A comparative assessment of thermal conductivity of functionally graded and equivalent non-graded ZrB2–B4C–SiC–LaB6 ultra-high-temperature ceramic composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, functionally graded ZrB2–B4C–SiC–LaB6 composite materials (FGMs) with potential applications in hypersonic aircraft thermal protection systems were fabricated using spark plasma sintering. A systematic study of the thermal conductivity of the FGM, the conductivity of respective FGM layers, and the equivalent non-graded composites, was performed from room temperature up to 450 °C. The results suggest that the thermal conductivity of the FGMs (in the through-thickness direction) and their equivalent non-graded composites ranged between 25 and 34.9 W/mK, which was ∼60 % less than ZrB2. While the overall thermal conductivity of the FGM and equivalent non-graded composites were similar, in the FGM, the topmost layer with high ZrB2-content displayed up to 245 % higher thermal conductivity than the bottom layer with high B4C content. A systematic comparison between experimentally determined conductivity and relevant thermal conductivity models was conducted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".