MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415927349 · doi:10.15353/hi-am.v1i1.6809

Effect of heat treatment on the dynamic impact response of Cu–Cr–Zr alloy manufactured by laser powder bed fusion

2025· article· W4415927349 on OpenAlexafffund
Nadia Azizi, Hamed Asgari, Mahyar Hasanabadi, A.G. Odeshi, Ehsan Toyserkani

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Holistic Innovation in Additive Manufacturing (HI-AM) Conference · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAdiabatic shear bandSofteningAlloyFusionStrain rateSplit-Hopkinson pressure barHardening (computing)Strain hardening exponentShear band

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the effect of heat treatment on the dynamic impact behavior of a Cu–Cr–Zr alloy fabricated via high-power laser powder bed fusion (LPBF). Experiments utilized a split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) setup with firing pressures of 100 kPa and 250 kPa, corresponding to maximum strain rates of 4400 s-1 and 11300 s-1 for as-built samples, and 1700 s-1 and 4700 s-1 for heat-treated samples. True stress-strain curves reveal a significant difference in strain accommodation mechanisms between as-built and heat-treated samples. Heat treatment markedly enhances the ultimate compressive strength (UCS) and work hardening rate under dynamic loading conditions, likely due to the Orowan strengthening mechanism by finely dispersed precipitates formed during heat treatment. The heat-treated samples exhibit continuous strength gains with increasing strain, reflecting pronounced strain hardening. In contrast, as-built samples show a plateau after reaching their UCS, where the activation of softening mechanisms, such as adiabatic shear band (ASB) formation, reduces the effectiveness of strain hardening. Despite the substantial changes in mechanical behavior, macro-texture analysis reveals minimal differences between as-built and heat-treated samples, suggesting that the performance disparities stem primarily from microstructural changes, such as precipitate formation and distribution in heat-treated samples, rather than shifts in crystallographic orientation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Holistic Innovation in Additive Manufacturing (HI-AM) ConferenceSame topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207