This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2019.2931487, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
Computer Modeling of the Eddy Current Losses
of Metal Fasteners in Rotor Slots of a Large
Nuclear Steam Turbine Generator Based on
Finite Element method and Deep Gaussian
Process Regression
Jingying Zhao, Student Member, IEEE, Hai Guo, Likun Wang, Member, IEEE,
and Min Han, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—Eddy current analysis is a key issue for large turbine
generators. The finite element method (FEM) is a computational
tool for obtaining the electromagnetic characteristics of electrical
machines. In this paper, we propose a computer model of the eddy
current losses of metal fasteners in the rotor slots of a large
turbine generator. The electromagnetic properties of the rotor
fasteners and the outer diameter of the rotor are taken as the
input, and the eddy current loss of the rotor fasteners is taken as
the output. A prediction model is constructed using the FEM and
deep learning. The analysis results show that compared with
independent finite element analysis, the method reduces the
design cycle time and improves the design efficiency for a
large-capacity turbine generator. Compared with other machine
learning models, the error is smaller and the accuracy is higher.
This method provides a new way to accurately predict the eddy
current loss of a generator under complex nonlinear conditions.
Index Terms—FEM simulation, nuclear power generator,
generator performance prediction, deep Gaussian process
regression, eddy current loss.
Manuscript received February 11, 2019; revised May 05, 2019, June 05
2019; accepted June 20, 2019. This work was supported in part by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 61773087, in part by the
University Nursing Program for Young Scholars with Creative Talents in
Heilongjiang Province under Grant UNPYSCT-2018212, in part by the
Fundamental Research Foundation for Universities of Heilongjiang Province
under Grant LGYC2018JC028, in part by the China Postdoctoral Science
Foundation under Grant 2018T110270 and 2017M620109, in part by the
Postdoctoral Foundation of Heilongjiang Province of China under Grant
LBH-Z17041, and in part by the Foundation of Chinese Ministry of Education
under Grant 18YJCZH040, and in part by National Natural Science Foundation
of Liaoning under Grant 20170050 and 2018401030. (Corresponding author:
Likun Wang.)
J. Zhao is with the Faculty of Electronic Information and Electrical
Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, and with the College of
Computer Science and Engineering, Dalian Minzu University, Dalian, China.
H.Guo is with the College of Computer Science and Engineering, Dalian
Minzu University, Dalian, China
L. Wang is with the College of Electrical and Electronic Engineering,
Harbin University of Science and Technology, Harbin, China (e-mail:
wlkhello@163.com).
M. Han is with the Faculty of Electronic Information and Electrical
Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China.
0278-0046 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1
I. INTRODUCTION
A s one of the key facilities of a nuclear power plant, the
large nuclear steam turbine generator is the direct
producer of electricity. Therefore, research and development of
nuclear steam turbine generators are important in the
development of the electric power industry. Nuclear steam
turbine generators are also an important type of power system
equipment, and their safe and stable operation is of great
significance. In large nuclear steam turbine generators, the
magnetic and heat loads of the generator are relatively high. If a
generator is not well designed, local overheating of the
generator can easily occur. Overheating can lead to problems
such as insulation ageing, a loose core and unit vibrations in the
generator, which have negative impacts ranging from abnormal
generator shutdowns to power system safety threats, resulting
in a series of new challenges in the research and development of
large nuclear steam turbine generators.
To improve the operational reliability of large steam
turbine generators, designers have made many improvements
to the generator slot wedges and filler pieces. For example, new
alloy materials and new structures have been used for slot
wedges. Generally, the operational stability of a turbine
generator can be improved by using materials with different
electromagnetic properties for the slot wedges of the stator and
rotor of a large nuclear steam turbine generator. To verify the
influences of the electrical conductivity and magnetic
permeability of the structural components inside the generator
slots as well as of the generator rotor dimensions on the eddy
current loss, an in-depth analysis should be carried out on the
electromagnetic field and eddy current distribution inside the
generator. Since a large nuclear steam turbine generator has a
high electromagnetic load, during high-speed rotation, the
higher harmonics will induce an eddy current in the rotor slot
wedges and filler pieces of the generator. Thus, the eddy
current loss will directly affect the operation of the generator.
Large generators are designed differently from small
generators because of the complexity of the internal structure.
Large generator design requires the finite element method
(FEM), analytical methods, etc. to carry out preliminary design
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2019.2931487, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
and simulation. Simulation of the different structures and
parameters of a large generator with the FEM is time
consuming. Combining the FEM and deep learning can
effectively save money and time and improve the design
efficiency for a large generator. This combination not only has
the characteristics of convenience and a high prediction
accuracy but also, more importantly, can be used to more
accurately analyse the nonlinear relations in a complex system.
This approach can be implemented under the condition of the
complicated nonlinearity of large generator rotor eddy current
loss to realize more accurate real-time predictions.
The FEM is an important means of analysis in the field of
engineering, and the scholar I. Boldea applied it to the design
and analysis of generators and achieved very good results
[1]-[3]. Bramerdorfer et al. used a new modelling technique to
calculate electromagnetic loss in ferromagnetic materials while
ignoring the magnetization history. Their method can improve
the calculation precision in electric machine design [4].
Johnston et al. analysed a pulsed eddy current combined with
modified principal components analysis method for the
detection and identification of a variety of loose parts in steam
generators [5]. Li et al. calculated the stator core loss density
distribution and eddy currents in a press plate [6]. Georg et al.
calculated the eddy current of the rotor damper winding of a
large synchronous generator using both an analytical method
and the FEM, and a small calculation deviation between the two
methods was found [7]. Bacher et al. conducted theoretical and
experimental studies on the eddy current loss of the damper
windings of a large turbogenerator rotor, calculated the winding
eddy current under insulated damping and non-insulated
damping, and analysed the reactance parameters and the time
constant [8]. Muller et al. presented different methods to
calculate iron losses in soft magnetic composites. Starting with
the classical Steinmetz equation, several extensions were
presented. These methods can be used for calculating iron
losses during the optimization process to achieve a higher
efficiency [9]. Zhu et al. researched an iron loss model
considering a rotating field and a non-sinusoidal field, which
was evaluated using the measurement results of an electrical
machine under different conditions [10]. Theoretically studying
the eddy current loss in the end structure of a large turbine
generator, Wang et al. presented a mechanism for the change in
the eddy current loss for different screen end structures [11].
Ranlöf et al. analysed a rotating field model to evaluate the
damping winding eddy current loss of large generators under a
steady-state load and explored the features of the saturation
permeance and damping circuit structure. Good agreement was
found between the damping winding eddy current extracted
from the analysis model and the results obtained by a finite
element calculation with 2D field-circuit coupling, proving the
applicability of the damping winding eddy current loss
prediction model for steady-state unbalanced loads [12]. Soares
et al. presented an optimized control strategy to mitigate the
electrical losses inside a generator [13]. Guan et al. proposed an
excess loss modelling method for a laminated iron core. The
modelling was improved by including the domain wall bowing
due to the pinning effect, which is considered to be the main
cause of excess loss [14]. Rasilo et al. proposed a new
implementation of an iron loss model for laminated magnetic
cores in the MATLAB/Simulink environment [15].
0278-0046 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
2
In recent years, machine learning has been widely applied
to various areas of electrical engineering, and many
achievements have been made. Ortombina et al. used radial
basis function neural networks to study the relationship
between currents and magnetic flux linkages. In his study, the
generator voltages and currents were taken as the model input,
and the generator magnetic flux linkage was taken as the model
output. Quite good results were achieved [16]. Zhang et al.
presented a method that identifies the hysteresis model based
on support vector machine (SVM) regression. The grid search
and cross-validation methods were applied to optimize the
penalty and kernel parameters. According to the experimental
results, this method can effectively predict the hysteresis model
of alnico [17]. Salameh et al. introduced a hybrid lifespan
model for generator insulating materials. In this method,
voltage, frequency and temperature are used as impact factors,
and a variety of decision trees are combined into a hybrid model,
which can effectively predict the lifetime of a generator
insulating material [18]. Kwon et al. proposed a method based
on machine learning to locate and evaluate the faults in a cable.
This method uses a general regression neural network (GRNN)
as an extracted feature classifier and could effectively detect
cable faults in 2 models [19]. The use of deep learning in the
prediction of large generator performance has not been reported,
and this paper studies the performance analysis of large
generators.
Many differences exist between large nuclear steam
turbine generators and traditional steam turbine generators in
terms of design. The early stages of the design, calculation and
analysis of large nuclear steam turbine generators are of great
importance; sufficient calculations and simulations are required,
and a feasibility analysis for actual generator manufacturing
and processing should be carried out based on the simulation
data. One of the critical tasks is to predict the loss of the large
nuclear steam turbine generator. Rotor slot wedge loss in the
large nuclear steam turbine generator can lead to a series of
problems, such as severe rotor heating and deformation due to
local stress concentrations. In this study, to analyse the eddy
current losses of the slot wedges and filler pieces of a large
turbo-generator rotor and their influencing factors, an FEM
model and deep learning were integrated to build data samples
to validate the model, which can be used to determine the eddy
current losses of the slot wedge and filler piece of a large
nuclear steam turbine generator rotor.
In this study, for the above-mentioned analyses, a 1266 MW
large nuclear steam turbine generator was used as a case study.
Considering the structural features of the generator, different
magnetic and conductive slot wedges were embedded into the
generator rotor slot to replace the commonly used aluminium
alloy or aluminium slot wedge, and the common copper filler
pieces were replaced by filler pieces with different
electromagnetic properties. By establishing a mathematical
model of the transient electromagnetic field for the turbine
generator, the eddy current losses of the slot wedges and filler
pieces of a large nuclear steam turbine generator with different
rotor diameters and different permeability and conductivity
metal fasteners were calculated based on the time-stepping
FEM. Furthermore, with the conductivity of the rotor slot
wedge, relative permeability of the rotor slot wedge, electrical
conductivity of the filler piece, relative permeability of the
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2019.2931487, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS 3

