MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2748991411 · doi:10.1109/tmag.2017.2658543

3-D Sub-Domain Analytical Model to Calculate Magnetic Flux Density in Induction Machines With Semiclosed Slots Under No-Load Condition

2017· article· en· W2748991411 on OpenAlexaff
Aida Mollaeian, Eshaan Ghosh, Himavarsha Dhulipati, Jimi Tjong, Narayan C. Kar

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Magnetics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatorFinite element methodRotor (electric)Magnetic potentialPoisson's equationMagnetic fieldLaplace transformMagnetic fluxPhysicsNoise (video)Mathematical analysisVibrationMechanicsComputer scienceAcousticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a novel 3-D sub-domain analytical model is developed to determine magnetic flux distribution in single-cage induction machines (IMs) with skewed rotor bars under no-load condition in an effort to more detailed analysis of spatial harmonics. The proposed model, along with an optimization algorithm, is as an alternative solution to finite-element analysis (FEA) in optimizing the geometry of IMs. The analytical method is based on the resolution of 3-D Laplace and Poisson's equations in cylindrical coordinates using the separation of variables method to calculate the magnetic vector potential for corresponding sub-domain. The proposed model includes the effect of slotting and tooth tips for the stator and rotor slots, which is usually neglected in a 2-D analysis due to the complexity of differential equations. Also, the proposed 3-D model can be used for any slot-pole combination in addition to considering the asymmetrical effect in the axial direction, which is a source of noise, vibration, and excessive losses in IMs. To evaluate the performance of the proposed 3-D analytical model, calculated magnetic-field distribution is compared with the results obtained from the 3-D FEA.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.220 · 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.

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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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