MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210876090 · doi:10.29169/1927-5129.2022.18.04

Impact of Chromium Addition on the UTS and ETF of Aluminium Alloy AA6061 Chips Based Composite

2022· article· en· W4210876090 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chan Boon Loong, Mohd Amri Lajis, Shazarel Shamsudin, Nur Elisa Zainodin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAluminum Alloys Composites Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite numberAluminiumUltimate tensile strengthChromiumElongationAluminium alloyComposite materialMetallurgyForgingAlloyRecrystallization (geology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aluminium matrix composite has been increasingly developed due to the impressive performances demonstrated, mechanically and physically. The related properties were enhanced with the addition of reinforcing materials and this tailor-made composite can be used in the area of automotive, aerospace and military. In this study, the matrix composite was developed directly from aluminium chips without remelting through a series of hot press forging operations. This process involved heating the aluminium chip mixtures with 1 to 8 wt% chromium content above the recrystallization temperature. Then, the uniaxial force was subsequently applied onto the composite. For performance measures, the hot pressed composites were tested for the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) and elongation to failure (ETF). The composite with 2 wt % of chromium exhibits significant improvement compared to other samples, with the UTS and ETF reached to 215.37 MPa and 30.65% respectively. This sample exceeds the minimum stress and strain of stock aluminium AA6061-T4. Furthermore, the addition of chromium beyond 2 wt % would generally cause reduction of the mechanical properties of the composite.

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)0.001
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 score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicAluminum Alloys Composites PropertiesFrench-language works237,207