MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407423873 · doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2025.02.111

Effects of ECAP and subsequent recovery on microstructure, mechanical, tribological and corrosion properties of Ti–6Al–4V alloy

2025· article· en· W4407423873 on OpenAlexaff
Ata Radnia, Mostafa Ketabchi, Anqiang He, Dongyang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Research and Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal and Thin Film Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceMicrostructureTribologyAlloyMetallurgyCorrosion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ti–6Al–4V alloy is widely used in various industries such as aerospace and biomedical engineering . This article reports a study on effects of the equal channel angular pressing (ECAP) and subsequent recovery on microstructure, mechanical, tribiological, and corrosion properties of the alloy. The two passes of ECAP process were done at 540 °C with 120 ° inner angle and subsequent recovery was carried out at 340 °C for 1 h. Microstructure was examined with optical microscope , scanning electron microscope and transmission electron microscope. The mechanical properties and corrosion behavior were evaluated with compressive and polarization dynamic tests, respectively. The wear resistance was determined with scratching test, and the volume loss was measured with a profilometer. Obtained results show that the ECAP-recovery (i.e. ECAP + recovery) sample exhibits improved properties than the as-received one (annealed) and ECAP (ECAP treated) samples. The corrosion tests indicate that the ECAP sample has its corrosion resistance higher than that of the as-received one but lower than that of the ECAP-recovery sample. ECAP-recovery sample has the highest resistance to wear and corrosive wear among the three samples.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations17
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials Research and TechnologySame topicMetal and Thin Film MechanicsFrench-language works237,207