MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767523047 · doi:10.1109/ias.2017.8101829

Effects of PWM excitations on iron loss in electrical steels and machines

2017· article· en· W2767523047 on OpenAlexaff
Sajid Hussain, Mohammad Hossain Mohammadi, Karanvir S. Sidhu, David A. Lowther

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMagnetic Properties and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulse-width modulationWaveformExcitationTopology (electrical circuits)Modulation (music)Materials scienceModulation indexMagnetControl theory (sociology)Computer scienceElectronic engineeringPhysicsAcousticsVoltageEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The iron loss in the ferromagnetic cores of electrical machines under PWM excitations could be many times higher than the loss under sinusoidal excitation. Therefore, the effects of the PWM waveforms, and their various characteristics (modulation index, switching frequency, and topology, etc.), on the iron loss must be understood and the ability to model these effects in the electrical machine design process is highly desired. In this work, the iron loss is reported for various electrical steels under PWM excitations and the effects of PWM waveform characteristics are studied. The iron loss measurements in a surface mounted permanent magnet motor under PWM excitations are also presented and are in agreement with the measured iron losses in electrical steels. The effect of the iron loss variations on the operating point of the machine is also discussed from the electric vehicle point of view. In the end, a computationally efficient approach based on the static Preisach model is presented to predict the iron loss in electrical steels. The proposed approach can model the effects of changing switching frequency, switching topology and modulation index on the iron loss with a reasonable accuracy.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMagnetic Properties and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207