain on galvanic corrosion current and solution resistance. The modelling results have shown that the paint damage area significantly affects the galvanic corrosion rate, while the effect of the paint damage location on the galvanic corrosion rate is not significant when the ship is in an open sea. The little solution resistance encountered in the area away from the anodes and the cathode is attributed to the much larger cross sectional area for the galvanic current path in the large volume of seawater. The potential contours and galvanic corrosion current at various degrees of the paint degradation were also demonstrated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207