Study of the Processing of a Recycled WC–Co Powder: Can It Compete with Conventional WC–Co Powders?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cemented carbide tools suffer from many issues due to the use of tungsten and cobalt as raw materials. Indeed, those are listed by the European Commission as “critical raw materials” since 2011 and by the US Department of Interior as “critical minerals” in 2018. To remain competitive with the conventional high-speed steels, less performant but cheaper, WC–Co tools can be recycled. In the present paper, a WC–7.5Co powder, recycled by the “Coldstream” process, has been sintered with vacuum sintering. As preliminary experiments have shown that the sinterability of the powder is low, the sintering temperature was set at 1500 °C to achieve full density. In parallel, the influence of ball milling conditions (rotation speed and milling medium) on the reactivity of the recycled powder has been studied in terms of grain size distribution, hardness, and fracture toughness. The optimized milling conditions were found to be 6 h wet milling, leading to a hardness of about 1870 HV30 and a toughness of about 10.5 MPa√m after densification. The recycled powder can thus totally compete with conventional powders, opening avenues for the recycling of cemented carbide tools. Graphical Abstract
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".