MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135718943 · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3064660

A Review of Fixed Switching Frequency Current Control Techniques for Switched Reluctance Machines

2021· review· en· W3135718943 on OpenAlexafffund
Sumedh Dhale, Babak Nahid‐Mobarakeh, Ali Emadi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSwitched reluctance motorComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)InductanceDigital controlBandwidth (computing)Controller (irrigation)Control engineeringContext (archaeology)Electronic engineeringControl (management)EngineeringTelecommunicationsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By the virtue of its highly nonlinear magnetic characteristics, the Switched Reluctance Machine (SRM) poses a formidable challenge for digital current regulators operating at a fixed switching frequency. Very fast tracking performance demanded by highly dynamic reference current profiles often surpass the conventional limits on closed-loop bandwidth posed by finite sampling frequency. The non-linear nature of matched disturbance to be compensated by the controller appearing in the form of induced emf grows in significance as a function of operating speed while the varying nature of inductance profile stipulates a need for gain adaptation by the control law in order to maintain consistency in closed-loop dynamic response. In the view of these unique SRM characteristics, the paper presents a detailed theoretical analysis of the widely implemented current control techniques from literature and provides illustrations in the context of their implementation in a digital controller. The analysis presented in this paper can also serve as a foundation for more advanced versions of these control techniques as well as their combinations.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.314 · 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.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207