filler piece, rotor diameter and stator core relative permeability
as the input, a deep Gaussian process regression (DGPR) model
was developed to predict the eddy current losses of the slot
wedges and filler pieces of a large nuclear steam turbine
generator rotor. Compared with Gaussian process models with
other kernel functions, the DGPR model can accurately predict
the eddy current loss of large generator rotor slots, providing
theoretical support for the design of large nuclear power plant
generators.
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MATHEMATICAL MODEL
A. Application of the FEM to the Electromagnetic Field of a
Nuclear Steam Turbine Generator
To analyse the eddy current loss of fasteners in the rotor slot
of a nuclear steam turbine generator, the FEM was used to
calculate the magnetic field when the nuclear steam turbine
generator operates at the rated load. The following assumptions
were made:
a) In this paper, a 2D model was adopted to solve the eddy
calculated. The eddy current loss of the rotor slot wedge within
a cycle of period Te can be expressed as follows:
1 k
Pe    J e2  e r1lt dt (2)
Te i 1
where Pe is the rotor eddy current loss, Je denotes the unit
electric current density,  e is the unit area, lt is the rotor axial
length,  r is the conductivity, Te denotes the cycle period, and
k is the number of grids.
B. Prediction Model for the Eddy Current Losses of a Large
Turbine generator
As a machine learning regression method developed based
on Bayes’ theorem and statistical theory, GPR has a theoretical
basis in statistical learning and can be used to solve complex
problems featuring high dimensions, small samples and
nonlinearities. Compared with a neural network and a SVM,
GPR has advantages such as easy implementation,
hyperparameter adaptive acquisition and nonparametric
inference. Consider N training sample sets, D   xi , yi i 1 ,
N

