Multiphysics Modeling of Thermo-Viscoelastic Damage in Functionally Graded Abradable Coatings with Probabilistic Geometric Tolerance Analysis

Amjad El-Mellouhi; Fedwa El-Mellouhi; Khaled Dhibi; Yassine Adjal

Multiphysics Modeling of Thermo-Viscoelastic Damage in Functionally Graded Abradable Coatings with Probabilistic Geometric Tolerance Analysis

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that symmetric geometric tolerances, propagated through a coupled thermo-viscoelastic–damage solver, produce a strongly right-skewed damage distribution with an exceedance probability of 0.076 for the modulated gradient…

desk verdict A carefully bounded and unusually honest integrated modeling paper; the central exceedance-ordering result is internally consistent, and the weakest link is the thin homogenization margin that the authors themselves flag. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08116 v1 pith:6ZYL4E45 submitted 2026-08-08 cond-mat.mes-hall physics.comp-ph

Amjad El-Mellouhi , Yassine Adjal , Khaled Dhibi , Fedwa El-Mellouhi This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hallphysics.comp-ph

keywords abradablecoatingsfunctionallygradedmaterialsthermo-viscoelasticitydamageevolutiongeometrictolerancesMonteCarlosimulationreliabilityanalysisturbinelabyrinthseals

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that the durability risk of abradable coatings in turbine labyrinth seals cannot be read off from a deterministic analysis of the nominal geometry. It solves a one-dimensional through-thickness coating column in which temperature-dependent viscoelastic relaxation, coating–substrate thermal mismatch, progressive scalar damage, and a periodically modulated stiffness gradient interact within a single solver, and then propagates symmetric Gaussian geometric tolerances through that solver with Monte Carlo sampling. The central result is a strongly right-skewed end-of-cycle damage distribution: the mean is 0.034 and the median 0.020, yet 7.6% of the 800 realizations exceed the declared classification level $D_{\mathrm{crit}}=0.10$, against 3.5% for the monotonic gradient. That exceedance mass is a property of the distribution, not of any single realization, so it cannot be obtained from a nominal-geometry calculation; the study presents itself as a numerically verified generic benchmark, with experimental validation deferred.

What carries the argument

Four objects carry the argument. (i) The Prony-series relaxation modulus $E(t,T)=E_\infty(T)+\sum_{m=1}^{M_p}E_m(T)\exp(-t/\tau_m)$ supplies temperature-dependent viscoelastic memory, with the mechanical strain built from the decomposition $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{mech}}(z,t)=\varepsilon_{\mathrm{app}}(t)-\varepsilon_{\mathrm{mis}}(z,t)$. (ii) The stress-driven scalar damage law $dD/dt = A\langle \sigma_{\mathrm{eq}}/\sigma_{\mathrm{crit}}-1\rangle^{m_d}(1-D)^{n_d}$ degrades stiffness through $E_{\mathrm{eff}}=(1-D)E_i(z,T)$; because the exponent $n_d$ is positive, the law saturates instead of producing rupture, so $D_{\mathrm{crit}}$ is a declared classification level rather than a failure criterion. (iii) The stiffness field $E_i(z,T)=E_{\mathrm{met}}(T)+(E_{\mathrm{cer}}(T)-E_{\mathrm{met}}(T))(z/h)^{n_g}+\Delta E_g\sin(2\pi z/\lambda_g)$ superimposes sinusoidal deposition banding ($\lambda_g=0.4$ mm, five periods across the 2 mm coating) on the functional gradient; the crests of this sine create the localized stress concentrations. (iv) The only randomized input is the tolerance map $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{app}}^0(\delta u)=\varepsilon_{\mathrm{app}}^0+(1/L_{\mathrm{eff}})\sum_j \delta u_j$ with $\delta u_j\sim \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_u^2)$, which perturbs the mechanical excitation symmetrically. The Macaulay-bracket threshold in the damage law is what turns that symmetric perturbation into a strongly right-skewed damage tail.

