A Comparison of Weldability, Structure, and Mechanical Properties of CM64 and Tribaloy T-800 Welds for Hard-Facing of Turbine Blades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, the weldability, microstructure, and tensile properties of CM64 and Tribaloy T-800 (T800) cobalt-based hard-facing materials were studied. Successful CM64 hard-facing could be achieved at ambient temperature using manual gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW-MA). It was shown that T800 welded at ambient temperature was prone to cold cracking due to a combination of low ductility with high welding stresses that limited the accommodation of residual stresses by plastic deformation within the weld beads. Sound T800 welds of various geometries and sizes were produced on cobalt- and nickel-based X-40 and Haynes 230 superalloys, respectively, using GTAW-MA when preheating above 900 °C was used. Microstructural analyses on the sound CM64 and T800 welds were performed using optical and electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction. The distribution of elements and phases in each alloy was evaluated and revealed the epitaxial dendritic structure with the Cr–W–Si-based phase in the interdendritic region in CM64 welds compared with petal-like and equiaxed hard Mo–Co–Si-based dendrites and fine particles in T800. Tensile testing from room temperature up to 1093 °C was performed on both alloys. T800 welds possessed lower ultimate tensile strengths and elongations in this temperature range when compared with the CM64 alloy. Recommendations for hard-facing of turbine engine components were provided.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".