Fold Defects in Aluminum Alloy A356 Lost Foam Casting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the lost foam casting (LFC) of aluminum alloys, the expandable polystyrene (EPS) foam characteristics (foam composition, polymer processing and bead fusion) influence the formation of deleterious fold defects in the final casting. In this research, four types of EPS beads were investigated: (1) the regular EPS beads, (2) 2wt% hexabromocyclododecane and 2wt% dicumyl peroxide added to the EPS beads during the polymerization process, (3) 2wt% silicaalumina blended to EPS beads after the pre-expansion process of the beads and (4) 2wt% hexabromocyclododecane blended to EPS beads after the pre-expansion process of the beads. The density of the regular and modified EPS beads was kept constant at 25.63 kg/m3. Aluminum alloy A356 was poured at 1023 K into the window pattern. The window patterns with regular EPS beads did not fill completely and had identifiable carbon/oxide defects on the surface. The window patterns with the additives were completely filled with a few surface defects. From thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), it was found that the EPS beads with silica-alumina had a reduced onset temperature of degradation of EPS (from 634 K to 618 K) and a reduced activation energy (from 188 kJ/mol to 147 kJ/mol) relative to the regular beads. In the organic brominatedmodified EPS (both through blending and polymerization), it was found that the value of the preexponential (rate equation) was significantly increased. Through light optical microscopy (LOM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM), it was found that the polymerization process additives increased the degree of bead fusion whereas the post pre-expansion additives decreased the degree of bead fusion. Finally, the EPS beads treated during the polymerization process produced castings with the least overall surface, subsurface and internal defects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".