MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804874262 · doi:10.1063/1.5026862

Topology optimization of reduced rare-earth permanent magnet arrays with finite coercivity

2018· article· en· W2804874262 on OpenAlexafffund
Reed Teyber, Paulo V. Trevizoli, T.V. Christiaanse, P. Govindappa, Andrew Rowe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBASFU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsMagnetNeodymium magnetDemagnetizing fieldHalbach arrayCoercivityMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringElectropermanent magnetTopology optimizationTopology (electrical circuits)Finite element methodElectrical engineeringCondensed matter physicsPermanent magnet synchronous generatorPhysicsEngineeringStructural engineeringMagnetic field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The supply chain risk of rare-earth permanent magnets has yielded research efforts to improve both materials and magnetic circuits. While a number of magnet optimization techniques exist, literature has not incorporated the permanent magnet failure process stemming from finite coercivity. To address this, a mixed-integer topology optimization is formulated to maximize the flux density of a segmented Halbach cylinder while avoiding permanent demagnetization. The numerical framework is used to assess the efficacy of low-cost (rare-earth-free ferrite C9), medium-cost (rare-earth-free MnBi), and higher-cost (Dy-free NdFeB) permanent magnet materials. Novel magnet designs are generated that produce flux densities 70% greater than the segmented Halbach array, albeit with increased magnet mass. Three optimization formulations are then explored using ferrite C9 that demonstrates the trade-off between manufacturability and design sophistication, generating flux densities in the range of 0.366–0.483 T.

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 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 score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.193 · 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.

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

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207