MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403901777 · doi:10.1016/j.jalmes.2024.100121

Enhancement of material properties of SS 316 L base metal by TIG cladding process

2024· article· en· W4403901777 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Varun Kumar A, Emel Taban

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Alloys and Metallurgical Systems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh Entropy Alloys Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsBase metalCladding (metalworking)Materials scienceGas tungsten arc weldingBase (topology)MetallurgyMetalComposite materialWeldingArc weldingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) welding process was utilized to apply stainless steel (SS) 304 filler cladding onto the stainless steel (SS) 316 L base metal. This cladding resulted in an enhancement of the base metal's properties. An optical study and scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis conducted to investigate the metallurgical properties revealed refined grain structures, indicating improved deposition of the SS 304 filler. The optical survey classified the different zones as base metal, weld metal, and transition line, with the transition line distinguishing the deposition of the filler metal through the cladding process. The refined grain structures, optimal process parameter selection (current, gas flow rate, and travel speed at a minimal level), and double-pass cladding have significantly influenced microhardness and tensile test values. The cladding of SS 304 fillers on SS 316 L alloys demonstrated improvement in the microhardness and tensile properties by 42.5 % and 13.2 %, respectively. Further investigation into the nozzle gun's heat input, current, and travel speed showed that maintaining a consistent travel speed with a steady heat source had a substantial impact on the material properties of the base metal.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Alloys and Metallurgical SystemsSame topicHigh Entropy Alloys StudiesFrench-language works237,207