MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1597682249 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2004.1345105

Performance analysis of a reluctance synchronous motor under abnormal operating condition

2004· article· en· W1597682249 on OpenAlexafffund
Prabhakar Neti, S. Nandi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReluctance motorMagnetic reluctanceSwitched reluctance motorSynchronous motorComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)TorqueElectrical engineeringEngineeringPhysicsArtificial intelligenceControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the application of reluctance synchronous motors (RSM) to AC drives has been gaining importance. The RSM with damper bars not only features the advantages of the synchronous motor and the induction motor but also eliminates the disadvantages of these motors. In this paper, the performance of the motor under abnormal operating conditions has been analyzed and compared with its performance under healthy conditions. Initially, a very common type of abnormal condition of any motor i.e., stator voltage unbalance, has been considered for this study. Motor current signature analysis (MCSA) has been used to analyze the performance of the motor under such abnormality. The different spectral lines that are visible in the line current due to supply voltage unbalance have been discussed in detailed. Such analysis is helpful in understanding and identifying stator inter-turn faults. For the present paper, a 460 V, 1.5 hp, 1800 rpm, 4-pole RSM with 36 stator slots and having 24 damper bars with continuous end ring construction has been considered. A detailed modeling of the motor, including individual damper bars and the non-uniform air-gap, has been carried out using a modified winding function approach (MWFA).

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations10
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207