MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401506956 · doi:10.1109/ojia.2024.3441308

Optimization of Analytical TSFs for DC-Link Current Reduction in Switched Reluctance Motors

2024· article· en· W4401506956 on OpenAlexaff
Filipe Pinarello Scalcon, Gaoliang Fang, César José Volpato Filho, Sumedh Dhale, Babak Nahid‐Mobarakeh

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Open Journal of Industry Applications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Prince Edward IslandUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSwitched reluctance motorCurrent (fluid)Reduction (mathematics)Link (geometry)Materials scienceControl theory (sociology)Automotive engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringTorqueElectrical engineeringPhysicsThermodynamicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The large dc-link current is a known issue in switched reluctance motor (SRM) drives, which often demand the use of a bulky dc-link capacitor. However, control techniques can be designed and optimized to lessen this issue. In this context, this article proposes the optimization of analytical torque sharing functions (TSFs) for dc-link current reduction in SRMs. Initially, the analytical TSFs are described, and the importance of adequate parameter selection is highlighted. Next, an optimization procedure based on the nondominated sorting genetic algorithm II is proposed to determine the optimal turn-onand overlap angles by solving a multiobjective optimization problem considering torque rms error and dc-link rms current as objectives to be minimized, something not previously reported in the literature. The pareto fronts for different operating conditions are presented, including both soft and hard chopping operation, as well as different sampling frequencies. Then, an approach for selecting a solution from within the pareto front is described, enabling the result from the pareto front that yielded the desired tradeoff between torque RMSE and dc-link current to be identified. Experimental results are provided to support the effectiveness of the proposal. A comparison between three different cases is shown, highlighting the tradeoff between objectives.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Open Journal of Industry ApplicationsSame topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207