Loading [MathJax]/jax/element/mml/optable/GeneralPunctuation.js
Research article

Conflicting behavior between powdering and flaking resistance under skin pass mill process in galvannealed interstitial free steel

  • The failure of galvannealed (GA) coatings during press forming is an important issue for steel companies, because it results in a deteriorated product quality and reduced productivity. Powdering and flaking are thought to be the main failure modes in GA steel. However, these two modes currently lack a clear distinction, despite their different failure types. Therefore, in this study, we demonstrate that the different behaviors of these two failure modes are generated by the skin pass mill (SPM) condition and we discuss the underlying mechanism in detail using microstructural and simulation analyses. With the increase in steel elongation from 0% to 4.0% under milling force from 0 to 6 ton, a high compressive stress is produced up to −380 MPa on the surface of the steel sheet and the interface is correspondingly flattened from 0.96 to 0.53 μm in Ra. This flattening weakens the mechanical interlocking effect for adhesive bonding, deteriorating the flaking resistance from 41.1 to 65.2 hat-bead contrast index (hci). In addition, the GA coating layer becomes uniformly densified via the filling of pores under compressive stress in the layer. Furthermore, the ζ phase exhibits significant plastic deformation, leading to a uniform coverage of the coating surface; this helps to suppress crack propagation. Accordingly, the powdering resistance gradually improves from 4.2 to 3.5 mm. Consequently, with the increase in SPM-realized steel sheet elongation, the powdering resistance improves whilst the flaking resistance deteriorates. Significantly for the literature, this implies that the two failure modes occur via different mechanisms and it indicates the possibility of controlling the two coating failure modes via the SPM conditions.

    Citation: Hyungkwon Park, Young-Joong Jeong, Jin-Jong Lee, Chang-Hoon Lee, Bong Joo Goo, Yonghee Kim. Conflicting behavior between powdering and flaking resistance under skin pass mill process in galvannealed interstitial free steel[J]. AIMS Materials Science, 2023, 10(4): 637-651. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2023036

    Related Papers:

    [1] Minlong Lin, Ke Tang . Selective further learning of hybrid ensemble for class imbalanced increment learning. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2017, 2(1): 1-21. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2017005
    [2] Subrata Dasgupta . Disentangling data, information and knowledge. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2016, 1(4): 377-390. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2016016
    [3] Qinglei Zhang, Wenying Feng . Detecting Coalition Attacks in Online Advertising: A hybrid data mining approach. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2016, 1(2): 227-245. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2016006
    [4] Tieliang Gong, Qian Zhao, Deyu Meng, Zongben Xu . Why Curriculum Learning & Self-paced Learning Work in Big/Noisy Data: A Theoretical Perspective. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2016, 1(1): 111-127. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2016.1.111
    [5] Xin Yun, Myung Hwan Chun . The impact of personalized recommendation on purchase intention under the background of big data. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2024, 8(0): 80-108. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2024005
    [6] Pankaj Sharma, David Baglee, Jaime Campos, Erkki Jantunen . Big data collection and analysis for manufacturing organisations. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2017, 2(2): 127-139. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2017002
    [7] Zhen Mei . Manifold Data Mining Helps Businesses Grow More Effectively. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2016, 1(2): 275-276. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2016009
    [8] Ricky Fok, Agnieszka Lasek, Jiye Li, Aijun An . Modeling daily guest count prediction. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2016, 1(4): 299-308. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2016012
    [9] M Supriya, AJ Deepa . Machine learning approach on healthcare big data: a review. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2020, 5(1): 58-75. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2020005
    [10] Sunmoo Yoon, Maria Patrao, Debbie Schauer, Jose Gutierrez . Prediction Models for Burden of Caregivers Applying Data Mining Techniques. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2017, 2(3): 209-217. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2017014
  • The failure of galvannealed (GA) coatings during press forming is an important issue for steel companies, because it results in a deteriorated product quality and reduced productivity. Powdering and flaking are thought to be the main failure modes in GA steel. However, these two modes currently lack a clear distinction, despite their different failure types. Therefore, in this study, we demonstrate that the different behaviors of these two failure modes are generated by the skin pass mill (SPM) condition and we discuss the underlying mechanism in detail using microstructural and simulation analyses. With the increase in steel elongation from 0% to 4.0% under milling force from 0 to 6 ton, a high compressive stress is produced up to −380 MPa on the surface of the steel sheet and the interface is correspondingly flattened from 0.96 to 0.53 μm in Ra. This flattening weakens the mechanical interlocking effect for adhesive bonding, deteriorating the flaking resistance from 41.1 to 65.2 hat-bead contrast index (hci). In addition, the GA coating layer becomes uniformly densified via the filling of pores under compressive stress in the layer. Furthermore, the ζ phase exhibits significant plastic deformation, leading to a uniform coverage of the coating surface; this helps to suppress crack propagation. Accordingly, the powdering resistance gradually improves from 4.2 to 3.5 mm. Consequently, with the increase in SPM-realized steel sheet elongation, the powdering resistance improves whilst the flaking resistance deteriorates. Significantly for the literature, this implies that the two failure modes occur via different mechanisms and it indicates the possibility of controlling the two coating failure modes via the SPM conditions.



    For a continuous risk outcome 0<y<1, a model with a random effect has potentially a wide application in portfolio risk management, especially, for stress testing [1,2,7,16,19], capital allocation, conditional expected shortfall estimation [3,11,17].

    Given fixed effects x=(x1,x2,,xk), two widely used regression models to estimate the expected value E(y|x) are: the fraction response model [10] and Beta regression model [4,6,8]. There are cases, however, where tail behaviours or severity levels of the risk outcome are relevant. In those cases, a regression model may no longer fit in for the requirements. In addition, a fraction response model of the form E(y|x)=Φ(a0+a1x1++akxk) may not be adequate when data exhibits significant heteroscedasticity, where Φ is a map from R1 to the open interval (0,1).

