Performance Analysis of Work-Roll Wear Models on Hot Rolling
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this work is to evaluate the performance of several wear models, either with different mathematical formulation or different definition of the unknown wear coefficients, on the prediction of the work-roll wear amplitude in Hot Strip Mills (HSM). To achieve this goal, a classical model calibration approach based on inverse optimization has been developed to calibrate these several wear models. A large industrial hot rolling database composed by roll wear amplitude measurements for both later finishing mill stands (F6 and F7) from ArcelorMittal Dofasco HSM was considered and a least-square cost function was applied to minimize the differences between both numerical and experimental results during the optimization process. The averaged roll wear gap between measurements and optimized numerical predictions was then used as a quantitative indicator to compare the performance between the wear models and identify the most suitable one for roll wear prediction. In addition, an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) approach was developed based on the most suitable wear model. Thus, roll wear predictions obtained using the ANN were compared with the ones obtained using Classical calibration to evaluate the performance of both approaches.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it