On the Formation of Intermetallics during the Furnace Brazing of Pure Titanium to 304 Stainless Steel Using Ag (30–50%)–Cu Filler Metals
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
In the present work, the effect of brazing parameters on the properties of the brazed joint of pure titanium and 304 stainless steel (304SS) was investigated. Three different Ag–Cu filler metals were used, while the temperature and time of brazing were in the range of 800–950°C and 5–45 minutes, respectively. The microstructural observations show that, depending on the brazing conditions, different intermetallic phases such as CuTi2, CuTi, Cu3Ti4, and FeTi were formed at the phases interface. Based on the microstructural observations, a model was developed to characterize the formation of phases at the interfaces and brazed joint. The results show that, while some phases may form during the brazing process, the others can form during the cooling cycle after brazing. The results of the mechanical tests indicate that the microstructure of joint has a considerable effect on the shear strength of the brazed samples. It was observed that, when brittle intermetallic phases are finely dispersed at the interface, the strength was lower comparing to the conditions under which the intermetallic phases had a coarse dispersion in the brazed joint.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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