4.5 Article

An Extended Finite Element Method Based Approach for Modeling Crevice and Pitting Corrosion

出版社

ASME
DOI: 10.1115/1.4033379

关键词

-

资金

  1. Office of Naval Research (ONR) Summer Faculty Fellowship Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A sharp-interface numerical approach is developed for modeling the electrochemical environment in crevices and pits due to galvanic corrosion in aqueous media. The concentration of chemical species and the electrical potential in the crevice or pit solution environment is established using the steady state Nernst-Planck equations along with the assumption of local electroneutrality (LEN). The metal-electrolyte interface fluxes are defined in terms of the cathodic and anodic current densities using Butler-Volmer kinetics. The extended finite element method (XFEM) is employed to discretize the nondimensionalized governing equations of the model and a level set function is used to describe the interface morphology independent of the underlying finite element mesh. Benchmark numerical studies simulating intergranular crevice corrosion in idealized aluminum-magnesium (Al-Mg) alloy microstructures in two dimensions are presented. Simulation results indicate that corrosive dissolution of magnesium is accompanied by an increase in the pH and chloride concentration of the crevice solution environment, which is qualitatively consistent with experimental observations. Even for low current densities the model predicted pH is high enough to cause passivation, which may not be physically accurate; however, this model limitation could be overcome by including the hydrolysis reactions that potentially decrease the pH of the crevice solution environment. Finally, a mesh convergence study is performed to establish the accuracy of the XFEM and a sensitivity study examining the relationship between crevice geometry and species concentrations is presented to demonstrate the robustness of the XFEM formulation in handling complex corrosion interface morphologies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据