MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612803280 · doi:10.1109/tia.2017.2704063

Genetic Algorithm-Based Current Optimization for Torque Ripple Reduction of Interior PMSMs

2017· article· en· W2612803280 on OpenAlexaff
Chunyan Lai, Guodong Feng, K. Lakshmi Varaha Iyer, Kaushik Mukherjee, Narayan C. Kar

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industry Applications · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTorque rippleControl theory (sociology)Cogging torqueHarmonicsTorqueHarmonicStall torqueStatorDirect torque controlRippleHarmonic analysisEngineeringComputer sciencePhysicsElectronic engineeringVoltageAcousticsElectrical engineeringInduction motor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the torque ripple modeling and minimization for interior permanent magnet synchronous machines (PMSMs). At first, a novel torque ripple model is proposed in which the torque ripples resulted from the spatial harmonics of permanent magnet flux linkage, time harmonics of stator currents and the cogging torque are included. Based on the torque ripple model, a genetic algorithm (GA)-based harmonic current optimization approach is proposed for torque ripple minimization. In this approach, GA is applied to optimize both the magnitude and phase angle of the stator harmonic currents to minimize the peak-to-peak torque ripple, minimize the sum of squares of the harmonic currents, and maximize the average torque component produced by the injected harmonic currents. The results demonstrate that the magnitude of the harmonic current can be significantly reduced by optimizing the phase angles of these harmonic currents. This leads to further suppression of the torque ripple when compared with that of a case where phase angles are not considered in the optimization. Also, an increase of the average torque is achieved when the optimum harmonic currents are injected. The proposed model and approach are evaluated through both numerical and experimental investigations on a laboratory interior PMSM.

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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations78
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Industry ApplicationsSame topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207