MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3169733973 · doi:10.31399/asm.cp.itsc2021p0307

Oxidation Behavior of Coating Alloy CoCrMoSi and CoCrMoNiSi in Superheated Steam at 800˚C

2021· article· en· W3169733973 on OpenAlexaff
Bingjie Xiao, Xiao Huang, Matthew Yao

Bibliographic record

VenueThermal spray · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh-Temperature Coating Behaviors
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOxideSpallationAlloyMaterials scienceInternal oxidationCoatingLayer (electronics)MetallurgyWeight changeLaves phaseChemical engineeringComposite materialIntermetallicMedicineWeight loss

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As steam power plants continue to move towards higher operating temperatures in order to improve efficiency, materials exposed to the working fluid are subjected to accelerated degradations in the forms of surface oxidation and reduced mechanical properties. In this study, the oxidation behavior of two cobalt base alloys, CoCrMoSi (T14) and CoCrNiMoSi (T19), was evaluated in superheated steam (SHS, 0.1MPa) at 800 °C for up to 500 hours. After the exposure, both T14 and T19 alloys experienced weight gain caused by oxidation. Visual observation and SEM surface analysis revealed that T19 had greater extent of surface oxide spallation than that seen on T14. From the cross-sectional evaluation, however, a thin, adherent oxide layer was found to have formed on T19. T14 in fact had suffered from excessive internal oxidation and the surface oxide was uneven. Based on the results obtained so far, it is believed that the finer Laves phase combined with greater amount of Cr in alloy T19 have enabled the formation of a protective oxide layer and thus reduced the extent of internal oxidation. Due to the extensive oxidation ingress along the large Laves phase, it is concluded that T14 is not suitable for applications in SHS at 800 °C.

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 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 score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.222
Teacher spread0.212 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThermal spraySame topicHigh-Temperature Coating BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207