MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimization of Nd:YAG-Laser Welding Process for Inconel 718 Alloy

2007· article· en· W2068337367 on OpenAlexaff
Min Xiao, C. Poon, Priti Wanjara, Mohammad Jahazi, Zouheir Fawaz, P. Krimbalis

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials science forum · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceWeldingInconelLaser beam weldingSuperalloyGas tungsten arc weldingMetallurgyHeat-affected zoneTaguchi methodsFusion weldingComposite materialArc weldingMechanical engineeringAlloy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ni-based superalloys are extensively used in the manufacture of aircraft engine components because of their excellent heat-resistant and corrosion-resistant properties. The principal joining processes for Ni-based superalloys are TIG welding, MIG welding, submerged arc welding, electron beam welding, and CO2 laser welding. In this investigation, a robotic 4-kW continuous-wave Nd:YAG laser system was used to identify the optimal laser welding process for 2.0 mm thick Inconel (IN) 718 sheets. The effect of various processing parameters, which included power input, welding speed, weld geometry and filler wire, was studied using the Taguchi design of experiment (DOE) methodology. The DOE methodology enabled the evaluation of the relationship between the process parameters and the quality of the welded joints, from which the optimal Nd:YAG laser welding process was developed for IN718 alloy. Joint quality was examined by tensile and nondestructive testing methods. Using the optimal process established in this research, mechanically-sound welds with narrow fusion and heat-affected zones were produced. The outcome of this research demonstrates the feasibility of the application of Nd:YAG laser in the joining of IN718 sheets for the manufacture of aircraft engine components.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials science forumSame topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207