Relationship between precipitation behavior and loading orientations of the creep-aged Al–Cu–Li single crystal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In present work, typical loading orientations were applied on an Al–Cu–Li single crystal during creep aging, and the relationship between precipitation behavior and loading orientations of the creep-aged Al–Cu–Li single crystal was studied by high angle annular dark field - scanning transmission electron microscope (HAADF-STEM) observation along multiple zone axes. The results show that the precipitation behavior of the precipitates (i.e., T1, θ′) in creep-aged Al–Cu–Li alloy was directly attributed to the loading directions. The number density of T1-phase in the creep-aged single crystal loaded close to <001>α direction is highest, and that of T1-phase is the lowest when the loading direction is < 111>α. Moreover, the oriented-precipitation of T1-phase was found in the creep-aged sample loaded close to <111>α direction, while that of θ′-phase was observed in the creep-aged sample loaded close to <011>α direction. The hardness evolution of the creep-aged samples along different loading orientations is also in agreement with the corresponding precipitation behavior. The present work proposes a novel method to regulate the precipitation behavior of the creep-aged Al–Cu–Li alloy by controlling the loading direction, and the ideal loading direction is < 001>α for the Al–Cu–Li alloy to obtain better mechanical property.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".