What would settle it

Make coated coupons with controlled pass-group banding and a known geometric tolerance band, subject them to the same thermal and strain cycle, and map the end-of-cycle through-thickness damage: the model predicts damage concentrated in the outer modulation bands near $\zeta \approx 0.75$ and $\zeta \approx 0.96$ with an exceedance probability near 0.076 at a 10% stiffness-loss level, so a clear disagreement in the location or frequency of that tail would indicate the homogenized-property assumption or the damage calibration is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the joint effect of deposition-induced periodic property modulation and geometric tolerances is only visible when both are propagated through the coupled nonlinear solver. With a symmetric Gaussian tolerance input $\delta u_j \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_u^2)$, $\sigma_u=0.02$ mm, mapped onto the prescribed strain amplitude through $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{app}}^0(\delta u)=\varepsilon_{\mathrm{app}}^0 + (1/L_{\mathrm{eff}})\sum_j \delta u_j$, the end-of-cycle damage distribution becomes strongly right-skewed: mean 0.034, median 0.020, with $P_e=0.076$ (95% Wilson interval $[0.060,0.097]$, 61 of 800 realizations) exceeding $D_{\mathrm{crit}}=0.10$ for the modulated gradient, versus $P_e=0.035$ for the monotonic gradient. The mechanism is the threshold activation in the damage law: realizations whose local equivalent stress crosses $\sigma_{\mathrm{crit}}$ begin to accumulate damage, and the Macaulay bracket makes the response a kink in the random input, so the symmetric input is not measure-preserving. The paper therefore asserts that deterministic analysis at nominal geometry cannot reproduce the exceedance tail, and that it is this tail, not the ensemble mean, that governs reliability.

Load-bearing premise

The entire comparison rests on treating each 50-micrometre slice of a porous, splat-built coating as a uniform material with averaged properties, even though the largest pores and splat features inside a slice can be nearly as large as the slice itself; if that averaging is wrong, the stress peaks at the modulation crests and the damage tail they produce could be artifacts of the model rather than real coating behavior.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A deterministic analysis at nominal geometry systematically understates damage risk, because the exceedance tail that governs reliability is produced by tolerance-induced dispersion acting through the coupled solver.
Deposition-induced periodic modulation roughly doubles the classification-level exceedance probability compared with a monotonic gradient ($P_e=0.076$ versus $0.035$), so process parameters controlling modulation amplitude and wavelength belong in reliability assessments.
The most damage-prone region is not the free surface but the modulation-controlled bands nearest the interface ($\zeta \approx 0.75$ and $\zeta \approx 0.96$), which identifies where non-destructive inspection should be prioritized.
Damage-rate calibration matters for the tail: a ±20% perturbation of the rate coefficient $A$ moves $P_e$ from 0.076 to 0.056 and 0.101, so the exceedance statistic is a sensitive reliability target.
Tolerance bands can be set reliability-based by re-running the Monte Carlo pipeline under progressively tighter tolerances and reading off the band that meets a target exceedance probability.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper: any failure or damage criterion with a hard activation threshold will generically amplify symmetric manufacturing noise into a skewed tail, so the same right-skewed exceedance structure should appear in fatigue, delamination, or fracture screening of other graded and layered coatings.
Beyond the paper: because the solver is one-dimensional and the modulation is a single harmonic, the stress-concentration mechanism is essentially a series stack of stiff and compliant strata; a two-layer analytical estimate of the crest amplification could serve as a fast screening tool before full Monte Carlo simulation.
Beyond the paper: a decisive signature of the mechanism is depth localization, damage concentrated near $\zeta \approx 0.75$ and $\zeta \approx 0.96$ rather than at the free surface, so cross-sectional microscopy or ultrasonic mapping of a coupon with controlled pass-group banding could test the mechanism without full life testing.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a solid, carefully scoped computational study. The new thing is not any single ingredient—Prony viscoelasticity, Kachanov-Lemaitre damage, FGM grading, and Monte Carlo tolerance propagation are all established—but their integration in one pipeline, with periodic deposition modulation embedded in the property field and tolerances propagated through the full solver. The paper earns its keep on verification: four closed-form unit tests, refinement studies with adopted-point errors reported (4.71% in D_max at M=40), nested Monte Carlo convergence with Wilson intervals, and a hold-out-validated response surface. The authors also state plainly what the model is not: no contact, no friction, no wear, prescribed histories, a declared benchmark rather than an identified material model. That honesty is real and rare. The central qualitative claim holds up on the equations. Since alpha_c is uniform, epsilon_mech is uniform through the thickness, so stress tracks the local modulus; the crest nearest the interface is the hot spot; and the symmetric Gaussian input maps through the Macaulay bracket into a right-skewed damage tail. The P_e ordering (0.076 vs 0.035) is an emergent output, not a fitted value. I checked the traceability: 61/800 with Wilson interval [0.060,0.097], and the calibration target D=0.45 reproduced to 1% via the closed form of Eq. (13). The sensitivity recomputation of P_e under +/-20% variation in A is a nice touch. Soft spots, in proportion. The load-bearing weakness is the homogenized-continuum representation: h/M=50 um is only 1.7x the coarse end of the feature range (30 um), and the paper admits a subdomain is not a classical deterministic REV. The stress-test note is right that apparent-property variance within a 50 um window is unquantified, so the physical transferability of the P_e comparison is untested. That is a correctness risk for the screening implications, not a flaw in the solver's internal logic. The damage-law calibration is underdetermined in principle—three parameters fit to one target stiffness-loss value—although the closed-form inversion is internally consistent and the sensitivity is reported. Minor issues: the monotonic P_e=0.035 is quoted without a confidence interval, the damage parameters are assumed temperature-independent up to 400 C with only a benchmark-status disclaimer, and the surrogate's D_max R^2 of 0.99184 hides tail error—though the paper explicitly uses Monte Carlo for P_e and the surrogate only for screening. Who this is for: modelers doing reliability-oriented screening of graded and multilayer coatings, and anyone building verification templates for coupled damage solvers. It deserves a serious referee. I would accept it for review with revisions focused on quantifying the apparent-property variance and adding an interval for the monotonic P_e.

