MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390441998 · doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2023.109744

Evaluation of computational models for electromagnetic force calculation in transformer windings using finite-element method

2023· article· en· W4390441998 on OpenAlexaff
Arthur Francisco Andrade, Edson Guedes da Costa, João Pedro Costa Souza, F. L. M. Andrade, Jalberth F. Araújo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMagnetic Properties and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsTransformerFinite element methodElectromagnetic coilRotational symmetryMathematical analysisCurrent transformerRepresentation (politics)MathematicsNonlinear systemMagnetic circuitMechanicsGeometryPhysicsEngineeringStructural engineeringElectrical engineeringVoltageLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computer simulations are currently one of the most used methods on transformer’s short circuit analysis. For them to be effective, an accurate characterization of the transformer core and geometric representation of windings is essential. Hence, this work investigated the influence of core characterization and different geometric representations on magnetic flux density (MFD) and electromagnetic forces (EF) calculated during short circuits. A comparative study using simulations based on the finite-element method (FEM) were carried out for a 180 MVA transformer model. First, the influence of the nonlinear characteristic of the core B-H curve on EF was analyzed. Then, three two-dimensional (2D) axisymmetric and one three-dimensional (3D) representations were compared. Results indicate there is no significant difference in EF with a core represented by a constant value of permeability. Also, 2D-axisymmetric geometric representations underestimate radial forces and diverge significantly on axial forces in comparison with the 3D representation. Differences up to 99% between the calculated total axial forces were obtained for the analyzed cases. In addition, representations with greater level of detail result in magnetic force density up to 5.5 times greater than that obtained with the simplified representation.

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)0.003
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 score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Electrical Power & Energy SystemsSame topicMagnetic Properties and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207