MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390587331 · doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2023.12.274

Strain-rate-dependent behavior of additively manufactured alumina ceramics: Characterization and mechanical testing

2024· article· en· W4390587331 on OpenAlexafffund
Zahra Zaiemyekeh, Haoyang Li, Dan L. Romanyk, James D. Hogan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Research and Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceIntergranular corrosionStrain rateComposite materialCeramicCompressive strengthFractographyStrain (injury)Grain sizeMicrostructure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study experimentally investigates the mechanical behavior of additively manufactured (AM) alumina ceramics by stereolithography technique. The AM alumina specimens with two different printing orientations (POs) are tested under quasi-static and dynamic loading rates. The material shows a quasi-static (i.e., a strain rate of 10−3 s−1) compressive strength of 1640.54 ± 99.33 MPa and 1494.25 ± 260.08 MPa for the PO1 and PO2, respectively, and a dynamic (i.e., a strain rate of 640-730 s−1) compressive strength of 3077.25 ± 174.07 MPa and 3107.33 ± 97.03 MPa for the PO1 and PO2, respectively, which are among the highest reported values for AM alumina due to the higher density and finer grain size. The strain-rate-dependent compressive strength of the material is slightly affected by the PO which is alleviated with the increase in strain rate from quasi-static to dynamic loading conditions. In contrast, the PO noticeably affects the macro-scale failure pattern. The fractography analysis shows the dominant contribution of the intergranular failure mechanism and a combination of intergranular and transgranular mechanisms under quasi-static and dynamic loading, respectively. The crack speed propagation is found to be 785 ± 174 m/s on average which is ∼ 68% less than that of conventional ones in the literature. The current AM alumina shows a hardness of 24.45 ± 0.88 GPa which is higher than that of the majority of other AM alumina. Overall, this study discusses the potentiality of using AM ceramics in engineering fields replacing the conventionally-made counterparts, and provides implications for designing better-performing AM ceramics.

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)0.001
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 score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials Research and TechnologySame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207