MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095889909 · doi:10.1109/smcals.2006.250692

Partial Modeling and Fuzzy Control of AC Induction Motor Actuators

2006· article· en· W2095889909 on OpenAlexaff
Hosein Marzi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFuzzy Logic and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Inverted pendulumFuzzy control systemFuzzy logicTorqueInduction motorController (irrigation)Computer scienceControl engineeringActuatorDirect torque controlEngineeringVoltageControl (management)Nonlinear systemPhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes and compares performances of different fuzzy controllers in stabilizing the balance of an inverted pendulum on a short track after a high disturbance occurs. It compares Mamdani (and its variants, e.g. Passino) with Takagi-Sugeno types of fuzzy controllers and concludes that Takagi-Sugeno is more promising when the length of the track is limited. The work then focuses on the actuator that produces the torque required for the horizontal movements of the inverted pendulum. A control model for the AC motor is used which includes the motor's time constant as the crucial parameter in producing rapid response to the disturbances. Current fuzzy controllers for the inverted pendulum, receive a torque as the input. A disadvantage in this modeling is that the electrical motor dynamics is not built-in in the control system independently. Here, a flux vector control AC electrical motor is incorporated to the system, which receives a voltage as input and produces torque. The new approach in modeling a fuzzy control system assists in 1) selecting sensitive parameters for an optimum high performance electrical motor capable to stabilize the inverted pendulum system and 2) designing a Takagi-Sugeno type fuzzy controller

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFuzzy Logic and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207