MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2554641455 · doi:10.1109/tie.2016.2631516

Fractional Phase Lead Compensation RC for an Inverter: Analysis, Design, and Verification

2016· article· en· W2554641455 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Qiangsong Zhao, Yongqiang Ye

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIterative Learning Control Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersZhejiang UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNanjing University of Aeronautics and AstronauticsLakehead University
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Pulse-width modulationInverterLagrange polynomialTotal harmonic distortionMathematicsVoltageEngineeringComputer scienceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Repetitive control (RC) can offer a promising accurate voltage control scheme for constant-voltage constant-frequency (CVCF) pulse width modulation (PWM) inverters to compensate the harmonic distortion caused by nonlinear loads. However, limited by digital sampling, conventional RC with integer phase lead compensation cannot exactly compensate the system phase lag, which may result in instability in the case of low sampling frequency. In this paper, a fractional phase lead compensation RC (FPLC-RC) scheme is proposed to enable the phase lead step to be fractional, which can enlarge the stability region and improve the tracking accuracy. A newly devised finite-impulse response fractional lead filter based on Lagrange interpolation is applied to approximate the fractional lead items. Meanwhile, the synthesis and analysis of fractional phase lead RC for a single PWM inverter are given. Furthermore, simulations and experiments are provided to demonstrate the validity of the proposed FPLC-RC 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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations51
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Industrial ElectronicsSame topicIterative Learning Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207