Influence of Tool Thread on the Mechanical Properties of Dissimilar Al-alloy Friction Stir Spot Welds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of threaded and wear simulated (half-thread) tools on the mechanical properties of dissimilar Al-alloy friction stir spot welds is investigated. The failure load properties of dissimilar A5754/A6111 lap joints produced using wear simulated (half-thread) tools were much poorer in joints made using tool rotational speeds of 1000 and 1500 RPM. Similar failure load properties were produced using these tools, when the tool rotational speed was increased to 2250 RPM. In joints made using a tool rotational speed of 3000 RPM, the failure load properties of joints made using the half-thread tool were higher than those of joints made using the threaded tool. Similar failure load properties were found in A5052/A6061 lap and butt joints made using threaded, half threaded and no thread tools and a tool rotational speed of 1000RPM. Also, the failure load properties of lap joints made using the different tools corresponded with their bonded widths and Y values. The area of the stir zone on the bonded cross-section corresponded with the actual bonded region on the fracture surface of A5052/A6061 butt joints. However, the weld profiles were different from those in A5052/A6061 lap joints. It is therefore suggested that the failure load properties of lap joints are similar when the bonded widths and Y values are similar. In addition, the thread on the cylindrical probe has negligible influence on the mechanical properties of lap joints. The major role played by the thread involves stirring in the vertical direction. Stirring in the horizontal direction is unchanged in joints made using the different tools.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".