Friction, Material Transfer And Wear Phenomena In Sliding Contacts Between Cemented Carbide And Aluminium During Metal Forming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many metal forming processes, certain texturization of the tool is necessary to have some friction that can make the operation possible. One example of that is the use of crosshatching methods on cemented carbide punches to manufacture beverage cans. The deep drawing and ironing process of the aluminum foil during can production involves different wear mechanisms being active on the punch surface, i.e. microabrasion and metal transfer. The present work examines the abrasive wear performance and friction characteristics of two cemented carbide grades by means of scratch and linear reciprocating sliding wear testing with Al2O3 counterparts under dry and lubricated conditions, with smooth polished and textured cemented carbide surfaces respectively. Additionally, well-controlled tests in which an aluminum pin is sliding over the cemented carbide surface were performed to evaluate the initial metal transfer. Post-test characterization shows the influence of carbide microstructure on the friction, material transfer and wear
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".