Energy Generation and Stir Zone Dimensions in Friction Stir Spot Welds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy generation and utilization during friction stir spot welding of Al 6061-T6 and AM50 sheet materials are investigated. The dimensions of the stir zones during plunge testing are largely unchanged when the tool rotational speed increases from 1500 RPM to 3000 RPM (for a plunge rate of 1 mm/s) and when the rate of tool penetration increases from 1 mm/s to 10 mm/s (for a tool rotational speed of 3000 RPM). The energy resulting from tool rotation is also unaffected when higher tool rotational speeds are applied. The rotating pin accounts for around 70% and 66% of the energy generated when 6.3 mm thick Al 6061-T6 and AM50 sheet materials are spot welded without the application of a dwell period. In direct contrast, the contribution made by the tool shoulder increases to around 48% (Al 6061-T6) and to 65% (AM50) when a four second long dwell period is incorporated during spot welding of 6.3 mm thick sheets. The increased contribution made by the tool shoulder is due to the tool shoulder remaining in contact with stir zone material for a much longer period during the friction stir spot welding operation. Only a small percentage of the total energy generated during tool rotation (about 4%) is required for stir zone formation during plunge testing of Al 6061-T6 and AM50 sheets. The remainder of the energy generated by tool rotation dissipates in the sheets being welded, in the tool assembly, anvil support, and clamp and surrounding atmosphere. The presence of a thread on the rotating tool has negligible influence on the amount of energy generated during spot welding.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".