MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383504028 · doi:10.5937/jaes0-41037

Assessment of friction stir welding joints of AA2017-T4 aluminum by disc pressure mechanical tests

2023· article· en· W4383504028 on OpenAlexaff
Abderrahmane Djili, B. Boudjema, Mohamed Habouss, Nadjet Zioui

Bibliographic record

VenueIstrazivanja i projektovanja za privredu · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Welding Techniques Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeldingMaterials scienceFriction stir weldingHeat-affected zoneMetallurgyJoint (building)Composite materialFracture (geology)AluminiumPerpendicularStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Precipitation hardening aluminium alloy sheets AA2017-T4 are welded by FSW on a conventional FSW tool. A macrograph of the cross section of the butt-welded joint shows the classical zones for such welding, namely the nugget zone, the thermo-mechanically affected zone and the heat affected zone. Scanning Electron Microscopy displays a grain refining and a re-formation of the precipitates in the nugget zone. Micro-hardness measurements on the cross-section perpendicular to the welding direction give the standard W-profile of the hardness for such welding, with as expected, the relatively highest value at the joint center (nugget zone). To assess the mechanical performance of the FSW welded joint, the Disk Pressure Test (DPT) is used. It shows a failure pressure for the welded specimen that is 17% lower than the base material. The fracture surface micrographs clearly show a thickness reduction at break that is ~36% higher for the base material than the welding joint and a ductile fracture mode for both specimens.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIstrazivanja i projektovanja za privreduSame topicAdvanced Welding Techniques AnalysisFrench-language works237,207