MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382786854 · doi:10.3390/ma16134694

On the Fabrication of High-Performance Additively Manufactured Copper Winding Using Laser Powder Bed Fusion

2023· article· en· W4382786854 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohamed Abdelhafiz, Ali Emadi, M.A. Elbestawi

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsFabricationMaterials scienceFusionCopperLaserComposite materialMetallurgyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to its exceptional electrical and thermal conductivity, pure copper is frequently employed in industry as the base metal for thermal management and electromagnetic applications. The growing need for complicated and efficient motor designs has recently accelerated the development of copper additive manufacturing (AM). The present work aims to improve the power density of the copper laser powder bed fusion (Cu-LPBF) coil by increasing the slot-filling factor (SFF) and the electrical conductivity. Firstly, the dimensional limitation of Cu-LPBF fabricated parts was identified. Sample contouring and adjusting beam offset associated with optimum scan track morphology upgraded the minimum feature spacing to 80 μm. Accordingly, the printed winding's slot-filling factor increased to 79% for square wire and 63% for round wire. A maximum electrical conductivity of 87% (IACS) was achieved by heat treatment (HT). The electrical impedance of full-size Cu-LPBF coils, newly reported in this study, was measured and compared with solid wire. It can reflect the performance of Cu-LPBF coils (power factor) in high-frequency applications. Furthermore, surface quality benefited from either sample contouring and HT, where the side surface roughness was lowered by 45% and an additional reduction of 25% after HT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207