MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967144259 · doi:10.1109/tie.2015.2392716

Loss and Efficiency Analysis of Switched Reluctance Machines Using a New Calculation Method

2015· article· en· W1967144259 on OpenAlexafffund
Qiang Yu, Berker Bilgin, Ali Emadi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsSwitched reluctance motorEddy currentMagnetic reluctanceControl theory (sociology)Finite element methodTraction (geology)Magnetic fluxMagnetic circuitComputer scienceDiscretizationEngineeringMagnetMagnetic fieldMathematicsRotor (electric)Electrical engineeringMechanical engineeringPhysicsMathematical analysisStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a fast and accurate analytical method is proposed to analyze the loss and efficiency of switched reluctance machines (SRMs) under various operating conditions. The analyses are applied on a four-phase 16/12 SRM with high power density and wide speed range, which was designed for traction application. A direct method is proposed to calculate hysteresis and eddy current loss without empirical equations. The machine is discretized into a limited number of elements according to the magnetic flux density distribution using an analytical magnetic circuit method. Variable loss coefficients are used for each element to improve the accuracy. The developed method has been validated with simulation and experimental results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations90
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Industrial ElectronicsSame topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207