Characterization and kinetic modeling of secondary phases in squeeze cast Al alloy A380 by DSC thermal analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thermal analyses on squeeze cast aluminum alloy A380 (SC A380) solidified under 90 MPa were carried out to study the microstructure development of the alloy, in which a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC) was employed. During the DSC runs, heating and cooling rates of 1, 3, 10, and 20 °C•min-1 were applied to investigate the heating and cooling effects on dissolution of secondary eutectic phases and microstructure evolution. Various reactions corresponding to troughs and peaks of the DSC curves were identified as corresponding to phase transformations taking place during dissolution or precipitation suggested by the principles of thermodynamics and kinetics. The comparison of the identified characteristic temperatures in the measured heating and cooling curves are generally in good agreement with the computed equilibrium temperatures. The microstructure analyses by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) indicate that the distribution and morphology of secondary phases present in the microstructure of the annealed sample are similar to the as-cast A380, i.e., strip β(Si), buck bone like or dot distributed θ(Al2Cu), β(Al5FeSi) and Al15(FeMn)3Si2. Two kinetic methods are employed to calculate the activation energies of the three common troughs and three common peaks in DSC curves of SC A380. The activation energies of the identified reaction $${\theta _{CuA{l_2}}} = \alpha \left( {Al} \right) + \beta \left( {Si} \right)$$ is 188.7 and 187.1 kJ∙mol-1 when the activation energies of reaction $$\alpha \left( {Al} \right) + \beta \left( {Si} \right) \to {\theta _{CuA{l_2}}}$$ is -122.7 and -121.8 kJ∙mol-1, by the Kissinger and Starink methods, respectively.
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 | 0.000 | 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".