Novel corrosion protective coating formulations suggested by machine learning of historic test data
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Protective organic coatings are formulated products comprising ingredients that are selected, combined and processed to final state with desired functionality. Generally formulated products are developed using ‘craft’ approaches based on domain knowledge and experience. However the process can involve repeated cycles of (re-)formulation, laboratory trial and field test before novel products can be brought to market. In ‘recipe’ problems such as this, the combinations scale exponentially with the number of ingredients but the number of empirical trials that can be performed is limited to a small fraction of the possibilities. In this proof-of-principle contribution, we use a machine learning tool to inform selection of ingredients, and ingredient combinations, by mapping existing coating formulations to performance characteristics from laboratory testing. The available dataset was relatively sparse, comprising just 492 salt-spray test results on coatings containing 148 different ingredients and biased towards more effective formulations. The resulting multi-objective optimisation problem was solved using a differential evolution, heuristic-based method designed to restrict over-fitting. Initial model outcomes suggested two optimal formulations using novel ingredient combinations whose performance was then verified under standard cyclic salt-spray test conditions. Both novel formulations were shown to provide similar, or better, corrosion protective performance than the reference formulation.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Corrosion Behavior and Inhibition · Machine Learning in Materials Science · Structural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (40)
Show source-provided references
1. Lambourne, R. & Strivens, T. A. (eds) Paint and Surface Coatings: Theory and Practice (Woodhead Pub, 1999).10.1533/9781855737006 ↗
2. Lyon, S. B., Bingham, R. & Mills, D. J. Advances in corrosion protection by organic coatings: what we know and what we would like to know. Prog. Org. Coat. 102, 2–7 (2017).10.1016/j.porgcoat.2016.04.030 ↗
3. Kell, D. B. Scientific discovery as a combinatorial optimisation problem: how best to navigate the landscape of possible experiments?. Bioessays 34, 236–244 (2012).10.1002/bies.201100144 ↗
4. Elkamel, A., Alhumade, H., Omidbakhsh, N., Nowruzi, K. & Duever, T. Chemical Product Formulation Design and Optimization. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527689620 (Wiley, 2023).10.1002/9783527689620 ↗
5. Kauffman, S. A. The Origins of Order (Oxford University Press, 1993).10.1093/oso/9780195079517.001.0001 ↗
6. Kell, D. B. & Lurie-Luke, E. The virtue of innovation: innovation through the lenses of biological evolution. J. R. Soc. Interface 12, 20141183 (2015).10.1098/rsif.2014.1183 ↗
7. Kell, D. B., Samanta, S. & Swainston, N. Deep learning and generative methods in cheminformatics and chemical biology: navigating small molecule space intelligently. Biochem. J. 477, 4559–4580 (2020).10.1042/BCJ20200781 ↗
8. Coelho, L. B. et al. Reviewing machine learning of corrosion prediction in a data-oriented perspective. Npj Mater. Degrad. 6, 8 (2022).10.1038/s41529-022-00218-4 ↗
9. Ghorbani, M., Li, Z., Pasquini, A., Vasa, R. & Birbilis, N. Supervised machine learning for corrosion assessment of multi-principal element alloys using experimental and generative datasets. Npj Mater. Degrad. 9, 155 (2025).10.1038/s41529-025-00700-9 ↗
10. Chen, W. et al. Prediction of coating degradation based on environmental factors–physical property–corrosion failure two-stage machine learning. Npj Mater. Degrad. 9, 67 (2025).10.1038/s41529-025-00614-6 ↗
11. Liu, T. et al. Machine learning assisted discovery of high-efficiency self-healing epoxy coating for corrosion protection. Npj Mater. Degrad. 8, 11 (2024).10.1038/s41529-024-00427-z ↗
12. Feng, S., Sun, X., Cao, W. & Chen, G. Optimization of high-entropy alloy coating design using machine learning methods. Npj Mater. Degrad. 9, 164 (2025).10.1038/s41529-025-00709-0 ↗
13. Xu, P. et al. Machine learning-assisted design of yttria-stabilized zirconia thermal barrier coatings with high bonding strength. ACS Omega 9, 21052–21061 (2022).10.1021/acsomega.2c01839 ↗
14. Mamgain, H. P., Pal, R., Kumar, S., Brajpuriya, R. & Pandey, J. K. Machine learning-based stability prediction and analysis of polypropylene Cu-MA superhydrophobic coating on the aluminum substrate. J. Phys. Chem. C 128, 17184–17195 (2024).10.1021/acs.jpcc.4c05934 ↗
15. Le, T. C. et al. Harnessing machine learning for the design of surface coatings: challenges and opportunities. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 17, 39795–39808 (2025).10.1021/acsami.5c03726 ↗
16. Kim, M. O. AI-driven polymeric coatings: strategies for material selection and performance evaluation in structural applications. Polymers 18, 5 (2026).10.3390/polym18010005 ↗
17. Currin, A., Swainston, N., Day, P. J. & Kell, D. B. Synthetic biology for the directed evolution of protein biocatalysts: navigating sequence space intelligently. Chem. Soc. Rev. 44, 1172–1239 (2015).10.1039/C4CS00351A ↗
18. American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard G85, Annex A5. https://doi.org/10.1520/G0085-02.10.1520/G0085-02 ↗
