MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416877448 · doi:10.37665/smycmdr21734

Effect of Test Specimen on Fracture Behavior of Lead-Free Solder Joints

2015· article· W4416877448 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Nourani, Saeed Akbari, J.K. Spelt

Bibliographic record

VenueSMTA International · 2015
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicElectronic Packaging and Soldering Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolderingFracture (geology)Joint (building)Strain energy release rateStrain ratePlasticityStrain (injury)Fracture mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Double cantilever beam (DCB) and Arcan-type specimens have been used extensively in the literature to measure fracture properties of solder joints. However, the results obtained from these two fracture specimens have shown a marked discrepancy in terms of the critical strain energy release rate for crack initiation, J ci . The present study was aimed at explaining this difference by isolating the effect of the test specimen. Experiments on copper-SAC305-copper samples were carried out at intermediate strain rates (about 1 s -1 ). The value of the mean mode I J ci was 21 J/m 2 for the solder joints tested using the Arcan specimen; however, J ci obtained from DCB experiments was about 730 J/m 2 under mode I loading conditions. The effects of constraint on the plastic zone development in the solder layer was found responsible for these differences in J ci . This illustrates the significance of choosing test specimens with the same degree of crack-tip constraint as that in the actual solder joints under investigation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSMTA InternationalSame topicElectronic Packaging and Soldering TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207