MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895844877 · doi:10.2351/1.5056991

Failure mechanism of laser welds of DP980 and HSLA450 steels in formability testing

2008· article· en· W2895844877 on OpenAlexaff
Mingsheng Xia, Michael L. Kuntz, Zhiling Tian, Y. Zhou

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWelding Techniques and Residual Stresses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormabilityMaterials scienceMartensiteWeldingFerrite (magnet)Base metalMetallurgyDual-phase steelComposite materialAlloyMicrostructure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, dual phase (DP) steel with banded martensite was investigated with YAG laser welding process in terms of formability by use of Limited Dome Height (LDH) testing method. One high strength low alloy (HSLA) steel with equiaxial ferrite matrix was included for comparison. The failure mode and dome height at fracture were examined on parent metal and welded blanks respectively. It was found that the failure mode of DP parent metal was determined by its rolling direction. The voids initiated between ferrite/martensite interfaces due to decohesion between two phases and propagated preferentially along the interface. For DP welded blanks, the failure occurred within the softened zone regardless of the orientation between weld and rolling direction. The voids formed at the interfaces between ferrite and tempered martensite. Significant dome height decrease from the parent metal was attributed to the softened zone formation. In comparison, HSLA and its welded blanks exhibited almost the similar dome height. The failure of welded blanks initiated from the hardened fusion zone and propagated perpendicular to the unaffected base metal.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWelding Techniques and Residual StressesFrench-language works237,207