Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
ScienceDirect

Energy Reports 8 (2022) 112–123

www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

The 2022 7th International Conference on Green Energy Technologies (ICGET 2022) was held
on July 28–30, 2022 as virtual conference supported by University of Applied Sciences,
Frankfurt, Germany

Effect of temperature on galvanic corrosion of Al 6061-SS 304 in

nitric acid
Huixin Zhu, Zhiyong Huang, Guofeng Jin ∗, Mingna Gao
Xi’an Institute of High Technology, 2 Tongxin Road, Baqiao District, Xi’an 710038, China
Received 30 September 2022; accepted 2 October 2022
Available online 22 October 2022

Abstract
Nitrogen tetroxide (N2 O4 ) is commonly used as an oxidizer for bipropellant liquid, and galvanic corrosion of its storage
tanks was a serious problem. The immersion and electrochemical experiments of Al 6061-SS 304 galvanic pair were carried
out in 30% nitric acid at different temperatures. The accelerated galvanic corrosion of Al 6061 and the effect of different
temperatures on its corrosion behavior were studied. The surface morphology, number of corrosion pits and electrochemical
parameters of Al 6061 before and after corrosion were measured and analyzed by means of SEM, EDS and electrochemical
methods. The results show that when Al 6061 was coupled with SS 304 at 10 ◦ C, the driving potential difference between
them reached 366 mVSCE , and Al 6061 was used as the corrosion anode. In the SEM images, three kinds of galvanic corrosion
phenomena can be seen obviously after coupling. When the temperature is between 10 ◦ C and 30 ◦ C, the corrosion pits are
mainly composed of aluminum matrix coupled with second phase particles with positive or negative volt potential relative to it.
When the temperature was between 40 ◦ C and 50 ◦ C, the corrosion pits showed mainly intergranular corrosion at the interface
of different grains. At the same time, the increase in temperature led to the decrease in galvanic potential and the change in
corrosion current. There was no simple linear relationship between galvanic current and temperature, but it satisfied a certain
quantitative relationship, and the theoretical ratio was highly consistent with the actual ratio by the K–S test.
© 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 2022 7th International Conference on Green Energy Technologies (ICGET 2022).

Keywords: N2 O4 propellant; Galvanic corrosion; Al 6061; K–S test

1. Introduction
Bicomponent liquid propellant is a common power source in the fields of aerospace and national defense missiles,
due to the advantages of large specific impulse and stable thrust [1]. N2 O4 is commonly used as an oxidizer for
bipropellant liquid, and its storage and use are subject to strict standards. According to ISO 15859-5-2004, the
maximum allowable iron content in MON-1, MON-3, and MON-10 (Green nitrogen tetroxide, MON) is 0.5, 1.0,
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Jin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.10.022
2352-4847/© 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 2022 7th International Conference on Green Energy Technologies (ICGET
2022).
H. Zhu, Z. Huang, G. Jin et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 112–123

