MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413217007 · doi:10.1115/gt2025-151975

Assessing Refractory High Entropy Alloys for Potential High Temperature Applications

2025· article· en· W4413217007 on OpenAlexaff
Aron Mohammadi, J. Tsang, Xiao Huang, Richard Kearsey

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh Entropy Alloys Studies
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuperalloyRefractory metalsMaterials scienceAlloyNiobiumMetallurgyTungstenDuctility (Earth science)TantalumHigh entropy alloysCreep

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As the demand for higher turbine inlet temperatures increases, there is an ever increasing need to develop new materials capable of operating in these high temperature environments. Traditionally superalloys, Nickel or Cobalt-based, have been used in the hot sections of gas turbine engine. However, as operational temperatures begin encroaching on the upper temperature limits of superalloys, new classes of materials are being explored as potential replacements. One such class of materials is the High Entropy Alloy, a metal alloy composed of four or more principal alloying elements. This study will present the results from compression testing at room and elevated temperatures of high entropy alloys developed for potential high temperature applications. These alloys were specifically designed using refractory elements with high melting temperatures, such as tungsten and tantalum, as major components of its composition to increase the melting temperature of the resultant alloy, with the objective to elevate its potential operational envelope, while also including relatively soft elements, such as niobium, to ensure the alloys ductility. These results will be compared to yield strengths reported for existing superalloys, as well as other high entropy alloys, from literature. Additionally, this work will include a discussion of the difficulties observed during testing due to the alloy’s unique properties/behavior and their implications on the tested materials’ practicality. Some notable difficulties include the difficulty in manufacturing test coupons, and excessive oxidation resulting in early sample failure for high temperature tests conducted outside of a vacuum.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHigh Entropy Alloys StudiesFrench-language works237,207