MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413367876 · doi:10.18280/mmep.120704

Evaluation of the Effect of Nano Al₂O₃ Additive on Al-Si-Cu Alloys Performance Produced by Squeeze Casting and High Pressure Die Castings: Experimentation and Mathematical Modeling

2025· article· en· W4413367876 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
H. A. Hussein, Suhair G. Hussein, Bassim Bachy

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAluminum Alloys Composites Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDie castingDie (integrated circuit)MetallurgyMaterials scienceNano-CastingComposite materialNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Light alloy metals (Hypoeutectic Al-Si-Cu alloys) have retained their importance and properties as primary candidates when examining the correlation of the cost function that makes them suitable for many applications.The research aims to fabricate Al-Si-Cu alloys using nano-Al2O3 as heterogeneous nucleation of a eutectic solution to appropriately squeeze casting and pressure die casting processes under varying pressures (150, 200, and 250 MPa), pouring temperature with 780, mold preheated to 250.The yield strength and elongation are 12%, and also the hardness is 33.1% higher than that of gravity castings.In addition, the samples from the squeeze casts have lower wear rates than the samples of the pressure die cast.The design of experiments (DOE) method was applied to study and monitor the properties of Al-Si alloy.The relationship between the process parameters, including casting pressure and the percentages of Nano additives, and the main process responses was analyzed.Based on the used modeling tool, the final equations of the responses, including hardness, corrosion, tensile strength, and wear rate, were found.The modeling results showed good agreement with the experimental results, with a maximum error of 1.54% and a minimum error of 0.25%.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicAluminum Alloys Composites PropertiesFrench-language works237,207