MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Experience with Dielectric Dissipation Factor Testing of Complete Stator Windings

2024· article· en· W4400351418 on OpenAlexaff
Ashfak Shaikh, H.G. Sedding

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMagnetic Properties and Applications
Canadian institutionsKinectrics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatorDissipationElectromagnetic coilDissipation factorDielectricElectrical engineeringMaterials scienceElectronic engineeringPhysicsEngineeringThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dielectric dissipation factor (DDF) testing has been widely employed for many decades by OEMs, end users and service providers as a tool to assess stator winding insulation condition. The test method is governed by international standards, IEEE 286 [1] and IEC 60034-27-3 [2], with the latter standard providing acceptance limits for new stator bars and coils. However, IEC 60034-27-3 specifically precludes the use of these limits on completely assembled stator windings due to the presence of the stress grading materials employed on high voltage rotating machines. Measurement of dissipation factor and tip-up is complicated by the presence of silicon carbide stress control coatings on coils or bars rated at 6 kV or above. This coating creates a noise floor that interferes with the measurement. Very significant partial discharge (PD) must be occurring in most windings for the PD loss to be seen above the silicon carbide tip-up. The influence of the losses on DDF measurements associated with the stress grading materials may be significantly reduced using guard electrodes as described in the standards. However, guard methods are not practical on complete stator windings.Despite this limitation, many organizations routinely employ DDF testing on complete stator windings (or individual phases) often in conjunction with other dielectric tests such as insulation resistance, partial discharge, high voltage dc ramp, etc. Given the lack of any acceptance criteria for DDF test results, the data is trended and/or the results from individual phases are compared to determine if any anomalies are present that may indicate degraded insulation condition. Some organizations have empirically derived internal values for what is considered acceptable DDF on complete stator windings. Dielectric dissipation factor data may also be compared to PD measurements, if made, because both tests provide a measure of void content.This contribution, based on DDF data obtained over many years on a number of service-aged stator windings, will examine the effectiveness of trending the data as well as determining the prospects for applying any DDF limits, e.g., absolute DDF or tip-up values, to aid condition assessment of the stator winding insulation system.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMagnetic Properties and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207