current of the generator. (Due to the horizontal structure of the

generator, the electromagnetic field slightly changes along the
axis of the generator. When a 2D transient electromagnetic
field is applied for analysis, without considering the end
leakage of the generator, the vector magnetic potential only has
a z-axis component Az.)
b) The variation in the magnetic permeability with
temperature was not considered.
c) The relative permeability studied in this paper was
constant with time.
In the FEM, a sinusoidal time-varying field and a transient
electromagnetic field can be used to calculate eddy current loss.
Because a large turbine generator has both DC excitation and
an AC armature current, this paper adopted the transient FEM
to calculate the eddy current loss. Based on the above
assumptions, given the corresponding boundary conditions, the
transient electromagnetic field of the generator was described
based on the vector magnetic potential Az according to
electromagnetic field theory. The boundary value equation of
the 2D transient electromagnetic field for the nuclear turbine
generator was obtained as follows:
   1 Az    1 Az   Az 
 :       Jz 
 x   x  y   y   t 
 : A  0
 z
where  is the boundary that is the outer circle of the stator
core, which is marked in Fig. 6 (a).
According to the variational principle, Equation (1) was
converted into a conditional functional equation that was then
discretized, and a system of multivariate equations was solved
on the premise of them satisfying the corresponding boundary
conditions. When the generator is running, the stator winding
harmonic magnetomotive force and tooth harmonic
magnetomotive force are equal. An eddy current can be
induced in the rotor slot wedge, and the eddy current loss can be
where xi  Rn is an input variable of the model, which is also a
factor influencing the eddy current loss of the generator, and
yi  Rm is the output variable, i.e., the eddy current loss of the
generator. A GPR model refers to a collection of random
variables, f  x1  , f  x2  , f  x3  , f  xn  , for given data D,
any finite set of which obeys the joint probability distribution of
Equation (3). f  xi  is referred to as a Gaussian process.
f  x GP  m  x  , K  x, x   (3)
where m  x  is the mean value function, and K  x, x  is the
covariance function, which is specifically defined in Equation
(4).
 k  x1 , x1  k  x1 , x2  k  x1 , xn  
 
k  x2 , x1  k  x2 , x2  k  x2 , xn  
K  x, x     (4)
 
 
 k  xn , x1  k  xn , x2  k  xn , xn  
In normal circumstances, noise occurs in the measured data, as
described by the Gaussian noise model shown in Equation (5).
y  f  x  
(5)
(1)
where  N  0,  n2  (  n is the standard deviation of the noise).
The prior distribution of the training sample y is obtained as
follows:
y N  0, K   n2 I  (6)
where I is the nth-order unit matrix.
The joint prior distribution of the output y of the training
sample and the output yt of the test sample is obtained based
on Equation (6).
 y   K  X , X  K  X , xt   
 y  N  0,  K x , X   (7)
   t  K  xt , xt   
 t

0278-0046 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2019.2931487, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS 4

where K  X , X   K n   kij  is an n  n symmetric positive

definite covariance matrix and kij  k xi , x j measures the   x1 x2 x3 x

correlation between xi and x j . K  X , xt   K  xt , X 

T f1
h1
denotes the n1 covariance matrix between the test sample xt
and the training sample X . K  xt , xt  is the covariance of xt ,
ρ ρ ρ
f2
and I is the n th-order unit matrix. h2

Based on the conditions of the test sample xt and the f3

y y
training sample set D , the posterior probability distribution of
(a) (b)
the test sample yt is calculated as follows: Fig. 1. Gaussian process models. (a) Gaussian process. (b) Deep
yt D, xt N  m  xt  , cov  yt   (8) Gaussian process.
x1 ρ f(1)(*)
1
where m  xt   K  xt , X   K  X , X    I  y , 2
n ρ f(2)(*)

1 x2 ρ ρ
cov  yt   K  xt , xt   K  xt , X    K  X , X    n2 I  K  X , xt  ,
f(1)(*) f(3)(*) y1

ρ (2)
f (*)

and m  xt  and cov  yt  are the mean value and covariance of x3 ρ f(1)(*)
ρ f(3)(*) ym

the predicted value yt for the test sample xt , respectively xn ρ (1)

f (*)
ρ (2)
f (*) xout 3  y m1

[20]. x n1 first hidden layer) second hidden layer Output layer
y m1
The kernel functions commonly used in a Gaussian process Input Output

include the following: Fig. 2. Architecture of the two-layer deep Gaussian process model.
1) Radial basis function kernel (RBF kernel)
K RBF ( x, x )  e
    * x  x 2 nonparametric modelling and uncertainty estimation, showing
(9)
a stronger generalization ability.
2) Rational quadratic kernel function (RQ kernel) In the early stage of its history, the deep Gaussian process
  model was not sufficiently effective in processing big data.
 x  x 
2

K RQ ( x, x)  1   *  (10) Thang et al. proposed a DGPR model suitable for processing
   big data samples [22]. The eddy current loss prediction model
 
for metal fasteners inside the rotor slot of a large nuclear steam
3) Sine square kernel function (SS kernel)
   2 
turbine generator in this study was established using this
   sin  * x  x     method. Since the dataset for the large generator considered in
   p  
 
