Effect of processing sequences in multi-pass friction stir processing on microstructure, microtexture and microhardness of 6063 aluminum alloy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Single and double direction stir processing sequences were employed and investigated by fixing all other FSP parameters. Optical microscopy (OM) was utilised to assess the size and geometry of the processed zone. EBSD was also employed to evaluate the microstructure and microtexture development in different regions of the processed zones. In addition, Vickers microhardness measurements were made to evaluate the hardness evolution across the processed zone for the two processing sequences. The results show that using a single direction processing sequence is preferable due to better grain refinement, mainly in all regions of the processed samples. Gradual improvement was observed in microhardness with each additional pass, stronger refinement, and homogeneous grains in the processed regions (stir and overlapping zones). In the first pass’s stir zone (SZ), the microhardness is approximately 42.5 Hv, while it increases to an average of 43.4 Hv in SZ2 of the second pass and 44.3 Hv in SZ3 of the third pass. Furthermore, more resistance to plastic deformation (slip) and lower intensity of heat distribution when compared to the double direction. Therefore, the application of a single direction processing sequence can be beneficial in the welding of such aluminium alloys.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".