MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944235281 · doi:10.1109/tia.2019.2915186

A Data-Driven Approach for Design Knowledge Extraction of Synchronous Reluctance Machines Using Multi-Physical Analysis

2019· article· en· W2944235281 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Hossain Mohammadi, Vahid Ghorbanian, David A. Lowther

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industry Applications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTorque rippleTorqueRotor (electric)Magnetic reluctanceProcess (computing)Computer scienceFinite element methodControl engineeringEngineeringVoltageInduction motorMechanical engineeringDirect torque controlElectrical engineeringMagnet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using a data-driven approach, this paper provides electromagnetic, structural, acoustic, and thermal guidelines for designing synchronous reluctance machines. Design spaces of different rotor geometries are created and simulated using finite element packages to evaluate the self- and mutual-correlation of different physical performances, such as average torque, torque ripple, efficiency, power factor, saliency ratio, sound pressure level, mechanical stress, and average winding temperature. Then, a statistical analysis is conducted to extract knowledge and guidelines for relating the design and objective spaces. It is demonstrated that not all the objectives must be incorporated into the design process since some of them are non-conflicting. Hence, a motor designer can numerically evaluate which design variables should be changed and by how much in order to fulfill the design specifications. Multiple designs are selected based on different multi-physical requirements. Useful guidelines for selecting the appropriate motor speed and voltage ratings are proposed while considering structurally reliable designs.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Industry ApplicationsSame topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207