1.0 µg/g, respectively. At the same time, when N2 O4 is impurified with aluminum alloy powder, its thermal explosion
temperature is greatly affected [2]. However, the 6061 aluminum alloy storage tank containing a N2 O4 propellant
is easy to contact with the 304 stainless steel external pipe to cause galvanic corrosion, which it accelerates as
a corrosion anode. When the galvanic corrosion reaches a certain degree, the behavior not only seriously affects
the reliability of launch mission [3], but also induces the hidden danger of tank “running, escaping, dripping, and
leaking” [4]. N2 O4 is highly toxic, corrosive, and teratogenic [5]. When N2 O4 leaks, it will cause serious pollution
to the environment and human body [6,7]. Therefore, the study of galvanic corrosion behavior of Al 6061-SS 304
is of great significance to ensure the safety of propellant storage, the reliability of launch mission, and the stability
of ecological environment.
The influencing factors of galvanic corrosion behavior of aluminum alloy and stainless steel involve processing
technology, material properties, environmental conditions, etc. [8] The current treatment technology mainly includes
electroplating, anodic oxidation, corrosion inhibition, coating protection, etc. Its main purpose is to inhibit the
galvanic corrosion pathway by blocking the conductive path. Taking a chromate corrosion inhibitor as an example,
CrO4 2− can be reduced to produce Cr (OH)3 to repair the aluminum alloy passivation film [9]. However, due to the
carcinogenicity of chromate, coating technology with specific inhibitors and new materials (such as nanomaterials
and graphene) has become a hot research field [10,11]. From the properties of the material itself, the composition,
area ratio of anode and cathode, distance between the galvanic pair, surface roughness, and so on have a certain
influence on the galvanic corrosion behavior. Mansfeld et al. (1974) [12] conducted galvanic corrosion tests on
five aluminum alloys (3.5% NaCl solution, 22 ± 1 ◦ C) and found that their corrosion potentials ranged from
−756 ± 39 mVSCE to −814 ± 18 mVSCE . Corrosion rates ranged from 0.24 mdd to 0.95 mdd. The influence
of environmental conditions on galvanic corrosion behavior of aluminum alloys cannot be ignored. According to
the Pourbaix diagram, the change in pH of the environmental medium will has an important influence on the
discrimination and analysis of the specific reaction of amphoteric aluminum. When aluminum and magnesium are
coupled in an acidic solution, the magnesium electrode has a low potential and acts as a corrosion anode at the
beginning of corrosion. When certain magnesium is dissolved, the solution turns alkaline, thus turning aluminum into
the corrosion anode [13], resulting in polarity reversal. Cui T. F. et al. (2016) [14] studied the galvanic corrosion
behavior of 5050 aluminum alloy after coupling with 45 steel, and found that 5050 aluminum alloy had a low
potential at the beginning of the test and was corroded as an anode. Then the potential increased gradually and
exceeded 45 steel potential to cause the electrode polarity reversal. A large number of studies have described the
influence of different factors on the galvanic corrosion of aluminum alloy and stainless steel, but the studies relating
to temperature factors mainly focused on the qualitative discussion of the relationship between temperature rise
and fall and the corrosion rate of aluminum alloy, lacking the discussion of the quantitative relationship between
temperature and corrosion current.
In general, a pure N2 O4 propellant has no obvious corrosive effect on the tank [15]. However, within the standard
range, N2 O4 propellants produced often contain a small amount of water and are therefore prone to the following
reaction (1) to produce nitric acid. Nitric acid is also produced when water molecules in the air are absorbed by
oxidants during storage and use.
N2 O4 + H2 O ⇌ HNO3 + HNO2 (1)
Relevant studies showed that the conversion of N2 O4 into nitric acid accelerates with the increase in water
content, and when the volume fraction of HNO3 reaches 30%, it has the strongest corrosive effect on aluminum
alloy [16–18]. Therefore, this paper used 30% nitric acid to accelerate the galvanic corrosion of Al 6061-SS 304
and studied the effect of temperature on the corrosion process.
In this study, 6061 aluminum alloy and 304 stainless steel were used as research objects. Through the morphology
observation, electrochemical measurement, and mathematical analysis, the influence of temperature on the corrosion
behavior of 6061 aluminum alloy and 304 stainless steel in the 30% nitric acid solution was explored, as well as
the galvanic corrosion mechanism of Al 6061-SS 304. The quantitative relationship between temperature and the
galvanic corrosion rate was discussed by the statistical method and hypothesis test.

2. Experimental setup and methods

2.1. The production of galvanic pair

The experimental materials were Al 6061 and SS 304, and their chemical composition is shown in Tables 1
and 2. The 30% nitric acid solution was prepared according to GB/T 603-2002 and stored properly according to
113
H. Zhu, Z. Huang, G. Jin et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 112–123

Table 1. The chemical composition of Al 6061 (wt/%).

Element Cu Mn Mg Zn Cr Ti Si Fe Al
Al 6061 0.25 0.15 1.10 0.25 0.16 0.15 0.60 0.60 Bal.

Table 2. The chemical composition of SS 304 (wt/%).

Element C Cr Ni Mn Si S P Fe
SS 304 0.040 18.080 8.030 1.210 0.300 0.001 0.027 Bal.

GB 15603-1995. When making the electric pair, deoiling, polishing the upper and lower sides to 800# with SiC
sandpaper, anhydrous ethanol cleaning, acetone ultrasonic cleaning, air drying was performed. A Rixin double-sided
carbon conductive tape and copper foil tape were used to connect the single copper wire to 6061 aluminum alloy
and 304 stainless steel specimens, respectively. Except for the etched surface, the other parts of the specimens were
sealed and insulated with epoxy resin. Before the experiment, the surface was polished to 3000# with SiC sandpaper,
cleaned with anhydrous ethanol, ultrasonically cleaned in acetone, and dried in air.

