Mechanical alloying of bronze with aluminum and nickel: Impact on corrosion resistance and hardness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of alloying bronze with aluminum (Al) and nickel (Ni) on hardness and corrosion resistance is examined in this work. Bronze alloys were manufactured in vacuum induction melting (VIM) using 99.9 % pure copper as the main component. High-purity tin, aluminum, and nickel were added. This study examined the corrosion behavior of an Al and Ni-modified bronze alloy in a 3.5 % NaCl solution using potentiodynamic polarization (PDP) and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS). The corrosion resistance of the alloys was assessed, with findings indicating that Ni-bronze had the best corrosion resistance—nearly twice as much as bronze. Microstructural examinations and Rockwell hardness testing further revealed that nickel-bronze had the highest hardness values, owing to strong nickel intermetallic phases formed. This thorough analysis highlights how Ni-bronze alloys perform better in challenging conditions, which qualifies them for uses needing strong mechanical durability and resistance to corrosion.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".