KSS ( x, x)  e (11) this study is relatively large and realizing accurate Bayesian
4) Dot-product kernel function (DP kernel) learning with this model is difficult, approximate reasoning was
K DP ( x, x)   0  x  x
2
(12) adopted. In the model, an inducing point was used to reduce the
calculation cost of the GPR, thereby directly optimizing the
5) Matern kernel function (M kernel) expectation propagation energy function to find an approximate
v
1   x x     x x    posterior probability over the induced output. The model was
K M ( x, x)   2
  2vd  ,   K v   2vd  ,   optimized using the adaptive moment estimation (Adam)
 V  2v 1   l l    l l 
algorithm. The prediction model is shown in Fig. 2.
(13) Combining the momentum algorithm and the RMSProp
 in Equation (9)(10)(11) is a hyper-parameter to control the algorithm, the Adam algorithm must first initialize the gradient
width of the kernel. V in Equation (13) is a smoothing cumulant and the square cumulant.
coefficient, and when V =0.5 , the core is an exponential core. vdw  0, vdb  0, sdw  0, sdb  0 (14)
When V approaches infinity, the core is a Gauss kernel.  is a After n rounds of training, a parametric update of the
Gamma function and K is a Bassel function. momentum algorithm and RMSProp algorithm is calculated.
vdw  1vdw  1  1  dW
A Gaussian process is equal to a Bayesian neural network
with an infinite-width single hidden layer, and its structural 
description is shown in Fig. 1(a). As proposed by Damianou, vdb  1vdb  1  1  db
 (15)
 sdw   2 sdw  1   2  dW
the DGPR method is similar to a multilayer neural network 2
with an infinitely wide hidden layer, and its structural
 s   s  1   db 2
description is shown in Fig. 1 (b) [21]. Deep gaussian process is  db 2 db  2
a deep learning model of gaussian process. For a complex To prevent a small time step from averagely generating
system such as large turbo-generator, the stacking of different differences in the iteration, deviation corrections were
types of gaussian processes can effectively avoid the influence conducted using Equation (15).
of a single kernel function on regression accuracy, and the
increase of the number of deep gaussian layers can improve the
regression accuracy. Unlike a deep neural network, in DGPR,
various layers are mapped based on a Gaussian process.
Therefore, deep Gaussian process regression can enable

0278-0046 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2019.2931487, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
 c v v
 v  dw ，vdb c
 db n
 dw 1- 1n 1- 1
 sdw sdb
(16)
 sdw 
c
，s c

1-  2n 1-  2n
db


Based on Equation (16), the revised value determined by
the nth iteration parameter gradient was obtained, and the
weight and location of the DGPR model were updated using the
momentum algorithm and RMSProp algorithm [22].
To improve the training speed of the model and reduce the
memory usage, the data factors were bundled. Since an increase
in the number of layers of the deep Gaussian process model
increases the complexity of the data parameters, the
probabilistic backpropagation method was used for
approximation to reduce the complexity of the model
parameters. This approximation projects the non-Gaussian
distribution obtained by propagating a Gaussian through the
network’s first layer to a moment matched Gaussian, and the
same step is then repeated in the next layers. The mean value
and variance of the Gaussian approximation can be analytically
calculated to obtain their gradients in each intermediate layer
with respect to the mean value and variance of the input
distribution, and the parameters of the current layers can also be
obtained. These results are then stored in the forward
propagation step, the log Z approximation and its gradient at the
output layer are calculated, and the chain rule is used in the
backward step to differentiate through the assumed density
filtering procedure.
III. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS AND METHODS
A. Structure and Parameters of the Nuclear Turbine
Generator
A 1266 MW nuclear steam turbine generator was analysed in
this study, and its electromagnetic and structural parameters are
shown in Table I. The large nuclear half-speed steam turbine
generator is similar to a full-speed generator in terms of the
overall structural arrangement, but with a low speed; the
effective electromagnetic volume of a large nuclear half-speed
steam turbine generator is much larger than that of a full-steam
turbine generator. The large generator stator usually consists of
3 parts, i.e., the excitation end, the middle section and the
turbine end. In addition, the generator is assembled and welded
at the manufacturer to complete the processing and assembly of
the integral stand. A hydrogen cooler is installed at the top of
one end or both ends of the generator according to the type of
ventilation. The generator has a large-diameter rotor forging
design. The ratio of the rotor length to the outside diameter of
the nuclear steam turbine generator is smaller than that of an
ordinary turbine generator, which contributes to a reduction in
the rotor vibration. Since the rotor is heavy, a cylindrical
bearing bush with a strong bearing capacity is used. The rotor
slot wedge and filler piece are made of metallic materials. The
structure characteristics of the rotor of the nuclear turbine
generator studied in this paper are as follows: 1) Integral
forging of Ni-Cr-Mo-V alloy steel with high magnetic
conductivity and high strength for the rotating shaft material.
The slot of the rotor is an open trapezoidal groove. On the
premise that the strength of the sub-rotor is ensured, the amount
0278-0046 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
5
Fig. 3. Prototype of the 1266 MW nuclear steam turbine generator.
TABLE I
PARAMETERS OF THE TURBINE GENERATOR UNDER THE RATED LOAD
CONDITION
Parameter Value
Capacity 1266 MW
Power factor 0.9
Number of poles 4
Stator core cooling Hydrogen cooling
Rated voltage 24 kV
Stator rated current 33847 A
Exciter rated current 8895 A
Speed 1500 rpm
Number of stator slots 48
of copper used for the rotor should be increased as much as
possible to reduce the current density and temperature rise of
the rotor. In the operation of the generator, the retaining ring
experiences a very large circumferential stress, repetitive radial
deformation and magnetic flux leakage at the end, so high yield
limit, non-magnetic austenitic 18Mn18Cr forging steel is
adopted for the retaining ring. 2) Rotor winding and damping
system. The rotor coil is made of cold-drawn copper containing
silver. The middle of the rotor coil has milled holes to form a
radial ventilation duct. The damping system is formed by a
damping strip in the slot, which improves the reverse operation
ability of the generator. Fig. 3 shows the structure of the 1266
MW nuclear turbine generator.
B. FEM Simulation and Magnetic Field Calculation Results of
the Nuclear Turbine Generator
With a trapezoidal slot structure and filler pieces under the
slot wedges, the 1266 MW nuclear steam turbine generator can
effectively inhibit electromagnetic oscillations. Due to the
harmonic field of the generator, the eddy current loss induced in
the filler pieces is directly related to the rotor structure, slot
wedge conductivity and magnetic conductivity of the generator.
In this study, an FEM model of the 1266 MW nuclear steam
turbine generator was established to calculate the magnetic
field distribution of the nuclear steam turbine generator for
different conductivities of the rotor slot wedge, relative
permeabilities of the rotor slot wedge, electrical conductivities
of the filler piece, relative permeabilities of the filler piece,
rotor diameters and stator core relative permeabilities.
Regarding the influence of the generator rotor structure on the
eddy current loss of generator rotor fasteners, this paper only
considered one influencing factor of the rotor outer diameter,
and the rotor topology was not considered as an influencing
factor. Furthermore, the eddy current losses of the slot wedge
and filler piece of the large nuclear steam turbine generator
rotor under different conditions were explored. For the material
selection of the generator parts in this paper, we used several
different actual metal material combinations, including
different Al materials (pure aluminium, 1070 aluminium, 1050
aluminium) and various metal materials such as pure copper,
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2019.2931487, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS 6

