MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392159365 · doi:10.18280/acsm.480105

Impact of Top Mold Slope on Defect Formation in Gravity Casting of Aluminum Alloy

2024· article· fr· W4392159365 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahya Hidayat, Dwi Rahmalina, Reza Abdu Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales de Chimie Science des Matériaux · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgy and Material Forming
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoldAlloyCastingMaterials scienceAluminiumMetallurgyGeologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research investigates the impact of varying the slope of the top mold in the gravity casting process of aluminum alloy (A356).The casting mold slopes were adjusted to 7°, 12°, and 17° angles, and the study integrates software analysis (Altair, 2021.2) with physical examinations to assess potential defects in the casted products.The findings from both approaches exhibit a consistent pattern, revealing notable defect porosities in molds with slopes of 7° and 12°.Radiography examinations provide insights into defect distribution within the hub wheel rim, particularly pronounced in molds with slopes of 7° and 12°.This observation suggests that disturbances in air and heat distribution impede the solidification process within the mold.Metallography profiles further highlight the presence of phases α (Al), β (Si), and the eutectic region in the casted product.Defect severity is prominently manifested in a fractured profile, particularly for products cast with a 7° slope.In contrast, a higher slope of 12° results in localized porosities and effectively mitigates defect distribution.The most favorable outcome, devoid of substantial defects, is achieved with a 17° mold slope, successfully passing stringent quality checks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.803

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales de Chimie Science des MatériauxSame topicMetallurgy and Material FormingFrench-language works237,207