    In this paper, we assume that the risk outcome y is driven by a model:

    y=Φ(a0+a1x1++akxk+bs), (1.1)

    where s is a random continuous variable following a known distribution, independent of fixed effects (x1,x2,,xk). Parameters a0,a1,,ak are constant, while parameter b can be chosen to be dependent on (x1,x2,,xk) when required, for example, for addressing data heteroscedasticity.

    Given random effect model (1.1), the expected value E(y|x) can be deduced accordingly. It is given by the integral ΩΦ(a0+a1x1++akxk+bs)f(s)ds over the domain Ω of s, where f is the probability density of s. Given the routine QUAD implemented in SAS and Python, this integral can be evaluated as quickly as other function calls. Relative error tolerance for QUAD is 1.49e-8 in Python and is 1e-7 in SAS. But one can rescale the default tolerance to a desired level when necessary. This leads to an alternative regression tool to the fraction response model and Beta regression model.

    We introduce a family of interval distributions based on variable transformations. Probability densities for these distributions are provided (Proposition 2.1). Parameters of model (1.1) can then be estimated by maximum likelihood approaches assuming an interval distribution. In some cases, these parameters get an analytical solution without the needs for a model fitting (Proposition 4.1). We call a model with a random effect, where parameters are estimated by maximum likelihood assuming an interval distribution, an interval distribution model.

    In its simplest form, the interval distribution model y=Φ(a+bs), where a and b, are constant, can be used to model the loss rate as a random distribution for a homogeneous portfolio. Let yα and sα denote the α -quantiles for y and s at level α, 0<α<1. Then yα=Φ(a+bsα). The conditional expected shortfall for loss rate y, at level α, can then be estimated as the integral 11α[sα,+)Φ(a+bs)f(s)ds, where f is the density of s. Meanwhile, a stress testing loss estimate, derived from a model on a specific scenario, can be compared in loss rate to severity yα(=Φ(a+bsα)), to position its level of severity. A loss estimate may not have reached the desired, for example, 99% level yet, if it is far below y0.99, and far below the maximum historical loss rate. In which case, further recalibrations for the model may be required.

    The paper is organized as follows: in section 2, we introduce a family of interval distributions. A measure for tail fatness is defined. In section 3, we show examples of interval distributions and investigate their tail behaviours. We propose in section 4 an algorithm for estimating the parameters in model (1.1).

    Interval distributions introduced in this section are defined for a risk outcome over a finite open interval (c0,c1), where c0< c1 are finite numbers. These interval distributions can potentially be used for modeling a risk outcome over an arbitrary finite interval, including interval (0, 1), by maximum likelihood approaches.

    Let D=(d0,d1), d0<d1, be an open interval, where d0 can be finite or and d1 can be finite or +.

    Let

    Φ:D(c0,c1) (2.1)

    be a transformation with continuous and positive derivatives Φ(x)=ϕ(x). A special example is (c0,c1)=(0,1), and Φ:D(0,1) is the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of a random variable with a continuous and positive density.

    Given a continuous random variable s, let f and F be respectively its density and CDF. For constants a and b>0, let

    y=Φ(a+bs), (2.2)

    where we assume that the range of variable (a+bs) is in the domain D of Φ. Let g(y,a,b) and G(y,a,b) denote respectively the density and CDF of y in (2.2).

    Proposition 2.1. Given Φ1(y), functions g(y,a,b) and G(y,a,b) are given as:

    g(y,a,b)=U1/(bU2) (2.3)
    G(y,a,b)=F[Φ1(y)ab]. (2.4)

    where

    U1=f{[Φ1(y)a]/b},U2=ϕ[Φ1(y)] (2.5)

    Proof. A proof for the case when (c0,c1)=(0,1) can be found in [18]. The proof here is similar. Since G(y,a,b) is the CDF of y, it follows:

    G(y,a,b)=P[Φ(a+bs)y]
    =P{s[Φ1(y)a]/b}
    =F{[Φ1(y)a]/b}.

    By chain rule and the relationship Φ[Φ1(y)]=y, the derivative of Φ1(y) with respect to y is

    Φ1(y)y=1ϕ[Φ1(y)]. (2.6)

    Taking the derivative of G(y,a,b) with respect to y, we have

    G(y,a,b)y=f{[Φ1(y)a]/b}bϕ[Φ1(y)]=U1bU2.

    One can explore into these interval distributions for their shapes, including skewness and modality. For stress testing purposes, we are more interested in tail risk behaviours for these distributions.

    Recall that, for a variable X over (− ,+), we say that the distribution of X has a fat right tail if there is a positive exponent α>0, called tailed index, such that P(X>x)xα. The relation refers to the asymptotic equivalence of functions, meaning that their ratio tends to a positive constant. Note that, when the density is a continuous function, it tends to 0 when x+. Hence, by L’Hospital’s rule, the existence of tailed index is equivalent to saying that the density decays like a power law, whenever the density is a continuous function.

    For a risk outcome over a finite interval (c0,c1), c0,<c1, however, its density can be + when approaching boundaries c0 and c1. Let y0 be the largest lower bound for all values of y under (2.2), and y1 the smallest upper bound. We assume y0=c0 and y1=c1.

    We say that an interval distribution has a fat right tail if the limit limyy1  g(y,a,b)=+, and a fat left tail if limyy+0  g(y,a,b)=+, where yy+0 and yy1 denote respectively y approaching y0 from the right-hand-side, and y1 from the left-hand-side. For simplicity, we write yy0 for yy+0, and yy1 for yy1.

    Given α>0, we say that an interval distribution has a fat right tail with tailed index α if limyy1  g(y,a,b)(y1y)β=+ whenever 0<β<α, and limyy1  g(y,a,b)(y1y)β=0 for β>α. Similarly, an interval distribution has a fat left tail with tailed index α if limyy0  g(y,a,b)(yy0)β=+ whenever 0<β<α, and limyy0  g(y,a,b)(yy0)β=0 for β>α. Here the status at β=α is left open. There are examples (Remark 3.4), where an interval distribution has a fat right tail with tailed index α, but the limit limyy1  g(y,a,b)(y1y)α can either be + or 0. Under this definition, a tailed index of an interval distribution with a continuous density is always larger than 0 and less or equal to 1, if it exists.

