MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Online Multiparameter Estimation of IPMSMs Considering Mutual Inductances and Rotor Position Compensation

2023· article· en· W4388720807 on OpenAlexaff
Hongfu Cheng, Sana Etemadi, Uday Deshpande, Narayan C. Kar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Decoupling (probability)StatorRotor (electric)Compensation (psychology)Position (finance)InductanceMagnetSynchronous motorCompensation methodsEstimation theoryComputer scienceEngineeringVoltageControl engineeringAlgorithmElectrical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate comprehensive parameter estimation and analysis are essential for high performance modeling and control strategy of interior permanent magnet synchronous motors (IPMSMs). This article proposes an improved electrical machine (EM) model considering cross coupling effects and rotor position compensation to accurately estimate parameters, including stator winding resistance, inductances and permanent magnet (PM) flux linkage. In this article, the stator winding resistance is estimated separately by decoupling from other unknown parameters through removing common elements, using basic measurements including speed, voltage and current. Furthermore, dq-axis inductances and mutual inductances are investigated and constructed into mapping over various currents through decoupling coefficients in the proposed mathematical model. Meanwhile, rotor position compensation is considered to reduce the effects of rotor position error on parameter estimation. The proposed approach can improve the accuracy of estimation which is validated by the experiment on a laboratory prototype IPMSM and compared with other estimation methods ignoring either mutual inductances or rotor position compensation.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207