MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990709057 · doi:10.1063/1.1150244

Two-dimensional finite element model for a long rectangular eddy current surface coil

2000· article· en· W1990709057 on OpenAlexaff
A. Ptchelintsev, B. de Halleux

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEddy currentFinite element methodElectromagnetic coilScalar potentialEddy-current testingScalar (mathematics)Materials scienceElectrical conductorMagnetic potentialGalerkin methodMathematical analysisMechanicsAcousticsPhysicsGeometryClassical mechanicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An eddy current model for predicting the electrical impedance variation of a long rectangular surface coil due to a surface breaking defect in layered conductors is reported. The method is based on transforming a three-dimensional eddy current problem into the spatial frequency domain and solving the transformed diffusion problem for a limited number of the spatial spectrum components. The transformed problem has been assumed to be quasitwo dimensional (2D) for a long rectangular surface coil and formulated in terms of a two-component transformed vector magnetic potential Ā and scalar electric potential φ̄. The 2D problems have been solved with the finite element method using triangle elements. The system of algebraic equations was obtained using the Galerkin weak formulation and solved with the Gaussian elimination method. A high accuracy solution with ten spatial frequency components takes around 4 min on a Pentium 200 MHz PC. The accuracy of the solution has been tested experimentally at 200 kHz on coated stainless steel samples using a rectangular surface coil with the length-to-width ratio around 6. Agreement between theory and experiment is excellent. Discrepancies between the theory and experiment are within 15% and typically less. The method is useful for eddy current nondestructive evaluation and modeling, and can be also applied for the case of buried defects and for general multilayer coatings’ problem.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207