MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prediction and Measurements of Thermal Residual Stresses in AA2024-T3 Friction Stir Welds as a Function of Welding Parameters

2010· article· en· W2002588769 on OpenAlexaff
L. Dubourg, Pascal Doran, Michael A. Gharghouri, Simon Larose, Mohammad Jahazi

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials science forum · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Welding Techniques Analysis
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceResidual stressWeldingFriction stir weldingComposite materialUltimate tensile strengthRotational speedAluminiumMetallurgyNeutron diffractionDiffractionOpticsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Friction Stir Welding (FSW) induces thermal residual stresses resulting in distortions in thin-walled structures. In order to understand and quantify this phenomenon, simulations and experiments of FSW on aluminium alloy (AA) 2024-T3 have been performed using different rotational and welding speeds. A sequentially coupled finite element (FE) model was used to study the residual stresses caused by the thermal cycling induced from FSW. The 3D FE model used temperature-dependent mechanical and thermophysical material properties. The predicted longitudinal stresses peaked at ~300 MPa and had a ‘‘W’’ profile with tensile stress peaks in the weld and compressive stresses outside the weld. In the FE model, the influence of process parameters on residual stress distribution was studied. The application of ‘hot’ welding conditions, i.e. low welding speed and high rotational speed, increased the residual stresses significantly, mainly in the transverse direction. Conversely, ‘cold’ welding conditions resulted in lower residual stresses. The magnitude and distribution of the residual stresses predicted by the FE model were validated by neutron diffraction. The results indicate a good agreement between the measured and predicted residual stresses in AA2024-T3.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials science forumSame topicAdvanced Welding Techniques AnalysisFrench-language works237,207