MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199906516 · doi:10.1115/gt2021-58851

Weldability and Properties of Newly Developed LW4280 High Gamma Prime Nickel Based Superalloy for 3D AM and Repair of Turbine Engine Components

2021· article· en· W3199906516 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre Gontcharov, Paul Lowden, Ashutosh Jena, Sunyong Kwon, Mathieu Brochu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceUltimate tensile strengthWeldabilitySuperalloyMetallurgyWeldingScanning electron microscopeComposite materialTensile testingMicrostructure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Chemical composition, structure, mechanical and oxidation properties of welds produced utilizing laser direct energy deposition process of a newly developed LW4280 welding powder will be presented. Crack-free and high-density specimens were fabricated for manufacturing standard and subsized tensile test samples as per ASTM E-8. Optical and scanning electron microscopy revealed the formation of epitaxial grain growth during solidification of the welding pool followed by precipitation of fine gamma prime phase during the reheating from the subsequent weld layers. A sub-solvus primary aging temperature determined using Thermo-Calc software followed by secondary aging resulted in precipitation of above 49% of cuboidal γ′ phase. Excellent ultimate tensile strength of 1310 MPa (190 ksi), 0.2% yield strength of 855 MPa (124 ksi), and elongation of 18.7% were measured at ambient temperature. At 926°C (1700°F), the tensile testing yielded of 579 MPa (84 ksi), 0.2% yield strength of 462 MPa (67 ksi), and elongation of 18.8%. Cyclic oxidation resistance of the LW4280 weld material at 1120°C (2048°F) was superior to Rene 80 and Mar M247 while slightly below Rene 142.

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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207