Fretting Behavior of Cold-Sprayed Cu and Cu-MoS2 Coatings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cu and Cu-MoS2 coatings were fabricated by cold gas dynamic spray and the fretting wear performance of the two coatings was compared. A mixture (95 wt.% Cu + 5 wt.% MoS2) was used as feedstock for the composite coating. Coatings were sprayed with identical gas flow conditions on the substrates preheated to approximately 170°C. The cross section of the coatings was analyzed by scanning electron microscope (SEM) and MoS2 concentration was measured, as well as coating microhardness. Fretting tests were carried out under gross slip conditions in ambient environment. SEM observation on wear scars and counterspheres revealed the development of third bodies, by which the sliding was accommodated. For the Cu-MoS2 coating, solid lubrication effects in the form of friction drops occurred in early cycles (< 5k), but eventually (> 5k) the coating's friction behavior was similar to the pure Cu coating. Third body morphology and wear of the two coatings were distinctly different, which could largely be attributed to the hardness reduction of the Cu-MoS2 composite due to poorly bonded interfaces induced by the effect of MoS2 during particle impact and coating formation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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".