Local Ratcheting at the Notch Region of Non-press-Fitted and Press-Fitted Al 7075-T6 Samples Undergoing Asymmetric Stress Cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study evaluates ratcheting response of notched and press-fitted Al 7075-T6 specimens under stress-controlled asymmetric cycles. The degree of interference fit (DIF) directly influenced progressive plastic strain magnitude and rate at notch root region. Local ratcheting at the hole-pin interference region was analyzed by means of two kinematic hardening rules of Ahmadzadeh-Varvani (A-V) and Chaboche coupled with the Neuber rule. Ratcheting strains at notch root of aluminum samples with DIF=0 (non-press-fitting samples) were measured to be highest in magnitude. For the press-fitted samples, however ratcheting strains dropped noticeably as DIF increased from 1% to 2%. Press-fitted samples plastically deformed the perimeter edge of notches and improved materials locally at the notch edge, resulting in a better resistance against ratcheting progress. Local ratcheting at different distances of 0.5, 1.3 and 3.0 mm from the notch root were evaluated for both pinned and unpinned samples through the hardening rules and compared with those of measured values. The predicted ratcheting curves by means of the A-V and Chaboche hardening rules closely agreed with experimental data and respectively positioned above and below the measured data.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".