MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972763572 · doi:10.1115/1.4000136

Effect of Tungsten Addition on the Nucleation of Borides in Wide Gap Brazed Joint

2010· article· en· W1972763572 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel McGuire, Xiao Huang, Doug Nagy, Weijie Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh Temperature Alloys and Creep
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrazingMaterials scienceIntermetallicMetallurgyEutectic systemAlloyDuctility (Earth science)BrittlenessTungstenSuperalloyBorideCreep

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wide gap brazing (WGB) is a cost effective and reliable means to repair gas turbine hot section components with defect sizes exceeding 0.3 mm. However, it has been shown that WGB joints of nickel-based superalloys suffer from reduced ductility and thermal fatigue life due to the presence of brittle intermetallics and porosities in the brazed joint. In order to disperse the brittle intermetallic compounds, potentially increase the ductility of the repaired region, and reduce the risk of the thermomechanical fatigue failure, elemental tungsten (W) was added to the braze additive filler alloy IN738 by mechanical alloying. The alloyed IN738 was then brazed with the addition of 30 wt %, 50 wt %, and 80 wt % of braze alloy (BNi-9). After brazing at 1200°C for 20 min, microstructural analysis of WGB joints showed a decreasing trend of discrete boride size and the amount of eutectic and script-shaped borides with the increases of W. The increase in the braze alloy to additive filler alloy ratio diminished the effect of W addition due the dissolution of W particulates.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and PowerSame topicHigh Temperature Alloys and CreepFrench-language works237,207