2.2. Immersion test

The full immersion test of Al 6061-SS 304 galvanic pair was designed according to the JB/T 7901-1999 standard
document. The experiment lasted for 8 h. The minimum distance between the edge of the corrosion surface and
the liquid surface was 20 mm, and the immersion solution was more than 20 mL/cm2 . Constant temperature water
bath at 10 ◦ C, 20 ◦ C, 30 ◦ C, 40 ◦ C, and 50 ◦ C was labeled as Group A, B, C, D, and E, respectively. A single 6061
aluminum alloy specimen was set as the control Group O.

2.3. Detection and characterization

After the immersion corrosion test, corrosion products were examined after cleaning according to ASTM G1-03.
The surface morphology of Al 6061 before and after corrosion was observed by with Quanta FEG 250 SEM. The
surface composition of aluminum alloy was analyzed by with Edax Element EDS.

2.4. Conventional electrochemical experiment

A CHI660E electrochemical analyzer was used to measure the electrochemical parameters. The corrosion current
was measured according to HB5374-1987 using classical three electrodes (Al 6061 as the working electrode, the
saturated calomel electrode as the reference electrode and SS 304 as the auxiliary electrode), and the density of
the average galvanic current was calculated. The open circuit potential (OCP) of the two materials was measured.
When the open circuit potential fluctuation range was less than ±10 mV, the polarization curve of action potential
was tested. At a scanning rate of 10 mV/s, the sample was swept from the open potential to the anode side and the
cathode side with sensitivity of 10−6 A/V. All electrochemical tests were repeated more than three times.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Surface topography observation

The aluminum alloy part of Group A to E specimens was examined by SEM, and its microstructure at the 500 µm
scale is shown in Fig. 1(a)–(e). It is obvious that the corrosion pits are linearly distributed along the rolling direction
in this range, which may be caused by the uneven distribution of the second phase particles caused by regional
segregation, leading to the preferential corrosion of these regions. Fig. 1(f) shows the microscopic morphology
at the magnification rate of 10 µm. Along the rolling direction, the arrangement of corrosion pits linear. At the
same time, the size of the corrosion pit decreases along the rolling direction, indicating that different heavy metal
particles are arranged along the rolling direction during the processing of aluminum alloy, providing nucleation sites
114
H. Zhu, Z. Huang, G. Jin et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 112–123

Fig. 1. SEM images of galvanic pair at different temperatures (a) 10 ◦ C; (b) 20 ◦ C (c) 30 ◦ C (d) 40 ◦ C (e) 50 ◦ C (f) Partial enlargement.

and generating different second phase particles, thus enhancing the corrosion activity of these areas and becoming
potential corrosion initiation areas [19]. At the same time, with the gradual increase in temperature, it is obvious
that the corrosion pits have the following two characteristics: First, the number of corrosion pits in each group is
large, but a large number of corrosion cracks appear in the SEM images of 40 ◦ C and 50 ◦ C; Second, corrosion
pits at 10 ◦ C, 20 ◦ C, and 30 ◦ C have smaller but deeper diameters, while those at 40 ◦ C and 50 ◦ C have larger
diameters, but most of them are shallow.

Fig. 2. Corrosion pit number and diameter of galvanic pair at different temperatures.

Through SEM, it can be seen that there is a gray gradient and lots of noise in the corrosion morphology
observation. Therefore, the Sobel first-order differential operator was used to extract the edges of the number
and distribution of corrosion pits of the same magnification Group O∼E, and then ImageJ software was used for
statistical analysis. The results are shown in Fig. 2. It can be seen that in the same area compared with the control
Group O, the number and diameter of corrosion pits in the experimental Groups A to E both increased to a certain
extent, indicating that galvanic corrosion of Al 6061 was aggravated by coupling SS 304. However, it is worth
noting that the number and diameter of corrosion pits did not show a simple linear correlation with temperature.
When the temperature increased from 10 ◦ C to 50 ◦ C, the number of corrosion pits first increased, then decreased
and then increased. When the temperature was 20 ◦ C, the number of corrosion pits reached 5363. The diameter of
the pit was not regular, but the overall diameter was large at 40 ◦ C and 50 ◦ C, reaching about 1.6 µm. At 10∼30
◦
C, it was about 1.2∼1.3 µm.
Fig. 3 shows three obvious galvanic corrosion phenomena after Al 6061 was coupled with SS 304, and EDS
analysis was conducted by selecting points on appropriate places. It can be seen from Fig. 3(a) that a second phase
particle acts as an anode during corrosion in this area and is corroded and shed, thus forming a hemispherical
corrosion pit. As can be seen from Fig. 3(b), another second phase particle acts as a cathode in the corrosion of this
115
H. Zhu, Z. Huang, G. Jin et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 112–123

