MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414156386 · doi:10.3390/met15091003

Influence of Different Heat Treatments on Microstructure Evolution and High-Temperature Tensile Properties of LPBF-Fabricated H13 Hot Work Steel

2025· article· en· W4414156386 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Meher Monjez, Narges Omidi, Pedram Farhadipour, Abderrazak El Ouafi, Noureddine Barka

Bibliographic record

VenueMetals · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrostructureTemperingUltimate tensile strengthQuenching (fluorescence)Yield (engineering)Hot workHomogeneousWork (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the effect of tensile test temperatures, ranging from 300 °C to 600 °C, on the microstructure, mechanical properties, and fracture behavior of AISI H13 11 tool steel manufactured by laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) under three material conditions: As-Built (AB), Direct Double-Tempered (DTT), and 13 Quenched and Double-Tempered (QTT). Optical and SEM observations show that quenching before tempering leads to a more homogeneous microstructure. Full austenitization during quenching eliminates the laser track patterns and cellular structures characteristic of the AB and DTT conditions, resulting in a microstructure like that of conventionally processed material. Tensile test results reveal that, while all material conditions (AB, DTT, and QTT) perform similarly at lower temperatures (up to 300 °C), significant differences emerge at elevated temperatures. At 300 °C, AB, DTT, and QTT maintain 87.5%, 85.8%, and 83.1% of their room-temperature yield strength, respectively. However, beyond this point, the DTT condition clearly outperforms the others. QTT shows a sharp decline above 300 °C, retaining only ~24% of its yield strength, whereas AB and DTT maintain approximately 80%. The superior performance of DTT becomes more evident at higher temperatures: it retains 25% and 20% of its yield strength at 500 °C and 600 °C, respectively, higher than both AB and QTT.

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 score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.189
Teacher spread0.182 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMetalsSame topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207