MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2488652738 · doi:10.1109/itec.2016.7520223

Transient thermal analysis of a copper rotor induction motor using a lumped parameter temperature network model

2016· article· en· W2488652738 on OpenAlexaff
Firoz Ahmed, Eshaan Ghosh, Narayan C. Kar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatorRotor (electric)Transient (computer programming)Induction motorCopper lossThermalControl theory (sociology)Heat transferMaterials scienceMechanicsMagnetMechanical engineeringEngineeringComputer sciencePhysicsElectrical engineeringThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the advantages of higher efficiency, low manufacturing cost and lower machine weight, Copper Rotor Induction Motor (CRIM) is a suitable cost effective alternative choice over permanent magnet motor in EV/HEV traction applications [1]. However, temperature rise issue is a critical factor that has direct effects on machine parameters such as effective resistances and inductances as well as magnetic properties of the machine materials. In this paper, a lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN) model is proposed to predict transient thermal behaviour in a Totally Enclosed Fan Cooled (TEFC) CRIM considering non-existent of forced convection heat transfer in stator end-winding due to smooth rotor geometry. The model also takes into consideration of various losses as heat sources that are determined from motor loading experiments. In order to validate thermal model, a 20-hp CRIM is tested under varying speed and loading conditions to measure the actual operating temperature rise and compared with calculated temperature rise.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations31
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207