Comparison of Austempering and Quench-and-Tempering Processes for Carburized Automotive Steels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">Carburized parts often see use in powertrain components for the automotive industry. These parts are commonly quenched and tempered after the carburizing process. The present study compared the austempering heat treatment to the traditional quench-and-temper process for carburized parts. Samples were produced from SAE 8620, 4320, and 8822 steels and heat treated across a range of conditions for austempering and for quench-and-tempering. Distortion was examined through the use of Navy C-Ring samples. Microstructure, hardness, and Charpy toughness were also examined. X-ray diffraction was used to compare the residual stress found in the case of the components after the quench-and-temper and the austempering heat treatments. Austempering samples showed less distortion and higher compressive residual stresses, while maintaining comparable hardness values in both case and core. Toughness measurements were also comparable between both processes.</div></div>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".