Effect of Hook Morphology on Joint Strength of Friction Stir Spot Welded A5052 Aluminum Alloy/C1100 Copper Joint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lap welding of an A5052-H34 aluminum alloy plate and a C1100 pure copper plate was performed using friction stir spot welding.The aluminum alloy plate was overlapped on the copper plate.A high-speed rotating welding tool, which composed of a shoulder and a probe, was inserted from the aluminum alloy plate side and the probe tip of the welding tool was held at the position of 0.3 mm below the lapped interface.The dwell time of the welding tool was controlled in the range from 5 s to 30 s.The joint strength was evaluated by using tensile-shear test at room temperature.The microstructure of the joint was examined by using an optical microscope.The spot welding was accomplished at the tool dwell time more than 10 s.A doughnut-shaped welded area was observed at the periphery of the hole fabricated by plunging of the welding tool to the copper plate.The formation of hook of copper rising toward the aluminum alloy was observed at the bottom edge of the hole.The morphology of the hook varied with the tool dwell time.The fracture load of the joint evaluated by using the tensile-shear test decreased with increading the hook height divided by the hook width.It is assumed that a strong joint are formed when the hook height divided by the hook width is approximately 1.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".