MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Damage evolution in thermal barrier coating under thermal gradient mechanical fatigue loading

2025· article· en· W4415641300 on OpenAlexaff
Emna Ben Romdhane, Vincent Maurel, Lara Mahfouz, Florent Coudon, Matthieu Rambaudon, Gérard Brabant, Basile Marchand, Vincent Guipont

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Fatigue · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSurface Treatment and Residual Stress
Canadian institutionsSafran Electronics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemperature gradientThermal barrier coatingStress (linguistics)ThermalStress relaxationToughnessDelamination (geology)Stress concentrationBlisters

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research aims to clarify the driving forces behind interfacial damage in thermal barrier coatings associated with buckling-driven delamination. Using an artificial interfacial defect processed by laser shock, thermomechanical fatigue loadings are investigated both with or without a through-thickness temperature gradient. In situ infrared imaging enables the tracking of further debonding, allowing assessment of the influence of complex loading conditions on the interfacial damage rate. Based on these findings, a clear ranking of the influence of thermomechanical fatigue parameters is established, including temperature, temperature gradient, cooling rate, strain level, and stress relaxation during dwell time at maximum temperature. A sensitivity analysis was carried out using a finite element method, considering temperature gradients and the realistic geometry of the blister. Through-thickness gradients were shown to increase the maximum stress intensity factors at the interface, driving monotonic damage of the interface. The interface temperature and the local strain amplitude govern the stress intensity factor amplitude and subsequent interfacial toughness decrease, driving fatigue damage of the interface. • Thermal barrier coatings with processed blisters undergo thermomechanical gradient fatigue tests. • Interfacial damage rate is monitored in situ by infra red thermography. • Through thickness gradients is observed to yield local ratchetting. • Thermal gradients and mechanical loadings drive interfacial monotonic damage. • Fatigue damage induces decrease in interfacial toughness.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.641
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 venueInternational Journal of FatigueSame topicSurface Treatment and Residual StressFrench-language works237,207