Lost Foam Thin Wall: Feasibility of Producing Lost Foam Castings in Aluminum and Magnesium Based Alloys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increased emphasis on vehicle weight reduction, production of near-net shape components by lost foam casting will make significant inroad into the next-generation of engineering component designs. The lost foam casting process is a cost effective method for producing complex castings using an expandable polystyrene pattern and un-bonded sand. The use of un-bonded molding media in the lost foam process will impose less constraint on the solidifying casting, making hot tearing less prevalent. This is especially true in Al-Mg and Al-Cu alloy systems that are prone to hot tearing when poured in rigid molds partially due to their long freezing range. Some of the unique advantages of using the lost foam casting process are closer dimensional tolerance, higher casting yield, and the elimination of sand cores and binders. Most of the aluminum alloys poured using the lost foam process are based on the Al-Si system. Very limited research work has been performed with Al-Mg and Al-Cu type alloys. With the increased emphasis on vehicle weight reduction, and given the high-strength-to-weight-ratio of magnesium, significant weight savings can be achieved by casting thin-wall (≤ 3 mm) engineering components from both aluminum- and magnesium-base alloys.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".