MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770277229 · doi:10.1109/tia.2017.2772893

Challenges in Modeling of Large Synchronous Machines

2017· article· en· W2770277229 on OpenAlexaff
Jemimah C. Akiror, Pragasen Pillay, Arezki Merkhouf

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industry Applications · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMagnetic Properties and Applications
Canadian institutionsHydro-QuébecConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoltageFinite element methodComputationEquivalent circuitAir gap (plumbing)Sensitivity (control systems)Computer scienceElectronic engineeringControl theory (sociology)EngineeringElectrical engineeringAlgorithmMaterials scienceStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine simulation models allow the use of embedded numerical computation techniques. The finite element model accuracy is usually gauged by comparing its performance with experimental measurements. In this paper, a large hydrogenerator is modeled and the sensitivity of various model parameters is investigated by comparing the simulated results with experimental measurements. Four hydrogenerator units with the same design drawings are considered in the analysis. The effect of the model parameters was studied by considering the response of the open-circuit voltage in comparison with the measured open-circuit voltage, of the different units. Parameters considered included the effective model depth for a two-dimensional simulation, effective air gap, and effective material permeability of the B-H curve. A 20% variation in operational air gap between two machines of the same design resulted in over 18% difference in open-circuit voltage, particularly beyond the knee point. Reduction in permeability of the soft magnetic materials resulted in agreement between the simulation and measured results at saturation. Consequently, for large machines, the B-H curves from the Epstein measurements are insufficient and should be adjusted accordingly.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Industry ApplicationsSame topicMagnetic Properties and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207