Begin
TABLE II.
METAL FASTENER MATERIALS AND THEIR ELECTROMAGNETIC PROPERTIES Establish FEM model

Material Conductivity (S/m) Relative permeability

Determine mathematical model
Copper 58000000 1
Steel 2000000 1.1
Load material properties
Stainless steel 1100000 1
Aluminium 38000000 1.000021
Define boundary conditions
1070 Aluminium 36000000 1.000021
1050 Aluminium 33000000 1.000021
Obtain discrete grid

Solve the electromagnetic field equation

Output eddy current loss results

Train the deep learning model

Output model prediction

End

Fig. 5 Detailed simulation process

Fig. 4 B-H curve of the stator
steel and stainless steel, which were used as the wedge and
filler piece, respectively, as shown in Table II. The B-H curve
of the stator core material is shown in Fig. 4, and the relative
permeability was determined according to the B-H curve [23].
First, a 2D finite element model of the electromagnetic field
was established, the physical model was meshed, the external
boundary conditions were determined, and an excitation source
was added. Based on the 2D time-stepping FEM, the magnetic
field distribution and eddy current loss distribution of the slot
wedge and filler piece were solved, as shown in Fig. 5.
The structure of this nuclear steam turbine generator is
shown in Fig. 6 (a). The stator consists of 48 slots. Fig. 6(b)
shows the electromagnetic field distribution of the steam
turbine generator under the rated load, obtained through finite
element analysis. As shown in Fig. 6(b), the maximum
magnetic density of the steam turbine generator was found in
the rotor tooth area. The FEM was used to analyse and calculate
the circular area. During the finite element mesh process, the
non-traditional tetrahedral adaptive unification (TAU) control
method was applied. Triangular elements were dispersed
throughout the entire generator region. The algebraic equation
set used to solve the electromagnetic field in the domain was
obtained through unit analysis and general integration. By
determining the boundary conditions and solving Equation (1),
the flux density value at each node was determined.
A no-load test and a short-circuit test were carried out on
the 1266 MW nuclear steam turbine generator to verify the
accuracy of the results obtained by the finite element
calculation. Current measurement methods for the excitation
current generally include the low-voltage-side current
transformer method, DC-side shunt method and DC-side Hall
element method. For the acquisition of the rotor current, the
rotor-side current measured by the DC-side shunt method was
used in this paper. The basis of this method is a high precision
standard resistance. When an excitation current flows through
the resistance, the actual excitation current can be obtained by
measuring the voltage at both ends. The steps for testing the
no-load characteristics were as follows: After no-load starting
of the synchronous generator, the voltage of the power supply
was raised to 130% of the rated value, and the excitation current
Slot wedge

Filler piece
2.821
2.604
2.387
2.171
1.953
1.736
1.519
1.302
1.085
0.868
0.651
0.434
0.217
0
(a) (b)
Fig. 6. Structure and magnetic field distribution of the generator. (a) Structure
of the generator. (b) Magnetic field distribution (T).
(a) (b)
Fig. 7. Comparison of the test results and numerical calculation results of the
characteristic curves of the 1266 MW nuclear steam turbine generator. (a)
No-load curve. (b) Short-circuit characteristic curve.
of the tested generator was adjusted to minimize the armature
current. The applied voltage, excitation current, frequency and
armature current were read, which is the first step to measure
the no-load characteristics. Next, unidirectional regulation was
applied to gradually reduce the supply voltage and adjust the
excitation current at each voltage test point to minimize the
armature current. The steps for testing the load characteristics
were as follows: The three-phase armature winding of the
tested generator was reliably short-circuited to a low
impedance conductor, and the tested generator was ramped to
the rated speed. Then, an excitation current was input, and the
excitation current was gradually increased so that the armature
current was 1.2 times the rated value. Simultaneously, the
armature current and excitation current were measured, and
then, the excitation current was gradually reduced to zero. In
addition, a numerical calculation was performed to obtain the
no-load curve and short-circuit characteristic curve of the
generator using the FEM. The tested results were perfectly

0278-0046 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2019.2931487, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS 7

consistent with the simulation results, indirectly demonstrating TABLE III

the accuracy of the finite element calculation approach MAIN PARAMETERS OF THE MODEL
proposed in this study. Fig. 7 shows a comparison of the test Parameter Value range
results and numerical calculation results of the no-load curve no_epochs [100, 200,300,500,700,1000]
and short-circuit characteristic curve of the 1266 MW no_points_per_mb [40,50,60,70]
generator. n_hiddens [1,2,3]
M [50,100,150]
C. Model Assessment nolayers [2]
As an index to reveal the degree of deviation between a 60.0M X1

