Fracture Mechanics Analysis of a Single Crystal Turbine Blade
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Single crystal superalloy turbine blades exhibit anisotropic behaviors, and the stress at the fir-tree root often reaches the yield stress of the material when the turbine operates at the peak rotational speed and at the maximum temperature. The nonlinear behavior of the material character at these operating conditions poses a significant challenge to prediction of the blade behavior using the conventional linear elastic fracture mechanics approach. In this paper a fracture mechanics analysis was performed for a single crystal turbine blade using the J-integral concept. First of all, the elastic-perfectly plastic J-integral and CTOD was used to correlate with the fatigue crack growth rates obtained in a single crystal blade in [100] and [110] directions, with the [001] direction as the loading direction under typical service conditions. The weight function method was used to evaluate the stress intensity factor for a crack growing along the serration bottom of the blade fir-tree root under small-scale yielding conditions and the crack growth analysis was performed using the correlated fatigue crack growth data. In addition, crack growth simulations were also performed using the Zencrack software. The simulated crack growth profile was compared with the actual crack profile on the component.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".