MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2738026197 · doi:10.1108/compel-02-2017-0109

Restricting the design space of multiple-barrier rotors of synchronous reluctance machines

2017· article· en· W2738026197 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Hossain Mohammadi, Tanvir Rahman, David A. Lowther

Bibliographic record

VenueCOMPEL The International Journal for Computation and Mathematics in Electrical and Electronic Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotor (electric)TorqueTorque rippleCurse of dimensionalityMagnetic reluctanceOptimal designComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)Finite element methodMathematical optimizationMathematicsEngineeringDirect torque controlMagnetMechanical engineeringStructural engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This paper aims to propose a numerical methodology to reduce the number of computations required to optimally design the rotors of synchronous reluctance machines (SynRMs) with multiple barriers. Design/methodology/approach Two objectives, average torque and torque ripple, have been simulated for thousands of SynRM models using 2D finite element analysis. Different rotor topologies (i.e. number of flux barriers) were statistically analyzed to find their respective design correlation for high average torque solutions. From this information, optimal geometrical constraints were then found to restrict the design space of multiple-barrier rotors. Findings Statistical analysis of two considered SynRM case studies demonstrated a design similarity between the different number of flux barriers. Upon setting the optimal geometrical constraints, it was observed that the design space of multiple-barrier rotors reduced by more than 56 per cent for both models. Originality/value Using the proposed methodology, optimal geometrical constraints of a multiple-barrier SynRM rotor can be found to restrict its corresponding design space. This approach can handle the curse of dimensionality when the number of geometric parameters increases. Also, it can potentially reduce the number of initial samples required prior to a multi-objective optimization.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCOMPEL The International Journal for Computation and Mathematics in Electrical and Electronic EngineeringSame topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207