MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139095740 · doi:10.1109/iemdc.2009.5075288

Specifications for real-time simulation of switched reluctance drives using microprocessors and FPGAs as computational engines

2009· article· en· W2139095740 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Dufour, Jean‐Nicolas Paquin, Handy Fortin Blanchette, Jean Bélanger

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsOpal-Rt Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSwitched reluctance motorReal-time simulationComputer scienceOvershoot (microwave communication)Field-programmable gate arrayLatency (audio)InverterSimulationEmbedded systemEngineeringVoltageElectrical engineeringRotor (electric)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents specifications for the real-time simulation of switched reluctance motor (SRM) drives using standard CPUs and FPGAs as computational engines. CPU-based real-time simulation results of a 60-kW current-controlled 6/4 SRM are presented. The SRM is fed by a three-phase unidirectional power converter having three legs, each of which consists of two IGBTs and two free-wheeling diodes. The real-time simulation of the drive is conducted on the RT-LAB real-time simulation platform using Simulink/SimPowerSystems, SRM models and a switching function approach for the inverter. Since the converter is current-controlled, the simulator latency is critical to achieving good accuracy and to avoiding current overshoot. The paper demonstrates that this type of drive can be simulated in real-time at a time-step of 15 mus with good accuracy. A specification is also presented to implement the SRM motor in a FPGA core. An FPGA implementation of the SRM model has the great advantage of very low computational time (estimated at 250 nanoseconds) and minimal total hardware-in-the-loop latency just above 1 microsecond.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207