On the persistence of adiabatic shear bands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is generally agreed that the initiation and development of adiabatic shear bands (ASBs) are manifestations of damage in metallic materials subjected to high strain rates and large strains as those due to impact in a Hopkinson Bar system. Models for evolution of these bands have been described in the literature. One question that has not received attention is how persistent these bands are and whether their presence and effect can be reversed or eliminated by using a process of thermal (heat treatment) or thermo-mechanical treatment that would relieve the material from the high strain associated with ASBs and their role as precursors to crack initiation and subsequent failure. Since ASBs are more prevalent and more defined in BCC metals including steels, a study was conducted to investigate the best conditions of generating ASBs in a heat treatable steel, followed by determining the best conditions for heat treatment of specimens already damaged by the presence of ASBs in order to relieve the strains due to ASBs and restore the material to an apparent microstructure without the “scars” due to the previous presence of ASBs. It was found that heat treatment achieves the curing from ASBs. This presentation documents the process undertaken to achieve this objective.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".