RETRACTED ARTICLE: Modeling ductile to brittle transition temperature of functionally graded steels by fuzzy logic
This record is marked as retracted by the source. Review the publisher’s notice before using its findings.
Source abstract
Abstract
In this article, a model based on fuzzy logic (FL) for predicting ductile to brittle transition temperature of functionally graded steels in both crack divider and crack arrester configurations has been presented. Functionally graded steels containing graded ferritic and austenitic regions together with bainite and martensite intermediate layers were produced by electroslag remelting. For purpose of building the model, training and testing using experimental results from 140 specimens produced from two basic composites were conducted. The used data as inputs in FL models are arranged in a format of six input parameters that cover the FGS type, the crack tip configuration, the thickness of graded ferritic region, the thickness of graded austenitic region, the distance of the notch from bainite or martensite intermediate layer, and temperature. According to these input parameters, in the FL, the ductile to brittle transition temperature of each FGS specimen was predicted. It has been found that FL model will be valid within the ranges of variables. The training and testing results in the FL model have shown a strong potential for predicting the ductile to brittle transition temperature of each FGS specimen.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Fatigue and fracture mechanics · Fire effects on concrete materials · Ultrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (25)
Show source-provided references
1. Haj-Ali R (2009) Int J Damage Mech 18(8):69110.1177/1056789508096560 ↗
2. Tay TE, Liu G, Yudhanto A, Tan VBC (2008) Int J Damage Mech 17(1):510.1177/1056789506067941 ↗
3. Vodopivec F, Arzenšek B, Kmetič D, Vojvodič-Tuma J (2003) MTAEC9 37(6):317
4. Ebrahimi F, Seo HK (1996) Acta Mater 44(2):83110.1016/1359-6454(95)00206-5 ↗
5. Rouseau CE, Tippur HV (2001) Mech Mater 33:40310.1016/S0167-6636(01)00065-5 ↗
6. Guo LC, Noda N (2008) Int J Solids Struct 45:33610.1016/j.ijsolstr.2007.08.015 ↗
7. Xu H, Yao X, Feng X, Hisen YY (2008) Mech Mater 40:3710.1016/j.mechmat.2007.06.003 ↗
8. Bezensek B, Hancock JW (2007) Eng Fract Mech 74:239510.1016/j.engfracmech.2006.11.011 ↗
9. Aghazadeh J-M, Shahosseinie MH (2005) Metall Mater Trans A 36:347110.1007/s11661-005-0020-8 ↗
10. Aghazadeh J-M, Shahosseinie MH, Parastar R-N (2006) Metall Mater Trans A 37:212510.1007/BF02586133 ↗
11. Nazari A, Aghazadeh J-M (2010) J Mater Sci Technol 26(11):137710.1179/174328409X405652 ↗
12. Nazari A, Aghazadeh J-M (2009) J Mater Sci Technol 25:847
13. Nazari A, Aghazadeh J-M (2010) J Mater Eng Perform 19:105810.1007/s11665-009-9578-4 ↗
14. Aghazadeh Mohandesi J, Nazari A, Hamid Vishkasogheh M, Abedi M (2010) Mater Sci Eng 18:075007
15. Nazari A, Aghazadeh J-M, Riahi SH (2010) Int J Damage Mech. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/105678951038285110.1177/1056789510382851 ↗
16. Akkurt S, Tayfur G, Can S (2004) Cement Concr Res 34(8):142910.1016/j.cemconres.2004.01.020 ↗
17. Baykasoğlu A, Dereli T, Tanış S (2004) Cement Concr Res 34(11):208310.1016/j.cemconres.2004.03.028 ↗
18. ASTM E23 (2001) In: Annual book of ASTM standards, ASTM, Philadelphia
19. Zadeh LA (1965) Inform Control 8:33810.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X ↗
20. Mamdani EH (1976) Proc IEEE 121(12):1585
21. Guzelbey IH, Cevik A, Erklig A (2006) J Constr Steel Res 62:96210.1016/j.jcsr.2006.01.008 ↗
22. Guzelbey IH, Cevik A, Gögüs MT (2006) J Constr Steel Res 62:95010.1016/j.jcsr.2006.01.003 ↗
23. Cevik A, Guzelbey IH (2008) Build Environ 43:75110.1016/j.buildenv.2007.01.036 ↗
24. Cevik A, Guzelbey IH (2007) Eng Struct 29(3):38310.1016/j.engstruct.2006.05.005 ↗
25. Topcu IB, Sarıdemir M (2008) Comput Mater Sci 41(3):30510.1016/j.commatsci.2007.04.009 ↗