2009 International Conference on Education Technology and Computer

Probability model of surface corrosion damage ratio of aluminum alloy

Youhong Zhang 1, 2 , Xinlong Chang 1, Shiying Zhang 1, Kuan Hu 1, 2, Wei Zhang 1

1
The Second Artillery Engineering College, Xi’an, China
2
School of Aeronautics, Northwest Polytechnical University, Xi’an, China
zyhnpu@hotmail.com

Abstract—Experiments were conducted on aluminum alloy

specimens to observe the evolution of surface corrosion III. PROBABILISTIC MODEL OF SURFACE CORROSION
damage under controlled electrochemical conditions. After DAMAGE RATIO
corrosion exposure, the optical microscope was used to Optical microscope was utilized to observe the pit
measure the corrosion pits density and size on the surface of
corrosion intensity on the surface of specimens. The surface
specimens. Based on the measured data sets of surface
corrosion damage ratio, the probabilistic model of corrosion
corrosion damage ratio is used to denote the degree of pit
damage evolution was investigated. The Logistic distribution corrosion intensity [9], where it is defined as the ratio
was acceptable for the data sets of the surface corrosion percentage of the sum surface area of all corrosion pits to the
damage ratio. Using the probability model of corrosion surface area of the circular corrosion damage region, namely
damage evolution, the corrosion damage in varied environment 1 n
can be forecasted. D˙ ¦ Api u100(%)
Ai1 (1)
Keywords-aluminum alloy; corrosion damage; probability
model; statistical analysis
Where n is the number of pits, Api is the projective
surface area of the i th pit, A is the surface area of the
I. INTRODUCTION circular region of corrosion damage.
Fig. 1 shows surface corrosion configuration of different
Aluminum alloy had been frequently used in the corrosion exposure durations. Fig. 2 shows the sketch map of
manufacture of different weapon. However, the alloy is pit corrosion damage distribution. The measured data sets of
susceptible to corrosion damage and corrosion damage is corrosion damage ratio are listed in Table 1 and Table 2.
potential fatigue crack nucleation sites [1-3]. The influence
of corrosion on the fatigue performance of aluminum
structures is of considerable importance in evaluation of the
structural integrity of aged weapon [4, 5]. There was still no
generally applicable model available to predict the rule of
corrosion damage evolution [6]. Understanding and
prediction of corrosion damage is very important for
structural integrity of aircraft materials and structures. This
paper presented the experimental study and statistical
analysis on the corrosion damage configuration on aluminum
alloy structure. A preliminary probabilistic model was
developed to describe the evolution rhythm of corrosion ˄a˅
damage.
II. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
The material used in this investigation was LY12CZ
aluminum alloy. The wt% composition of the studied alloy
was 4.68Cu, 1.65Mg, 0.58Mn, 0.28Fe, 0.23Si, and Al
(balance). All specimens were exposed to EXCO solution
according to ASTM G34-1[7], the test temperatures were 20,
40 and 60 °C and the exposure durations was 10, 20 and 31
days. After corrosion exposure, an optical microscope was
also used to analyze the corrosion pits density on the surface
of specimens [8]. ˄b˅

978-0-7695-3609-5/09 $25.00 © 2009 IEEE 212

DOI 10.1109/ICETC.2009.32
 TABLE II. CORROSION DAMAGE RATIO OF VARIED TEMPERATURE (20
DAYS EXPOSURE)

20 ć 40 ć 60 ć
3.8 11.28 19.47

5.37 11.95 20.37

6.64 12.26 20.75

6.97 12.5 21.82

7.27 12.5 22.45

˄c˅ Į% 7.57 12.61 22.68

Figure 1. Optical micrograph of surface corrosion damage (a: 10 days, b: 7.82 13.68 27.11
20 days, c: 31 days at 40 ć)
8.46 14.42 31.78

10.86 14.84

11.07 14.87

11.14 15.59

11.19 16.43

11.25 17.93
Figure 2. Corrosion damage ratio˄a˅10ˁ˗˄b˅20ˁ

As can be seen in Fig.2, with the lengthening in corrosion

exposure duration, the dimension of corrosion pits became
larger and little corrosion pits were congregated together,
and the corrosion expanded along the specimen surface and
cross section directions. At 40 °C , when the corrosion days
were separately 10 days, 20 days and 31 days, the average
corrosion damage ratio were 11.03846%, 13.91231% and
17.39923%.
According to measured data sets of corrosion damage
ratio, non-linear fittings had been performed to draw the
conclusion that the Logistic distribution was acceptable for
the data sets of the corrosion damage ratio. Fig.3 and Fig.4
present the cumulative distribution function (CDF) values of
corrosion damage ratio in the various corrosive environments.

