Effect of Ruthenium, Rhenium and Yttria Additions on the Microstructure of Wide Gap Brazing of IN738
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern gas and steam turbine components are subject to severe thermomechanical loads and extremely high temperature in order to provide increased performance and efficiency. Most high temperature turbine components are made of superalloys specifically developed for high temperature and high mechanical stress applications but at considerable cost. Defects may occur during manufacturing of superalloy castings as well as after service. Repair of these components, rather than replacement, helps to reduce the life cycle cost. Wide gap brazing is a cost effective and reliable means to repair gas turbine hot section components with defect sizes exceeding 0.3 mm. With proper control of the braze alloy and brazing cycle, the repaired region has been reported to posses mechanical properties approaching that of the parent materials. In order to further improve the mechanical properties of the repaired region and to explore the possibility of employing the wide gap brazing method to repair single crystal components in the future, three alloying additions, Ruthenium (Ru), Rhenium (Re) and yttria (Y2O3), were incorporated into the braze filler metal by mechanical alloying. The microstructures of the wide gap brazed joints with Ru, Re and yttria additions were studied and compared to a braze joint with standard wide gap braze alloys of IN738 and AWS BNi-9. It has been found that two types of borides formed in all braze alloys, namely eutectic γ-Ni-rich and boride phases and discrete boride containing primarily Cr and W (or Ru). The addition of Ru to the filler metal did not seem to modify the microstructural constituents after brazing. However, Ru partitioned strongly to the discrete borides. No isolated elemental Ru region was observed. On the other hand, Re addition was found to change the occurrence and distribution of both types of borides. The eutectic boride constituent was significantly reduced and finer discrete boride particles were observed. The addition of yttria did not change the boride formation but led to the generation of more voids in the brazed joint.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".