MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Simulation of Austenite Flow Curves under Industrial Rolling Conditions Using a Physical Dynamic Recrystallization Model

2012· article· en· W2089137165 on OpenAlexafffund
Xavier Quelennec, John J. Jonas

Bibliographic record

VenueISIJ International · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgy and Material Forming
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersArcelorMittalMcGill University
KeywordsDynamic recrystallizationFlow stressMaterials scienceMetallurgySofteningAusteniteWork hardeningRecrystallization (geology)Strain rateHot workingStrain hardening exponentRolling millHardening (computing)Composite materialMicrostructureGeologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hot compression tests were carried out on three steels: i) a 0.038% Nb-0.11%C microalloyed grade; ii) a Nb-modified TRIP steel; and iii) a Ti-stabilized low carbon steel. The tests were performed at strain rates up to 1 s–1 and over the temperature range 880–1200°C. The initiation of dynamic recrystallization (DRX) was observed under all testing conditions. Two sets of equations were derived from the experimental curves: i) a work hardening relation pertaining to the grains in which DRX has not yet nucleated; and ii) a separate work hardening expression describing the mean flow stress applicable to the grains in which DRX is taking place. With the aid of the temperature and strain rate dependences determined from the data, and using the law of mixtures, extrapolated flow curves were calculated applicable to strain rates up to 100 s–1, i.e. to those involved in strip mill rolling. The simulations show that, once DRX has been initiated, the flow stress is controlled by the kinetics of the softening mechanisms.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations36
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISIJ InternationalSame topicMetallurgy and Material FormingFrench-language works237,207