Each one runs in your browser, shows the formula it uses, and needs no account. They are the individual terms that sit inside the full METALLAI prediction — useful on their own, and the quickest way to see whether the engine behind them is worth your time.
CE(IIW) — the CEV of EN 1011-2 — and the Ito–Bessyo Pcm parameter from a steel composition, with the weldability band and preheat guidance.
Heat treatmentIdeal critical diameter by the ASTM A255 multiplying-factor method, then your quench and section size — so you get the core martensite fraction, not just a number.
Heat treatmentAustenitising window and martensite-start temperature from composition, by the Andrews relations — and a warning when your steel is outside the range they were fitted to.
FatigueDefect-initiation threshold from hardness and defect size, surface or internal — with the √area your process actually leaves, and what shrinking it really buys.
Heat treatmentTrade tempering hours for degrees — and get told when the target crosses Ac1 or lands in an embrittlement band, which the arithmetic alone cannot see.
FatigueGoodman, Soderberg, Gerber and the first-cycle yield check on one Haigh diagram — including the case all three fatigue criteria quietly pass.
MicrostructureWith the effective barrier size for martensite packets and bainite laths. Using the prior-austenite grain you measured reads 2.2× low.
WeldingEN 1011-2, with the 2D/3D transition handled properly — thin plate cools slower than thick, and that is where most of these go wrong.
TestingHV and HBW to UTS — published as the range measured across 1,089 real alloys, with how often the textbook ×3.2 is actually right. It is 51 % for steel.
Yield, tensile, hardness, elongation and fatigue life — with the uncertainty on each, the standards that apply to your product form, and a plain statement of where the model is weak.
Open the app — free See the measured accuracy