Fig. 3. SEM images and EDS data of different corrosion pit types.

region, leading to the dissolution of the surrounding aluminum matrix due to the microgalvanic corrosion effect. As
can be seen from Fig. 3(c), in addition to the corrosion pits of different sizes and shapes, there are corrosion pits
formed along a certain boundary, which eventually extended into a gully. Combined with EDS data analysis, it is
obvious that the original particles in the corrosion pit shown in Fig. 3(a) were completely dissolved and shed, so no
other elements are found in the interior and edge of the corrosion pit. However, in Fig. 3(b), there are uncorroded
Al–Mg–Fe second phase particles, whose phase potential is higher than that of aluminum matrix, thus acting as
a cathode to accelerate the corrosion of surrounding aluminum matrix. As shown in Fig. 3(c), the corroded crack
edge is obviously different from the uncorroded area of metal elements. It can be judged that the boundary of
different grains is preferentially corroded. It is noteworthy that a single particle with high Si content was found
in the morphology observation, as shown in Fig. 3(d). Combined with the literature, it can be seen that the main
reason is that the main second phase particle in Al 6061 is Mg2 Si. In the galvanic corrosion of Al 6061-SS 304, the
Mg element in Mg2 Si is preferentially corroded due to its high activity, resulting in Si enrichment, thus resulting
in the situation in Fig. 3(d).
It can be seen that three kinds of obvious galvanic corrosion phenomena occur after Al 6061 is coupled with
SS 304 at different temperatures [20], and their schematic diagram is shown in Fig. 4. The first type in Fig. 4
116
H. Zhu, Z. Huang, G. Jin et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 112–123

Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of different corrosion pit types.

is mainly caused by the second phase particles with different negative potentials in the grains compared with the
aluminum matrix. When these second phase particles come into contact with the surface of the aluminum alloy, local
microcells form, which causes the second phase particles to act as an anode, which accelerates their own corrosion
and fall off, leaving only corrosion pits. The second type is due to the aluminum matrix coupled with the second
phase particles relative to its positive potential. In the micro-electrocouple corrosion of aluminum matrix, the second
phase particles act as the anode and accelerate the dissolution, and finally dissolve or fall off from the surface of
aluminum matrix, leaving cathode particles and irregular corrosion pits. In the third type, intergranular corrosion
is mainly due to the different grains on the surface of the aluminum alloy. Grain boundary energy is higher, the
grain boundary is often rich in impurity atoms, causing instability, leading to the corrosion rate of grain boundary
area is generally greater than the grain itself (see Fig. 3(c)). According to the observation results, the corrosion pit
distribution of Al 6061-SS 304 galvanic pair presents different characteristics at different temperatures. When the
temperature was between 10 ◦ C and 30 ◦ C, the corrosion pits were mainly of the first and second type, and the
third type corrosion phenomenon is less. When the temperature was between 40 ◦ C and 50 ◦ C, the corrosion pits
were mainly of the third type, and the single corrosion pits were generally shallow.

3.2. Open circuit potential and corrosion current test

Fig. 5 shows the OCP of SS 304 and Al 6061 and the coupling potential of Al 6061-SS 304 over time at 10 ◦ C. As
can be seen from the figure, the OCP of Al 6061 finally stabilized at about −141 mVSCE after a short rise. The OCP
potential of SS 304 remained stable at about 234 mVSCE after a short drop. The coupling potential of Al 6061-SS
304 can reach 366 mVSCE after stabilization. In general, in industrial production, the galvanic corrosion effect can be
ignored only when the potential difference is controlled within 50 mV [21]. Therefore, the thermodynamic driving
force for galvanic corrosion between SS 304 and Al 6061 is very large, and SS 304 acts as a cathode to accelerate
the dissolution of Al 6061 anode after coupling. Its equation is shown in Eq. (2):
Al → Al3+ + 3e− (2)
+
H in the solution produces hydrogen through the following cathodic reduction:
2H+ + 2e− → H2 ↑ (3)
Fig. 6 shows the change curve in galvanic current density of Al 6061-SS 304 galvanic pair at different
temperatures over time. As can be seen from the figure, the whole corrosion process is not in the passivation
zone of aluminum, and the galvanic current of Al 6061 is relatively stable without large fluctuations or direction
changes. The galvanic current densities stabilized at 10∼50 ◦ C were 0.023, 0.083, 0.038, 0.019, 0.028 µA cm−2 ,
respectively. The galvanic current density of Group B (at 20 ◦ C) was 0.083 µA cm−2 . According to the standard
of galvanic corrosion sensitivity, Al 6061-SS 304 is grade A sensitive at different temperatures, but the corrosion
117
H. Zhu, Z. Huang, G. Jin et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 112–123