TABLE I. CORROSION DAMAGE RATIO OF VARIED CORROSION TIME Figure 3. Cumulative distribution rule of corrosion damage ratio at three
(TEST TEMPERATURE WAS 40 ć) different temperatures (20 days exposure)

10 days 20 days 31 days

7.23 11.28 14.32

7.41 11.95 15.35

8.3 12.26 15.42

9.39 12.5 15.7

9.39 12.5 16.36

Į%
9.61 12.61 16.38

11.12 13.68 16.73

12.38 14.42 16.98

13.55 14.87 19.55

14.03 15.59 19.78 Figure 4. Cumulative distribution rule of corrosion damage ratio at three
different corrosion exposures (test temperature was 40 ć)
14.27 16.43 20.24

213
 The cumulative distribution function of Logistic was larger than 17.10729%, this curve was flatter with the
distribution is shown in Eq. (2). The parameter values of increase of corrosion damage ratio.
Logistic distribution are listed in table 3 and 4.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
§ xP ·
exp ¨
V ¸¹
The Logistic distribution was acceptable for the data sets
F ( x) © of the surface corrosion damage ratio. Using the probability
§ xP · model of corrosion damage evolution, we can forecast
1  exp ¨ ¸ corrosion damage in varied service environments. When we
© V ¹ (2) derived the “timing” data sets of corrosion damage, the
fatigue lives of corroded structure can be forecasted and all
TABLE III. VALUES OF LOGISTIC DISTRIBUTION (20 DAYS EXPOSURE) these work can assist in expediting solution for aging aircraft
20 ć 40 ć 60 ć
structure life prediction and extension.
P 8.44608 13.77768 22.61614
V 1.45019 1.11824 2.07339 REFERENCES
[1] Y. L. Chen. “The effect of corrosion to the residual strength of the
From the example of specimen of 20days and 60 °C , it served aircraft structure”, Northwest Polytechnical University, Xi’an,
2004.
can be seen in Table 3 that the probability density was [2] O. M. Alyousif. “Corrosion and corrosion fatigue of aluminum
maximum when the corrosion damage ratio was 22.61614%, alloys”, Lehigh University, USA, April 2002.
and in Fig.4, the curve corresponding 60 °C on this point [3] G. S. Chen, and C. M. Liao, “Pitting Corrosion and Fatigue Crack
was sharpest. Before this point, the curve corresponding Nucleation”, Effects of the Environment on the Initiation of Crack
Growth, ASTM STP 1298, American Society for Testing and
60 °C was sharper with the increase of corrosion damage Materials, 1997.
ratio, and after this point, this curve was flatter with the [4] C. L. Brooks, K. Honeycutt and D.S. Prost. “Case studies for
increase of corrosion damage ratio. corrosion/fatigue life assessments”, 4th Joint NASA/FAA/DoD
Conference on Aging Aircraft, St. Louis, Missouri, May 2000.
TABLE IV. VALUES OF LOGISTIC DISTRIBUTION (TEST TEMPERATURE [5] T. B. Mills, K. Honeycutt. “Managing damage in the wing: modeling
WAS 40 ć) the interaction of exfoliation with static and fatigue loads”, Third
Joint NASA/FAA/DoD Conference on Aging Aircraft, Albuquerque,
10 days 20 days 30 days
New Mexico, 1999.
P 11.33394 13.77768 17.10729 [6] J. J. Medved, M. Breton, P. E. Irving. “Corrosion pit size distribution
V 1.59014 1.11824 1.22962 and fatigue lives-a study of the EIFS technique for fatigue design in
the presence of corrosion”, International Journal of Fatigue, vol. 26,
2004, pp.70-82.
From the example of specimen of 40 °C and 31days, it [7] “Standard test method for exfoliation corrosion susceptibility in
can be seen in Table 4 that the probability density was 2×××and 7×××series aluminum alloys (EXCO test)”, ASTM G34-1,
maximum when the corrosion damage ratio was 17.10729%, USA: American Society for Testing and Materials, 2002.
[8] Y. H. Zhang, G. Z. Lv, Y L Chen. “Predicting fatigue life from pre-
and in Fig.4, the curve corresponding 60 °C on this point corroded LY12CZ aluminium test”, Acta Aeronutica et Astronatica
was sharpest. When the corrosion damage ratio was smaller Sinica, vol. 27, 2005, pp.780-783.
than 11.33394%, the curve was sharper with the increase of [9] J.K. Paik, J. M. Lee, M. J. Ko. “Ultimate shear strength of plate
corrosion damage ratio, and when the corrosion damage ratio elements with pit corrosion wastage”, Journal Thin-Walled Structure,
vol. 42, 2004, pp.1167-1178.

214