Effect of tool pin profile on the hook geometry and mechanical properties of a friction stir spot welded AA6082-T6 aluminum alloy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AA6082-T6 alloy was joined by friction stir spot welding using five different pin profiles, namely cylindrical, conical, triangular, hexagonal, and cylindrical with two grooves, at different dwell time. The joints welded by cylindrical pins had larger effective weld width. However, grooves on the cylindrical pin decreased the effective weld width. In the weld made with the hexagonal pin, the hook was bent downward from the interface of the sheets and had the smallest effective weld width. When the conical pin was used, the effective weld width increased with increasing dwell time. In the case of using tools with cylindrical and conical pins, HAZ hardness was relatively lower. With increasing dwell time, HAZ hardness of the joints made with the conical pin decreased. Effective weld width determined the weld strength under the tensile shear loading condition: larger effective weld width resulted in higher weld strength. Weld strength of the joints made with cylindrical pins was higher. The joints fabricated with hexagonal pins had the lowest weld strength. In general, higher dwell time led to higher weld strength. The welds with the higher strength experienced both brittle and ductile fractures, while the joints with the lower strength exhibited completely brittle fracture.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".