Damage studies in heterogeneous aluminium alloys using X-ray tomography
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
The role of damage on the mechanical response of a heterogeneous material was investigated through X-ray tomography combined with in situ tensile deformation. This technique enables one to follow the same population of damage-nucleating particles throughout a tensile test. The results indicate that heterogeneity in the spatial distribution of particles does influence the damage process. In particular, particles that are in clusters tend to nucleate damage at lower strain than isolated particles. Nucleation is also enhanced for larger particles and those with higher aspect ratios. Increasing the number of neighbours around a non-isolated particle has no additional influence on the evolution of damage. A model accounting for the multiple cracking of the second phase particles has been developed and incorporated into a self-consistent effective medium analysis model that includes the final stage of damage linkage between cracked particles. The results suggest that while multiple cracking of particles during deformation does accelerate the loss of work hardening with flow, the linkage of damage is the dominant feature which controls the final ductility.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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