MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902674801 · doi:10.1111/jace.16235

New liquid processing of oxide/oxide 3D wowen ceramic matrix composites

2018· article· en· W2902674801 on OpenAlexafffund
Alessandro Scola, Nicolas Eberling‐Fux, S. Turenne, Édu Ruiz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Ceramic Society · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvanced ceramic materials synthesis
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSafran
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialPorosityCompactionCeramicCompression moldingOxidePorosimetryMolding (decorative)MicrostructureCeramic matrix compositeSlurryPorous mediumMoldMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this work, a novel process named Flexible Injection Process ( FIP ) was developed to manufacture near‐net shape oxide/oxide composites reinforced with 3D interlock fibers. This process uses a flexible membrane to apply pressure to promote transverse impregnation of the fibrous reinforcement by a slurry charged with sub‐micron ceramic particles. Due to the through‐thickness filtration and compaction, FIP process is much faster than typical in‐plane impregnation and results in composites with lower residual porosity than those produced by traditional processes. In this study, a mathematical modeling of the impregnation in FIP was developed and compared to experimental infiltration experiments. Furthermore, ceramic matrix composites ( CMC s) produced by FIP were compared to composites manufactured via an established RTM ‐like process. The two molding processes were compared to determine if the different flow behaviors have an impact on material densification, porosity formation, mechanical properties, and manufacturing time. CMC s produced by both methods resulted in similar microstructures, as determined by mercury intrusion porosimetry, even if FIP composites were marginally less porous. Finally, a comparison of mechanical properties resulting from the two manufacturing methods has shown a similar behavior. Thus, the main advantages of FIP molding were identified to be the shorter cycle time and the robustness of the impregnation compared to RTM ‐like processes.

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 score0.000
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Ceramic SocietySame topicAdvanced ceramic materials synthesisFrench-language works237,207