Process–Structure–Property Relationships of Copper Parts Manufactured by Laser Powder Bed Fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process-structure-property relationships of copper laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF)-produced parts made of high purity copper powder (99.9 wt %) are examined in this work. A nominal laser beam diameter of 100 μm with a continuous wavelength of 1080 nm was employed. A wide range of process parameters was considered in this study, including five levels of laser power in the range of 200 to 370 W, nine levels of scanning speed from 200 to 700 mm/s, six levels of hatch spacing from 50 to 150 μm, and two layer thickness values of 30 μm and 40 μm. The influence of preheating was also investigated. A maximum relative density of 96% was obtained at a laser power of 370 W, scanning speed of 500 mm/s, and hatch spacing of 100 μm. The results illustrated the significant influence of some parameters such as laser power and hatch spacing on the part quality. In addition, surface integrity was evaluated by surface roughness measurements, where the optimum Ra was measured at 8 μm ± 0.5 μm. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) were performed on the as-built samples to assess the impact of impurities on the L-PBF part characteristics. The highest electrical conductivity recorded for the optimum density-low contaminated coils was 81% IACS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".