Issue 78

A. Sancak et alii, Fracture and Structural Integrity, 78 (2026) 186-206; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.78.11

and time-normalized corrosion rate should be considered together. Although some 30-day groups showed lower calculated corrosion rates, their accumulated mass losses were higher than those of the 10-day groups. The relationship between corrosion mass loss and absorbed impact energy was evaluated using the individual results of the corrosion-exposed specimens ( n = 21). Pearson correlation analysis indicated a weak negative correlation between corrosion mass loss and absorbed impact energy, r = − 0.140 , p = 0.544. The corresponding linear fit had a coefficient of determination of R 2 = 0.020. Thus, no statistically significant linear relationship was detected between corrosion mass loss and absorbed impact energy in the present dataset. The low R 2 value indicates that corrosion mass loss accounted for only approximately 2.0% of the variation in absorbed impact energy within the present dataset. The corresponding exploratory linear regression was expressed as E = 17.744 − 19.731 Δ m, where E is the absorbed impact energy (J) and Δ m is the corrosion mass loss (g). However, because the regression showed very low explanatory power (R² = 0.020) and the relationship was not statistically significant (p = 0.544), this equation should not be considered as a validated predictive model. Rather, it indicates that corrosion mass loss alone is insufficient to predict the absorbed impact energy within the present dataset. The mean corrosion mass loss, calculated corrosion rate and the relationship between individual corrosion mass loss and absorbed impact energy are shown in Fig. 6.

Figure 6: a) Mean corrosion mass loss and calculated corrosion rate of the corrosion-exposed specimens. Bars indicate mean mass loss ± standard deviation, and the line indicates the calculated corrosion rate. b) Relationship between individual corrosion mass-loss values and absorbed impact energy for the corrosion-exposed specimens. The solid line represents the simple linear fit ( n = 21). Group definitions are given in Tab. 2. Hardness evaluation Hardness measurements were performed on the HRB scale in order to evaluate whether the observed scatter in absorbed impact energy could be associated with major differences in local mechanical resistance. The hardness results are

197