In aerospace structures, the balance between strength and weight is vital to maintain. Dissimilar alloys are often employed to build individual components which, when put together, create a structure achieving the optimized properties. In particular, aluminum alloys have a very high strength-to-weight ratio which makes them ideal for structural components, while stainless steel is often used for hardware, such as fasteners and washers, which holds the aluminum components together [1]. On their own, both aluminum and stainless steels form a passive oxide film which increases their resistance to corrosion. However, when in the presence of an electrolyte, such as a light rain or morning dew, a possibility of galvanic corrosion between the dissimilar metals is present. In the scenario above, stainless steel would act as the cathode, consuming electrons, and the aluminum alloy would act as the anode, releasing electrons and dissolved metal ions.The surface of the aluminum alloy is generally painted with a pretreatment, primer, and topcoat to limit exposure of the bare metal to the environment, thereby decreasing the probability of corrosion. However, the layers of surface coating are often scratched off from mechanical or external damage, leaving the aluminum alloy susceptible to galvanic corrosion. Surface scratches can provide a pathway for an electrolyte into the fastener hole, if no sealant was used in installing the fasteners. Furthermore, an occluded cell is formed between the fastener and panel, which can lead to a build-up of aggressive species and further exacerbate the galvanic corrosion. Previous work has determined how severe corrosion within this occluded region can be, with intergranular corrosion sites up to 2mm in length seen after exposure of 504 hours in an accelerated salt spray environment [2].From a structural perspective, corrosion damage within the fastener hole has much larger implications for cracking than corrosion damage occurring on the surface of the panel. The geometry of the fastener hole is a stress concentrator, which localized corrosion can promote by acting as a nucleation site for cracks [3]–[5]. Conversely, the surface of the panel has no stress concentrators, and the exposed surface makes early detection of corrosion damage feasible.Determining when the fastener hole is most susceptible to corrosion damage is of upmost importance, from a practical standpoint. In this work, finite element modeling is used to determine under what scenarios will the majority of predicted damage be within the fastener hole (worst-case) or on the surface of the panel (best-case). External factors, such as the scribe dimensions, and environmental factors, such as the water layer thickness, will be investigated. In particular, the impact of water layer thicknesses beyond the natural convection boundary layer thickness are considered. Time-dependent studies shed light on a potential transition time between damage concentrating on the surface vs. concentrating within the fastener hole. The time-dependent model will include pH-dependent boundary conditions to simulate the crevice environment. The calculated pH profile along the complex geometry will be compared with experimental results via pH probes in a crevice.[1] C. A. Matzdorf, W. C. Nickerson, B. C. Rincon Tronconis, G. S. Frankel, L. Li, and R. G. Buchheit, “Galvanic test panels for accelerated corrosion testing of coated al alloys: Part 1 - Concept,” Corrosion, vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 1240–1246, 2013.[2] R. S. Marshall, R. Kelly, A. Goff, and C. Sprinkle, “Galvanic Corrosion Between Coated Al Alloy Plate and Stainless Steel Fasteners, Part 1: FEM Model Development and Validation,” Corrosion, vol. 75, no. 12, pp. 1461–1473, 2019.[3] M. D. Mcmurtrey, D. Bae, and J. T. Burns, “Fracture mechanics modelling of constant and variable amplitude fatigue behaviour of field corroded 7075-T6511 aluminium,” Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., 2016.[4] J. T. Burns, J. M. Larsen, and R. P. Gangloff, “Effect of initiation feature on microstructure-scale fatigue crack propagation in Al-Zn-Mg-Cu,” Int. J. Fatigue, vol. 42, pp. 104–121, 2012.[5] J. T. Burns, J. M. Larsen, and R. P. Gangloff, “Driving forces for localized corrosion‐to‐fatigue crack transition in Al–Zn–Mg–Cu,” Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 745–773, 2011.