MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401760788 · doi:10.1115/1.4066321

Comparing the Cavitation and Slurry Erosion Wear Resistance of 16Cr-5Ni Stainless Steel With 13Cr-4Ni CA6NM Stainless Steel

2024· article· en· W4401760788 on OpenAlexaff
J. Muñoz-Cubillos, O.A. Zambrano, J.J. Coronado, S.A. Rodríguez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Tribology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicErosion and Abrasive Machining
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlurryCavitation erosionMaterials scienceMetallurgyCavitationErosionComposite materialGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the current work, 16Cr-5Ni stainless martensitic cast steel was evaluated in cavitation and slurry erosion tests under different thermal aging treatments (TATs) using an ultrasonic vibratory cavitation apparatus and an in-house-designed jet slurry tribometer. The steel was homogenized at 1100 °C for 40 h and then thermal ageing was performed at 475 °C, 550 °C, and 625 °C for 4 h. The cavitation test results showed a lower wear-rate was obtained under TAT at 475 °C, followed by TAT at 550 °C, and a higher wear-rate was found under TAT at 625 °C. A good correlation was established between hardness and the maximum erosion rate in the cavitation results. In the slurry tests, the jet stream contained a fixed mass fraction of 1.25 wt% sand. The evaluated impingement angles were 45 deg and 90 deg, and better performance was obtained under TAT at 475 °C and TAT at 550 °C. The results for the thermal aging of 16Cr-5Ni were compared with those of traditional CA6NM (13Cr-4Ni) steel, which is widely used in the manufacturing of turbine runners. Under every condition evaluated, 16Cr-5Ni presented a cavitation erosion resistance value higher than that of CA6NM, and the slurry erosion resistance of both steels was very similar when 16Cr-5Ni under TAT at 475 °C or 550 °C was compared with CA6NM. Therefore, 16Cr-5Ni stainless martensitic cast steel could be another alternative to the promising results obtained for the manufacturing of turbine runners.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of TribologySame topicErosion and Abrasive MachiningFrench-language works237,207