Influence of WC-Based Pin Tool Profile on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of AA1100 FSW Welds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of various tungsten carbide (WC) pin tools and operating parameters on the material structure and properties of an AA1100 friction stir welding (FSW) weld were evaluated. Three different pin shapes were employed (conical, square and threaded). For each tool shape, welds were generated for a set of tool (revolutions per minute, RPM) (710, 1120 and 1400) and advancing speeds (150, 250 and 400 mm/min). Weld samples were tested for mechanical strength by tensile testing. Morphology was examined using optical microscopy, and weld composition with scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) and X-ray diffraction (XRD). No weld contamination from the tools was observed. However, a number of structural defects, inherent to the FSW process, were observed (including tunnel voids, kissing bonds and swirling lines). These defects, associated with the stirring action, could not be eliminated. The results show how the operating parameters may be optimized to produce stronger welds.
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 | 0.000 | 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".