MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391171492 · doi:10.1002/jnm.3214

Radial basis function‐based Pareto optimization of an outer rotor brushless <scp>DC</scp> motor

2024· article· en· W4391171492 on OpenAlexaff
Omid Rahmani, Sayed Alireza Sadrossadat, Mostafa Noohi, Ali Mirvakili, Maitham Shams

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Numerical Modelling Electronic Networks Devices and Fields · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotor (electric)DC motorControl theory (sociology)Function (biology)Basis (linear algebra)AC motorComputer sciencePhysicsMathematicsEngineeringTorqueElectrical engineeringBiologyArtificial intelligenceGeometryThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents the development of an optimization and modeling method for the objective functions of output power, efficiency and weight of an outer rotor permanent magnet brushless DC (BLDC) motor based on radial basis function (RBF) approximation technique. The proposed RBF‐based Pareto optimization method requires less knowledge about electric/magnetic formulas and can replace conventional optimizations based on these equations with higher accuracy. To apply the proposed optimization method, the initial design should be developed using such equations. Therefore, RBFs are used to model and predict engine behavior. To optimize the objective functions, we used a genetic algorithm optimization technique with nonlinear electric and magnetic constraints to find the Pareto front set. The design obtained by the proposed radial basis function Pareto optimization (RBFPO) method was finally verified by Ansoft Maxwell. The results of optimal design using the RBFPO method have higher output power and efficiency. Also, in addition to the advantage of a favorable accuracy, RBF‐based models are significantly faster than models available in simulation tools.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Numerical Modelling Electronic Networks Devices and FieldsSame topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207