Heterogenous Grain Nucleation in Al-Si Alloys: Types of Nucleant Inoculation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the current work is to establish, on the one hand, the conventional mechanisms of grain refining and, on the other hand, the effect of the refining-modification interaction in Sr-modified Al-Si alloys on the achieved grain refining and the modification of eutectic silicon. For this purpose, the hypereutectic alloy A390.1 (~17%Si) was used. Various grain refiners were used, namely, Al-10%Ti, Al-5%Ti-1%B, and Al-4%B. After the preparation of the liquid metal, several concentrations of these master alloys were added to the liquid bath according to the desired objective. The different melts prepared were heated at 750 °C and cast in a preheated graphite mold with a solidification rate of around 0.8 °C/s. The liquid metal was. The presence of strontium (added in the form of Al-10%Sr master alloy) and boron completely affects the microstructure of the alloy. An atom of Sr unites with 6 atoms of B to form a compound whose stoichiometric formula is of the SrB6 type, leading to a significant reduction in the modification. A strong relationship exists between the addition of B and the recovery level of Sr. The affinity between titanium and boron is stronger than the affinity between boron and strontium. Both B and TiB2 phase particles do not react with Si; it is only the Ti part of the Al-Ti-B master that forms (Al, Si)3Ti. Regardless of the amount of Si content in the alloy, the Al-4%B master alloy achieves the best grain refining compared to Ti-containing master alloys.
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".