MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154404402 · doi:10.29391/2021.100.010

Globular-to-Spray Transition in Cold Wire Gas Metal Arc Welding

2021· article· en· W3154404402 on OpenAlexfundno aff
R. A. Ribeiro, P. D. C. Assunção, Emanuel B. F. Dos Santos, Eduardo de Magalhães Braga, A.P. Gerlich

Bibliographic record

VenueWelding Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWelding Techniques and Residual Stresses
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade Federal do ParáUniversity of WaterlooNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistério da EducaçãoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsGas metal arc weldingWeldingPlasma arc weldingMaterials scienceGroove (engineering)Current (fluid)MetallurgyShielding gasMechanicsComposite materialArc weldingElectrical engineeringEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The electrical current required for a transition from globular to spray droplet transfer during gas metal arc welding (GMAW) is determined by the specified wire feed speed in the case of constant-voltage power supplies. Generally, in narrow groove welding, spray transfer is avoided, be-cause this transfer mode can severely erode the groove sidewalls. This work compared the globular-to-spray transition mechanism in cold wire gas metal arc welding (CW-GMAW) vs. standard GMAW. Synchronized high-speed imaging with current and voltage samplings were used to characterize the arc dynamics for different cold wire mass feed rates. Subsequently, the droplet frequency and diameter were estimated, and the parameters for a globular-to-spray transition were assessed. The results suggest that the transition to spray occurs in CW-GMAW at a lower current than in the standard GMAW process. The reason for this difference appears to be linked to an enhanced magnetic pinch force, which is mainly responsible for metal transfer in higher welding current conditions.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWelding JournalSame topicWelding Techniques and Residual StressesFrench-language works237,207