Electrochemical response of sized AA2014 powder metallurgy alloys: Effects of microstructure, porosity, and oxide film
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the electrochemical behavior of AA2014 aluminum powder metallurgy (PM) alloys subjected to sizing mechanical surface treatment at varying pressures. While sizing is routinely applied to improve dimensional accuracy and mechanical properties, its effect on corrosion behavior remains insufficiently understood. Four conditions were examined: one as-sintered sample and three samples sized at 200, 300, and 400 MPa. Surface and microstructural characterization were performed using confocal laser microscopy, SEM, and EBSD, while corrosion performance in 3.5 wt.% NaCl was evaluated through open circuit potential monitoring, cyclic polarization, and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS). Results showed that the sample sized at 400 MPa exhibited the highest impedance modules, primarily due to significant pore closure. However, sizing also increased susceptibility to localized corrosion by promoting the formation of intermetallic phases, even though X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) revealed enrichment of Al₂O₃ in the oxide layer after sizing. This study provides a comprehensive perspective on the microstructural and electrochemical effects of sizing treatment in aluminum PM components.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".