MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409738947 · doi:10.1016/j.nxmate.2026.102216

Effect of Heat Treatment on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Aa2219 Al-Cu Alloy Processed by Laser Powder Bed Fusion

2025· preprint· en· W4409738947 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNext Materials · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMicrostructureAlloyFusionMaterials scienceLaserMetallurgyOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the Laser Powder Bed Fusion (LPBF) processing and heat treatment response of the Al-Cu alloy AA2219. Fully dense samples with a relative density of 99.90 ± 0.05% were produced. Age hardening response was studied via T5 and T6 heat treatments with artificial aging up to 24 hrs. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) analysis of the as-built (AB), T5 and T6 samples were conducted to quantify the distribution of Cu in the system in the various phases (solid solution, Θ-Al 2 Cu, Θ′ and Θ″) to understand the strengthening response. The mechanical properties were assessed for the AB sample and the peak-aged T5 and T6 samples. Microhardness increased from 85 ± 4 HV0.2 in the AB condition to 101 ± 3 HV0.2 and 145 ± 2 HV0.2 for T5 and T6 conditions, respectively. The yield strength (YS), ultimate tensile strength (UTS), and elongation at fracture of the AB and T5 samples were 94 ± 6 MPa, 288 ± 6 MPa, 8.7 ± 1.5% and 98 ± 8 MPa, 295 ± 8 MPa, 6.0 ± 0.7%, respectively, which indicates that the T5 heat treatment had no significant influence on these properties. T6 heat treatment showed a significant increase in YS (266 ± 5 MPa), UTS (411 ± 6 MPa) and elongation at fracture (12.4 ± 2.7%). The improvement in microhardness and tensile strength from AB to T5 and T6 arises from the distribution of fine θ″ and θ′ precipitates, which impedes dislocation motion. The energy of initiation ( E i ) of the AB, T5 and T6 samples were 4.5 J, 3.6 J and 4.2 J, respectively. The energy of propagation ( E p ) exhibited a declining trend across AB, T5, and T6 conditions, measuring 6.5 J, 4.9 J, and 3.9 J, respectively. This variation in behavior is attributed to a shift in fracture mechanism, from activation of a single slip system during tensile loading, to activation of multiple slip systems under impact loading. • Crack free AA2219 can be fabricated by LPBF without platform heating. • T6 strengthening is more sensitive to aging temperature than T5 treatment. • T6 treated LPBF AA2219 exhibit superior tensile strength and ductility. • Heat treatment lowers the impact energy due to precipitate formation. • T5 and T6 samples have a similar response under impact loading.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.217 · 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