Fig. 5. At 10 ◦ C, the open circuit potential of Al 6061 and SS 304 and the coupling potential of Al 6061-SS 304.

Fig. 6. The change curve in galvanic current density of galvanic pair at different temperature with time.

degree is the most serious when the galvanic pair is at 20 ◦ C and 30 ◦ C. However, 20∼30 ◦ C is usually the normal
temperature at which the propellant is stored and transported. Therefore, it is necessary to pay attention to the safety
of propellant storage.

3.3. Potentiodynamic polarization test

Fig. 7 shows the polarization curve of Al 6061 before and after immersion at 10 ◦ C. It can be seen that: At
the early immersion stage, rapid anodic dissolution occurred on the surface of Al 6061, and the cathodic branch
was hydrogen-controlled reduction. After soaking for 8 h, the rate of dissolution of Al 6061 anode did not change
significantly. Combined with the Pourbaix diagram analysis, the aluminum alloy did not undergo the passivation
reaction in the 30% nitric acid environment, and remained in the corrosion zone. This is also confirmed with the
relatively stable corrosion current in Fig. 6. In order to predict the galvanic potential and current density of Al 6061-
SS 304 galvanic corrosion, the polarization curves measured for SS 304 and Al 6061 can be superimposed [22,23].
Al 6061 remained the galvanic pair anode before and after immersion, which was consistent with the OCP
measurements. After soaking for 8 h, the galvanic potential of Al 6061 decreased from 75 mVSCE to −42 mVSCE ,
indicating that Al 6061 deviated from the equilibrium potential due to accelerated corrosion driven by the potential
difference. At the same time, the galvanic current density also slightly increased, because the barrier resistance in
the initial stage of corrosion is large. After overcoming it, the current density increased. The cathodic branch of
SS 304 intersects the anodic branch of Al 6061 before and after soaking at two points A and B. It can be seen
that: due to the absence of the influence of passivation zone, Point A moved slightly to Point B. It reflects that the
corrosion potential of Al 6061 decreased and the corrosion current increased after coupling.
118
H. Zhu, Z. Huang, G. Jin et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 112–123

Fig. 7. Polarization curves of Al 6061 before and after immersion.

Table 3. Tafel calculation of related parameters.

E corr /mV i corr /µA cm−2 βa /mV decade−1 βc /mV decade−1
SS 304 121 0.022 203.583 −197.122
Al 6061 75 0.017 196.541 −200.844
Al 6061-8h −42 0.021 201.040 −176.772

The Butler–Volmer equation [24], which represents the relationship between external current and overvoltage of
the corrosion system, is shown in Eq. (4):
αn Fη −(1 − α)n Fη
{ ( ) ( )}
i ex = i 0 exp − exp (4)
RT RT
Where i ex is the external current, i 0 is the exchange current density, α is the permeability coefficient, n is the number
of electrons, F is the Faraday constant, R is the molar gas constant, T is the thermodynamic temperature, and η is
the overpotential.
The preliminary experiment indicated that when Al 6061 decoupling by SS 304 showed overpotential |η|>>0,
we can get: ( )
Positive overvoltage η>>0, exp −(1−α)n RT
Fη
→ 0, anode current:

αn Fη
( )
i ex = i a = i 0 exp (5)
RT
( )
Negative overvoltage η<<0, exp αnRTFη → 0, cathode current:

−(1 − α)n Fη
( )
i ex = −i c = −i 0 exp (6)
RT
The expression of anode overvoltage and cathode over-voltage by the Tafel extrapolation method can be obtained
as Formula (7):
ηa = aa + βa lg i ex
{
(7)
ηc = ac + βc lg i ex
ηa and ηc are the overvoltage of anode and cathode, respectively. βa and βc are the slopes of Tafel. The
calculation results of relevant parameters are shown in Table 3:
The amount of dissolved aluminum alloy is proportional to the number of electrons. According to Faraday’s law,
the corrosion rate can be calculated as follows:
IA N
v= = i (8)
Fns F
119
H. Zhu, Z. Huang, G. Jin et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 112–123

Table 4. Corrosion rate calculation.

