{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019867549668874173, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005960264900662252, 'mean_word_length': 5.16734693877551, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Comparison of a Two‐Dimensional and a Three‐Dimensional Method for Inclusion Determinations in Tool Steel

To produce clean commercial tool steel the non‐metallic inclusions characteristics have to be known, since they influence the mechanical properties of steel. In this work, inclusion characteristics in steel samples from plant trials were studied. The samples were collected in the steel plant according the two following methods: (a) 2D investigations of inclusions by a cross sectional method and (b) 3D investigations of inclusions collected on a film filter after electrolytic extraction. More specifically, the chemical composition, morphology, number and size distribution of inclusions in tool steel samples taken from ladle during melt treatment were determined by both methods. In both methods SEM equipped with EDS was used for compositional analysis of inclusions. In addition, in the cross sectional method an automated detection program called ‘INCAFeature’ was used to collect more statistics of non‐metallic inclusions. The composition of inclusions larger than 5 µm was found to contain 49% CaO based on the results from both methods. However, for smaller inclusions it was found that the accuracy of the 2D method was less than that of the 3D method due to the influence of the metal matrix on the results. In addition, it was found that a critical inclusion size of 4 µm could be defined for the 3D method, above which the standard deviation in composition determination was very low.