Material flow and intermixing during dissimilar friction stir welding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Material flow and intermixing during dissimilar friction stir spot welding and friction stir seam welding are investigated. During friction stir spot welding, a ribbon of contiguous dissimilar lamellae is produced during each rotation of the tool and the number of intermingled lamellae contained in the intermixed region is determined by the tool rotational speed setting and the dwell time applied. When the rotating tool moves across the component, the ribbon of dissimilar contiguous lamellae continues to be produced and the linear distance in the traversing direction between dissimilar lamellae corresponds with the pitch distance [the travel speed (mm s −1 ) divided by the tool rotational speed (Hz)]. The material flow pattern produced when a threaded tool moves across a component is therefore a variant of that produced during the touch down period when the rotating tool is held stationary. It is suggested that the onion ring structures observed in similar and dissimilar friction stir seam welds made using threaded tools are produced by material incorporation from the locations beneath the tool shoulder and the bottom of the rotating pin and the creation of a helical vertical rotational flow within the intermixed region formed beside the periphery of the rotating pin.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".