Material SS 304 Al 6061 Al 6061-8h
V/g cm−2 s−1 1.140 × 10−13 8.81 × 10−14 1.088 × 10−13

Where the coefficient N = nA , i is the corrosion current density. The corrosion rate of each material can be
obtained as shown in Table 4.
After the soaking Al 6061-SS 304 galvanic pair at different temperatures for 8 h, the polarization of the
terminal action potential of Al 6061 was measured, corrosion parameters were calculated, and the corrosion rate
was calculated. The results are shown in Fig. 8, Table 5 and Fig. 9 below. Analysis of the results in Fig. 8 and
Table 5 shows that after Al 6061 was coupled with SS 304 in the 30% nitric acid solution for 8 h, its galvanic
potential decreased gradually from −128 mV to −289 mV in the range of 10∼50 ◦ C. The anodic corrosion current
density did not show good regularity with the increase in temperature. However, its overall trend is consistent with
the measured results of corrosion current in Fig. 6. When the temperature was 20 ◦ C, the calculated corrosion
current density reached the maximum, which was 0.108 µA cm−2 . It can be seen from the results in Fig. 9 that the
corrosion rate was also high at 20 ◦ C and 30 ◦ C, which would lead to huge risks in practical application. Therefore,
the coupling of the two materials should be avoided as far as possible.
Table 5. Tafel calculation of related parameters.
E corr /mV i corr /µA cm−2 βa /mV decade−1 βc /mV decade−1
Group A −128 0.026 209.99 −201.05
Group B −197 0.108 211.55 −190.04
Group C −207 0.047 201.41 −203.46
Group D −235 0.021 209.82 −204.62
Group E −289 0.037 203.50 −200.04

Fig. 8. Polarization curves of electric couple at different temperatures.

In 30% nitric acid, aluminum and aluminum alloys are not protected by the passivation film and are directly
corroded by H+ . The polarization curve does not show a passivation platform area, and the anodic dissolution branch
and cathodic hydrogen evolution branch are relatively steep. When the temperature changed, the rate constant of
REDOX reaction in the overall environment changed, and overpotential and other parameters were also different.
Therefore, electrochemical parameters such as galvanic current density do not show a simple linear relationship
with temperature, and the formula needs to be further deduced and verified.
Suppose the galvanic currents of Groups A to E are i a (A) · · · i a (E), whose temperatures are T A · · · TE , the
overpotential at the corresponding temperature η A · · · η E . And i 0A · · · i 0E are respectively the exchange current
density of Group A–E. According to Eq. (5), the theoretical galvanic current ratio of each experimental group
can be calculated as shown in Eq. (9):
αn Fη A αn Fη E
( ) ( )
i a (A) : · · · : i a (E) = i 0A exp : · · · : i 0A exp
RT A RTE
120
H. Zhu, Z. Huang, G. Jin et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 112–123

Fig. 9. Corrosion rate calculation.

ηA ηE
( ) ( )
= i 0A exp : · · · : i 0A exp (9)
TA TE
Relevant parameters measured through experiments are shown in the following Table 6:

Table 6. Theoretical and practical galvanic current ratio.

Group A Group B Group C Group D Group E
T/◦ C 10 20 30 40 50
i 0 /µA cm−2 0.011 0.027 0.032 0.042 0.049
E e /mV −160 −291 −260 −262 −333
E t /mV −128 −197 −207 −235 −289
η = Et − Ee 32 94 53 27 44

The theoretical and actual galvanic current ratio at different temperatures can be obtained by calculation, and
the results are shown in Table 7:
Table 7. Theoretical and practical galvanic current ratio.
Group A Group B Group C Group D Group E
Theory 0.035 0.127 0.057 0.028 0.043
Experiment 0.026 0.108 0.046 0.021 0.037

