MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2544403403 · doi:10.1109/icece.2006.355639

Fuzzy-Logic-Based Control for Induction Motor Drive with the Consideration of Core Loss

2006· article· en· W2544403403 on OpenAlexaff
M. J. Hossain, Md. Azizul Hoque, Md Akhtar Ali, M.A. Rahman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSensorless Control of Electric Motors
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInduction motorControl theory (sociology)Vector controlComputer scienceController (irrigation)Squirrel-cage rotorFuzzy logicMATLABPID controllerControl engineeringElectronic speed controlEngineeringControl (management)Temperature controlVoltageElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a novel speed control technique of induction motor (IM) drive with the consideration of core loss. Previous works on field-oriented control of induction motor mainly focus on the simplified equivalent circuit by neglecting the core loss. Thus the designed PI and fuzzy constants of the controller without core loss may not work properly under the wide operating range, such as variation of load, variation of reference speed, variation of reference flux, etc. Considering the real time effect of core loss, the present work formulates the non-linear model of the induction motor drive. The complete vector control scheme of the IM drive incorporating the FLC is simulated for a squirrel-cage IM using Matlab/Simulink. The performance of the proposed FLC-based IM drive is investigated and compared to those obtained from the conventional proportional-integral (PI) controller-based drive at various dynamic operating conditions, such as, sudden change in command speed, step change in load, etc. The obtained results confirm the effectiveness of the vector controlled induction motor drive system with the consideration of core loss.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSensorless Control of Electric MotorsFrench-language works237,207