MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3176106141 · doi:10.18280/ejee.230307

Parameter Tuning of Brushless DC Motor for Improving Control Effect with Worm Algorithm

2021· article· en· W3176106141 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jianhua Qin, Wenrong Wang, Xiao Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Electrical Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSensorless Control of Electric Motors
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGuilin University of TechnologyNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Particle swarm optimizationDC motorController (irrigation)Computer scienceGenetic algorithmElectronic speed controlPhase (matter)Constant (computer programming)Process (computing)AlgorithmControl (management)EngineeringPhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aiming at the problem of low control precision and small applicable scope caused by adjusting control parameters in Ziegler-Nichols (ZN) method, a parameter tuning method based on Worm algorithm (WOA) is proposed for Brushless DC motor. Firstly, the model of speed control is established by proportional integral method for Brushless DC motor with two - phase conduction and three - phase full bridge drive. Then the fitness function of the controller is constructed by the Integral Absolute Error (IAE). Finally, the early optimization process, the later movement rule and the peak extraction rule are determined for WOA, and the controller parameter tuning process is designed. Simulation results under constant and sinusoidal conditions show the effectiveness of the proposed method. WOA was compared with ZN, genetic algorithm (GA), differential evolution algorithm (DE) and particle swarm optimization algorithm (PSO) in the experiment. The experimental results show that the control effect (CE) of WOA under uniform speed has been improved by 2.56% on average, and has been improved by 16.93% on average under sinusoidal speed. Compared with previous methods, this method can be used for parameter adjustment of complex control with higher control precision.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.173
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Electrical EngineeringSame topicSensorless Control of Electric MotorsFrench-language works237,207