MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402438824 · doi:10.11159/mmme24.138

Effect of Hook Morphology on Joint Strength of Friction Stir Spot Welded A5052 Aluminum Alloy/C1100 Copper Joint

2024· article· en· W4402438824 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mitsuhiro Watanabe, Yuhao Pan, Yu Noguchi, Kazunori Yoshida

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Welding Techniques Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJoint (building)HookAlloyCopperMaterials scienceMetallurgySpot weldingAluminiumWeldingMorphology (biology)Composite materialStructural engineeringEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.207 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material EngineeringSame topicAdvanced Welding Techniques AnalysisFrench-language works237,207