Fabrication of Magnesium–NiTip Composites via Friction Stir Processing: Effect of Tool Profile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, a solid-state fabrication route via friction stir processing (FSP) was used to fabricate Nitinol particulate (NiTip)-reinforced magnesium-based composites to avoid the diffusion reaction and the formation of brittle interfacial compounds. The effect of four tool profiles on the homogeneity in the dispersion of NiTip particles in the magnesium matrix and microhardness was examined and analyzed. A counter-clockwise scrolled shoulder with a plain cylindrical pin and three tools with a flat shoulder having plain cylindrical pin, left-hand, and right-hand threaded pins were used and compared. The tool profiles were observed to exhibit a significant influence on the microstructure of the fabricated Mg/NiTip composites. A wider and more uniform distribution of NiTip particles along with superior bonding with magnesium matrix was achieved with a left-hand threaded cylindrical pin tool. The incorporation of NiTip gave rise to a significant increase in the microhardness of the fabricated composites due to a variety of strengthening mechanisms.
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) | 0.001 | 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".