Restricting the design space of multiple-barrier rotors of synchronous reluctance machines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".