MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Thermomechanical fatigue behaviour and mode of failure of laser welded single crystal Ni based superalloy

2013· article· en· W2042822439 on OpenAlexafffund
J. Durocher, J. R. Cahoon, N.L. Richards

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials Science and Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWelding Techniques and Residual Stresses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceWeldingMetallurgyAlloySuperalloyLaser beam weldingCarbideHeat-affected zoneGrain boundaryParis' lawMetallographyFusion weldingComposite materialMicrostructureFracture mechanicsCrack closure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The baseline metallography of single crystal alloy N5 was compared with laser welded material to evaluate the effect of the welding process on cracking behaviour. In addition, baseline thermomechanical fatigue data were compared with the fatigue properties of welded specimens. The solution treated and aged single crystal alloy was found to contain microporosity, Ta rich MC carbides, Cr–Mo rich grain boundary borides, gamma prime and fine secondary gamma prime. In addition, recrystallised grains were present in the weld heat affected zone and provided a path for crack propagation out of the fusion zone. The laser beam welds showed defects mainly associated with the fusion zone, while thermomechanical fatigue analysis of the laser weld data showed inferior values compared to the baseline solution treated and aged material. Metallographic analysis showed that this was due to increased defects in the fusion zone associated with surface oxidation and heat affected zone recrystallisation compared to the non-welded alloy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials Science and TechnologySame topicWelding Techniques and Residual StressesFrench-language works237,207