A comparative evaluation of hot cracking susceptibility of new Ni-based superalloy G27 and Alloy 718
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hot cracking susceptibility of G27, a new superalloy designed for superior mechanical performance relative to Alloy 718, is compared to that of Alloy 718 by Varestraint testing. G27 is found to be more prone to solidification cracking than Alloy 718. Thermodynamic calculations show that G27 has a wider solidification temperature range (STR) and a higher crack susceptibility index (CSI) based on the steepest slope of the temperature vs. square root of the fraction solid (fs) curve at fs = 0.98. The higher B and Zr contents in G27, compared to Alloy 718, are likely to be the primary factor contributing to the higher cracking susceptibility, as these elements and their interactions show the strongest influence on the calculated STR and CSI compared to the other elements based on the Scheil simulation. Regarding heat-affected zone (HAZ) liquation cracking, G27 also shows greater susceptibility, likely due to its larger resolidification temperature range of HAZ intergranular liquid and a lower fraction of special boundaries compared to Alloy 718. Although G27 is more prone to hot cracking than Alloy 718, the difference in cracking response between the two is relatively modest, making G27 a promising alternative to Alloy 718 due to its superior mechanical properties.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".