Identification of the mechanical behaviour and damage mechanisms of a Nextel™610/alumina ceramic matrix composite subjected to tensile loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(x ± y % = 4 words → counted as 1 , z % = 2 words → counted as 1 → total: < 150 words) The present study was aimed at determining the mechanical behaviour of a weak matrix oxide/oxide CMC subjected to monotonic and cyclic tensile loading in fibre direction and in ±45° fibre orientation and at identifying the damage mechanisms. The material consisted of Nextel™610 fibres (8 HSW) embedded in an alumina matrix, with a fibre volume fraction of 49 % and 24 ± 2 % porosity. The average ultimate tensile stress and strain of the material were, respectively, 260 ± 37 MPa and 0.3 ± 0.09 % in fibre direction and 89 ± 19 MPa and 0.19 ± 0.07 % in ±45° fibre orientation. Interlaminar shear strength, evaluated through 3-point bending tests, was 20 ± 2 MPa. Various techniques were used for microstructural characterization of as-processed material. Two types of pores were differentiated within the material: micropores (13 ± 1 %) and macropores (12 ± 1 %). The latter appear to be the most 2 detrimental for the material, enhancing delamination. The damage mechanisms of the material were assessed through SEM examination and in situ tensile tests.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".