Anisotropy in the quasi-static and cyclic behavior of ZK60 extrusion: Characterization and fatigue modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quasi-static and strain-controlled fatigue characteristics of ZK60 extrusion have been investigated along three different directions: the extrusion direction (ED), the radial direction (RD), and 45° to the extrusion direction (45°). The quasi-static response showed symmetric behavior for the samples tested along RD and 45°, whereas the ED samples manifested completely asymmetric behavior. Although the ED samples exhibited longer fatigue lives than the RD and 45° in the high cycle fatigue, the fatigue lives in the low cycle fatigue regime were similar. The texture measurement indicated a sharp basal texture along ED, explaining its asymmetric behavior. Higher tensile mean stress and less dissipated plastic energy per cycle for the ED samples, acting as two competing factors, were the principal reasons for exhibiting fatigue responses identical to those of RD and 45° in the LCF regime. The fracture surface in the ED direction was dominated by twin lamellae and profuse twinned grains, whereas that in RD was dominated by slip bands. Finally, Smith-Watson-Topper and Jahed-Varvani models were employed to predict the fatigue lives along all directions using a single set of material parameters.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".