MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417360765 · doi:10.3390/met15121379

Computational Modeling of Multiple-Phase Transformations in API X70 and X80 Steels

2025· article· en· W4417360765 on OpenAlexafffund
Ry Karl, J. Valloton, Chad Cathcart, Tihe Zhou, Fateh Fazeli, J. B. Wiskel, H. Henein

Bibliographic record

VenueMetals · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrostructure and Mechanical Properties of Steels
Canadian institutionsHamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine ProgramUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDilatometerContinuous cooling transformationPhase diagramPhase (matter)Transformation (genetics)Scanning electron microscopeIsothermal transformation diagram

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuous cooling transformation (CCT) diagrams for two thermo-mechanically controlled processed (TMCP) steels were produced using a modified Johnson–Mehl–Avrami–Kolmogorov (JMAK) model, which accounted for the simultaneous transformation of multiple phases under non-isothermal conditions. A basin hopping algorithm was used to sequentially optimize the model parameters for each phase. Samples were prepared using a dilatometer which replicated the deformation and cooling rates experienced during TMCP. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and electron back-scattered diffraction (EBSD) were used to identify and quantify the phases present in each steel. CCT diagrams illustrating the start and stop temperatures of each phase were constructed for both steel samples. Through inclusion of the stop temperatures of each phase transformation, the utility of the CCT diagrams were expanded. This was done by introducing the possibility of applying the Scheil additive principle with respect to the beginning and end of each phase transformation. With this modification, the CCT diagrams are now more appropriately suited to predict the phase transformations that occur on the ROT, where non-continuous cooling occurs.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMetalsSame topicMicrostructure and Mechanical Properties of SteelsFrench-language works237,207