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a one-dimensional through-thickness multiphysics solver for thermo-viscoelastic damage in functionally graded abradable coatings, coupling a Prony-series viscoelastic model, thermal eigenstrain and coating-substrate mismatch, a saturating scalar damage law, a sinusoidally modulated functional gradient, and Monte Carlo propagation of geometric tolerances. The loading is a declared benchmark cycle with a fully specified strain waveform, and all material, discretization, and probabilistic parameters are tabulated with declared statuses. The solver is verified through spatial and temporal refinement, four closed-form unit tests, nested Monte Carlo convergence with Wilson intervals, and a hold-out-validated polynomial response surface. The main reported results are that the periodically modulated gradient localizes maximum stress near the coating-substrate interface and produces a right-skewed end-of-cycle damage distribution with exceedance probability P_e=0.076 at D_crit=0.10, versus 0.035 for the monotonic gradient, an ordering that the authors argue cannot be captured by a deterministic nominal-geometry analysis.

Significance. As a scoped, numerically verified benchmark, the paper is a useful contribution to reliability-oriented screening of graded coating architectures. Its main strengths are the unusually explicit treatment of model scope (Table 2), the complete tabulation of parameters and their epistemic status (Table 1), the closed-form calibration check via Eq. (13), the traceable verification record (Tables 3 and 4, Fig. 8), and the honest separation of numerical verification from experimental validation. The central computational insight, that a symmetric Gaussian tolerance input becomes an asymmetric damage tail because of the thresholded Macaulay-bracket kinetics of Eq. (8), is internally consistent and clearly explained. The main caveat, as the paper itself acknowledges in Sections 3.5 and 6.1, is that the physical transferability of the P_e comparison rests on the homogenized-continuum representation of a coating microstructure whose feature size is only marginally smaller than the subdomain size; this limits the practical screening implications but does not undermine the internal mathematical claim.

