MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013992131 · doi:10.1115/1.2836743

Brazing and Wide Gap Repair of X-40 Using Ni-Base Alloys

2008· article· en· W2013992131 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Schoonbaert, Xiao Huang, Scott Yandt, P. Au

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh Temperature Alloys and Creep
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrazingMaterials scienceSuperalloyMetallurgyCreepCarbideAlloyMicrostructureEutectic systemCorrosionJoint (building)Base metalStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Co-base superalloys are commonly used for vanes and parts of the combustion chamber in gas turbine engines. The Co-base superalloys are primarily solid solution strengthened and have good resistance to hot corrosion, creep, and thermal fatigue. In particular, Co-base alloy X-40 was used to fabricate the first stage NGV airfoils of T56 series engines; inspections after service have revealed that X-40 airfoils suffered from severe thermal fatigue damages. In this study, a new braze repair scheme is proposed; in which Ni-base alloys are used to repair the X-40 substrate in both narrow and wide gap configurations. Metallographic examination, X-ray mapping, and energy dispersive spectroscopy semiquantitative compositional analyses were carried out to study the microstructures in the braze joint in the as-brazed condition and after thermal exposure at 950°C. The results obtained so far suggest the formation of Cr-rich borides, eutectic phases, and various carbides in the joint. No TCP phases were found in the brazed joint and base metals adjacent to the joint. The high carbon content in the alloy X-40 may have played an important role in preventing the formation of TCP phases during brazing and subsequent thermal exposure.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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