    Recall that, for a Beta distribution with parameters α>0 and β>0, its density is given by f(x)=xα1(1x)β1B(α,β), where B(α,β) is the Beta function . Under the above definition, Beta distribution has a fat right tail with tailed index (1β) when 0<β<1, and a fat left tail with tailed index (1α) when 0<α<1.

    Next, because the derivative of Φ is assumed to be continuous and positive, it is strictly monotonic. Hence Φ1(y) is defined. Let

    z=Φ1(y) (2.7)

    Then limyy0z exists (can be ), and the same for limyy1z (can be +). Let limyy0  z=z0, and limyy1  z=z1. Rewrite g(y,a,b) as g(Φ(z),a,b) by (2.7). Let [g(Φ(z),a,b)]1β/z denote the derivative of [g(Φ(z),a,b)]1/β with respect to z.

    Lemma 2.2. Given β>0, the following statements hold:

    (ⅰ) limyy0  g(y,a,b)(yy0)β=limzz0  g(Φ(z),a,b)(Φ(z)y0)β and limyy1  g(y,a,b)(y1y)β=limzz1  g(Φ(z),a,b)(y1Φ(z))β.

    (ⅱ) If limyy0  g(y,a,b)=+ and limzz0{[g(Φ(z),a,b)]1β/z}/ϕ(z) is 0 (resp. +), then limyy0  g(y,a,b)(yy0)β=+ (resp. 0).

    (ⅲ) If limyy1  g(y,a,b)=+ and limzz1{[g(Φ(z),a,b)]1β/z}/ϕ(z)) is 0 (resp. +), then limyy1  g(y,a,b)(y1y)β=+ (resp. 0).

    Proof. The first statement follows from the relationship y=Φ(z). For statements (ⅱ) and (ⅲ), we show only (ⅲ). The proof for (ⅱ) is similar. Notice that

    [g(y,a,b)(y1y)β]1/β=[g(y,a,b)]1/βy1y=[g(Φ(z),a,b)]1/βy1Φ(z). (2.8)

    By L’Hospital’s rule and taking the derivatives of the numerator and the denominator of (2.8) with respect to z, we have limyy1[g(y,a,b)(y1y)β]1/β=0 (resp. +) if limzz0{[g(Φ(z),a,b)]1/β/z}/ϕ(z) is 0 (resp. +). Hence limyy1  g(y,a,b)(y1y)β=+ (resp. 0).

    For tail convexity, we say that the right tail of an interval distribution is convex if g(y,a,b) is convex for y1є<y<y1 for sufficiently small є>0. Similarly, the left tail is convex if g(y,a,b) is convex for y0<y<y0+є for sufficiently small є>0. One sufficient condition for convexity for the right (resp. left) tail is gyy when y is sufficiently close to {y}_{1} (resp. {y}_{0}) .

    Again, write g\left(y, a, b\right) = g\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\left(z\right), a, b\right) . Let

    h\left(z, a, b\right) = \mathrm{log}\left[g\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\left(z\right), a, b\right)\right], (2.9)

    where \mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g}\left(x\right) denotes the natural logarithmic function. Then

    g\left(y, a, b\right) = \mathrm{exp}\left[h\left(z, a, b\right)\right]. (2.10)

    By (2.9), (2.10), using (2.6) and the relationship {z = \mathrm{\Phi }}^{-1}\left(y\right) , we have

    {g}_{y}^{'} = {[h}_{z}^{'}\left(z\right)/{\rm{ \mathsf{ ϕ} }}\left(\mathrm{z}\right)]\mathrm{e}\mathrm{x}\mathrm{p}[h({\mathrm{\Phi }}^{-1}\left(y\right), a, b)], \\ {g}_{yy}^{''} = \left[\frac{{h}_{zz}^{''}\left(z\right)}{{{\rm{ \mathsf{ ϕ} }}}^{2}\left(\mathrm{z}\right)}-\frac{{h}_{z}^{'}\left(z\right){{\rm{ \mathsf{ ϕ} }}}_{\mathrm{z}}^{'}\left(z\right)}{{{\rm{ \mathsf{ ϕ} }}}^{3}\left(\mathrm{z}\right)}+\frac{{h}_{\mathrm{z}}^{\mathrm{'}}\left(\mathrm{z}\right){h}_{\mathrm{z}}^{\mathrm{'}}\left(\mathrm{z}\right)}{{{\rm{ \mathsf{ ϕ} }}}^{2}\left(\mathrm{z}\right)}\right]\mathrm{e}\mathrm{x}\mathrm{p}\left[h\right({\mathrm{\Phi }}^{-1}\left(y\right), a, b) ]. (2.11)

    The following lemma is useful for checking tail convexity, it follows from (2.11).

    Lemma 2.3. Suppose {\rm{ \mathsf{ ϕ} }}\left(\mathrm{z}\right)>0 , and derivatives {h}_{\mathrm{z}}^{\mathrm{'}}\left(\mathrm{z}\right), {h}_{\mathrm{z}}^{\mathrm{'}\mathrm{'}}\left(\mathrm{z}\right), and {{\rm{ \mathsf{ ϕ} }}}_{\mathrm{z}}^{\mathrm{'}}\left(\mathrm{z}\right) , with respect to z, all exist. If {h}_{zz}^{''}\left(z\right)\ge 0 and {h}_{z}^{'}\left(z\right){{\rm{ \mathsf{ ϕ} }}}_{\mathrm{z}}^{'}\left(z\right)\le 0, then {g}_{yy}^{''}(y, a, b)\ge 0.

    In this section, we focus on the case where \left({c}_{0}, {c}_{1}\right) = \left(0, 1\right), and \mathrm{\Phi }: D\to (0, 1) in (2.2) is the CDF of a continuous distribution . This includes, for example, the CDFs for standard normal and standard logistic distributions.