minor comments (6)

[§3.1.1] The text contains an unresolved placeholder "Table??" immediately before the parameter discussion; this should be corrected to a proper Table 1 reference.
[§4.4, §5.2] The monotonic-gradient exceedance probability P_e=0.035 is quoted without the corresponding exceedance count or Wilson interval that are provided for the modulated case; for a fully transparent comparison, the same sampling statistics should be reported for both architectures.
[§4.1, §5.2] The reported spatial discretization error of 4.71% in D_max at the adopted M=40 is not propagated into the exceedance probability P_e. The manuscript should state explicitly that P_e is reported with sampling uncertainty only, and that discretization and model-form uncertainty are not included, or provide a sensitivity estimate for P_e under spatial refinement.
[Eq. (14), Table 1] The effective compliance length L_eff=75 mm is a declared benchmark quantity that directly controls the magnitude of the strain perturbation and therefore the value of P_e. A one-sentence sensitivity statement or a small parametric scan showing how P_e varies with L_eff (or with sigma_u) would substantially strengthen the reliability interpretations.
[§5.2] The wording "outermost crest" is easily confused with the earlier description of the same feature as the crest closest to the interface; consistent nomenclature such as "the crest nearest the substrate" should be used throughout.
[§5.3, Fig. 11] The phrase "mean damage" in the comparison of the two trajectories should be defined precisely as the ensemble mean of the through-thickness maximum damage at end of cycle, since it coincides with the mean of the D_max distribution in Fig. 10a and is not a spatial average over the coating thickness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the damage-exceedance outputs are Monte Carlo statistics from an externally calibrated forward model, and the paper's own statements expose the threshold mechanism rather than hiding it.

full rationale

The claimed outputs are not equivalent to the model inputs. The damage parameters (A, m_d, n_d, sigma_crit) are anchored to the external elevated-temperature data of Bertuol et al. [3]; the only self-citation, [26], appears in a non-load-bearing perspective paragraph about future data-driven calibration and supports no central result. The exceedance probability P_e = 0.076 (61/800 with a Wilson interval) is a Monte Carlo statistic obtained by propagating the symmetric Gaussian tolerance through Eq. (14), the thermo-viscoelastic convolution of Eq. (7), and the saturating damage law of Eq. (8); no value of P_e is fitted to the calibration target (D = 0.45 at 60 s) or to the tolerance data. The paper explicitly identifies the mechanism producing the right skew: 'a symmetric geometric input enters the solver as a symmetric perturbation of the prescribed strain amplitude and is rendered asymmetric only by the threshold activation of Eq. (8).' This makes the qualitative skew a transparent consequence of the Macaulay bracket, not a hidden circular step. The homogenized-REV limitation of Section 3.5, while a genuine physical-transferability risk (h/M = 50 micrometers is only 1.7 times the coarse feature size, and apparent-property variance is not quantified), is a modeling assumption stated as a limitation, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the paper repeatedly labels the case a declared generic benchmark and the 400 degrees Celsius results as model-based extrapolation rather than validated prediction. Hence no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger lists the parameters that were fitted or chosen by hand and the assumptions the central comparison rests on. Many quantities are declared benchmark values in Table 1, and the paper is transparent about this. The damage law has three fitted exponents and a threshold anchored to one published degradation target, the tolerance map uses an assumed Gaussian and an effective compliance length, and the REV/homogenization assumption has a thin margin. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (12)

