Comparison of single crystal Ni based superalloy repair by gas tungsten arc and electron beam processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Ni based single crystal superalloy has been subjected to both gas tungsten arc (GTA) and electron beam (EB) welding, relative to gas turbine repair. Gas tungsten arc welding was used to simulate a blade tip repair, while the EB welds were carried out to simulate replacement of an airfoil. The GTA weld build-up was carried out using three filler metals, low strength alloy 625, FM-92 of intermediate strength and high strength alloy 738. Metallography showed that neither filler types resulted in any weld cracking; however, depending on the processing conditions, the EB welds either did not crack, cracked somewhat, or cracked extensively, but only in the weld metal. Also weld shape is considered as an important factor on the incidence of cracking. Orientation image microscopic analysis showed that cracking was not present in the weld of the GTA deposit, even though stray grains were present, whereas the EB weld cracked extensively, being associated with stray grain formation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".