MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394764482 · doi:10.3390/jmmp8020074

Influence of the Hot-Top Thermal Regime on the Severity and Extent of Macrosegregation in Large-Size Steel Ingots

2024· article· en· W4394764482 on OpenAlexafffund
Neda Ghodrati, Henri Champliaud, Jean-Benoît Morin, Mohammad Jahazi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgical Processes and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsCégep de Sorel-TracyÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIngotMetallurgyMaterials scienceThermalMoldThermal conductivityAlloyContinuous castingHeat transferMechanicsComposite materialThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The influence of hot-top designs with different heat capacities on the distribution of positive and negative macrosegregation was investigated on a 12 metric tonne (MT) cast ingot made using Cr-Mo low-alloy steel. The three-dimensional finite element modeling code THERCAST® was used to simulate the thermo-mechanical phenomena associated with the solidification process, running from filling the mold until complete solidification. The model was validated on an industrial-scale ingot and then utilized to evaluate the influence of the thermal history of the hot-top, a crucial component in the cast ingot setup. This assessment aimed to comprehend changes in solidification time, temperature, and heat flux—all of which contribute to the determination of macrosegregation severity. The results showed that preheating the hot-top had a minor effect on solidification time, while modifications of thermal conductivity in the hot-top region increased the solidification time by 31%, thereby significantly affecting the macrosegregation patterns. The results are discussed and interpreted in terms of the fundamental mechanisms governing the kinetics of solidification and macrosegregation phenomena.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manufacturing and Materials ProcessingSame topicMetallurgical Processes and ThermodynamicsFrench-language works237,207