A (damage rate coefficient) = 0.12 s^-1
Fitted to the published Bertuol [3] stiffness-loss target D=0.45 after 60 s at 300 degree C (Section 4.3). Directly scales all damage outputs and the exceedance probability; a +/-20% perturbation changes P_e from 0.076 to 0.056-0.101.
m_d (overstress exponent) = 2.1
Fitted together with A and n_d to the same target; the identification appears underdetermined by a single scalar target, and no sensitivity analysis is given for m_d.
n_d (saturation exponent) = 3.2
Fitted with A and m_d; controls the saturating form of Eq. (8). The positive exponent is a deliberate modeling choice, not comparable to classical creep-rupture exponents.
sigma_crit (critical stress threshold) = 80 MPa
Anchored on the onset of measurable degradation in the same dataset; held constant through the graded thickness, so heterogeneity enters only through the stress field.
epsilon_0^app (applied strain amplitude) = 2.11e-3
Chosen so the peak stress falls within the stress range where the damage parameters were identified (Section 3.1.3); the resulting stress level is a designed benchmark property, not a prediction.
L_eff (effective compliance length) = 75 mm
Reduced-order parameter mapping geometric deviations to the applied strain perturbation in Eq. (14); a declared benchmark value not derived from stage measurements.
sigma_u (tolerance standard deviation) = 0.02 mm
Assumed Gaussian manufacturing/assembly tolerance for all three deviation components; no process data are given to support the value or the distribution.
DeltaE_g (modulation amplitude) = 2.0 GPa
Deposition-induced stiffness contrast; declared benchmark value, not identified from nanoindentation or ultrasonic measurements in this study.
lambda_g (modulation wavelength) = 0.4 mm
Assumed pass-group thickness; declared benchmark value; five periods across the 2 mm coating.
D_crit (classification level) = 0.10
Declared screening threshold for a 10% stiffness loss; not a measured material property or rupture criterion. P_e is reported as a function of this level, which mitigates the arbitrariness.
n_g (gradient exponent) = 2.0
Design choice; sensitivity index is only 0.02, so the main results are not sensitive to it.
Prony weights and relaxation times (E_inf=0.60E_i, E_1:3=0.20/0.12/0.08E_i, tau=5/50/500 s) = see Table 1
Literature/calibration benchmark values at 20-400 degree C; relaxation times are held constant with temperature (no shift factor), so the model is not thermorheologically simple and requires identification for a specific coating.

assumptions (8)

domain assumption Linear thermo-viscoelasticity with a Prony-series relaxation modulus and Boltzmann superposition (Eqs. (3) and (7)).
Standard rheological representation for coatings; no time-temperature shift factor is applied. Invoked in Section 3.4.
ad hoc to paper Strain decomposition into mechanical and thermal parts, with the coating-substrate mismatch given by Eq. (5) and combined with the prescribed approach strain into a single 1D mechanical strain (Eq. (6)).
The reduced-order model merges a through-thickness compression and an in-plane biaxial mismatch into one scalar strain; the paper states this is a 1D surrogate, not a complete thermoelastic constraint model (Section 3.4).
domain assumption Homogenized effective properties for each subdomain represent the sprayed microstructure (REV assumption).
The paper notes h/M=50 micrometers exceeds the coarse feature size by only 1.7x, so subdomains are not deterministic REVs; this underpins the modulation-induced stress hot spots (Section 3.5).
domain assumption Scalar isotropic damage with saturating Kachanov-Lemaitre kinetics (positive exponent n_d, Eq. (8)).
Phenomenological stiffness-loss descriptor; D approaches 1 only asymptotically, so no rupture time is predicted; used only for macroscopic stiffness degradation (Sections 3.5 and 6.1).
ad hoc to paper Geometric tolerances are independent, zero-mean Gaussian variables that perturb only the applied strain amplitude via Eq. (14), while coating thickness and the property field remain fixed.
Specific uncertainty map of this study; no process measurements support the Gaussian assumption or the equal-weight additive model (Section 4.4).
domain assumption Temperature is prescribed per subdomain and uniform within it; heat conduction and the thermal-barrier role of porosity are not solved.
Table 2 lists temperature as an input; this excludes porosity-induced thermal effects (Sections 3.1.3 and 6.1).
domain assumption The substrate enters only as a kinematic thermal-expansion constraint; no substrate modulus, thickness, or force balance is solved.
The solver contains no substrate mechanics beyond Eq. (5) (Section 3.1.2).
ad hoc to paper Periodic microstructural modulation is a single harmonic of wavelength lambda_g and amplitude DeltaE_g (Eq. (10)).
The idealization retains only the dominant Fourier component of deposition banding; parameters are declared benchmark values (Sections 3.6 and 6.1).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multiphysics Modeling of Thermo-Viscoelastic Damage in Functionally Graded Abradable Coatings with Probabilistic Geometric Tolerance Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6ZYL4E45

