MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980608256 · doi:10.1115/1.4002158

Computational Evaluation of Adhesion and Mechanical Properties of Nanolayered Erosion-Resistant Coatings for Gas Turbines

2010· article· en· W1980608256 on OpenAlexafffund
Mariusz Bielawski, Kuiying Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal and Thin Film Mechanics
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceFracture toughnessTinComposite materialBrittlenessToughnessModulusNitrideElastic modulusMetallurgyLayer (electronics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A computational method to evaluate fracture toughness of prospective erosion-resistant coatings using a combination of first-principles density functional theory (DFT) calculations and fracture mechanics is proposed. Elastic coefficients C11, C12, and C44, the ideal work of adhesion Wad, bulk modulus B, shear modulus G, and Young’s modulus E of transition metal nitrides with a cubic structure such as TiN, CrN, ZrN, VN, and HfN are calculated. Both the G/B ratio and Cauchy pressure C12−C44 indicate brittle behavior for TiN, ZrN, and HfN and more metallic behavior for CrN and VN. The fracture toughness KIC and interfacial fracture toughness KICInt for bilayer combinations of these five nitrides is calculated along the [100] and [110] directions. The largest KIC value is obtained for HfN (2.14 MPa m1/2) in (100) orientation and for TiN (2.16 MPa m1/2) in (110) orientation. The lowest fracture toughness, in both orientations, is found for CrN. Among ten coherent interfaces of the five investigated nitrides the largest value of interfacial fracture toughness KICInt=3.24 MPa m1/2 is recorded for the HfN/TiN interface in the (110) orientation.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and PowerSame topicMetal and Thin Film MechanicsFrench-language works237,207