Gain scheduling control of induction motor with artificial neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a nonlinear gain scheduling control of a nonlinear, time varying induction motor dynamics with unknown parameters based on pole placement control design. The objective of this control is to force the rotor speed to follow an arbitrarily prescribed trajectory. Neural networks are considered to produce a non parametric model of a nonlinear inverted-fed induction motor. However it's possible to extract a so called gain matrix from a trained neural network model. A partition of this gain matrix allows on-line estimation of the actual relevant parameters. The inverted-fed induction motor will be identified as a NARMAX model and the order of the input-output will be determined by evaluating the modification of an index which is defined as Lipschitz number. The architecture incorporates an artificial neural network and a fuzzy logic controller. The ANN is used to identify the induction motor in order to extract a linear model, and a fuzzy logic controller is used to provide an inner loop inspired by conventional vector control strategy. Simulated results are presented to validate the proposed architecture showing that speed control is stable, rapid to stabilize, and insensitive to parameter uncertainty and load disturbance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".