MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3117083264 · doi:10.18280/mmep.070404

Performance Analysis of a Self-excited Induction Generator Mathematical Dynamic Model with Magnetic Saturation, Cross Saturation Effect and Iron Losses

2020· article· en· W3117083264 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adel Aberbour, Kassa Idjdarene, A. Tounzi

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInduction generatorControl theory (sociology)MATLABComputer scienceGenerator (circuit theory)Control engineeringSaturation (graph theory)Controller (irrigation)Thévenin's theoremEquivalent circuitEngineeringMathematicsControl (management)PhysicsPower (physics)VoltageArtificial intelligenceElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Construction of appropriate mathematical model of plant (object to be modeled) has especially important meaning for designing controller. A reliable and good control performance requires more detailed model. Nevertheless, the latter must be established from at least two viewpoints of preciseness and compactness. In this paper, the considered plant is a self-excited induction generator (SEIG). In order to improve the accuracy, we take into consideration in the SEIG modeling: magnetic saturation phenomenon, cross saturation effect and iron losses. To our best knowledge, this is the first time that the three mentioned phenomena have been integrated into the same and single SEIG model which is presented in an inherent mathematical form. As we will see in the results, the contribution of these three phenomena in the accuracy improvement is really significant. In addition, to achieve compactness of the proposed model, a simpler configuration is obtained for the electrical equivalent circuit associated to the studied model by using Thevenin transformation. The proposed model is built in MATLAB-SIMULINK environment and used to study and analyze the performance of a SEIG under various operating point conditions. The obtained results are compared to measurements and also to the values obtained from models without the three discussed phenomena.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207