MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010228412 · doi:10.22215/etd/2020-13879

Oxidation Resistance of Additively Manufactured Inconel 718 for Gas Turbine Applications

2020· dissertation· en· W3010228412 on OpenAlexaff
Adria Barcelo Singh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInconelSuperalloyChromiaMicrostructureMaterials scienceMetallurgyOxideLayer (electronics)AlloySubstrate (aquarium)Gas turbinesInconel 625Composite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research investigates the oxidation behaviour of an additively manufactured (AM) superalloy Inconel 718 and compares its oxidation performance to that of wrought Inconel 718. A plasma arc additive manufacturing process was developed and utilized to manufacture the AM specimens. All specimens were subjected to exposures at 800C and 900C. The oxidized specimens were analysed using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS). Both surface oxide and cross-section microstructure were examined, in addition to microstructure changes in the substrate. The results showed that the two alloys had similar weight changes over the periods of 50-400 hours at both temperatures. However, the microstructure changes on the surface and in the substrate were different. The thickness of the chromia oxide scale formed on AM Inconel 718 was consistently thinner than that on the wrought specimens. There was also more internal oxidation on the AM specimens, particularly after longer exposure at high temperature. In addition, the formation of a subscale Nb-rich layer was observed between outer chromia and substrate on all specimens, except on the AM specimens exposed to 800C for 100 hours, this layer contributed to the integrity of the chromia oxide layer.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.227
Teacher spread0.217 · 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.

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207