A K-S test is commonly used to judge whether the population from which the sample comes is subject to a
certain distribution theory. In this paper, a two-sample K–S test was used to test whether the theoretical and actual
galvanic currents are consistent with the same null hypothesis of the population distribution [25,26]. Assuming
that H0 is the same distribution, the p value of the test can be calculated to be 0.873, when p>0.05(α), H0 was
accepted. The calculation results at different significance levels (α) are shown in Table 8. It can be seen that the
null hypothesis is not rejected at different significance levels (α), that is, the distribution of theoretical and practical
results is consistent. At the same time, when the temperature was 40 ◦ C and 50 ◦ C, the deviation degree between the
actual results and the theoretical results was small. When the temperature was 10 ◦ C, 20 ◦ C, 30 ◦ C, the actual results
deviated greatly from the theoretical results. The reason may be that the reaction velocity constant increased rapidly
with the increase in temperature, which led to a certain deviation between the theoretical value and the actual value.
However, when the temperature exceeded a certain level, the reaction velocity constant did not increase obviously
with the increase in temperature, resulting in high consistence between the theoretical value and the actual value.

4. Conclusions
In this study, the galvanic corrosion behavior of Al 6061 and SS 304 at different temperatures was investigated
by the morphology observation, electrochemical measurement, and mathematical analysis. The relationship between
temperature and galvanic current was deduced, as well as the reliability of the formula was verified by K–S test.
The main conclusions can be drawn as follows:
121
H. Zhu, Z. Huang, G. Jin et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 112–123

Table 8. K–S calculation at different significance levels.

K–S Significance Relationship Critical value Results
statistic (D) level (α) (scale by n)
0.4 0.2 < 0.679 Accept H0
0.4 0.15 < 0.720 Accept H0
0.4 0.1 < 0.774 Accept H0
0.4 0.05 < 0.859 Accept H0
0.4 0.01 < 1.029 Accept H0
0.4 0.005 < 1.095 Accept H0
0.4 0.001 < 1.233 Accept H0

(1) After coupling SS 304 with Al 6061 at 10 ◦ C, the corrosion driving potential difference between the two
reached 366 mVSCE . Al 6061 accelerated the corrosion as an anode, and the anodic dissolution of aluminum atoms
occurred rapidly on the surface, and the reduction reaction occurred at the cathode to produce hydrogen.
(2) After coupling, there were three kinds of obvious galvanic corrosion phenomena, which were caused by the
intergranular corrosion of the second phase particles of anode coupling with aluminum matrix, the second phase
particles of cathode coupling with aluminum matrix, and the intergranular corrosion of the interface of different
grains. When the temperature was from 10 ◦ C to 30 ◦ C, the corrosion pits of the first type and the second type were
mainly present. When the temperature was between 40 ◦ C and 50 ◦ C, the third type of corrosion pits was mainly
found.
(3) With the increase in temperature, the galvanic potential decreased gradually, and the corrosion current, the
number of corrosion pits and the size of corrosion pits did not change linearly. However, the relationship between
galvanic current and temperature satisfied the quantitative equation, and the theory was in good agreement with
practice by the K–S test.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Huixin Zhu: Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing – original draft. Zhiyong Huang: Visual-
ization, Conceptualization, Software, Project administration. Guofeng Jin: Supervision, Resources, Validation and
Writing – review & editing. Mingna Gao: Investigation, Funding acquisition.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could
have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability
Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgments
This paper was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province of China (No. 2022JM-243).

References
[1] Wang KF, Li F, Zhao K, Zhou T. Numerical study on the lobed nozzles for enhancing the mixing and combustion performance of
rocket-based combined cycle engine. Energy Rep 2022;8:6645–58, 2022.
[2] Li YY. Nitrogen tetroxide. In: Li YY, editor. Liquid propellant. Beijing: China Aerospace Press; 2011.
[3] Li M, Zhao FQ, Luo Y, Xu SY, Hao HX, Pei Q, et al. Effect of aluminum nanopowders and aluminum micropowders on energetic
characteristics of HTPB propellant. Rare Metal Mater Eng 2015;44(12):3060–4, 2015.
[4] Wang JY, Wang MY, Yu XY, Zong RW, Lu SX. Experimental and numerical study of the fire behavior of a tank with oil leaking
and burning. Proc Saf Environ Protect 2022;159:1203–14, 2022.
[5] Ariel TB, Michael PD, Timothée LP. Early liquid and gas phase hypergolic reactions between monomethyl hydrazine and nitrogen
tetroxide or red fuming nitric acid. Combust Sci Technol 2019;191(11):1990–2005, 2019.
122
H. Zhu, Z. Huang, G. Jin et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 112–123