@misc{pith2026260808116,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multiphysics Modeling of Thermo-Viscoelastic Damage in Functionally Graded Abradable Coatings with Probabilistic Geometric Tolerance Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6ZYL4E45}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08116}
}

read the original abstract

In aircraft engines, functionally graded abradable coatings are used to control blade-tip clearance, but their durability is governed by effects that are often treated separately in existing models, including temperature-dependent viscoelastic softening, progressive damage, deposition-induced microstructural modulation, and geometric tolerances. This study integrates these effects within a unified multiphysics--probabilistic framework. The solved domain is a local through-thickness coating column driven by prescribed strain and temperature histories that include thermal eigenstrain and coating--substrate expansion mismatch. The results show that periodic property modulation increases end-of-cycle damage relative to the monotonic gradient and concentrates the maximum stress within a localized modulation crest. Propagating symmetric geometric tolerances through the coupled solver produces a strongly right-skewed damage distribution and a higher classification-level exceedance probability for the modulated gradient than for the monotonic gradient. This exceedance behavior cannot be obtained from a deterministic analysis performed at nominal geometry. The implementation is verified through spatial and temporal refinement, closed-form unit tests, nested Monte Carlo convergence with Wilson confidence intervals, and a hold-out-validated polynomial response surface. Numerical verification is clearly distinguished from experimental validation, and the simulated case is presented as a generic benchmark rather than an identified material model. The framework links deposition parameters and tolerance bands to damage-exceedance risk, supporting reliability-oriented screening of graded and multilayer coating systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

Journal of thermal spray technology31(1), 307–314 (2022)

Pathak, P., Dzhurinskiy, D., Elkin, A., Shornikov, P., Dautov, S., Ivanov, V.: Enhanced high-temperature ysz-polyester abradable honeycomb seal structures. Journal of thermal spray technology31(1), 307–314 (2022)

work page 2022
[2]

Pro- ceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science238(5), 1453–1465 (2024)

Baillieu, A., Parody, A., Rahimov, E., Garcia Panizo, J., Marshall, M.: In situ measurements of thermal-mechanical wear in blade-abradable liner contacts. Pro- ceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science238(5), 1453–1465 (2024)

work page 2024
[3]

Aerospace Science and Technology, 110737 (2025)

Bertuol, K., Arendarchuck, B., Rivadeneira, F., Nolte, L., Lehner, M., Barnett, B., Moreau, C., Stoyanov, P.: Assessment of alsi-based abradable coatings with hbn and mocr additives for aerospace conditions: A novel high-temperature rig approach. Aerospace Science and Technology, 110737 (2025)

work page 2025
[4]

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power138(6), 062501 (2016)

Pychynski, T., H¨ ofler, C., Bauer, H.-J.: Experimental study on the friction contact between a labyrinth seal fin and a honeycomb stator. Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power138(6), 062501 (2016)

work page 2016
[5]

Polymer Engineering & Science9(4), 295–310 (1969)

Schapery, R.A.: On the characterization of nonlinear viscoelastic materials. Polymer Engineering & Science9(4), 295–310 (1969)

work page 1969
[6]

Computational mechanics18(3), 182–191 (1996)

Lai, J., Bakker, A.: 3-d schapery representation for non-linear viscoelasticity and finite element implementation. Computational mechanics18(3), 182–191 (1996)

work page 1996
[7]

Springer, New York (2008)

Brinson, H.F., Brinson, L.C.: Polymer Engineering Science and Viscoelas- ticity: An Introduction. Springer, New York (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-0-387-73861-1

work page 2008
[8]

Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2005)

Lemaitre, J., Desmorat, R.: Engineering Damage Mechanics: Ductile, Creep, Fatigue and Brittle Failures. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2005)

work page 2005

Show all 29 references

[9]

