MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361214660 · doi:10.3390/cryst13040576

Friction Stir Welding of Non-Heat Treatable Al Alloys: Challenges and Improvements Opportunities

2023· article· en· W4361214660 on OpenAlexaff
Behrouz Abnar, S. Gashtiazar, Mousa Javidani

Bibliographic record

VenueCrystals · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Welding Techniques Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFriction stir weldingFusion weldingMaterials scienceWeldingMetallurgyFriction weldingHeat-affected zoneMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Friction stir welding (FSW) is an effective solid-state joining process that has the potential to overcome common problems correlated with conventional fusion welding processes. FSW is used for the joining of metallic materials, in particular Al alloys (non-heat-treatable and heat-treatable). The heat produced by the friction between the rotating tool and the workpiece material generates a softened region near the FSW tool. Although the heat input plays a crucial role in producing a defect-free weld metal, it is a serious concern in the FSW of work-hardened non-heat-treatable Al alloys. In this group of alloys, the mechanical properties, including hardness, tensile properties, and fatigue life, are adversely affected by the softening effect because of grain growth and reduced dislocation density. Considering this challenge, work-hardened Al alloys have been limited in their industrial use, which includes aerospace, shipbuilding, automotive, and railway industries. The current comprehensive review presents the various approaches of available studies for improving the quality of FSW joints and expanding their use. First, the optimization of welding parameters, including the tool rotational and traverse speeds, tool design, plunge depth, and the tilt angle is discussed. Second, the incorporation of reinforcement particles and then underwater FSW are stated as other effective strategies to strengthen the joint. Finally, some supplementary techniques containing surface modification, bobbin tool FSW, copper backing, and double-sided FSW in relation to strain-hardened Al alloys are considered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations47
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrystalsSame topicAdvanced Welding Techniques AnalysisFrench-language works237,207