MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285276902 · doi:10.5267/j.esm.2022.4.007

Prediction of flow stress characteristics of P92 steel using a simple physically-based constitutive modelling

2022· article· en· W4285276902 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Japheth Obiko, Lesley H. Chown, David Whitefield

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Solid Mechanics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgy and Material Forming
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India
KeywordsFlow stressMaterials scienceConstitutive equationStrain rateDeformation (meteorology)Stress (linguistics)MetallurgyComposite materialThermodynamicsFinite element methodPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study reports the flow stress behavior of three P92 steels with different compositions. Uniaxial compression tests were conducted in the deformation temperature range of 575 °C to 650 °C and strain rate range of 0.001-0.5 s-1 using a Gleeble® 3500 thermo-mechanical simulator. A simple physically-based constitutive model was used to analyse the effects of deformation conditions (temperature and strain rate) on the metal flow stress behavior during the deformation process. The method accounts for the temperature dependence of Young’s modulus and the lattice self-diffusion coefficient of Fe in the ferrite. Constitutive equations describing the flow stress behavior of the three P92 steels were developed. From the results, the stress exponent n of 26.13(steel A), 21.61(steel B) and 27.55 (steel C) were obtained using the self-diffusion activation energy in the physically-based constitutive equation. From the results, the three steels had variation in the stress exponent values, which was attributed to differences in elemental content, such as chromium and tungsten. The developed constitutive equations were verified using statistical parameters: Pearson’s correlation coefficient (R) and average absolute relative errors (AARE). Statistical analysis showed that the three steels had the same R of 0.98, while AARE was: 1.68 (steel A), 1.72 (steel B), and 1.82 (steel C). The constitutive equations developed showed a good correlation between the experimental and predicted flow stress data. Hence, the method is applicable in describing flow stress behavior in the metalworking process in the industry.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering Solid MechanicsSame topicMetallurgy and Material FormingFrench-language works237,207