    One can explore into a wide list of densities with different choices for \mathrm{\Phi } and s under (2.2). We consider here only the following four interval distributions:

    A. s \sim N\left(\mathrm{0, 1}\right) and \mathrm{\Phi } is the CDF for the standard normal distribution.

    B. s follows the standard logistic distribution and \mathrm{\Phi } is the CDF for the standard normal distribution.

    C. s follows the standard logistic distribution and \mathrm{\Phi } is its CDF.

    D.D. s \sim N\left(\mathrm{0, 1}\right) and \mathrm{\Phi } is the CDF for standard logistic distribution.

    Densities for cases A, B, C, and D are given respectively in (3.3) (section 3.1), (A.1), (A.3), and (A5) (Appendix A). Tail behaviour study is summarized in Propositions 3.3, 3.5, and Remark 3.6. Sketches of density plots are provided in Appendix B for distributions A, B, and C.

    Using the notations of section 2, we have {\rm{ \mathsf{ ϕ} }} = f and \mathrm{\Phi } = F . We claim that y = \mathrm{\Phi }\left(a+bs\right) under (2.2) follows the Vasicek distribution [13,14].

    By (2.5), we have

    \mathrm{log}\left(\frac{{U}_{1}}{{U}_{2}}\right) = \frac{{-z}^{2}+2az-{a}^{2}+{b}^{2}{z}^{2}}{2{b}^{2}} (3.1)
    = \frac{{-\left(1-{b}^{2}\right)\left(z-\frac{a}{1-{b}^{2}}\right)}^{2}+\frac{{b}^{2}}{1-{b}^{2}}{a}^{2}}{2{b}^{2}}\text{.} (3.2)

    Therefore, we have

    g\left(\mathrm{y}, a, b\right) = \frac{1}{b}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{x}\mathrm{p}\left\{\frac{{-\left(1-{b}^{2}\right)\left(z-\frac{a}{1-{b}^{2}}\right)}^{2}+\frac{{b}^{2}}{1-{b}^{2}}{a}^{2}}{2{b}^{2}}\right\}\text{.} (3.3)

    Again, using the notations of section 2, we have {y}_{0} = 0 and {y}_{1} = 1 . With z = {\mathrm{\Phi }}^{-1}\left(y\right), we have li{m}_{y⤍0} \ \ z = -\infty and li{m}_{y⤍1} \ \ z = +\infty . Recall that a variable 0<y<1 follows a Vasicek distribution [13,14] if its density has the form:

    g\left(y, p, \rho \right) = \sqrt{\frac{1-\rho }{\rho }}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{x}\mathrm{p}\{-\frac{1}{2\rho }{\left[{\sqrt{1-\rho }{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{-1}\left(y\right)-\mathrm{\Phi }}^{-1}\left(p\right)\right]}^{2}+\frac{1}{2}{\left[{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{-1}\left(y\right)\right]}^{2}\}\text{, } (3.4)

    where p is the mean of y , and \rho is a parameter called asset correlation.

    Proposition 3.1. Density (3.3) is equivalent to (3.4) under the relationships:

    a = \frac{{\Phi }^{-1}\left(p\right)}{\sqrt{1-\rho }} \ \ \text{and}\ \ b = \sqrt{\frac{\rho }{1-\rho }}. (3.5)

    Proof. A similar proof can be found in [19]. By (3.4), we have

    g\left(y, p, \rho \right) = \sqrt{\frac{1-\rho }{\rho }}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{x}\mathrm{p}\{-\frac{1-\rho }{2\rho }{\left[{{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{-1}\left(y\right)-\mathrm{\Phi }}^{-1}\left(p\right)/\sqrt{1-\rho }\right]}^{2}+\frac{1}{2}{\left[{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{-1}\left(y\right)\right]}^{2}\}
    = \frac{1}{b}\mathrm{exp}\left\{-\frac{1}{2}{\left[\frac{{\Phi }^{-1}\left(y\right)-a}{b}\right]}^{2}\right\}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{x}\mathrm{p}\left\{\frac{1}{2}{\left[{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{-1}\left(y\right)\right]}^{2}\right\}
    = {U}_{1}/{(bU}_{2}) = g(y, a, b)\text{.}

    The following relationships are implied by (3.5):

    \rho = \frac{{b}^{2}}{1{+b}^{2}}, (3.6)
    a = {\Phi }^{-1}\left(p\right)\sqrt{1+{b}^{2}}\text{.} (3.7)

    Remark 3.2. The mode of g\left(y, p, \rho \right) in (3.4) is given in [14] as \mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{\sqrt{1-\rho }}{1-2\rho }{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{-1}\left(p\right)\right) . We claim this is the same as \mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{a}{1-{b}^{2}}\right) . By (3.6), 1-2\rho = \frac{1-{b}^{2}}{1+{b}^{2}} and \sqrt{1-\rho } = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+{b}^{2}}}. Therefore, we have

    \frac{\sqrt{1-\rho }}{1-2\rho }{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{-1}\left(p\right) = \frac{\sqrt{1+{b}^{2}}}{1-{b}^{2}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{-1}\left(p\right) = \frac{a}{1-{b}^{2}}.

    This means \mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{\sqrt{1-\rho }}{1-2\rho }{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{-1}\left(p\right)\right) = \mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{a}{1-{b}^{2}}\right).

    Proposition 3.3. The following statements hold for g(y, a, b) given in (3.3):

    (ⅰ) g(y, a, b) is unimodal if 0<b<1 with mode given by \mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{a}{1-{b}^{2}}\right) , and is in U-shape if b>1 .

    (ⅱ) \mathrm{I}\mathrm{f}\ b>1, \mathrm{t}\mathrm{h}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{n} \ \ g(y, a, b) has a fat left tail and a fat right tail with tailed index (1-1/{b}^{2}) .

    (ⅲ) If b>1, both tails of g(y, a, b) are convex , and is globally convex if in addition a = 0.

