MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Study of the Relationship between Acoustic Noise and Torque Pulsation in Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motors

2022· article· en· W4367148744 on OpenAlexaff
Issah Ibrahim, David A. Lowther

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTorque rippleTorqueNoise (video)Direct torque controlControl theory (sociology)Electric motorRippleComputer scienceVibrationMagnetSynchronous motorAcousticsPhysicsEngineeringElectrical engineeringVoltageInduction motor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acoustic noise and torque ripple are some of the undesirable performance indices in the design of electric motors. In fact, knowing the relationship between the two quantities can be very crucial, especially in the optimization process. For instance, where an increase in torque ripple is known to exacerbate the noise and vibrations, the two quantities could be considered as non-conflicting objectives. What this means is that minimizing one quantity could result in the optimization of the other without necessarily treating the two as mutually exclusive objectives. This paper, therefore, explores the correlation, if any exists, between torque ripple and the acoustic noise performance of the electric motor. The procedure involves exploring the design space of a 10 pole 12 slot surface-mounted permanent magnet synchronous motor to compute the torque ripple and the corresponding acoustic noise related to thousands of different motor configurations. Then, a statistical analysis is performed to establish the correlation strength between torque ripple and acoustic noise.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207