MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212662640 · doi:10.36909/jer.12957

A new approach of the constrained groove pressing process on Al5083-O alloy using PMMA polymer, without die non-friction coefficient: nanostructure, mechanical Properties and hardness

2021· article· en· W3212662640 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hadi Tagimalek, Mohammad Reza Maraki, Masoud Mahmoodi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Forming Simulation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialUltimate tensile strengthLubricantAlloyDie (integrated circuit)Pressing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Constrained Groove Pressing (CGP) on annealed Al5083 (Al5083-O) alloy sheets by means of Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA) polymer is investigated in this research. Input parameters include Traverse Speed (1, 2, and 3 mm/min), Pass Number (1, 2, 3, and 4), and Lubricants (Grease, Oil, and without lubricants). Reciprocally, output parameters consist of Nanostructure (SEM and EBSD images), Hardness (HV), and Mechanical Properties – Impact Strength (kJ/m2), Tensile Strength (MPa), Young's Modulus (MPa), and Elongation (%). Revealed by the results, the impact strength is gradually improved in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th passes by respectively adding oil and grease, compared to the state of using no lubricant. The impact strength results demonstrated that the addition of grease has a significant effect on the impact strength of composite samples. In order to build a high-quality product through the CGP process, it is very important for the mechanical properties to be based on the input parameters. In CGP processes, the Continuous Dynamic Recrystallization (CDRX) is considered as the ultrafine-grained mechanism. To predict the grain size evolution and the plastic deformation rate, the combination of Finite Element (FE) method and the ETMB model is utilized. Indicating the high generalizability and reliability as compared to other modeling methods, both the experimental test results and the ETMB model data, which have a higher degree of accuracy, are presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 venueJournal of Engineering ResearchSame topicMetal Forming Simulation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207