Hierarchical Morphology and Formation Mechanism of Collision Surface of Al/Steel Dissimilar Lap Joints via Electromagnetic Pulse Welding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The aim of this study was to characterize detailed microstructural changes and bonding characteristics and identify the formation mechanism of collision surface of Al6061–Q355 steel dissimilar welded joints via electromagnetic pulse welding (EMPW). The collision surface was observed to consist of five zones from the center to the outside. The central non-weld zone exhibited a concave and convex morphology. The welding-affected zone mainly included melting features and porous structures, representing a porous joining. The secondary weld zone presented an obvious mechanical joining characterized by shear plateaus with stripes. The primary weld zone characterized by dimples with cavity features suggested the formation of diffusion or metallurgical bonding. The impact-affected zone denoted an invalid interfacial bonding due to discontinuous spot impact. During EMPW, the impact energy and pressure affected the changes of normal velocity and tangential velocity, and in turn, influenced the interfacial deformation behavior and bonding characteristics, including the formation of micropores which continued to grow into homogeneous or uneven porous structures via cavitation, surface tension, and depressurization, along with the effect of trapped air.</p>
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".