MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008031034 · doi:10.1179/026708304225012099

Morphology of adiabatic shear bands in cylindrical specimens of AISI 4340 steel impacted by Hopkinson pressure bar

2004· article· en· W2008031034 on OpenAlexaff
Q. Li, P. Zmudzki, S. Al-Ameeri, M.N. Bassim

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials Science and Technology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicHigh-Velocity Impact and Material Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdiabatic shear bandMaterials scienceComposite materialShear (geology)Split-Hopkinson pressure barShear stressAdiabatic processTemperingShearing (physics)MetallurgyStrain ratePhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cylindrical specimens of AISI 4340 steel, which were heat treated by quenching in oil followed by tempering at either 315 or 425°C, were impacted in a Hopkinson pressure bar at different impacting speeds. It was found that when strain and strain rate reached certain values, adiabatic shear bands (or plastic deformation zones) were formed in the specimens. The adiabatic shear bands appeared either in a circle on the transverse section, a hyperbola on different longitudinal sections without the central axis of the cylinder, and a triangle on the longitudinal section through the central axis of the cylinder. From these observations, it can be concluded that the plastic deformation localisation zone is limited in a thin conical shell in three dimensions. It was further confirmed that the adiabatic shear bands initiated along the maximum shear stress directions. In addition, the adiabatic shear bands in the specimens tempered at 315°C appeared white, while those in specimens tempered at 425°C had deformation characteristics. This indicates that the appearance of adiabatic shear bands is related to the hardness and microstructure of the tested steel.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials Science and TechnologySame topicHigh-Velocity Impact and Material BehaviorFrench-language works237,207