MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245350020 · doi:10.1504/ijad.2018.094161

An algorithm for optimal design and thermomechanical processing of high carbon bainitic steels

2018· article· en· W4245350020 on OpenAlexaff
Gaganpreet Sidhu, Seshasai Srinivasan, Sanjiwan Bhole

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Aerodynamics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgy and Material Forming
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlgorithmUltimate tensile strengthWork (physics)Search algorithmSpace (punctuation)Isothermal processOptimal designComputer scienceMathematical optimizationMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringMathematicsMetallurgyEngineeringThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we present a generic framework of a computationally efficient search algorithm to meet multiple objectives on a multi-dimensional search space. The algorithm is integrated with a penalty-based cost function that enables us to retain the interim optimal solutions. The algorithm has been applied to determine the optimal combination of alloying elements and heat treatment conditions to obtain steels with desired material properties, namely hardness, tensile strength and elongation. In this work, the search space is a combination of eight alloying elements and heat treatment conditions (isothermal temperature and time). To evaluate the quality of the alloying elements and heat treatment combinations, the algorithm is equipped with reduced order models for hardness, tensile strength as well as elongation percentage. The algorithm has been validated with respect to several standard test optimisation problems prescribed in the literature. Subsequently, the validated algorithm has been applied to develop optimal design solutions for steels with desired mechanical properties. In doing so, the framework is tested for three different evaluation functions to showcase the ability of the algorithm to obtain solutions meeting the desired targets/constraints.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of AerodynamicsSame topicMetallurgy and Material FormingFrench-language works237,207