An investigation of the concentration dependence of the interdiffusion coefficient in the binary liquid aluminum-copper system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Challenges continue to exist in developing a comprehensive theory of diffusion in liquid metals, despite the advancement of several semi-empirical and theoretical models. One major difficulty in developing a theory is that experimental data are not available for many pure metals and binary metal systems, and when they do exist, data are often inaccurate. In addition to challenges with data quality, where deemed reliable, existing data are typically reported over limited temperature and concentration intervals. In this thesis research, interdiffusion data was obtained for the binary Al-Cu system using the solid wire long capillary technique (SWLC), and molecular dynamics (MD) simulation with a concentration-dependent embedded atom method (CD-EAM) interatomic potential. In the SWLC experiments the interdiffusion coefficient was determined at temperatures of 993 K, 1023 K, 1073 K, 1123 K, and 1193 K, over an Al-rich concentration range limited by the liquidus of the binary phase diagram at the given temperature. For liquid Al~100Cu~0 (tracer), Al80Cu20, and Al60Cu40, the interdiffusion coefficient is well described by the Arrhenius relationship D_AlCu=D_0*exp(-Q_0/RT) over the temperature range, with best fit parameter values of Q_0 = 20.85 ± 4.49 kJ/mol, D_0 = 8.21 (+5.4, -3.26) x 10^-8 m^2/s, Q_0 = 34.41 ± 3.71 kJ/mol, D_0 = 2.84 (+1.47, -0.97) x 10^-7 m^2/s, Q_0 = 38.74 ± 8.01 kJ/mol, D_0 = 4.03 (+5.89, -2.39) x 10^-7 m^2/s, respectively. For the MD simulations, a new Al-Cu CD-EAM interatomic potential was developed that is suitable for the study of diffusion phenomena in the liquid state. Self- and interdiffusion coefficients were determined over a temperature interval of 993-1493 K. Simulations are performed for liquid Al99.999Cu0.001 (tracer), Al80Cu20, and Al60Cu40, and interdiffusion is described by Q_0 = 22.81 ± 0.27 kJ/mol, D_0 = 1.04 (+0.03, -0.03) x 10^-7 m^2/s Q_0 = 30.15 ± 0.49 kJ/mol, D_0 = 1.78 (+0.08, -0.08) x 10^-7 m^2/s, Q_0 = 37.01 ± 1.48 kJ/mol, D_0 = 3.29 (+0.52, -0.45) x 10^-7 m^2/s, respectively. The calculated values of the interdiffusion coefficients from the MD simulation are in good agreement with those obtained using the SWLC technique, supporting the accuracy of these new experimental findings.
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 | 0.001 | 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".