X1(S/m)
predicted value and an actual value, the MSE is inversely 40.0M
20.0M
proportional to the precision of the prediction model. Assuming 0.0
1.15
that yˆi is the predicted response of the ith sample, yi is the 1.10
X2

X2
1.05
desired response, and there are n samples, the following 1.00
100.0M
80.0M X3
equation can be obtained:

X3(S/m)
60.0M
40.0M
2 20.0M
1 n
  yi  yˆi 
MSE  y, yˆ  
0.0
(17) 1.15 X4
n i 1 1.10

X4
1.05
1.00
The RMSE is inversely proportional to the prediction. The 944
X5
943

X5(mm)
smaller the value is, the higher the precision of the predictor, 942
941
and the equation is as follows: 940
6000
X6
2 5000
1 n
RMSE  y, yˆ     yi  yˆi 

X6
4000
(18) 3000
n i 1 40
Y

Y(kW)
R 2 generally ranges from 0 to 1. The closer its value is to 20

1, the smaller the prediction error of the model and the more 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

accurate the prediction. R2 is expressed as follows: Samples

  yi  yˆi 
n 2
Fig. 8. Rotor wedge and filler piece eddy current loss sample library.
R  y, yˆ   1 
2 i 1
(19)
 i 1  yi  y 
n 2
of the slot wedge and filler piece of a large nuclear steam
2 turbine generator rotor in 1407 scenarios. Fig. 8 shows the
R is expressed as follows:
2
turbine generator rotor wedge and filler piece eddy current loss
  y  yˆ 
n 2
sample library established in this study. The input parameters
 y, yˆ   1  i 1
2 i i
R 2 include the conductivity of the rotor slot wedge, relative
  y  y (20)
n 2
i 1 i
permeability of the rotor slot wedge, electrical conductivity of
the filler piece, relative permeability of the filler piece, rotor
R22 generally ranges from 0 to 1. The closer its value is to 1, the
diameter and stator core relative permeability, denoted X1, X2,
smaller the prediction error of the model and the more accurate
X3, X4, X5 and X6, respectively. The eddy current losses of the
the prediction. Because they are sensitive to the maximum
slot wedge and filler piece are the output, defined as Y.
prediction error and minimum prediction error, R2 and R22
function as important supplements to the assessment based on B. Results of the Prediction Model
the MSE and RMSE. The computer used was an Intel E5 2690 V2 CPU with
128 GB of DDR-RAM. The programming software used was
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Python. The samples in Fig. 8 were divided into a training
A. Calculation Results of the Eddy Current Losses of the Slot sample set (the first 1000 samples) and a test sample set (the
Wedge and Filler Piece of a Large Nuclear Steam Turbine remaining 407 samples). The parameters of this model mainly
Generator Rotor include no_epochs, which denotes the number of iterations,
no_points_per_mb, which represents the number of batches,
The influencing factors of the eddy current loss of the
n_hiddens, which is the number of hidden layers, M, which is
rotor of a nuclear steam turbine generator include the
the number of inducing points, and nolayers, which denotes the
conductivity of the rotor slot wedge, relative permeability of
number of model layers. Table III shows the specific
the rotor slot wedge, electrical conductivity of the filler piece,
parameters. The sampling rate in the model optimization was
relative permeability of the filler piece, rotor diameter and
the default value of 0.2.
stator core relative permeability. To study the influence of
According to Table III, a total of 216 parameter
relevant factors on the eddy current loss of the rotor of a nuclear
combinations exist. As shown in Fig. 9, after conducting
steam turbine generator, the eddy current losses of the slot
iterative training and testing 1000 times, when
wedge and filler piece of a large nuclear steam turbine
no_points_per_mb is 50, n_hiddens is 2, and M is 150, the
generator rotor under the rated load and different conditions
optimal model has an RMSE of 0.3083, an R2 of 0.9944 and an
were calculated. Since abundant data samples are required for
the prediction, 1407 finite element numerical analysis models R22 of 0.9254. In this case, the RMSE and MSE have minimum
were established in this study to calculate the eddy current loss values, whereas R2 and R22 are close to 1. Fig. 10 shows a

0278-0046 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2019.2931487, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS 8

Fig. 11 shows a comparison of the FEM values and

3
RMSE predicted values. For 9 samples, the absolute prediction error is
RMSE
2
1
greater than 1.0, and for 2 samples, the absolute prediction
0
percentage error is greater than 10%. The analysis revealed a
6 MSE relatively small error between the predicted values and the
MSE

4
2 values simulated by the FEM.
0
1.2
1.0 R22 C. Model Comparison
R22

0.8
0.6 To verify the effectiveness of this model, the DGPR
0.4 model was compared with GPR models with different kernel
1.2 R2
1.0 functions. The GPR kernel functions included the RBF kernel,
R2

0.8 rational quadratic kernel, Matern kernel, sine squared kernel

0.6
200
M
and dot product kernel. The experimental results are shown in
150 Table IV. The MSE and RMSE of the DGPR model are smaller
M

100
50 than those of the GPR models with the other 5 kernel functions.
5
hiddens Compared with the other 5 models, the R2 values of the DGPR
epochs points hiddens

