Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repair of after-service gas turbine hot section superalloy components provides considerable saving in life-cycle cost of engines. Whereas a number of methods have been used in the past to repair these superalloy components, wide gap brazing technology has provided a practical alternative to repair difficult-to-weld alloys with substantial damages. In this paper, the historical development of wide gap repair technologies is reviewed first. Subsequently, the recent development in utilizing vertically laminated structure to repair large and deep gap (up to 16 mm) in one brazing cycle will be discussed. The microstructure resulted from this repair scheme will be evaluated and compared to conventional wide gap braze with slurry and that of LPM™ process. It is observed that in conventional wide gap brazing with premixed slurry, the presence of intermetallic compounds can be effectively reduced by reducing the ratio of braze alloy to gap filler which however, also contributes to the increased occurrence of macroscopic voids in the wide gap joint. The LPM™ method, on the other hand, can achieve a macroscopically void-free repair of gap (up to 6 mm) and minimize the formation of intermetallics. By using a vertically laminated repair scheme it is shown that the process is able to repair a deeper gap (up to 16 mm) with no macroscopic defects and reduced intermetallic compounds.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".