MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388142022 · doi:10.1007/s40192-023-00309-3

Multi-physics Approach to Predict Fatigue Behavior of High Strength Aluminum Alloy Repaired via Additive Friction Stir Deposition

2023· article· en· W4388142022 on OpenAlexaff
N. I. Palya, Kirk Fraser, Youngmin Hong, Ning Zhu, M. B. Williams, Kevin J. Doherty, Paul Allison, J.B. Jordon

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrating materials and manufacturing innovation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAluminum Alloys Composites Properties
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersStrategic Environmental Research and Development Program
KeywordsMicrostructureMaterials scienceAlloyDeposition (geology)Friction stir processingDeformation (meteorology)AluminiumRaw materialComposite materialMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A smooth particle hydrodynamic (SPH) simulation of an additive friction stir deposition (AFSD) repair was used to inform a multi-physics approach to predict the fatigue life of a high strength aluminum alloy. The AFSD process is a solid-state layer-by-layer additive manufacturing approach in which a hollow tool containing feedstock is used to deposit material. While an understanding of the evolving microstructures is necessary to predict material performance, the elevated temperatures and strain rates associated with severe plastic deformation processes (SPDP) make accurate collection of experimental data within AFSD difficult. Without the ability to experimentally determine material history within the AFSD process, an SPH model was employed to predict the thermomechanical history. The SPH simulation of an AFSD repair was used to inform several microstructural models to predict material history during and after processing with AFSD and a post-processing heat treatment. These microstructure models are then used to inform a mechanistic microstructure and performance model to predict the fatigue life of an AFSD repair in AA7075.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations26
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrating materials and manufacturing innovationSame topicAluminum Alloys Composites PropertiesFrench-language works237,207