MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2924167050 · doi:10.1049/iet-epa.2018.5802

Sizing and detailed design procedure of external rotor synchronous reluctance machine

2019· article· en· W2924167050 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Electric Power Applications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSizingMagnetic reluctanceRotor (electric)Synchronous motorReluctance motorControl theory (sociology)Computer scienceControl engineeringEngineeringAutomotive engineeringSwitched reluctance motorMechanical engineeringElectrical engineeringMagnetArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Finding an optimally designed synchronous reluctance machine with desired performance among all possible combinations of the stator and rotor with different shapes of barriers requires long execution time, which is an overwhelming task. Selecting the number of flux barriers, for instance, in accordance with the pre‐designed stator has a significant effect on the torque ripple. To tackle these issues, this study presents a comprehensive design procedure of an external rotor synchronous reluctance machine suitable for an electric bike application that includes considerations such as electro‐magnetic and mechanical aspects. Dimensions of the internal stator with tapered slots are calculated. Additionally, a global parameter, insulation ratio in the q ‐axis, is used to link the microscopic parameters. Seeking for the optimal design through the insulation ratio effectively reduced the number of geometric parameters involved in the rotor shape optimisation. The preliminary rotor design is used to run multi‐objective optimisation to provide further improvement to the average torque and torque ripple. Utilising the finite‐element method, thermal and structural analyses are conducted to guarantee the safe operation of the designed motor under a steady‐state condition. Finally, measurement results of a 250 W‐fabricated motor are compared with the predicted results, which validate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

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.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.191 · 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