Mechanics of Elastic Stability, vol

Kachanov, L.M.: Introduction to Continuum Damage Mechanics. Mechanics of Elastic Stability, vol. 10. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht (1986). https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1957-5

1986 doi
[10]

Hilton, H.H.: Elastic and viscoelastic poisson’s ratios: the theoretical mechanics perspective. Mater. Sci. Appl8(4), 291–332 (2017)

2017
[11]

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2000)

Wineman, A.S., Rajagopal, K.R.: Mechanical Response of Polymers: An Intro- duction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2000)

2000
[12]

Journal of The 37 Electrochemical Society108(7), 142–143 (1961)

Ferry, J.D., Myers, H.S.: Viscoelastic properties of polymers. Journal of The 37 Electrochemical Society108(7), 142–143 (1961)

1961
[13]

Extreme Materials1(4), 33–58 (2025)

Wang, L., Wang, S., Chen, G., Zou, Y., Yu, S., Xie, E., Zhao, Q., Ye, Z., Ouyang, J., Wang, Y.,et al.: Ceramic-based abradable sealing coatings for advanced aero- engines: Materials design, structural strategies, and multifunctional performance. Extreme Materials1(4), 33–58 (2025)

2025
[14]

Suresh and A

Delfosse, D.: Fundamentals of Functionally Graded Materials— S. Suresh and A. Mortensen IOM Communications Ltd, 1998 ISBN: 1-86125-063-0. Elsevier (1998)

1998
[15]

(eds.): Functionally Graded Materials: Design, Processing and Applications

Miyamoto, Y., Kaysser, W.A., Rabin, B.H., Kawasaki, A., Ford, R.G. (eds.): Functionally Graded Materials: Design, Processing and Applications. Materials Technology Series, vol. 5. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (1999). https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5301-4

1999 doi
[16]

Coatings15(10), 1216 (2025)

Bertuol, K., Arendarchuck, B.E., Stoyanov, P.: An overview of metallic abradable coatings in gas turbine engines. Coatings15(10), 1216 (2025)

2025
[17]

ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces16(8), 10646–10660 (2024)

Lokachari, S., Leng, K., Rincon Romero, A., Curry, N., Brewster, G., Norton, A., Hussain, T.: Processing–microstructure–properties of columns in thermal bar- rier coatings: a study of thermo-chemico-mechanical durability. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces16(8), 10646–10660 (2024)

2024
[18]

(No Title) (2000)

Haldar, A., Mahadevan, S.: Probability, reliability and statistical methods in engineering design. (No Title) (2000)

2000
[19]

International Journal of Solids and Structures48(21), 3020–3031 (2011)

Yıldırım, B., Kutlu, ¨O., Kadıo˘ glu, S.: Periodic crack problem for a function- ally graded half-plane an analytic solution. International Journal of Solids and Structures48(21), 3020–3031 (2011)

2011
[20]

Surface and Coatings Technology423, 127586 (2021)

Chen, Z., Lou, M., Geng, D., Xu, Y.X., Wang, Q., Zheng, J., Zhu, R., Chen, Y., Kim, K.H.: Effect of the modulation geometry on mechanical and tribo- logical properties of tisin/tialn nano-multilayer coatings. Surface and Coatings Technology423, 127586 (2021)

2021
[21]

Energies14(20), 6586 (2021)

Val, D.V., Chernin, L., Yurchenko, D.: Updatable probabilistic evaluation of fail- ure rates of mechanical components in power take-off systems of tidal stream turbines. Energies14(20), 6586 (2021)

2021
[22]

John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1996)

Ditlevsen, O., Madsen, H.O.: Structural Reliability Methods. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1996)

1996
[23]

Melchers, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 1999, ISBN 0 4719 8771 9

Rackwitz, R.: Structural Reliability—Analysis and Prediction: R. Melchers, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 1999, ISBN 0 4719 8771 9. Elsevier (2001)

2001
[24]