    Proof. For statement (ⅰ), we have -\left(1-{b}^{2}\right)<0 when 0<b<1 . Therefore by (3.2) function \mathrm{log}\left(\frac{{U}_{1}}{{U}_{2}}\right) reaches its unique maximum at z = \frac{a}{1-{b}^{2}} , resulting in a value for the mode at \mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{a}{1-{b}^{2}}\right). If b>1 , then -\left(1-{b}^{2}\right)>0, thus by (3.2), g(y, a, b) is first decreasing and then increasing when y varying from 0 to 1. This means (y, a, b ) is in U-shape.

    Consider statement (ⅱ). First by (3.3), if b>1, then li{m}_{y⤍1}\ \ g\left(y, a, b\right) = +\infty and li{m}_{y⤍0} \ \ g \left(y, a, b\right) = +\infty . Thus g\left(\mathrm{y}, a, b\right) has a fat right and a fat left tail. Next for tailed index, we use Lemma 2.2 (ⅱ) and (ⅲ). By (3.1),

    {\left[g\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\mathrm{z}\right), a, b\right)\right]}^{-1/\beta } = {b}^{1/\beta }\mathrm{e}\mathrm{x}\mathrm{p}(-\frac{{\left({b}^{2}-1\right)z}^{2}+2az-{a}^{2}}{2\beta {b}^{2}}) (3.8)

    By taking the derivative of (3.8) with respect to z and noting that {\rm{ \mathsf{ ϕ} }}\left(\mathrm{z}\right) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left(-\frac{{z}^{2}}{2}\right), we have

    -\left\{\partial {\left[g\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\mathrm{z}\right), a, b\right)\right]}^{-\frac{1}{\beta }}/\partial z\right\}/{\rm{ \mathsf{ ϕ} }}\left(\mathrm{z}\right) = \sqrt{2\pi }{b}^{\frac{1}{\beta }}\frac{\left({b}^{2}-1\right)z+a}{\beta {b}^{2}}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{x}\mathrm{p}(-\frac{{\left({b}^{2}-1\right)z}^{2}+2az-{a}^{2}}{2\beta {b}^{2}}+\frac{{z}^{2}}{2})\text{.} (3.9)

    Thus li{m}_{z⤍+\infty }-\left\{\partial {\left[g\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\mathrm{z}\right), a, b\right)\right]}^{-\frac{1}{\beta }}/\partial z\right\}/{\rm{ \mathsf{ ϕ} }}\left(\mathrm{z}\right) is 0 if \frac{{b}^{2}-1}{\beta {b}^{2}}>1 , and is +\infty if \frac{{b}^{2}-1}{\beta {b}^{2}}<1. Hence by Lemma 2.2 (ⅲ), g\left(y, a, b\right) has a fat right tail with tailed index (1-1/{b}^{2}) . Similarly, for the left tail, we have by (3.9)

    \left\{\partial {\left[g\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\mathrm{z}\right), a, b\right)\right]}^{-\frac{1}{\beta }}/\partial z\right\}/{\rm{ \mathsf{ ϕ} }}\left(\mathrm{z}\right) = -\sqrt{2\pi }{b}^{\frac{1}{\beta }}\frac{\left({b}^{2}-1\right)z+a}{\beta {b}^{2}}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{x}\mathrm{p}(-\frac{{\left({b}^{2}-1\right)z}^{2}+2az-{a}^{2}}{2\beta {b}^{2}}+\frac{{z}^{2}}{2})\text{.} (3.10)

    Thus li{m}_{z⤍-\infty }\left\{\partial {\left[g\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\mathrm{z}\right), a, b\right)\right]}^{-\frac{1}{\beta }}/\partial z\right\}/{\rm{ \mathsf{ ϕ} }}\left(\mathrm{z}\right) is 0 if \frac{{b}^{2}-1}{\beta {b}^{2}}>1 , and is +\infty if \frac{{b}^{2}-1}{\beta {b}^{2}}<1. Hence g\left(y, a, b\right) has a fat left tail with tailed index (1-1/{b}^{2}) by Lemma 2.2 (ⅱ).

    For statement (ⅲ), we use Lemma 2.3. By (2.9) and using (3.2), we have

    h\left(z, a, b\right) = \mathrm{log}\left(\frac{{U}_{1}}{{bU}_{2}}\right) = \frac{{-\left(1-{b}^{2}\right)\left(z-\frac{a}{1-{b}^{2}}\right)}^{2}+\frac{{b}^{2}}{1-{b}^{2}}{a}^{2}}{2{b}^{2}}-\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g}\left(b\right)\text{.}

    When b>1, it is not difficult to check out that {h}_{zz}^{''}\left(z\right)\ge 0 and {h}_{z}^{'}\left(z\right){{\rm{ \mathsf{ ϕ} }}}_{\mathrm{z}}^{'}\left(z\right)\le 0 when z⤍\pm \infty or when a = 0 .

    Remark 3.4. Assume \beta = (1-1/{b}^{2}) and b>1. By (3.9), we see

    li{m}_{z⤍+\infty }-\left\{{\partial \left[g\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\mathrm{z}\right), a, b\right)\right]}^{-\frac{1}{\beta }}/\partial z\right\}/{\rm{ \mathsf{ ϕ} }}\left(\mathrm{z}\right)

    is +\infty for a = 0 , and is 0 for a>0. Hence for this \beta , the limit li{m}_{y⤍1} \ \ g \left(y, a, b\right){\left(1-y\right)}^{\beta } can be either 0 or +\infty , depending on the value of a .

    For these distributions, we again focus on their tail behaviours. A proof for the next proposition can be found in Appendix A.

    Proposition 3.5. The following statements hold:

    (a) Density g\left(y, a, b\right) has a fat left tail and a fat right tail for case B for all b>0 , and for case C if b>1. For case D, it does not have a fat right tail nor a fat left tail for any b>0.

