MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289913067 · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3196919

Computationally Efficient Surrogate-Based Magneto-Fluid-Thermal Numerical Coupling Approach for a Water-Cooled IPM Traction Motor

2022· article· en· W4289913067 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Abdelrahman, Berker Bilgin

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputational fluid dynamicsCoolantHeat transferElectromagnetic coilFluid dynamicsComputer scienceMechanicsSurrogate modelControl theory (sociology)PhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a computationally-efficient electromagnetic (EM)-computational fluid dynamics (CFD) coupling approach for a water-cooled Interior Permanent Magnet (IPM) motor. The numerical simulation of multiple fluids and their interaction with solid parts can be challenging. The proposed approach relies on the heat transfer coefficient (HTC) decomposition of different fluids/coolants inside the machine to generate an HTC look-up table (LUT) as a function of the coolant inlet flow rate. The HTC-LUT is then utilized as a surrogate model for the stationary coolant to decouple the fluid-to-fluid interaction and, hence, expedite the iterative approach. This reduces the computational time by almost two-thirds as compared to the multiple fluid approach while preserving the fidelity of the model. Additionally, the proposed approach formulates the correlation between the rotor speed, coolant flow rate, convective heat transfer coefficients, and the temperature rise, particularly for hot-spot locations in the end-windings. This approach uses a two-dimensional EM model coupled with a three-dimensional fractional CFD model. Thus, it reduces the computational cost and retains the model simplicity. The viability of the proposed coupling approach is also validated through lumped parameter thermal network (LPTN) analytical approach. The results from both approaches under different cooling conditions, flow rates, and current densities are in a good agreement.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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