MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982470490 · doi:10.1115/imece2012-89525

Strain Hardening of Heat Treated Nanostructured WC-17Co Coatings and Their Sliding Wear Behavior

2012· article· en· W1982470490 on OpenAlexaff
Gobinda C. Saha, Tarek A. ben Mahmud, Tahir I. Khan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced materials and composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceIndentation hardnessCermetMetallurgyNanocrystalline materialGrain sizeCeramicThermal sprayingCoatingComposite materialAbrasiveHardening (computing)Grain boundaryMicrostructure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grain size, their distribution and geometry are important to study the dislocation behavior and grain boundary sliding of ceramic reinforced metallic composite materials. Grain size reduction has been shown to lead to significant improvements of the wear resistance in nanostructured materials. As the grain size decreases from polycrystalline to nanocrystalline range, abrasive wear resistance increases considerably from the increased hardness and volume loss following Archard’s law of wear. Further, the heat treatment effect on the content of the metallic binder in a ceramic-metallic (cermet) material is thought to increase the hardness with decreasing crystalline size, thereby improving the sliding wear behavior of materials. In this study, the high velocity oxy-fuel (HVOF) thermal spraying of nanostructured WC-17Co coatings with engineered ‘duplex outer coating’ is conducted. The microhardness and sliding wear studies of the coatings and their heat-treated counterparts are performed. The nanostructured coatings showed a significant increase in the microhardness and wear resistance when compared with those of the conventional microstructured coatings of the same composition. It is believed that the improved performance is related with the work hardening as well as dispersion hardening of the nanostructured grains in the deposited coatings.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.192 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced materials and compositesFrench-language works237,207