Comparison of Hardness and Microstructures Produced Using GMAW and Hot-Wire TIG Mechanized Welding of High Strength Steels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For high productivity weld fabrication, gas metal arc welding (GMAW) is typically used since it offers a combination of high deposition rate and travel speed. Recent advances in power supply technologies have increased the deposition rates in hot-wire tungsten inert gas (HW-TIG) welding, such that it is possible to achieve parameters which may be comparable to those used in GMAW for pressure vessels and some pipeline applications. However, these two processes have drastically different deposition efficiencies and heat input characteristics. The purpose of the present study is to examine GMAW and HW-TIG bead-on-plate deposits in terms of mechanical properties, deposition rate, and heat affected zone (HAZ) thermal cycles when identical travel speed and wire feed speeds are applied with a ER90S-G filler metal. The results demonstrate that HW-TIG can be applied with comparable travel and wire feed speeds to GMAW, while providing a more uniform weld bead appearance. Based on weld metal microhardness values, it is suggested the effective heat input is lower in HW-TIG compared to GMAW, since the average hardness of the weld metal is slightly higher.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".