Microstructure and Hardness of an Al–8 wt%Si–2.5 wt%Bi Alloy Subjected to Solidification Cooling Rates from 0.1 to 800 K s<sup>−1</sup>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work explores the effect of the addition of bismuth (Bi) to Al–8 wt%Si alloys. Bi in Aluminum based alloys works as a self‐lubricating agent, improving machining and wear properties. As Bi is a soft material, it is essential to evaluate how it affects microstructural features and the resulting properties of Al–8 wt%Si alloys. Herein, this hypoeutectic alloy is modified by the addition of 2.5 wt%Bi and subjected to three solidification techniques: differential scanning calorimetry, transient directional solidification, and impulse atomization. Thus, this work investigates the effect of Bi in samples solidified under a wide range of cooling rates. Of specific interest is how Bi modifies the eutectic silicon morphology and alloy hardness compared with a hypoeutectic Al–10 wt%Si alloy from the literature. The silicon (Si) morphology of Al–8 wt%Si–2.5 wt%Bi transitions from flaky (coarse) to fibrous (fine) at a critical cooling rate of 1100 K s −1 . Through the combination of Bi addition and processing through impulse atomization, the ternary Al–Si–Bi alloy achieves improvements in hardness of up to 20% compared to Al–10 wt%Si. This is despite having a coarser eutectic microstructure than the binary hypoeutectic Al–Si alloy. This is due to Bi modifying the morphology of the eutectic Si.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it