MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894336212 · doi:10.3390/met8100758

Modeling of Precipitation Hardening during Coiling of Nb–Mo Steels

2018· article· en· W2894336212 on OpenAlexaff
J. Maetz, Matthias Militzer, Yu Wen Chen, Jer‐Ren Yang, Nam Hoon Goo, Soo Jin Kim, Bian Jian, Hardy Mohrbacher

Bibliographic record

VenueMetals · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrostructure and Mechanical Properties of Steels
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCompanhia Brasileira de Metalurgia e Mineração
KeywordsMaterials scienceMicrostructureTemperingElectron backscatter diffractionMetallurgyBainitePrecipitation hardeningFerrite (magnet)ToughnessStrengthening mechanisms of materialsHardening (computing)MartensiteComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nb–Mo low-alloyed steels are promising advanced high strength steels (AHSS) because of the highly dislocated bainitic ferrite microstructure conferring an excellent combination of strength and toughness. In this study, the potential of precipitation strengthening during coiling for hot-strip Nb–Mo-bearing low-carbon steels has been investigated using hot-torsion and aging tests to simulate the hot-rolling process including coiling. The obtained microstructures were characterized using electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD), highlighting the effects of Nb and Mo additions on formation and tempering of the bainitic ferrite microstructures. Further, the evolution of nanometer-sized precipitates was quantified with high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HR-TEM). The resulting age hardening kinetics have been modelled by combining a phenomenological precipitation strengthening model with a tempering model. Analysis of the model suggests a narrower coiling temperature window to maximize the precipitation strengthening potential in bainite/ferrite high strength low-alloyed (HSLA) steels than that for conventional HSLA steels with polygonal ferrite/pearlite microstructures.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMetalsSame topicMicrostructure and Mechanical Properties of SteelsFrench-language works237,207