MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2306906977 · doi:10.1115/imece2015-50770

Multiscale Modeling of the Effect of Nanoscale Defects on Al2O3 Mechanical Behavior

2015· article· en· W2306906977 on OpenAlexafffund
Seyed Mohammad Mahdi Zamani, Vincent Iacobellis, Kamran Behdinan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvanced ceramic materials synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceUltimate tensile strengthBridging (networking)Finite element methodNanoscopic scaleComposite materialCrystal plasticityDeformation (meteorology)Hexagonal crystal systemCrystal (programming language)Crystal structureDeformation mechanismStructural engineeringPlasticityCrystallographyMicrostructureNanotechnologyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents a multiscale framework to simulate the effect of nanovoids on the mechanical response of α-Al2O3 at finite temperatures. The bridging cell method, which divides the system into three domains (atomistic, bridging and continuum) and incorporates a finite element method throughout the system, was performed for the simulations. Two important crystal orientations of basal and prismatic planes of α-Al2O3’s hexagonal crystal structure were selected. The simulations were conducted at room temperature, 300K, and fire temperature, 1400K, based on the variety of in-service temperatures alumina is being applied in. The results were compared with respect to deformation behavior, stress distribution and ultimate tensile strength. Results showed different failure mechanism and tensile strength for the two crystal orientations. In addition, the magnitude of stresses and material’s deformation were increased at higher temperatures, where the ultimate tensile strength slightly reduced.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced ceramic materials synthesisFrench-language works237,207