Measuring the influence of magnesium on the elastic anisotropy of aluminum using in situ neutron diffraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparison of lattice strains in crystals of various orientations is a primary method of validating polycrystal plasticity simulations. These strains can be measured using in situ neutron diffraction experiments while the corresponding information can be extracted from the simulation results. If the single crystal elastic moduli—particularly the anisotropy of the moduli with respect to lattice direction—are not accurately known, simulations cannot provide a favorable comparison to experiments. Previous work simulating deformation of an aluminum alloy with significant magnesium content (AA-5182) revealed that consistency with the experiments required a higher degree of anisotropy in the elastic moduli in the finite element simulations than that typically reported for pure aluminum. We undertook the current research to determine if the magnesium content causes that larger single crystal elastic anisotropy. Using in situ loading, we measured lattice strains and determined diffraction moduli of materials covering a range of magnesium content. The results show measurable influence of composition on elastic anisotropy.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".