Effect of Liquid Metal Embrittlement Indent Cracks on Zinc Coated 3rd Generation AHSS Mechanical Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Third-generation advanced high-strength steels (3G-AHSS) are typically galvanized to prevent corrosion of the outer body structure. However, the zinc coating on the surface, combined with the locally elevated temperatures generated during the resistance spot welding (RSW) process, can provide the prerequisites for liquid metal embrittlement (LME). This work uses two strategies to control LME crack formation: current pulsation and varying the electrode geometry. These two methods were compared to a baseline welding schedule for a 3G-980-GI coated AHSS. The effectiveness of each method was discussed in terms of the overall weld cracking index and local cracking index. The results showed that increasing the current pulses results in a slower energy input into the weld, which can help to reduce LME crack formation. Introducing more pulses (five to seven pulses) reduced LME crack formation while maintaining the same welding time. Regarding the electrode geometry, the results showed an increase in LME cracking index for currents below the expulsion level Imax-10% when the electrode face diameter increased, whereas at the current level Imax-200A, the electrode radius was the most important factor to control LME crack index. For the current level above the expulsion, Imax+10%, a drastic decrease in the LME cracking index was observed when a large electrode surface diameter was used. The electrode radius was not a significant factor in controlling LME. The mechanical properties of selected conditions were examined using the lap shear test and the results showed no significant effect of LME cracks on the shear tensile strength. The location of the failure indicated that most of the cracks are located in the indented area (type A), which does not influence the lap shear strength.
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".