MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400477740 · doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2024.07.037

Quantification of δ-ferrite and austenite retention in laser-deposited martensitic stainless steel

2024· article· en· W4400477740 on OpenAlexaff
Zhe Lyu, Thomas J. Lienert, Leijun Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Research and Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAusteniteMaterials scienceFerrite (magnet)MartensiteMetallurgyMicrostructureBeta ferriteBainiteComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Type 420 martensitic stainless-steel powder was clad onto a CF3M austenitic stainless steel substrate using laser direct-energy-deposition (L-DED). Through comprehensive characterization and numerical simulation, the evolution of microstructures, particularly the retention of δ-ferrite and austenite, was investigated. In the clad fusion zone, the primary phase to solidify was δ-ferrite, followed by austenite resulting from the peritectic reaction. The segregation patterns developed during rapid solidification from the L-DED process exerted a significant effect on the stability of the austenite in the room temperature microstructures. Due to the fast cooling rate in the solid state, the time available for transformation of the δ-ferrite to austenite regarding the segregation patterns was limited, and the transformation was incomplete. The room temperature microstructure was therefore comprised of δ-ferrite distributed in the dendrite core regions, surrounded by martensite, which was further surrounded by a small fraction of retained austenite in the interdendritic regions. The retained austenite region was enriched with segregated alloying elements, which pushed the martensite start temperature Ms below room temperature. The retention of both δ-ferrite and interdendritic austenite was proved to have caused a softened fusion zone with a lowered martensite fraction.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials Research and TechnologySame topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207