MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895971447 · doi:10.1109/tie.2018.2873121

Efficiency Estimation of the Induction Machine by Particle Swarm Optimization Using Rapid Test Data With Range Constraints

2018· article· en· W2895971447 on OpenAlexafffund
Mahmud Ghasemi Bijan, Pragasen Pillay

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersConcordia University
KeywordsParticle swarm optimizationRange (aeronautics)Stability (learning theory)Control theory (sociology)Computer scienceEngineeringAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Temperature rise of an induction machine increases losses and decrease in the efficiency. The temperature rise depends on the machine design. It takes several hours after starting a machine to reach to thermal stability. In most of the in situ efficiency estimation methods, it is required to obtain the operating data of the machine at a thermally stable condition, which needs a long running time of the machine. In this paper, a method based on a particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm is proposed, which can estimate the machine efficiency at different loads with thermal stability. The machine operation data at the first 30 min after the start rather than data at a thermal stability condition are used in the method. The proposed algorithm utilizes two approaches to predict a full-load temperature at a thermally stable condition. The first approach is based on the insulation class of the machine and uses the equivalent circuit. The second approach is based on the trend of the temperature rise in the first 30 min of running the machine after the start. Furthermore, a method is proposed to narrow the parameters range, which helps the PSO to converge to the right answer. All results are validated by the experimental results.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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