Determination of the Critical Stress Associated with Dynamic Phase Transformation in Steels by Means of Free Energy Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The double differentiation method overestimates the critical stress associated with the initiation of dynamic transformation (DT) because significant amounts of the dynamic phase must be present in order for its effect on the work hardening rate to be detectable. In this work, an alternative method (referred to here as the free energy method) is presented based on the thermodynamic condition that the driving force is equal to the total energy obstacle during the exact moment of transformation. The driving force is defined as the difference between the DT critical stress (measured in the single-phase austenite region) and the yield stress of the fresh ferrite that takes its place. On the other hand, the energy obstacle consists of the free energy difference between austenite and ferrite, and the work of shear accommodation and dilatation associated with the phase transformation. Here, the DT critical stresses in a C-Mn steel were calculated using the free energy method at temperatures ranging from 870 °C to 1070 °C. The results show that the calculated critical stress using the present approach appears to be more accurate than the values measured by the double differentiation method.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".