MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2290610200 · doi:10.1109/tmag.2015.2481924

New Approach for Accurate Prediction of Eddy Current Losses in Laminated Material in the Presence of Skin Effect With 2-D FEA

2015· article· en· W2290610200 on OpenAlexaff
Mehdi Taghizadeh Kakhki, J. Cros, P. Viarouge

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Magnetics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMagnetic Properties and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEddy currentSkin effectFinite element methodElectrical conductorCurrent (fluid)Materials scienceMagnetMechanicsEddy-current testingMechanical engineeringStructural engineeringPhysicsComposite materialEngineeringThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two-dimensional finite element (FE) models normally assume the laminated core as a non-conductive material, and therefore, the damping effect of the eddy currents is ignored in the field solution. Besides, the use of integrated iron loss models in FE software could result in overestimated eddy current losses at high frequencies if the skin effect is ignored. This paper presents a simple way to accurately predict eddy current losses in laminations with FE analysis. An experimental setup along with the simulation models is used to demonstrate the validity of the method. The utility of this method in loss separation and identification of loss coefficients in the presence of skin effect is also illustrated. This method is also applied to a synchronous permanent magnet (PM) machine with sinusoidal current.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.268
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 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

Citations28
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on MagneticsSame topicMagnetic Properties and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207