Chromium versus Aluminum: Impact of Nickel Alloy Composition and Interfacial Kinetics on High-Temperature Passivating Oxide Formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-temperature corrosion resistance depends critically on the formation of a passivating surface oxide, which is highly sensitive to alloy composition and structure. Such details often elude experimental investigation, and simplified analytical models fail to provide a truly chemical view of passivating oxide evolution. Here, we explicitly compare the fundamental chemistry of Cr and Al as prototypical passivating elements in Ni alloys by directly simulating competing reaction and diffusion processes within the oxide film using kinetic Monte Carlo and density functional theory. We find that the origin and expression of passivating behavior during early-stage thermal oxidation are qualitatively different between the two alloy systems. Ni-Cr alloys feature a sudden onset of passivation associated with a sharp phase transition upon Cr enrichment that directly couples oxidation kinetics to phase transformation behavior. In contrast, Ni-Al alloys display more continuous oxide phase variation with Al enrichment, ultimately resulting in a lower composition threshold for passivation and a thinner passivating layer. In addition, we elucidate the nonobvious role of metal exchange within the alloy near the oxide boundary, which fundamentally alters film composition and passivating behavior. Our results have key implications for engineering improved corrosion-resistant alloys, both in terms of compositional variation and processing.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".