MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408792168 · doi:10.1109/tia.2025.3554128

Analysis of Predictive Current Regulator for High-Speed IPMSM Operating at Low Sampling to Fundamental Frequency Ratios

2025· article· en· W4408792168 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Legrand Mon‐Nzongo, Paul Gistain Ipoum‐Ngome, Tao Jin, Chunyan Lai

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industry Applications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegulatorControl theory (sociology)Current (fluid)Sampling (signal processing)Automatic frequency controlComputer scienceElectronic engineeringEngineeringElectrical engineeringChemistryControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At low sampling to fundamental frequency ratios (SFRs), the time delay and current sampling error deteriorate the performances of the current regulator. Therefore, this paper proposes a comprehensive analysis and a tuning method of the PI controller and Internal Model Controller (IMC) with one-step current prediction (OCP) operating under low SFRs. The tuning method analyzes the migration of the closed-loop poles with the electrical speed change and selects the optimal control parameters to improve the system's performance. To enhance the disturbance rejection of the IMC approach, a novel active resistance is also proposed. Simulation and experimental results performed on an interior permanent magnet synchronous motor (IPMSM) have successfully validated the proposed methods. The results show that, the conventional PI design with OCP results in acceptable decoupling and dynamic performances at a minimum SFR of 7.5. While the proposed IMC approach still retains its stability and dynamic performances both at SFR of 7.5 and 5. For disturbance rejection, only the proposed IMC design can achieve enhanced performance at low SFRs.

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 score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.846

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.259 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Industry ApplicationsSame topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207