MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Deep Neural Network Modeling for Accurate Electric Motor Temperature Prediction

2022· article· en· W4308092072 on OpenAlexaff
Siavash Hosseini, Amirmohammad Shahbandegan, Thangarajah Akilan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatorComputer scienceArtificial neural networkElectric motorConvolutional neural networkElectromagnetic coilMagnetArtificial intelligenceControl theory (sociology)Mechanical engineeringElectrical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electric motors are becoming widely used in many different applications, such as electric cars, and turbines. Measuring the temperature of internal components of an electric motor, like permanent magnet synchronous motor (PMSM) is vital to maintain its safe operation. However, measuring the temperature of the permanent magnet and stator directly comes at the expense of higher cost and additional hardware requirement, for instance, a sensor network. To overcome these limitations, machine learning (ML) techniques can be employed to model the mentioned parameters without the need of specialized sensors and design ideas for housing them inside the motors. Classical methods, like lumped-parameter thermal networks (LPTNs) are capable of calculating the temperature of internal elements of PMSMs. But, these methods require expertise and may lack an acceptable accuracy. In this study, two deep neural networks (DNNs) were modeled using convolutional neural network (CNN) and long short-term memory (LSTM) units to predict the temperature of four target values of PMSMs: stator tooth, stator yoke, stator winding, and permanent magnet. For attribute conditioning, exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) and exponentially weighted moving standard deviation (EWMS) were applied. A thorough ablation analysis shows that the CNN-based model predicts the targets better than the LSTM model with an average mean squared error (MSE) of 2.64 ${\circ} \mathrm{C}^{2}$ and an average R <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> of 0.9924. It is also found that the proposed CNN-based model achieves a 13% mean average performance (mAP) improvement compared to the existing state-of-the-art solution.

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 score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207