Comparison of the Volume and Surface Approaches to Compute Temperature and Electric Field Along the Stress-Grading on Stators Bars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the comparison between volume and surface approaches to compute electric field and temperature distributions along the stress-grading system on Stators Bars (Roebel Type) under 60 Hz sinusoidal ac voltage. For the surface approach, a specific boundary condition available in the commercial FEM software Comsol Multiphysics <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">®</sup> was used to model the stress-grading system whereas for the volume approach, the thickness of each component is taken into account. The investigations were focused on the comparison of the axial electric field and surface temperature distributions along the stress-grading system using 2D axisymmetric FEM model of a stator bar (Roebel Type). The results obtained demonstrate that the surface approach can be a good alternative to the volume approach to compute the electric field and temperature distributions along the stress grading system. Thus, the numerical surface approach study provides an alternative to calculate the axial electric field and surface temperature distributions along the stress-grading system without numerical instability. In addition, the numerical results obtained using surface approach was confirmed experimentally.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".