MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597713584 · doi:10.1149/2.0731706jes

Tribological Properties of Functionally Graded Ni-Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub>Nanocomposite Coating

2017· article· en· W2597713584 on OpenAlexaff
Seyed Ahmad Lajevardi, T. Shahrabi, Jerzy A. Szpunar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Electrochemical Society · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrodeposition and Electroless Coatings
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceTribocorrosionTribologyNanocompositeComposite materialAbrasiveComposite numberCoatingAbrasion (mechanical)CorrosionMetallurgyElectrochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main challenge in producing metal matrix composite coatings is achieving a homogeneous distribution of the second phase particles and avoiding the particle agglomeration. Despite all the works done up to now, the effect of the particles' distribution in the matrix of composite coatings on the tribological properties has rarely been reported. The primary concern of the present study is to investigate the tribological behavior of functionally graded nickel-Al2O3 nanocomposite coating produced at different duty cycles in 3.5%wt NaCl solution. Before starting the tribocorrosion test, the open circuit potential variations are small and reached stable values which followed by a negative shift during and after the tribocorrosion test. SEM and EBSD images showed that by decreasing the duty cycle the width of the wear track decreased because of more incorporated particles and changing of the (001) structure to compact random texture. Although the EIS results show the corrosion resistance decreased by increasing the embedded particles, higher hardness and compact structure result in better tribocorrosion properties of samples prepared at lower duty cycle. The adhesive wear was the dominant mechanism for coatings plated at high duty cycle and it changed to the abrasive wear in sample prepared at lower duty cycle.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Electrochemical SocietySame topicElectrodeposition and Electroless CoatingsFrench-language works237,207