    (b) The tailed index of g\left(y, a, b\right) for both right and left tails is 1 for case B for all b>0 , and is (1-\frac{1}{b}) for case C for B for b>1 .

    Remark 3.6. Among distributions A, B, C, and Beta distribution, distribution B gets the highest tailed index of 1, independent of the choices of b>0 .

    In this section, we assume that \mathrm{\Phi } in (2.2) is a function from {R}^{1} to (0, 1) with positive continuous derivatives. We focus on parameter estimation algorithms for model (1.1).

    First, we consider a simple case, where risk outcome y is driven by a model:

    y = \mathrm{\Phi }\left(v+bs\right), (4.1)

    where b>0 is a constant, v = {a}_{0}+{a}_{1}{x}_{1}+\dots +{a}_{k}{x}_{k} , and s \sim N\left(0, 1\right), independent of fixed effects {x = (x}_{1}, {x}_{2}, \dots , {x}_{k}) . The function \mathrm{\Phi } does not have to be the standard normal CDF. But when \mathrm{\Phi } is the standard normal CDF, the expected value E\left(y\right|x) can be evaluated by the formula {E}_{S}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }\left(a+bs\right)\right] = \mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{a}{\sqrt{1+{b}^{2}}}\right) [12].

    Given a sample {\left\{({x}_{1i}, {x}_{2i}, \dots , {x}_{ki}, {y}_{i})\right\}}_{i = 1}^{n}, where ({x}_{1i}, {x}_{2i}, \dots , {x}_{ki}, {y}_{i}) denotes the {i}^{th} data point of the sample, let {z}_{i} = {\mathrm{\Phi }}^{-1}\left({y}_{i}\right). and {v}_{i} = {a}_{0}+{a}_{1}{x}_{1i}+\dots +{a}_{k}{x}_{ki}. By (2.3), the log-likelihood function for model (4.1) is:

    LL = \sum _{i = 1}^{n}\left\{\mathrm{log}f\left(\frac{{z}_{i}-{v}_{i}}{b}\right)-\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g}{\rm{ \mathsf{ ϕ} }}\left({z}_{i}\right)-logb\right\}\text{, } (4.2)

    where f is the density of s. The part of \sum _{i = 1}^{n}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g}{\rm{ \mathsf{ ϕ} }}\left({z}_{i}\right) is constant, which can be dropped off from the maximization.

    Recall that the least squares estimators of {{a}_{0}, a}_{1}, \dots , {a}_{k} , as a row vector, that minimize the sum squares

    SS = \sum _{i = 1}^{n}{({z}_{i}-{v}_{i})}^{2} (4.3)

    has a closed form solution given by the transpose of {\left({\mathrm{X}}^{T}\mathrm{X}\right)}^{-1}{\mathrm{X}}^{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{Z} [5,9] whenever the design matrix \mathrm{X} has a rank of k, where

    {\rm{X}} = \left\lceil {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {1\;\;{x_{11}} \ldots {x_{k1}}}\\ {1\;\;{x_{12}} \ldots {x_{k2}}} \end{array}}\\ \ldots \\ {1\;\;{x_{1n}} \ldots {x_{kn}}} \end{array}} \right\rceil , {\rm{Z}} = \left\lceil {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{z_1}}\\ {{z_2}} \end{array}}\\ \ldots \\ {{z_n}} \end{array}} \right\rceil .

    The next proposition shows there exists an analytical solution for the parameters of model (4.1).

    Proposition 4.1. Given a sample {\left\{({x}_{1i}, {x}_{2i}, \dots , {x}_{ki}, {y}_{i})\right\}}_{i = 1}^{n} , assume that the design matrix has a rank of k. If s \sim N(0, 1), then the maximum likelihood estimates of parameters {(a}_{0}, {a}_{1}, \dots , a) , as a row vector, and parameter b are respectively given by the transpose of {\left({\mathrm{X}}^{T}\mathrm{X}\right)}^{-1}{\mathrm{X}}^{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{Z}, and {b}^{2} = \frac{1}{n}\sum _{i = 1}^{n}{({z}_{i}-{v}_{i})}^{2}. In absence of fixed effects {\{x}_{1}, {x}_{2}, \dots , {x}_{k}\} , parameters {a}_{0} and {b}^{2} degenerate respectively to the sample mean and variance of {z}_{1} , {z}_{2}, \dots , {z}_{n}.

    Proof. Dropping off the constant term from (4.2) and noting f\left(z\right) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left(-\frac{{z}^{2}}{2}\right) , we have

    LL = -\frac{1}{2{b}^{2}}\sum _{i = 1}^{n}{({z}_{i}-{v}_{i})}^{2}-nlogb, (4.4)

    Hence the maximum likelihood estimates ({a}_{0}, {a}_{1}, \dots , {a}_{k}) are the same as least squares estimators of (4.3), which are given by the transpose of {\left({\mathrm{X}}^{T}\mathrm{X}\right)}^{-1}{\mathrm{X}}^{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{Z}. By taking the derivative of (4.4) with respect to b and setting it to zero, we have {b}^{2} = \frac{1}{n}\sum _{i = 1}^{n}{({z}_{i}-{v}_{i})}^{2}.

    Next, we consider the general case of model (1.1), where the risk outcome y is driven by a model:

    y = \mathrm{\Phi }[v+ws], (4.5)

    where parameter w is formulated as w = \mathrm{exp}\left(u\right), and u = {b}_{0}+{b}_{1}{x}_{1}+ \dots +{b}_{k}{x}_{k}. We focus on the following two cases:

    (a) s \sim N\left(0, 1\right),

    (b) s is standard logistic.