19. Pedregosa, F. et al. Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825–2830 (2011).
20. McInnes, L., Healy, J., Saul, N. & Grossberger, L. UMAP: uniform manifold approximation and projection. J. Open Source Softw. 3, 861 (2018).10.21105/joss.00861 ↗
21. Loh, W. Y. Fifty Years of Classification and Regression Trees. Int. Stat. Rev. 82, 329–348 (2014).10.1111/insr.12016 ↗
22. Quinlan, J. R. Induction of decision trees. Mach. Learn. 1, 81–106 (1986).10.1023/A:1022643204877 ↗
23. Quinlan, J. R. C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning (Morgan Kaufmann, 1992).
24. O’Hagan, S., Muelas, M. W., Day, P. J., Lundberg, E. & Kell, D. B. GeneGini: assessment via the Gini coefficient of reference “housekeeping” genes and diverse human transporter expression profiles. Cell Syst. 6, 230–244 (2018).10.1016/j.cels.2018.01.003 ↗
25. Ng, A. & Jordan, M. On discriminative vs. generative classifiers: a comparison of logistic regression and naive bayes. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) (The MIT Press, 2001).
26. Breiman, L. Bagging predictors. Mach. Learn. 24, 123–140 (1996).10.1023/A:1018054314350 ↗
27. Dietterich, T. G. An experimental comparison of three methods for constructing ensembles of decision trees: bagging, boosting, and randomization. Mach. Learn. 40, 139–157 (2000).10.1023/A:1007607513941 ↗
28. Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (2001).10.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
29. Holland, J. H. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems (The MIT Press, 1975).
30. Back, T., Fogel, D. B. & Michalewicz, Z. Handbook of Evolutionary Computation (IOP Publishing Ltd., 1997).10.1201/9781420050387 ↗
31. Corne, D., Dorigo, M. & Glover, E. New Ideas in Optimization (McGraw-Hill Education, 1999).
32. Goldberg, D. E. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning (Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., 1989).
33. Holland, J. H. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence (The MIT Press, 1992).10.7551/mitpress/1090.001.0001 ↗
34. Knowles, J. Closed-loop evolutionary multiobjective optimization. IEEE Comput. Intell. Mag. 4, 77–91 (2009).10.1109/MCI.2009.933095 ↗
35. Koza, J. R. Genetic Programming On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection (The MIT Press, 1992).
36. Michalewicz, Z. & Fogel, D. B. How to Solve It: Modern Heuristics (Springer Berlin, 2004).10.1007/978-3-662-07807-5 ↗
37. Storn, R. & Price, K. Differential evolution—a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J. Glob. Optim. 11, 341–359 (1997).10.1023/A:1008202821328 ↗
38. Pannu, H. & Kell, D. Hyperparameter optimisation in differential evolution using summed local difference strings, a rugged but easily calculated landscape for combinatorial search problems. Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst. 22, 1555–1575 (2025).10.2298/CSIS240628061P ↗
39. Lundberg, S. M. et al. From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2, 56–67 (2020).10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9 ↗
40. Lundberg, S. M. & Lee, S.-I. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In Proc. 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) 4768–4777 (Curran Associates Inc., 2017).