MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Depth dependence and strain rate sensitivity of indentation stress of 6061 aluminium alloy

2012· article· en· W2129237542 on OpenAlexaff
Meysam Haghshenas, Liang Wang, R.J. Klassen

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials Science and Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal and Thin Film Mechanics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndentationMaterials scienceStrain rateDislocationComposite materialDeformation (meteorology)AluminiumAlloyDeformation mechanismMetallurgyMicrostructure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indentation tests were performed on samples of 6061 aluminium alloy in the annealed, T4 and T6 temper conditions. The tests were performed over a range of loading rates to study the effect of indentation strain rate [Formula: see text] on the indentation depth dependence of the average indentation stress σ ind . While [Formula: see text] changes by several orders of magnitude during the constant loading rate nano-/microscale indentation tests, we observed that the strain rate sensitivity of σ ind increases with decreasing indentation depth for all the samples tested. By applying an obstacle limited dislocation glide description of the deformation process, we were able to demonstrate that the apparent activation energy of the obstacles to dislocation glide increases with decreasing indentation depth and is also dependent upon the heat treatment condition of the 6061 test material. This suggests that, based upon the assumption of the operative deformation mechanism chosen, the strength of the dislocation–obstacle interactions that limit the rate of deformation is significantly increased in indentations of depth <∼4 μm.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials Science and TechnologySame topicMetal and Thin Film MechanicsFrench-language works237,207