MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415928988 · doi:10.1007/s11837-025-07898-8

Investigation of a Hybrid Frictional Diffusional Bonding Approach to Increase Bond Strength in Solid-State Additive Manufacturing Repair of High-Strength Aluminum Alloys

2025· article· en· W4415928988 on OpenAlexaff
N.I. Palya, Kirk Fraser, Andrew Ikeler, R.P. Kinser, Jacob B. Hoarston, Víctor Rojas, Trevor Hickok, Kevin J. Doherty, Paul Allison, J.B. Jordon

Bibliographic record

VenueJOM · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Welding Techniques Analysis
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersStrategic Environmental Research and Development ProgramBaylor UniversityU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsUltimate tensile strengthAluminiumAlloyLubricationYield (engineering)Bond strengthDeposition (geology)Bonding strength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Additive friction stir deposition (AFSD) is a solid-state additive manufacturing technique capable of repairing aluminum alloys with identical filler material, but there are few studies about the lubricant-free round feedstock variant or post-processing avenues for improving performance. The current study investigates the impact of hybrid frictional diffusional bonding (HFDB) as a post-processing route to improve the performance of aluminum alloy AA7075 repaired via AFSD. Implementation of a novel actuator force-control scheme enabled AFSD repairs to be conducted without the aid of lubrication as a potential contaminant. Repairs receiving a combination of HFDB and a post-deposition heat treatment (PDHT) exhibited > 90% of the yield strength and ultimate tensile strength of the wrought control, representing a marked increase relative to repairs that underwent PDHT without HFDB. Fatigue testing of repairs that underwent HFDB and PDHT revealed comparable cyclic performance to the wrought control in the high-cycle regime, indicating the potential of HFDB as a post-processing route to improve repair performance under static and cyclic loading.

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 score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score0.876

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJOMSame topicAdvanced Welding Techniques AnalysisFrench-language works237,207