Theory and experimental method to determine bonding strength envelope of bi‐material interface
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose It is well known that stress singularity may exist at the edges of a bonded bi‐material interface due to the discontinuity of material properties. This stress singularity causes difficulty in accurately determining the bi‐material interface bonding strength. This paper aims to present a new design of specimen geometry to eliminate the stress singularity and present an experimental procedure to more accurately determine the bonding strength of the bi‐material interface. Design/methodology/approach The design is based on an asymptotic analysis of the stress field near the free edge of bi‐material interface. The critical bonding angle, which delineates the singular and non‐singular stress field near the free edge, is determined. Findings With the new designed specimen and a special iterative calculation algorithm, the interface bonding strength envelope of an epoxy‐aluminum interface was experimentally determined. Originality/value This new design of specimen, experimental procedure and iterative algorithm may be applied to obtain more reasonable and accurate bonding strength data for a wide range of bi‐material interfaces.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it