Formation of intermetallic phases during solidification in Al-Mg-Mn 5xxx alloys with various Mg levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study, four Al-Mg-Mn 5xxx alloys with different Mg levels (2-5 wt.%) were investigated for better understanding the evolution of intermetallic phases formed during solidification. Optical and scanning electron microscopes, electron backscattered diffraction and differential scanning calorimetry analyses in combination with thermodynamic calculation were used to identify various intermetallic phases. Results showed that the most dominant intermetallic phases are Al6(Mn,Fe), α-Al(Fe,Mn)Si, Al3Fe, Alm(Mn,Fe) and Mg2Si in experimental Al-Mg-Mn alloys, which is greatly dependant on the Mg levels. It is found that Chinese script α-Al(Fe,Mn)Si is the dominant iron-rich intermetallic phase for the alloys containing 2-3 wt.% Mg, while blocky Al6(Mn,Fe) and needle-like Al3(Mn,Fe) become the major phases for the alloy containing 4 wt.% Mg. Further increasing Mg content to 5 wt. %, the dominant phase transfers to blocky Al6(Mn,Fe) intermetallic. Meanwhile, the morphology of primary Mg2Si is changed from well-branched to plate-like with increasing Mg contents. In addition, β-Al3Mg2 and τ-Al6CuMg4 eutectic phases have been observed in the alloys with 3-5 wt. % Mg. A comparison on various intermetallic phases from the Scheil simulation and the actual as-cast microstructure is provided.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".