Relia- bility engineering & system safety93(7), 964–979 (2008) 38

Sudret, B.: Global sensitivity analysis using polynomial chaos expansions. Relia- bility engineering & system safety93(7), 964–979 (2008) 38

2008
[25]

Engineering Fracture Mechanics245, 107566 (2021)

Li, H., Luo, X., Zhang, Y., Xu, R.: Stochastic fatigue damage in viscoelastic materials using probabilistic pseudo j-integral paris’ law. Engineering Fracture Mechanics245, 107566 (2021)

2021
[26]

Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation, 1–21 (2026)

Dhibi, K., Nounou, H., El-Mellouhi, F., Nounou, M.: Physics-informed deep learning for bearing remaining useful life: Adaptive paris-law regularization with gaussian processes. Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation, 1–21 (2026)

2026
[27]

Surface and Coatings Technology201(6), 2303–2312 (2006)

Faraoun, H.I., Grosdidier, T., Seichepine, J.-L., Goran, D., Aourag, H., Coddet, C., Zwick, J., Hopkins, N.: Improvement of thermally sprayed abradable coating by microstructure control. Surface and Coatings Technology201(6), 2303–2312 (2006)

2006
[28]

International Journal of Mechanical Sciences63(1), 86–98 (2012)

Liu, J., Ke, L.-L., Wang, Y.-S., Yang, J., Alam, F.: Thermoelastic frictional contact of functionally graded materials with arbitrarily varying properties. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences63(1), 86–98 (2012)

2012
[29]

International Journal of solids and structures40(13-14), 3647–3679 (2003) 39

Kanit, T., Forest, S., Galliet, I., Mounoury, V., Jeulin, D.: Determination of the size of the representative volume element for random composites: statistical and numerical approach. International Journal of solids and structures40(13-14), 3647–3679 (2003) 39

2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Journal of thermal spray technology31(1), 307–314 (2022)

Pathak, P., Dzhurinskiy, D., Elkin, A., Shornikov, P., Dautov, S., Ivanov, V.: Enhanced high-temperature ysz-polyester abradable honeycomb seal structures. Journal of thermal spray technology31(1), 307–314 (2022)

work page 2022

[2] [2]

Pro- ceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science238(5), 1453–1465 (2024)

Baillieu, A., Parody, A., Rahimov, E., Garcia Panizo, J., Marshall, M.: In situ measurements of thermal-mechanical wear in blade-abradable liner contacts. Pro- ceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science238(5), 1453–1465 (2024)

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Aerospace Science and Technology, 110737 (2025)

Bertuol, K., Arendarchuck, B., Rivadeneira, F., Nolte, L., Lehner, M., Barnett, B., Moreau, C., Stoyanov, P.: Assessment of alsi-based abradable coatings with hbn and mocr additives for aerospace conditions: A novel high-temperature rig approach. Aerospace Science and Technology, 110737 (2025)

work page 2025

[4] [4]

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power138(6), 062501 (2016)

Pychynski, T., H¨ ofler, C., Bauer, H.-J.: Experimental study on the friction contact between a labyrinth seal fin and a honeycomb stator. Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power138(6), 062501 (2016)

work page 2016

[5] [5]

Polymer Engineering & Science9(4), 295–310 (1969)

Schapery, R.A.: On the characterization of nonlinear viscoelastic materials. Polymer Engineering & Science9(4), 295–310 (1969)

work page 1969

[6] [6]

Computational mechanics18(3), 182–191 (1996)

Lai, J., Bakker, A.: 3-d schapery representation for non-linear viscoelasticity and finite element implementation. Computational mechanics18(3), 182–191 (1996)

work page 1996

[7] [7]

Springer, New York (2008)

Brinson, H.F., Brinson, L.C.: Polymer Engineering Science and Viscoelas- ticity: An Introduction. Springer, New York (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-0-387-73861-1

work page 2008

[8] [8]

Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2005)

Lemaitre, J., Desmorat, R.: Engineering Damage Mechanics: Ductile, Creep, Fatigue and Brittle Failures. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2005)

work page 2005