    Given a sample {\left\{({x}_{1i}, {x}_{2i}, \dots , {x}_{ki}, {y}_{i})\right\}}_{i = 1}^{n}, let {w}_{i} = \mathrm{e}\mathrm{x}\mathrm{p}({b}_{0}+{b}_{1}{x}_{1i}+ \dots +{b}_{k}{x}_{ki}) and {{u}_{i} = b}_{0}+{b}_{1}{x}_{1i}+ \dots +{b}_{k}{x}_{ki}. The log-likelihood functions for model (4.5), dropping off the constant part \mathrm{log}\left({U}_{2}\right), for cases (a) and (b) are given respectively by (4.6) and (4.7):

    LL = \sum _{i = 1}^{n}-{\frac{1}{2}[\left({z}_{i}-{v}_{i}\right)}^{2}/{w}_{i}^{2}-{u}_{i}], (4.6)
    LL = \sum _{i = 1}^{n}\{-\left({z}_{i}-{v}_{i}\right)/{w}_{\mathrm{i}}-2\mathrm{log}[1+\mathrm{e}\mathrm{x}\mathrm{p}[-({z}_{i}-{v}_{i})/{w}_{i}]-{u}_{i}\}, (4.7)

    Recall that a function is log-concave if its logarithm is concave. If a function is concave, a local maximum is a global maximum, and the function is unimodal. This property is useful for searching maximum likelihood estimates.

    Proposition 4.2. The functions (4.6) and (4.7) are concave as a function of {(a}_{0}, {a}_{1}, \dots , {a}_{k}) . As a function of {(b}_{0}, {b}_{1}, \dots , {b}_{k}), (4.6) is concave.

    Proof. It is well-known that, if f(x) is log-concave, then so is f(Az + b), where Az + b : {R^m} \to {R^1} is any affine transformation from the m-dimensional Euclidean space to the 1-dimensional Euclidean space. For (4.6), the function f\left(x\right) = -({z-v)}^{2}\mathrm{exp}(-2u) is concave as a function of v, thus function (4.6) is concave as a function of {(a}_{0}, {a}_{1}, \dots , {a}_{k}) . Similarly, this function f\left(x\right) is concave as a function of u, so (4.6) is concave as a function of {(b}_{0}, {b}_{1}, \dots , {b}_{k}).

    For (4.7), the linear part -\left({z}_{i}-{v}_{i}\right)\mathrm{e}\mathrm{x}\mathrm{p}(-{u}_{i}) , as a function of {(a}_{0}, {a}_{1}, \dots , {a}_{k}) , in (4.7) is ignored. For the second part in (4.7), we know -\mathrm{log}\{1+\mathrm{e}\mathrm{x}\mathrm{p}[-(z-v)/\mathrm{e}\mathrm{x}\mathrm{p}\left(u\right)\left]\right\} , as a function of v , is the logarithm of the CDF of a logistic distribution. It is well-known that the CDF for a logistic distribution is log-concave. Thus (4.7) is concave with respect to {(a}_{0}, {a}_{1}, \dots , {a}_{k}) .

    In general, parameters {(a}_{0}, {a}_{1}, \dots , {a}_{k}) and {(b}_{0}, {b}_{1}, \dots , {b}_{k}) in model (4.5) can be estimated by the algorithm below.

    Algorithm 4.3. Follow the steps below to estimate parameters of model (4.5):

    (a) Given {(b}_{0}, {b}_{1}, \dots , {b}_{k}) , estimate {(a}_{0}, {a}_{1}, \dots , {a}_{k}) by maximizing the log-likelihood function;

    (b) Given {(a}_{0}, {a}_{1}, \dots , {a}_{k}) , estimate {(b}_{0}, {b}_{1}, \dots , {b}_{k}) by maximizing the log-likelihood function;

    (c) Iterate (a) and (b) until a convergence is reached.

    With the interval distributions introduced in this paper, models with a random effect can be fitted for a continuous risk outcome by maximum likelihood approaches assuming an interval distribution. These models provide an alternative regression tool to the Beta regression model and fraction response model, and a tool for tail risk assessment as well.

    Authors are very grateful to the third reviewer for many constructive comments. The first author is grateful to Biao Wu for many valuable conversations. Thanks also go to Clovis Sukam for his critical reading for the manuscript.

    We would like to thank you for following the instructions above very closely in advance. It will definitely save us lot of time and expedite the process of your paper's publication.

    The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those of Royal Bank of Canada and Scotiabank or any of their affiliates. Please direct any comments to Bill Huajian Yang at h_y02@yahoo.ca.