4
3 model are closer to 1. The results show that given the same
2
90
1 experimental samples, the prediction error of the DGPR model
80 points_per_mb is smaller than those of the other 5 GPR models.
70
60 TABLE IV
50 COMPARISON OF THE ERRORS OF THE DGPR MODEL AND OTHER GPR MODELS
40
1000 epochs Model MSE RMSE R2 R22
500 RBF kernel 0.5416 0.7359 0.9683 0.8218
Rational quadratic kernel 0.5862 0.7656 0.9656 0.8146
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Matern kernel 0.5414 0.7358 0.9683 0.8218
no_parameters Sine squared kernel 12.3426 3.5132 0.2765 0.1494
Dot product kernel 16.8511 4.1050 0.0122 0.0061
Fig. 9. Prediction accuracy of the DGPR model with different
parameters. DGPR 0.0951 0.3083 0.9944 0.9254
32 predicted value 4.5
30
FEM value 16 MSE
RMSE
4.0
28
14
26 3.5
12
predicted value

24
3.0
22
10
20 2.5

RMSE
8
MSE

18
2.0
16
6
14 1.5
12 4
1.0
10
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 2
Samples 0.5
0
Fig. 10. Comparison of the predicted values and FEM values. 0.0
DGP Linear regression SVR Ridge Lasso AdaBoost

12% models
Absolute Error
1.8 Percentage Error
Fig. 12. Comparison of the DGPR model and other models in terms of the
1.6 10%
MSE and RMSE.
1.4 TABLE V
8%
1.2
COMPARISON OF THE DGPR MODEL AND OTHER MODELS IN TERMS OF THE
Percentage Error
Absolute Error

PREDICTION ERROR
1.0 6%
Model R2 R22
0.8
Linear Regression 0.2642 0.1422
4%
0.6 SVR 0.8815 0.6557
0.4
KNN 0.9103 0.7004
2%
AdaBoost 0.9814 0.8638
0.2
Ridge 0.1299 0.0672
0%
0.0 Lasso 0.0112 0.0056
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 DGPR 0.9944 0.9254
Samples

Fig. 11. Comparison of the FEM values and the predicted values. Given the same experimental samples, the DGPR model
was compared with a linear regression model, a support
comparison of the values predicted by the model and the values vector regression (SVR) model, a ridge regression model, a
simulated by the FEM. The blue data represent the predicted lasso regression model and AdaBoost. The results are shown in
values, and the red data denote the values simulated by the Fig. 12. The MSE and RMSE of the DGPR model are smaller
FEM. Good agreement is observed between the two. than those of the other 5 regression models.

