MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390768909 · doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2024.01.080

Effect of processing parameters on the microhardness, shear, and tensile properties of layer-cladded Inconel 718

2024· article· en· W4390768909 on OpenAlexaff
Ruirui Dai, Zhenyang Xu, Qiang Gao, Marco Alfano, Junfeng Yuan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Research and Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceUltimate tensile strengthInconelIndentation hardnessComposite materialAlloyMetallurgyMicrostructure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inconel 718 alloy (IN718) is a popular choice for aerospace hot-end components due to its exceptional mechanical properties. This study investigates the impact of processing parameters (i.e., laser power, powder feeding rate, and scanning speed) on the microhardness, bond strength, and tensile strength of layer-cladded IN718. The results show that IN718 coatings have high microhardness (277.15 HV0.1), strong metallurgical bonding strength (33.97 kN), substantial yield strength (794.09 MPa), impressive ultimate tensile strength (1171.81 MPa), and notable elongation at failure (8.24 %) under laser power is 1.2 kW, powder feeding rate is 250 mg/s, and scanning speed is 4.5 mm/s. In particular, decreased laser energy input enhances microhardness, yield strength, and ultimate tensile strength but reduces bonding strength and elongation. This is attributed to improved Nb element segregation, the reduction of the Laves phase, and grain refinement. However, inadequate energy input leads to cracks and unmelted powder, negatively affecting metallurgical bonding strength. The shear and tensile fracture mechanism of the IN718 coatings is a typical ductile fracture with a microvoid accumulation fracture. The study can facilitate the fabrication of the IN718 coatings with the excellent mechanical properties and the applications in the engineering field.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials Research and TechnologySame topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207