MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The study on the effects of the height of the core’s window on the leakage reactance of transformers using finite element analysis

2022· article· en· W4376608334 on OpenAlexaff
Kamran Dawood, Semih Tursun, İsmet Kaymaz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMagnetic Properties and Applications
Canadian institutionsASTER
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReactanceTransformerLeakage inductanceFinite element methodElectromagnetic coilElectrical engineeringEngineeringElectronic engineeringStructural engineeringVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The short-circuit transformer’s behaviour can be easily predicted from its leakage reactance. The relationship between the height of the core window and leakage reactance of the transformers according to almost all of the analytical methods is assumed to be constant under different heights of the core window. This approach is not significantly accurate during severe cases such as those has small differences between the core height and winding height. Finite element analysis is computer software which can help manufacturers and engineers to speed up the process of optimising electrical machines. In this work, a finite element method is used to see the effect of the window height on the leakage reactance of the transformer under the different heights of the window of the core. The three-dimensional methods are used to evaluate the leakage reactance of the transformer for different heights of the core window. The results show that the transformer’s leakage reactance widely varies during the change in the height of the core window for the same geometry of the windings and electrical parameters of the transformer. Hence using analytical methods could result in inaccurate results. Moreover, considering the same ratio between the window height and windings height is no longer valid for all of the transformers.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.649

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMagnetic Properties and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207