[6] Jia SW, Liu XH, Yan GL. Environmental, economic and health cobenefits of the combination strategy for alleviating traffic and
emission pressure. Energy Rep 2020;6:3334–45, 2020.
[7] Hsieh JC. Study of energy strategy by evaluating energy–environmental efficiency. Energy Rep 2022;8:1397–409, 2022.
[8] Zhang Y, Chen YL, Fan WJ, Wang CG, Bian GX. Study on the galvanic corrosion of aluminum alloy single bolted lap joints in
simulated atmospheres. Mater Corros 2017;68(10):1107–15, 2017.
[9] Suzuki Y, Morishita A. Influence of corrosion inhibitor in chemical conversion coatings on corrosion performance in scratches in
zinc-coated steels. ISIJ Int 2019;59(10):1878–85, 2019.
[10] Zhang XJ, Shen ZG, Zhang W, Yi M, Ma H, Liu L, et al. Graphene coating for enhancing the atom oxygen erosion resistance of
Kapton. Coatings 2020;10(7):644–59, 2020.
[11] Zhang W, Chen L, Gu ZZ, Jiang JC. Influence of graphene on fire protection of intumescent fire retardant coating for steel structure.
Energy Rep 2020;6(2):693–7, 2020.
[12] Mansfeld F. Galvanic corrosion of Al alloys. Mater Corros 1974;25(8):578–86, 1974.
[13] Nakatsugawa I, Chino Y. Effect of area ratio on the galvanic corrosion of AZX611 magnesium alloy/A6N01 aluminum alloy joint.
Mater Trans 2021;62(12):1764–70, 2021.
[14] Cui TF, Liu DX, Shi PA, Liu JJ, Yi YH, Zhou HL. Effect of NaCl concentration, pH value and tensile stress on the galvanic corrosion
behavior of 5050 aluminum alloy. Mater Corros 2016;67(1):72–83, 2016.
[15] Tian G, Jin GF, Zhang W. Huang ZY, Yang ZW. Investigation on electrochemical corrosion characteristic of 2A14 aluminum alloy in
nitric acid. Suface Rev Lett 2018;24(8):1850016–26, 2018.
[16] Neelima K, Sunil KB, Limaye PK, Vivekan K. Tribological study on tempered 13cr martensitic stainless steel susceptible to
interlath/intergranular corrosion under nitric acid sliding conditions. Mater Chem Phys 2022;285(1):126097, 2022.
[17] Brown CT. Feasibility studies of an electrochemical test method for nitrogen tetroxide compatibility testing. In: United technologies
research center east hartford. CT, Boston: University of Hartford; 1978.
[18] Feng YB, Huang ZY, Tian G, Jin GF. Correlation study on general and accelerated corrosion of the welded structure of aluminum
alloy 2219 in N2 O4 . Anti - Corrosion Methods Mater 2015;62(3):136–42, 2015.
[19] Lin JB, Gong Y, Mou WP, Xu P, Liu EQ, Chang C. Preparation and mechanical properties of continuous Cf /Al composite plate by
twin-roll casting. Rare Metal Mater Eng 2021;50(10):3745–50, 2021.
[20] Takumi K, Izumi M, Yu S. Effect of anodizing on galvanic corrosion resistance of Al coupled to Fe or type 430 stainless steel in
diluted synthetic seawater. Corros Sci 2019;3(1):151, 2019.
[21] Liu DX. Galvanic corrosion. In: Liu DX, editor. Corrosion and protection of materials. Xi’an: Northwestern Polytechnical University
Press; 2005.
[22] Birbilis N, Buchheit RG. Electrochemical characteristics of intermetallic phases in aluminum alloys: An experimental survey and
discussion. J Electrochem Soc 2005;152(4):B140–51, 2005.
[23] Sánchez TR, Montañés MT, García AJ. The effect of temperature on the galvanic corrosion of the copper/AISI 304 pair in LiBr
solutions under hydrodynamic conditions. Corros Sci 2010;52(3):722–33, 2010.
[24] Chen M, An H. A K-S type test of linearity for a class of time series models. Chin Sci Bull 1996;41(11):881–6, 1996.
[25] Xie X, Xu ZG. Blind watermark detection based on K-S test in radio-frequency signals. Electron Lett 2020;56(1):30, 2020.
[26] Frey J. Refined asymptotic Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests for the case of finite support. Comm Statist Theory Methods
2020;49(23):5829–41, 2020.

123