MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analysis of failure mechanisms of Oxide - Oxide ceramic matrix composites

2021· article· en· W3213105650 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Karthikeyan Ramachandran, Subhashree Leelavinodhan, Christian Antao, Antony Copti, Cantalapiedra Mauricio, Y. Jyothi, D.D. Jayaseelan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the European Ceramic Society · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvanced ceramic materials synthesis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKingston UniversitySwansea UniversityCMC Microsystems
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialUltimate tensile strengthCeramicOxideCeramic matrix compositeThermal shockElastic modulusModulusStress (linguistics)Metallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The failure mechanisms of Oxide-Oxide ceramic matrix composites AS-N610 were studied at both room temperature and high temperature using tensile and fatigue tests with and without lateral and laminar notches. The unnotched coupons had an average tensile strength of 423 MPa with elastic modulus of 97 GPa at room temperature showing a perfect elastic behaviour whereas the laminar notched samples shown similar strength of 425 MPa with elastic modulus (98 GPa) revealing pseudo-ductile behaviour. A reduction in tensile strength of the oxide ceramic matrix composites was observed at high temperatures. Thermal shock experiments revealed that the retained strength of the samples quenched from 1100 °C deteriorated by ∼10 % (395 ± 15 MPa). In all samples, fracture origin was observed on the mid-plane showing a higher degree of fiber pull-out, delamination and pseudo ductile behaviour. Finite element analysis confirmed higher stress concentration on the areas of failures.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.240
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations42
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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