Modal analysis and acoustic noise characterization of a 4T MRI gradient coil insert
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract High magnetic field strength and high‐speed gradient coil current switching are combining to yield high acoustic sound pressure levels (SPL) in and around magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners. Studies have already been conducted that partially characterize this sound field, and various methods have been investigated in an attempt to attenuate the noise generated. To more fully characterize and predict the vibration and acoustic response of a gradient coil inside a scanner, a series of finite element analysis (FEA), vibro‐acoustic analysis, and experimental measurements were carried out. The FEA and vibro‐acoustic model used was based on specific internal and external structural dimensions and the material physical properties of a gradient coil insert. The model‐based results were verified through experimental vibration and acoustic testing of the same gradient coil. It was found that the experimental analysis results were in good agreement with the model‐based results in all cases. The numerical methods developed in this study could provide a basis for the virtual testing of gradient coil designs that will allow the prediction of vibration and acoustic behavior. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Concepts Magn Reson Part B (Magn Reson Engineering) 22B: 37–49, 2004
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".