Comparative Analysis of Electrode Type on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties in AISI 5155 Low Alloy Steel Welds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, low alloy steel types have been widely utilized in the manufacture of many important products, which may be damaged during service and require repair by welding.Shielded metal arc welding of 6 mm thick AISI 5155 low alloy steel plates with different electrodes was employed to examine and compare the microstructure and mechanical properties of the welds.The results showed diverse microstructures over the weld metals.The maximum hardness values across the welds were in the CGHAZ, where the structure contained ferrite and pearlite coarser than that of the base metal.The finest structure was in the inter-critical HAZ, in which the minimum hardness was; where partial spheroidization of pearlite occurred.The average weld metal hardness value, for all welds, was lower than that of the base metal (~465 HV).The highest hardness value was (~337 HV) for the weld produced using the OK48.00 electrode, whilst the maximum tensile strength was (938 MPa) for the weld due to the use of the OK76.18 electrode.The low cost electrode (OK46.00)and the expensive one (OK92.18)gave relatively lower mechanical properties, whereas the optimum properties were achieved as a result of using iron powder low hydrogen covering electrodes (OK48.00 and OK76.18).
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".