MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083306403 · doi:10.3390/coatings10090864

Pulsed Waterjet Roughening of Cast Iron and Aluminum Alloy for Automotive Engine Remanufacturing with Plasma Transferred Wire Arc Coating

2020· article· en· W3083306403 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas O’Neil, Abu Syed Humaun Kabir

Bibliographic record

VenueCoatings · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicErosion and Abrasive Machining
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceCoatingSurface roughnessCast ironSurface finishSubstrate (aquarium)MetallurgyAluminiumDelamination (geology)Composite materialAlloyPlasma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study utilized the high-pressure pulsed waterjet process and paired it with the plasma transferred wire arc technology to develop a novel technique to remanufacture damaged engine cylinder bores. The objective of this research was to eliminate the need for expensive bond-coats such as Ni-Al by optimizing the surface roughness profile of the substrate to provide acceptable mechanical bonding between the coating and the substrate. In this study, a high chrome stainless steel wire (Metcoloy #2) was plasma spray coated on a wide range of pulsed waterjet roughened surface profiles generated on grey cast iron and cast aluminum A380 alloy, the two most common engine materials. The pulsed waterjet greatly increased the adhesion strength between the substrates and the Metcoloy #2 coating. The increase in adhesion strength is a result of the formation of favorable mechanical anchoring points. Optimal pulsed waterjet parameters were determined to avoid the production of a copious roughness profile which resulted in a coating that mirrored the roughened surface profile. Additionally, if the roughness profile produced by the pulsed waterjet was insignificant the coating was removed in its entirety during detachment-based failure.

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)0.000
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCoatingsSame topicErosion and Abrasive MachiningFrench-language works237,207