MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Selection of Soft Magnetic Composite Material for Electrical Machines using 3D FEA Simulations

2021· article· en· W3217423255 on OpenAlexaff
Maged Ibrahim, Sumeet Singh, Dwaipayan Barman, Fabrice Bernier, Jean-Michel Lamarre, Serge Grenier, Pragasen Pillay

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsRio Tinto (Canada)Concordia UniversityNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEddy currentFinite element methodStatorToroidMagnetMaterials scienceCore (optical fiber)Mechanical engineeringMagnetic fluxMaterial selectionMaterial propertiesJoule (programming language)Composite numberMagnetic coreMechanicsStructural engineeringComposite materialEngineeringMagnetic fieldElectrical engineeringPhysicsElectromagnetic coilPlasma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyzes the impact of Soft Magnetic Composite (SMC) material properties on the losses and efficiency of electrical machines and presents a method for SMC grade selection. Three electric machines are simulated using 3D Finite Element Analysis (FEA): radial flux, axial flux and transverse flux Permanent Magnet (PM) machines. The core losses in SMC parts are calculated using a hybrid method that includes the joule loss of the induced 3D eddy currents in the SMC stator core as well as geometry-independent losses calculated by analytical equations based on toroid tester data. The results show that the selection of SMC material solely based on one given material property such as, permeability, core loss or resistivity results in suboptimal motor performance. On the other hand, the simulation results show that an SMC material with balanced properties achieved the highest efficiency and best overall performance. Finally, an SMC core with balanced properties was developed and tested in a toroidal measurement setup.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207