MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992603603 · doi:10.1520/jai101868

The Analysis and Control of Distortion in Carbonitrided and Nitrocarburized Thin-Shelled Plain Carbon Steel Automotive Powertrain Components

2009· article· en· W1992603603 on OpenAlexaff
Victoria Campagna, Derek O. Northwood, Randy J. Bowers, Xichen Sun, Peter Bäuerle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of ASTM International · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal and Thin Film Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbonitridingMaterials scienceMetallurgyResidual stressComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Gaseous ferritic nitrocarburizing was investigated as a replacement for the carbonitriding process currently used to improve the surface properties of thin-shelled, plain carbon steel automotive powertrain components. Nitrocarburizing can impart a hard, wear-resistant case suitable for light load applications at lower processing temperatures than carbonitriding, thereby potentially reducing size and shape distortions and the associated need for finish grinding. Carbonitriding and gaseous ferritic nitrocarburizing were compared with respect to size and shape distortion, retained austenite, and residual stress values. Testing was performed on a torque converter piston, an automotive powertrain component stamped from a sheet of 3-mm cold-worked SAE 1010 steel. A total of 53 pistons were used. While the heat treatment conditions for the carbonitrided pistons were similar to the current production schedule, conditions for the nitrocarburized pistons incorporated a range of processing times from 2–14 hours and temperatures from 510–605°C (950–1125°F). The results of this work were generally consistent with those from an earlier study involving the use of Navy C-ring specimens. For both the Navy C-rings and torque converter pistons, the nitrocarburizing process gave rise to lower part distortion, but resulted in overall lower compressive residual stress values than in the carbonitrided steel.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.198
Teacher spread0.194 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ASTM InternationalSame topicMetal and Thin Film MechanicsFrench-language works237,207