MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2919208095 · doi:10.5539/jmsr.v8n2p1

AA2219 Aluminum Alloy Processed via Multi-Axial Forging in Cryogenic and Ambient Environments

2019· article· en· W2919208095 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amin Azimi, Gbadebo Owolabi, Hamid Fallahdoost, Nikhil Kumar, Horace Whitworth, Grant Warner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Science Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMicrostructure and mechanical properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArmy Research Office
KeywordsMaterials scienceForgingMicrostructureUltimate tensile strengthDuctility (Earth science)Composite materialAlloyToughnessNanocrystalline materialMetallurgyFractographyCreep

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the microstructure and the mechanical behavior of nanocrystalline AA2219 processed by multi axial forging (MAF) at ambient and cryogenic temperatures. The X-ray diffraction pattern and transmission electron microscopy micrographs in the initial microstructure characterization indicate a more effective severe plastic deformation during the cryogenic MAF than the same process conducted at room temperature. MAF at cryogenic temperature results in crystallite size reduction to nanoscales as well as second phase particles breakage to finer particles which are the crucial factors to increasing the mechanical properties of the material. Fractography analysis and tensile tests results show that cryogenic forging does not only increase the mechanical strength and toughness of the alloys significantly, but also improves the ductility of the material in comparison with the conventional forging. In this comparative regard, cryogenic processing provides 44% increase in the tensile strength of the material only after 2 forging cycles when compared to the room temperature process. In addition, further forging process to the next cycles slightly enhances the tensile strength at the expense of ductility due to less ability of the dislocations to accumulate. However, the ductility of the ambient temperature forged samples decreases at a faster rate than that of cryoforged samples.

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)0.010
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.677

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials Science ResearchSame topicMicrostructure and mechanical propertiesFrench-language works237,207