## 3 Results
### Results of Statistical Analysis for the NiTi-2 Alloy
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Air**} \\ \hline
**Lower Bound** & **Upper Bound** & **Empirical CDF of \(\mathbf{c_{1}}\)** & \(\mathbf{F_{a_{2}}^{(b)}}\) & \(\mathbf{F_{a_{2}}^{(I)}}\) & \(\mathbf{F_{a_{2}}^{(f)}}\) \\ \hline
2 & 2.435 & 0.025 & 0.01407 & 0.02715 & 0.02143 \\ \hline
2.435 & 2.87 & 0.215 & 0.20144 & 0.21968 & 0.21159 \\ \hline
2.87 & 3.305 & 0.544 & 0.48023 & 0.46274 & 0.45816 \\ \hline
3.305 & 3.74 & 0.709 & 0.65435 & 0.64458 & 0.63869 \\ \hline
3.74 & 4.175 & 0.722 & 0.75999 & 0.76030 & 0.75444 \\ \hline
4.175 & 4.61 & 0.734 & 0.82722 & 0.83232 & 0.82781 \\ \hline
4.61 & 5.045 & 0.772 & 0.87187 & 0.87822 & 0.87539 \\ \hline
5.045 & 5.48 & 0.823 & 0.90261 & 0.90855 & 0.90721 \\ \hline
5.48 & 5.915 & 0.911 & 0.92440 & 0.92935 & 0.92916 \\ \hline
5.915 & 6.35 & 1.000 & 0.94025 & 0.94408 & 0.94473 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Tide**} \\ \hline
**Lower Bound** & **Upper Bound** & **Empirical CDF of \(\mathbf{c_{1}}\)** & \(\mathbf{F_{t_{2}}^{(I)}}\) & \(\mathbf{F_{t_{3}}^{(d)}}\) & \(\mathbf{F_{t_{2}}^{(g)}}\) \\ \hline
0 & 2.3685 & 0.028 & 0.02283 & 0.02602 & 0.01590 \\ \hline
2.3685 & 4.737 & 0.125 & 0.13332 & 0.13725 & 0.15482 \\ \hline
4.737 & 7.1055 & 0.347 & 0.32584 & 0.32266 & 0.34254 \\ \hline
7.1055 & 9.474 & 0.611 & 0.52441 & 0.51832 & 0.57780 \\ \hline
9.474 & 11.8425 & 0.667 & 0.67761 & 0.67407 & 0.65977 \\ \hline
11.8425 & 14.211 & 0.694 & 0.78121 & 0.78105 & 0.76645 \\ \hline
14.211 & 16.5795 & 0.778 & 0.84844 & 0.85050 & 0.84292 \\ \hline
16.5795 & 18.948 & 0.847 & 0.89216 & 0.89529 & 0.89601 \\ \hline
18.948 & 21.3165 & 0.931 & 0.92116 & 0.92464 & 0.93202 \\ \hline
21.3165 & 23.685 & 1.000 & 0.94089 & 0.94434 & 0.95601 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Sea**} \\ \hline
**Lower Bound** & **Upper Bound** & **Empirical CDF of \(\mathbf{c_{1}}\)** & \(\mathbf{F_{s_{2}}^{(gp)}}\) & \(\mathbf{F_{s_{2}}^{(d)}}\) & \(\mathbf{F_{s_{2}}^{(f)}}\) \\ \hline
0 & 4.8685 & 0.000 & 0 & 0.00004 & 0.00011 \\ \hline
4.8685 & 9.737 & 0.014 & 0.00026 & 0.01567 & 0.01947 \\ \hline
9.737 & 14.6055 & 0.208 & 0.20833 & 0.16606 & 0.17096 \\ \hline
14.6055 & 19.474 & 0.458 & 0.41949 & 0.42550 & 0.40071 \\ \hline
19.474 & 24.3425 & 0.597 & 0.58938 & 0.63533 & 0.60457 \\ \hline
24.3425 & 29.211 & 0.694 & 0.72263 & 0.76786 & 0.75204 \\ \hline
29.211 & 34.0795 & 0.833 & 0.82355 & 0.84743 & 0.84902 \\ \hline
34.0795 & 38.948 & 0.875 & 0.89656 & 0.89591 & 0.90970 \\ \hline
38.948 & 43.8165 & 0.958 & 0.94611 & 0.92644 & 0.94660 \\ \hline
43.8165 & 48.685 & 1.000 & 0.97667 & 0.94639 & 0.96566 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 14: The empirical values and the values of CDF for the three best-fitted distributions for \(c_{1}\) concerning NiTi-2. The numerical data from the last part of Table 14, which refer to the influence of the sea environment on the corrosion rate of NiTi-2 alloy, are presented graphically in Figure 17. The empirical CDF is shown by a step function. It is noticeable that all three of the best-fitted theoretical distributions followed the form of the empirical CDF adequately, and can be considered as a good approximation of these empirical data. In the case of the sea environment's influence on NiTi-2 alloys, the empirical data of corrosion rate show heavy tail tendencies. The Generalised Pareto distribution can model this kind of empirical data well, because this type of distribution produces extreme events, with the tendency that its density reduces value polynomially. This characteristic of the Generalised Pareto distribution justifies the reason why it was chosen as the best fitting theoretical distribution in the case of the influence of the sea on the NiTi-1 alloy. Comparative Statistical Analysis of NiTi-1 and NiTi-2 Alloys' Corrosion Behaviour in Different seawater Environments  
The first group of statistical tests was conducted to explore how each of the NiTi alloys behaved in a different seawater environment.