Fatigue characterization of flowformed A356-T6
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flowforming is an incremental rotary forming technology consisting of deforming a cylindrical workpiece through contact between a roller and a rotating mandrel. This process delivers significant local compressive plastic strain to the workpiece. The effects on fatigue resilience of a common aluminum foundry alloy (A356) processed in this manner at an elevated temperature has been shown to improve post heat treatment. Fatigue properties of material processed with a standard heat treatment following casting is compared to material which has been cast and flowformed to varying degrees and then heat treated. Flowformed material with varying degrees of rotary deformation have been tested. Endurance limits have been found to be generally governed by porosity and maximum principal stress for high cycle fatigue on undeformed material. Fatigue properties have been quantified employing stress-life relationships derived from uniaxial fatigue tests. A 30% increase in the high-cycle endurance limits of flowformed compared to non-deformed material has been observed and is linked to the extent of deformation. Fractographic examination shows that this increase in endurance limit can be attributed primarily to the mitigation of porosity. Microstructural changes due to processing appear to be a secondary factor.
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 | 0.001 | 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".