4.6 Article

Actual Design Space Methodology for Preliminary Design Analysis of Switched Reluctance Machines

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS
卷 57, 期 1, 页码 397-408

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TIA.2020.3038352

关键词

Rotors; Stator windings; Mathematical model; Handheld computers; Geometry; Permeability; Windings; Actual design space (ADS); design space; high performance; machine design; preliminary design analysis (PDA); switched reluctance (SR) machine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The proposed methodology in this study introduces a new and fully analytical approach to design, progressively discarding infeasible candidates to populate the design space only with feasible solutions. This allows for verifying design feasibility, reducing the number of candidates significantly, and gaining useful insights into the design problem for selecting the most suitable strategy.
In the design of modern, high-performance switched reluctance machines, the highly restrictive sets of constraints and requirements severely limit the number of feasible solutions. In order to improve the chances of attaining a successful design, this work proposes a novel and fully analytical approach to the preliminary design analysis. Initially, the correct number of independent design variables is identified. Subsequently, constraints and requirements are introduced one by one, in order to progressively discard all of the unfeasible candidates. At the end of this process, the actual design space is attained, whose main characteristic is to be populated only by feasible candidates. A design case study shows how the proposed methodology allows: 1) to verify the design feasibility; 2) to reduce the number of candidates by orders of magnitude; and 3) to gain useful insight into the design problem and thus select the most convenient strategy to finalize it. As a result, a highly effective design process is attained, so that considerable computational resources can be saved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据