MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411876187 · doi:10.5539/jmsr.v14n1p37

Activation Volume During Creep of ASME Grade T91 Steel

2025· article· en· W4411876187 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Manabu Tamura

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Science Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh Temperature Alloys and Creep
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceCreepVolume (thermodynamics)Composite materialMetallurgyThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Activation volume is an essential factor to determine the strain rate of martensitic steel, however it has not been discussed extensively. The activation volume during creep is analytically formulated as a function of average activated moving dislocation density (ΚρaX) inside a small region, e.g., a sub-grain, assuming the slip motion of dislocations. For Grade T91 steel, the activation volumes (V’s) for time to a specific creep strain and time to rupture are calculated by applying an exponential law to the temperature, stress, and time parameters during creep. The ΚρaX’s obtained using the calculated activation volumes are compared with the observed dislocation densities (Ρob’s). ΚΡaX at a strain of 0.2% is roughly 10% of the initial ρob, and the ratio of ΚρaX / ρob increases toward a value smaller than 1 at rupture because of recovery. These results and the strain energy consideration indicate that all dislocations inside a limited number of lath martensite begin to slip or a considerable number of packets remain undeformed immediately after loading. Subsequently, a large number of dislocations are accumulated on the boundaries of the concerned lath martensite, block, and packet, promoting the recovery and precipitation reactions around the crept area. Consequently, heterogeneity of deformation at the beginning of creep is mitigated gradually with progressing creep. The above documents coincide with a proposed model of the activation process for creep.

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)0.003
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials Science ResearchSame topicHigh Temperature Alloys and CreepFrench-language works237,207