MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405073657 · doi:10.11159/ijmmme.2024.002

Influence of Flux Agent Composition in A-TIG Welding Of Cu-ETP Sheets

2024· article· en· W4405073657 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Matija Bušić, Sanja Šolić, Vlado Tropša, Damjan Klobčar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mining Materials and Metallurgical Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWelding Techniques and Residual Stresses
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJavna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS
KeywordsGas tungsten arc weldingComposition (language)Flux (metallurgy)MetallurgyWeldingMaterials scienceArc weldingArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to its high coefficient of thermal expansion and high thermal conductivity, TIG welding of copper and copper alloys is considered difficult and demanding.Activated TIG welding (A-TIG) has been widely researched as a welding method for obtaining deeper penetration on various metals.However, A-TIG welding of copper remains unexplored without known influence of flux substances, applied parameters and achieved mechanical properties in produced welds.Three substances were examined as single component fluxes in this work: Calcium oxide (CaO), Silicon dioxide (SiO2) and Sodium carbonate (Na2CO3).Produced welds were characterized by visual inspection and macrostructural analysis, also bend testing and tensile strength testing were performed. Microstructure of the weld with optimal mechanical properties was analyzed by means of Field Emission Gun-Scanning Electron Microscope (FEG-SEM) and also the chemical characterization of the weld was made by means of Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS).The results showed that the most effective flux used was Silicon dioxide.A-TIG welding with SiO2 flux enabled good results in visual inspection, macrostructure analysis, band test and tensile strength test.However, oxide inclusions have been found in weld metal in significant percentage which could indicate the possible degradation of electrical conductivity of the Cu-ETP sheets.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mining Materials and Metallurgical EngineeringSame topicWelding Techniques and Residual StressesFrench-language works237,207