Electromagneto-mechanical model of high temperature superconductor insert magnets in ultra high magnetic fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Second-generation high-temperature superconducting (2G HTS) tapes are considered to be the main candidates for the development of future ultra-high DC magnetic field magnets. In such applications, the usability of the HTS magnets can be strongly impaired by large screening currents developed in the flat strip of the tapes. These currents lead to the generation of a screening current-induced field (SCIF) that can deteriorate the performance by affecting the stability and the homogeneity of the magnetic field. Besides the SCIF, there is also the likely mechanical degradation of the tapes under the action of large Lorentz forces. The mechanical degradation and the presence of large screening currents intertwine to affect the reliable operation of 2G HTS magnets. To study the combined issues, an electromagneto-mechanical model based on tensile mechanical characterization of short samples was built to simulate the coupled electromagnetic and mechanical behaviors of insert magnets made of 2G HTS tapes under very high magnetic field. The coupling is carried out by considering the dependence of the n index and the critical current density J c on the local relative deformation in addition to the magnetic flux density. The case study is the Little Big Coil (LBC, version 3) which broke the world record of the strongest continuous magnetic field achieved to this date. An analysis of the electromagneto-mechanical behavior of the LBC is conducted on the basis of information extracted from the literature to show that the proposed model can assess the current magnitude at which the insert magnet quenched. Additionally, it is shown that the model can also provide some insights on the impact of the mechanical degradation of the tape on the SCIF hysteresis loop. The studies are conducted on the original LBC and on versions that include additional modifications such as harnessing and co-winding with rigid metallic tapes. These modifications are employed to limit the mechanical degradation of the HTS insert magnet under ultra-high magnetic field. They are expected to deliver an extra safety margin to 2G HTS insert magnets.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".