    [1] Shibli SMA, Meena BN, Remya R (2015) A review on recent approaches in the field of hot dip zinc galvanizing process. Surf Coat Tech 262: 210–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SURFCOAT.2014.12.054 doi: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2014.12.054
    [2] Marder AR (2000) The metallurgy of zinc-coated steel. Prog Mater Sci 45: 191–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6425(98)00006-1 doi: 10.1016/S0079-6425(98)00006-1
    [3] Inui H, Okamoto NL, Yamaguchi S (2018) Crystal structures and mechanical properties of Fe-Zn intermetallic compounds formed in the coating layer of galvannealed steels. ISIJ Int 58: 1550–1561. https://doi.org/10.2355/isijinternational.ISIJINT-2018-066 doi: 10.2355/isijinternational.ISIJINT-2018-066
    [4] Yang D, Wang K, Zhou H, et al. (2023) Microstructure and properties of galvannealed coatings at different galvannealed time. Mater Lett 345: 134489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2023.134489 doi: 10.1016/j.matlet.2023.134489
    [5] Okamoto NL, Inomoto M, Adachi H, et al. (2014) Micropillar compression deformation of single crystals of the intermetallic compound ζ-FeZn13. Acta Mater 65: 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2013.10.065 doi: 10.1016/j.actamat.2013.10.065
    [6] Garza LG, Van Tyne CJ (2007) Friction and formability of galvannealed interstitial free sheet steel. J Mater Process Tech 187: 164–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2006.11.062 doi: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2006.11.062
    [7] Kancharla H, Mandal GK, Kumar RR, et al. (2022) Effect of annealing time on coating microstructure, frictional and electrochemical behavior of galvannealed interstitial-free steel. J Mater Eng Perform 32: 5932–5945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-022-07527-4 doi: 10.1007/s11665-022-07527-4
    [8] Arimura M, Urai M, Iwaya J, et al. (1995) Effects of press-forming factors and flash plating on coating exfoliation of galvannealed steel sheets. Galvatech'95, The Use and Manufacture of Zinc and Zinc Alloy Coated Sheet Steel Products Into the 21 st Century, 733–738.
    [9] Claus G, Dilewijns J, De Cooman B, et al. (1995) Determination of the process window for optimal galvannealing of Ti-IF steel. Proceedings' Galvatech 95'ISS, Chicago, 107–113.
    [10] Hong MH (2005) Correlation between the microstructure of galvannealed coatings and the defoliation during press forming. ISIJ Int 45: 896–902. https://doi.org/10.2355/isijinternational.45.896 doi: 10.2355/isijinternational.45.896
    [11] Lee KK, Lee IH, Lee CR, et al. (2007) In-situ observation in a scanning electron microscope on the exfoliation behavior of galvannealed Zn-Fe coating layers. Surf Coat Tech 201: 6261–6266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2006.11.021 doi: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2006.11.021
    [12] Martin P, Handford MA, Packwood R, et al. (1992) Mechanical and structural study of Zn-Fe coatings on steel sheet. Galvatech'92, Amsterdam, 112–116.
    [13] Cheng C, Krishnardula V, Hahn H (2015) The effect of Al content in the coating on the flaking resistance of GA IF steels. International Conference on Zinc and Zinc Alloy Coated Steel Sheet, 96–103.
    [14] Han K, Lee I, Ohnuma I, et al. (2018) Micro-Vickers hardness of intermetallic compounds in the Zn-rich portion of Zn-Fe binary system. ISIJ Int 58: 1578–1583. https://doi.org/10.2355/isijinternational.ISIJINT-2018-111 doi: 10.2355/isijinternational.ISIJINT-2018-111
    [15] Park H, Jeong YJ, Lee K, et al. (2020) Effect of galvannealing temperature on coating microstructure evolution correlated to flaking degradation on galvannealed interstitial-free steel. Surf Coat Tech 404: 126446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2020.126446 doi: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2020.126446
    [16] Park H, Jeong YJ, Lee K, et al. (2021) Correlation of interface microstructural features with the adhesive bonding strength of galvannealed interstitial-free steel. Met Mater Int 27: 3250–3259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12540-020-00691-z doi: 10.1007/s12540-020-00691-z
    [17] Hamers AJ, Koesveld WV, Schoen JP (1998) Stone chipping resistance, press behaviour and coating roughness of galvannealed IF steels. Galvatech'98, Chiba, 597–602.
    [18] Park H, Jeong YJ, Lee K, et al. (2020) Interface exfoliation mechanism of galvannealed steel sheet in bead-slide during press-forming. Mater Today Commun 25: 101669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2020.101669 doi: 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2020.101669
    [19] Santos LA, Lopes LU, Wendhausen PAP (2014) Synthesis and characterization of the Fe-Zn intermetallic phases using the Rietveld Method. Rem-Rev Esc Minas 67: 181–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0370-44672014000200008 doi: 10.1590/S0370-44672014000200008
    [20] Fluhrer J (2015) DEFORMTM 2D Version 8.1 User's Manual, Columbus, Ohio: Scientific Forming Technologies Corporation.
    [21] Quang P, Krishnaiah A, Hong SI, et al. (2009) Coupled analysis of heat transfer and deformation in equal channel angular pressing of Al and steel. Mater Trans 50: 40–43. https://doi.org/10.2320/matertrans.MD200823 doi: 10.2320/matertrans.MD200823
    [22] Wai Myint P, Hagihara S, Tanaka T, et al. (2017) Determination of the values of critical ductile fracture criteria to predict fracture initiation in punching processes. J Manuf Mater Process 1: 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp1020012 doi: 10.3390/jmmp1020012
    [23] Okamoto NL, Kashioka D, Inomoto M, et al. (2013) Compression deformability of Γ and ζ Fe-Zn intermetallics to mitigate detachment of brittle intermetallic coating of galvannealed steels. Scripta Mater 69: 307–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2013.05.003 doi: 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2013.05.003
    [24] Nikitin I, Besel M (2008) Residual stress relaxation of deep-rolled austenitic steel. Scripta Mater 58: 239–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2007.09.045 doi: 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2007.09.045
    [25] Bhujangrao T, Veiga F, Penalva M, et al. (2022) Three-dimensional finite element modelling of sheet metal forming for the manufacture of pipe components: symmetry considerations. Symmetry 14: 228. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym14020228 doi: 10.3390/sym14020228
    [26] Wang W, Hua D, Zhou Q, et al. (2023) Effect of a water film on the material removal behavior of Invar during chemical mechanical polishing. Appl Surf Sci 616: 156490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2023.156490 doi: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2023.156490
    [27] Alpas AT, Inagaki J (2000) Effect of microstructure on fracture mechanisms in galvannealed coatings. ISIJ Int 40: 172–181. https://doi.org/10.2355/isijinternational.40.172 doi: 10.2355/isijinternational.40.172
    [28] Nunomura Y, Takasugi T (2003) Plastic deformation and fracture behavior of galvannealed coating. ISIJ Int 43: 454–460. https://doi.org/10.2355/isijinternational.43.454 doi: 10.2355/isijinternational.43.454
    [29] Ploypech S, Boonyongmaneerat Y, Jearanaisilawong P (2012) Crack initiation and propagation of galvanized coatings hot-dipped at 450 ℃ under bending loads. Surf Coat Tech 206: 3758–3763. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2012.03.029 doi: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2012.03.029
    [30] Ochiai S, Okuda H, Iwamoto S, et al. (2005) Multiple-cracking phenomenon of the galvannealed coating layer on steels under thermal and tensile stresses. Metall Mater Trans A 36: 1807–1816. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-005-0044-0 doi: 10.1007/s11661-005-0044-0
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(1773) PDF downloads(72) Cited by(0)

Figures and Tables

Figures(11)  /  Tables(1)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog