MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W902449302 · doi:10.1520/stp158420140050

Measuring Mechanical Properties of Fillet Arc T-Welded Aluminum Alloy AA7xxx Extrusions Using Digital Image Correlation

2015· book-chapter· en· W902449302 on OpenAlexaff
M. Bruhis, J. R. Dąbrowski, J.R. Kish

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWelding Techniques and Residual Stresses
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital image correlationMaterials scienceFillet (mechanics)AlloyWeldingMetallurgyAluminiumArc (geometry)Composite materialMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been an increasing interest in fabricating automotive components from copper (Cu)-lean 7xxx-series aluminum (Al) alloys because of their relatively high strength, toughness, energy absorption, weldability, and formability. Fusion arc welding is a preferred process to join these alloys to other Al alloys during assembly. A study was undertaken to characterize the mechanical (tensile-shear) response of single-sided fillet arc T-welded joints between Cu-lean AA7xxx extrusions and AA6063 sheet made using the gas metal arc-welding (GMAW) process and ER5356 filler wire. Strain measurements were made using an ARAMIS system based on digital image correlation (DIC). An upper-bound analysis (UBA) was conducted to derive an empirical model of the upper-bound strength of the arc-welded joints. The good agreement between the predicted and experimental results shows that the empirical model can be used to evaluate the tensile-shear response of the dissimilar Al alloy arc-welded joint.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.148 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWelding Techniques and Residual StressesFrench-language works237,207