MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3031442617 · doi:10.1109/tmag.2020.2997759

Development of a Magnetic Levitation System for Additive Manufacturing: Simulation Analyses

2020· article· en· W3031442617 on OpenAlexafffund
Parichit Kumar, Yuze Huang, Ehsan Toyserkani, Mir Behrad Khamesee

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Magnetics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsLevitationMagnetic levitationElectrodynamic suspensionEddy currentMagnetic fieldMechanical engineeringNozzleElectromagnetic suspensionComputer scienceWork (physics)Suspension (topology)Lorentz forceTransient (computer programming)ElectromagnetMagnetPhysicsMagnetic energyElectrical engineeringEngineeringMathematicsMagnetization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetic levitation has been always a very promising field. Due to its versatility, it has garnered interest in field energy harvesting, high speed transportation, and high precision micro-manipulation amongst other fields. However, its application within the sphere of additive manufacturing (AM) has been negligible. Thus, for the first time, the work conducted here works with the development of a novel technique utilizing magnetic levitation for stable suspension for AM. Current AM techniques are heavily dependent on building the part of a substrate. The substrate limits the use of multiple material nozzles and also requires significant post-processing. The use of the principle of magnetic levitation can bypass the need for this substrate. Primary emphasis is placed on the computation of eddy currents and Lorentz force produced from the magnetic levitation system, and also on finding the relevant parameters affecting several output parameters such as position of levitation, force experienced by the object suspended, etc. A temperature analysis is also conducted to ensure that the principles used here are valid. ANSYS Ansoft Maxwell modules are used to determine these input parameters. The work is subsequently validated through the transient module of the same module. The results presented here depict the viability of the system within the AM environment and the successful elimination of the need for a substrate.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on MagneticsSame topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207