MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888862058 · doi:10.5267/j.ijdns.2018.8.001

Surface integrity analysis of WEDMed specimen of Inconel 825 superalloy

2018· article· en· W2888862058 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pawan Kumar, Meenu Gupta, Vineet Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Data and Network Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Machining and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceSuperalloyInconelSurface integrityMetallurgyElectrical discharge machiningSurface roughnessMachiningPorosityIncoloyLayer (electronics)Composite materialMicrostructureCorrosionAlloy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

WEDM has evolved as a well admired technique for machining of difficult to cut materials such as superalloys.WEDM produces intricate shape and profiles of superalloys by thermoelectric erosion process.But as the process is carried out at very high temperature, the formation of heat affected zone, microcracks, recast layer, porosity etc. resulted in decreased surface integrity of machined specimen and becomes a big problem in WEDM.Discharge energy is the most influencing parameters that affect the surface integrity of WEDmed samples.In this study, Inconel 825, widely used in aerospace industry for making of combustor casing and turbine blades, was machined with WEDM under different discharge energy.The surface topography of the WEDMed specimen was carried cut by using SEM, XRD and EDX techniques.It was observed from the SEM micrograph that the machined surface includes cracks, pockmarks, craters, and pulled out material.The density and sice of craters increase with increase in discharge energy.Surface crack density of 0.0138 μm/μm 2 and recast layer thickness of 34.62μm was obtained for the machined sample at high value of discharge energy while at low value surface crack density of 0.0016 μm/μm 2 and recast layer thickness of 20.99μm was observed.EDX and XRD analysis of the specimen showed that an appreciable amount of elements viz.Fe (Ferrous), Cr (Chromium), Cu (Copper), Ni (Nickel) are migrated to the surface of the workpiece at high value of pulse on time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Data and Network ScienceSame topicAdvanced Machining and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207