MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030164489 · doi:10.1081/amp-120017587

Research and Progress in Laser Welding of Wrought Aluminum Alloys. II. Metallurgical Microstructures, Defects, and Mechanical Properties

2003· article· en· W2030164489 on OpenAlexaff
X. Cao, W.E. Wallace, J.-P. Immarigeon, C. Poon

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials and Manufacturing Processes · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWelding Techniques and Residual Stresses
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceWeldingMetallurgyLaser beam weldingElectric resistance weldingCold weldingHeat-affected zoneAlloyMicrostructureAluminiumGas metal arc welding

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the wide application of aluminum alloys in automotive, aerospace, and other industries, laser welding has become a critical joining technique for aluminum alloys. In this review, the research and progress in laser welding of wrought aluminum alloys are critically discussed from different perspectives. The primary objective of the review is to understand the influence of welding processes on joint quality and to build up the science base of laser welding for the reliable production of aluminum alloy joints. Two main types of industrial lasers, carbon dioxide (CO2), and neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG), are currently applied but special attention is paid to Nd:YAG laser welding of 5000 and 6000 series alloys in the keyhole (deep penetration) mode. In the preceding article of this review (part I), the laser welding processing parameters, including the laser-, process-, and material-related variables and their effects on welding quality, have been examined. In this part of the review, the metallurgical microstructures and main defects encountered in laser welding of aluminum alloys such as porosity, cracking, oxide inclusions, and loss of alloying elements are discussed from the point of view of mechanism of their formation, main influencing factors, and remedy measures. The main mechanical properties such as hardness, tensile and fatigue strength, and formability are also evaluated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations162
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials and Manufacturing ProcessesSame topicWelding Techniques and Residual StressesFrench-language works237,207