MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210635311 · doi:10.3390/met12020216

Al Alloys and Casting Processes for Induction Motor Applications in Battery-Powered Electric Vehicles: A Review

2022· review· en· W4210635311 on OpenAlexaff
Yuxian Li, Anita Hu, Yintian Fu, Sufeng Liu, Wutian Shen, Henry Hu, Xueyuan Nie

Bibliographic record

VenueMetals · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAluminum Alloys Composites Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceCastingMetallurgyDie castingAlloyBattery (electricity)Automotive industryMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapid expansion of battery-powered electric vehicles (BEVs) in the automotive industry, research interest in lightweight Al alloys as well as their casting processes and applications has increased considerably. The substitution of castable aluminum alloys with superior strengths and electrical conductivity for copper reduces the weight and size of electric induction motors, and improves the energy efficiency and driving range of the BEVs. The present article was intended to give a general introduction into the common cast Al aluminum alloys and their relevant processes, as well as to motivate the development of high strength and conductive Al alloys for the practical realization of Al applications in the motors of the BEVs. A number of cast alloy systems containing Cu, Si, Ni, Mg, Fe, and Ti were evaluated, in comparison to nanostructured wrought Al alloys. The conventional casting processes suitable for Al alloys, high pressure die casting, squeeze casting, and sand casting were described. Strengthening mechanisms including solid solution strengthening, precipitation strengthening, dislocation accumulation strengthening, and grain boundary strengthening were presented. The phenomenon of electrical conduction for Al alloys was outlined. The mechanical properties and electrical properties of the recently developed Al alloys for casting and deformation processes were comprehensively listed and critically reviewed in association with microstructural characteristics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations67
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMetalsSame topicAluminum Alloys Composites PropertiesFrench-language works237,207