Wide Gap Braze Repair of Gas Turbine Blades and Vanes—A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gas turbine blades and vanes in modern gas turbines are subjected to an extremely hostile environment. As such, sophisticated airfoil designs and advanced materials have been developed to meet stringent demands and at the same time, ensure increased performance. Despite the evolution of long-life airfoils, damage still occurs during service thus limiting the useful life of these components. Effective repair of after-service components provides life-cycle cost reduction of engines, and as well, contributes to the preservation of rare elements heavily used in modern superalloys. Among these methods developed in the last four decades for the refurbishment and joining of superalloy components, wide gap brazing (WGB) technology has been increasingly used in the field owing to its ability to repair difficult to weld alloys, to build up substantially damaged areas in one operation, and to provide unlimited compositional choices to enhance the properties of the repaired region. In this paper, the historical development of wide gap repair technology currently used in industry is reviewed. The microstructures and mechanical properties of different WGB joints are compared and discussed. Subsequently, different WGB processes employed at major OEMs are summarized. To conclude this review, future developments in WGB repair of newer generations of superalloys are explored.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".