MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409667546 · doi:10.3390/met15050474

Effects of Composition on Melt Fillability and Impact Resistance of TiAl Alloys for Thin-Blade Turbine Wheels: Laboratory Predictions and Product Verification

2025· article· en· W4409667546 on OpenAlexaff
Toshimitsu Tetsui, Y. H. Lee, Thomas Vaubois, Pierre Sallot

Bibliographic record

VenueMetals · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIntermetallics and Advanced Alloy Properties
Canadian institutionsSafran Electronics (Canada)
FundersJapan Science and Technology Agency
KeywordsBlade (archaeology)Impact resistanceTurbine bladeProduct (mathematics)Materials scienceTurbineComposition (language)MetallurgyResistance (ecology)Mechanical engineeringEngineeringComposite materialMathematicsArtGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scaling up the production of TiAl turbine wheels for passenger car turbochargers requires the fabrication of thin blades that are similar to those of nickel-based superalloys. To achieve this, the molten metal fillability and impact resistance of thin blades must be improved. In this study, the effects of composition on these properties are predicted using simple laboratory experiments with binary, ternary, and practical alloys and are then verified with actual turbine wheels. The melt fillability of the turbine wheel blade is predicted using the amount of molten metal passing through an Al2O3-1%SiO2 mesh. The binary alloy exhibits the best fillability, which is reduced by the addition of Cr and Si. Charpy impact tests on as-cast materials at 25 and 850 °C show that the addition of Cr and Mn improves the impact resistance, but the addition of Nb, W, Mo and Si reduces it. Therefore, the molten metal fillability and/or impact resistance of practical TiAl alloys containing such additives owing to other requirements are low and require improvement for use in thin-blade turbine wheel applications.

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)0.000
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMetalsSame topicIntermetallics and Advanced Alloy PropertiesFrench-language works237,207