MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167925790 · doi:10.1109/tie.2007.891767

An Improved Deadbeat Current Control Scheme With a Novel Adaptive Self-Tuning Load Model for a Three-Phase PWM Voltage-Source Inverter

2007· article· en· W2167925790 on OpenAlexaff
Yasser Abdel‐Rady I. Mohamed, Ehab F. El‐Saadany

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrogrid Control and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Pulse-width modulationController (irrigation)Voltage sourceAdaptive controlComputer scienceInverterStationary Reference FrameVoltageThree-phaseObserver (physics)Compensation (psychology)EngineeringControl (management)Induction motorPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, an improved deadbeat current control scheme with a novel adaptive self-tuning load model for a three-phase pulsewidth-modulated (PWM) voltage-source inverter is proposed. First, to achieve high-bandwidth current control characteristics, an improved deadbeat current controller with delay compensation is adopted. The compensation method forces the delay elements, which are caused by voltage calculation, PWM, and synchronous frame rotation, to be equivalently placed outside the closed-loop control system. Hence, their effect on the closed-loop stability is eliminated, and the current controller can be designed with a higher bandwidth. Second, to relax the parameter sensitivity issue of the deadbeat controller and to realize a control scheme with reduced sensors, a novel adaptive self-tuning load model is emerged in the control structure. The adaptive model is designed with low computational demand to estimate in real time the load parameters (R,L) and the back-electromotive-force voltage simultaneously. A unified solution to the present nonlinear estimation problem is presented by adopting a parallel observer structure. Furthermore, the adaptive model has the necessary phase advance of the estimated quantities, which compensates for the total system's delay. Comparative evaluation results are presented to demonstrate the validity and effectiveness of the proposed control scheme

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations237
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Industrial ElectronicsSame topicMicrogrid Control and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207