A Comparison Study of High-Temperature Low-Cycle Fatigue Behaviour and Deformation Mechanisms Between Incoloy 800H and Its Weldments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The high-temperature low-cycle fatigue (LCF) behaviour of Incoloy 800H and its weldments with Haynes 230 and Inconel 82 filler metals, which were fabricated with the gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW) technique, was investigated and compared at 760 °C. The results revealed that the Incoloy 800H weldments showed lower fatigue lifetimes compared to the base metal. However, the weldments with the Haynes 230 filler metal demonstrated an improved fatigue life at the low strain amplitude compared to both Incoloy 800H and the weldment with the Inconel 82 filler metal. The Incoloy 800H base metal showed pronounced initial cyclic hardening with hardening factors increasing with strain amplitudes. In contrast, the weldments with Haynes 230 and Inconel 82 filler metals displayed short initial cyclic hardening and saturation stages, followed by long continuous cyclic softening. The fractography and microstructure after LCF the tests were characterized with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Transgranular fracture with multiple crack initiations was the predominant failure mode on the fracture surfaces of both Incoloy 800 base metal and the weldments. TEM examination revealed that planar dislocation slips at the low strain amplitude evolved to wavy slips, eventually forming a cell structure at high strain amplitudes in the Incoloy 800H material as the strain amplitudes increased. However, the weld metal exhibited a planar slip mode deformation mechanism regardless of cyclic strain amplitude in the weldment specimens. The differing cyclic hardening and softening behaviours between Incoloy 800H and its weldments are attributed to the higher strength of the weldment specimens compared to the base metal. In the Incoloy 800H base material specimens, the reverse strains during LCF created wavy dislocation structures, which could not fully recover due to the non-reversible nature of the microstructure. As a result, cells or subgrains formed within the microstructure once created. In contrast, the higher strength of the weld metal in the weldment specimens significantly suppressed the formation of wavy dislocation structures, and deformation primarily manifested as planar arrays of dislocations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".