MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367146721 · doi:10.1109/tec.2023.3269038

Electromagnetic-Thermal Analysis of a Hybrid-Excited Flux Switching Permanent Magnet Generator for Wind Turbine Application

2023· article· en· W4367146721 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Farahzadi, Karim Abbaszadeh, Seyedarmin Mirnikjoo

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatorMechanical engineeringPermanent magnet synchronous generatorThermal analysisThermalMagnetRotor (electric)Materials scienceElectromagnetic coilHeat transferFinite element methodWind powerYoke (aeronautics)Electrical engineeringTurbineEngineeringMechanicsPhysicsStructural engineeringThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An accurate thermal analysis needs to be performed on the machines with new structures to ensure that their electromagnetic performance is not negatively affected. In this regard, this paper details an investigation into the electromagnetic-thermal analysis of an outer rotor hybrid-excited flux switching permanent magnet generator that gains from ferrite PMs in stator yoke and neodymium PMs in rotor segments. Incorporating ferrite PMs and barriers in the stator core enhances the power density of the proposed generator compared to the basic topology. Also, the temperature of the stator and windings of the HEFSG decreases due to the presence of barriers. As a result, the HEFSG can be a potential candidate for DDWT applications. In this study, the thermal modeling started with a 3-D FEM electromagnetic analysis to calculate the losses as heat sources. Afterward, an accurate thermal network was plotted to elucidate the thermal behaviors between various parts of the generator, where the heat sources, heat transfer coefficients, thermal resistances, and heat capacitances form the thermal characteristics of the network, which was then followed by the 3-D FEM thermal analysis. Finally, the experimental test results from the prototyped generator confirmed the accuracy of the simulation results.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations35
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Energy ConversionSame topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207