0278-0046 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2019.2931487, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
Table V shows a comparison of the DGPR model and the
other 5 models in terms of the estimation performance.
Compared with the other 5 models, the R2 and R22 values of the
DGPR model are closer to 1. According to the results, given the
same experimental samples, the DGPR model has a smaller
error in predicting the eddy current loss of the slot wedge in the
rotor than the other 5 GPR models.
D. Discussion
Previously, the FEM was usually used to analyse the
eddy current loss in large electrical equipment, but the
computational efficiency was relatively low. When the FEM is
used alone, the time for calculating one parameter combination
is 20 minutes, and the time for calculating the eddy current loss
for 140 parameter combinations is 28,140 minutes
(approximately 469 hours). To verify the validity of a model in
machine learning, the sample set is generally divided into a
training set and a test set, and their proportion is generally
between 3:1 and 2:1. In this paper, the first 1,000 samples are
used as the training set, and the last 407 samples are used as the
test set. The prediction model saves 136 hours for the test set. In
practice, the amount of test data is much larger than 407
samples, so the model can save more time.
First, more than 1,000 finite element models were
established to calculate the eddy current losses of the generator
rotor when different slot wedges and filler pieces were used.
The eddy current losses of the slot wedge and filler piece of the
large nuclear steam turbine generator rotor with different
electromagnetic characteristics for the slot wedges and filler
pieces, different inner diameters of the rotor and different stator
core relative permeabilities were analysed. We selected 20
samples with the minimum eddy current loss from the 1407
samples for factor analysis. The results show that the eddy
current loss of the rotor fasteners is lower when a metal material
with a high conductivity is chosen for the rotor slot wedge and a
material with low conductivity is chosen as the filler piece. In
our set of 1407 samples, the size of the nuclear turbine
generator rotor had little effect on the eddy current loss. In
addition, to save cost in generator manufacturing, aluminium
can be selected to replace copper as the slot wedge, and
stainless steel with low conductivity can still be used for the
filler piece.
Second, with the conductivity of the rotor slot wedge,
relative permeability of the rotor slot wedge, electrical
conductivity of the filler piece, relative permeability of the
filler piece, rotor diameter and stator core relative permeability
as the input, Python was used to compile a DGPR model to
predict the eddy current losses of the slot wedge and filler piece.
The model has a high precision in predicting the large turbine
generator rotor wedge eddy current loss, with an MSE of
0.0951 and an RMSE of 0.3083, thus effectively predicting the
eddy current losses of the slot wedge and filler piece of a large
nuclear steam turbine generator rotor.
Under the same experimental conditions, the MSE and
RMSE values of the DGPR model are less than those of the
models with the RBF, rational quadratic, Matern, sine squared
and dot product kernels. The R2 and R22 values of the DGPR
model, which are near 1, are higher than those of the RBF,
rational quadratic, Matern, sine squared and dot product kernels.
Therefore, the DGPR model is superior to the traditional GPR
0278-0046 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
9
models in predicting eddy current losses of large generators.
Compared with linear regression, SVR, ridge regression, lasso
regression, and AdaBoost integration models, the DGPR model
has a small prediction error. The high precision of this model
demonstrates that a prediction model based on DGPR is more
suitable for predicting large turbine generator rotor eddy
current losses. The model combining DGPR and the FEM in
this paper can realize deep learning with only 1000 training
samples, which is an order of magnitude less than the
traditional deep learning models and more in line with the
actual engineering needs. The deep learning GPR prediction
model is not only convenient and highly accurate but also can
be used to precisely analyse nonlinear relations in complex
systems, thereby achieving a more accurate prediction of the
eddy current loss under complicated nonlinear conditions and
effectively reducing experimental expense and time.
This method provides a supplementary means for
generator design that remarkably reduces the effort of the
designers and the engineering design research and development
cycle time and improves the design efficiency for large
electrical equipment. As indicated by the comparison results,
the finite element results agree well with the prediction data.
The DGPR model was used to accurately predict the eddy
current loss of large generator rotor wedges and filler pieces to
optimize the design of structural components inside the slot of a
large generator, which is extremely necessary for the complex
operation of large generators. Moreover, the results are also of
great significance for timely and accurately predicting the eddy
current losses of conductors in the rotor slots of large
turbo-generators, determining the loss distribution and
magnitude, ensuring that generators operate safely and stably,
and guiding comprehensive design of large power generation
equipment.
V. CONCLUSION
In this study, a prediction model for the eddy current losses
of a large generator was proposed based on DGPR and the FEM.
With the conductivity of the rotor slot wedge, relative
permeability of the rotor slot wedge, electrical conductivity of
the filler piece, relative permeability of the filler piece, rotor
diameter and stator core relative permeability as input
parameters for the DGPR model, the eddy current loss of metal
fasteners in the rotor slot of a large nuclear steam turbine
generator can be effectively predicted. By analysing the
experimental data, the following conclusions were reached:
a) The eddy current losses for a large generator were
calculated based on an FEM simulation. These data were split
into training and test samples. A DGPR model was trained by
the training samples. The test results showed that 405 samples
had an absolute error of less than 10%, with an RMSE of
0.3803, an MSE of 0.0951, an R2 of 0.9944 and an R22 of 0.9254.
The results proved that the DGPR method is effective in
predicting the eddy current losses of the rotor slot wedge and
filler piece of a generator.
b) As indicated by the comparative experiment, the MSE
and RMSE of the DGPR model were smaller than those of GPR
models with the RBF kernel, rational quadratic kernel, Matern
kernel, sine squared kernel and dot product kernel and those of
regression models such as linear regression, SVR, ridge
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2019.2931487, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
regression, lasso regression and AdaBoost. The R2 and R22 of
the DGPR model were closer to 1, and its prediction accuracy
was higher than those of the other models. Therefore, the
DGPR model is more suitable for predicting the eddy current
losses of the rotor slot wedge and filler piece of a large
generator.
c) Furthermore, by learning and predicting the eddy
current losses of a rotor slot wedge and filler piece based on
various data mining models, the predicted values were found to
be quite close to the FEM simulation values, providing a new
analytical method and theoretical basis for the design and
manufacture of large generators. Especially for physical
quantities that cannot be directly measured by tests, e.g., the
eddy current losses of large generators, combining finite
element numerical analysis and data mining to verify and
evaluate the complex eddy current of large generators through a
simulation analysis based on scientific theory and predicted
results has important scientific significance.
The method proposed in this paper can also be used for
eddy current loss prediction of other parts of a large generator,
such as eddy current loss prediction of the generator end shield,
platen and coils. It can also be applied to the structural design of
the arrangement of stator windings of large generators and the
prediction of circulating losses. In addition, this method is not
limited to the prediction of the eddy current loss of generators.
Based on building a model to predict the heating and local
temperature rise in a large generator, we can provide a
comprehensive evaluation method for the analysis of the
electromagnetic loss of large generators and the design of
heating and cooling systems.
In future work, the eddy current loss distribution of the slot
wedge and filler piece in the rotor slot of a large nuclear turbine
generator will be further studied. A large data sample for a 3D
mathematical model of the end transient electromagnetic field
of a nuclear turbine generator will be constructed, and the effect
of end magnetic leakage on the loss of structural parts will be
studied separately in combination with deep learning. In
addition, big data samples with more influencing factors will be
constructed, and models with more layers will be applied to
further improve the accuracy of the prediction model.
REFERENCES
[1] I. Boldea, Synchronous Generators Handbook, CRC Press, 2006
[2] Stirban, I. Boldea and G. Andreescu, "Motion-Sensorless Control of
BLDC-PM Motor With Offline FEM-Information-Assisted Position and
Speed Observer," IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 1950-1958,
Nov.-Dec. 2012.
[3] C. Pompermaier, K. Kalluf, A. Zambonetti, M. V. Ferreira da Luz and I.
Boldea, "Small Linear PM Oscillatory Motor: Magnetic Circuit Modeling
Corrected by Axisymmetric 2-D FEM and Experimental Characterization,"
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 1389-1396, March 2012.
[4] G. Bramerdorfer and D. Andessner, "Accurate and Easy-to-Obtain Iron
Loss Model for Electric Machine Design," IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol.
64, no. 3, pp. 2530-2537, March 2017.
[5] D. P. Johnston, J. A. Buck, P. R. Underhill, J. E. Morelli and T. W. Krause,
"Pulsed Eddy-Current Detection of Loose Parts in Steam Generators,"
IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 2506-2512, 15 March15, 2018.
[6] S. Li, N. A. Gallandat, J. R. Mayor, T. G. Habetler and R. G. Harley,
"Calculating the Electromagnetic Field and Losses in the End Region of a
Large Synchronous Generator Under Different Operating Conditions With
3-D Transient Finite-Element Analysis," IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 54, no.
4, pp. 3281-3293, July-Aug. 2018.
[7] G. Traxler-Samek, T. Lugand and A. Schwery, "Calculation of power losses
in the damper winding of large hydrogenerators at open-circuit and load
0278-0046 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
10
conditions," in Proc. 18th Int. Conf. Elect. Mach., Vilamoura, 2008, pp.
1-6.
[8] J. Bacher and F. Waldhart, "Effects of an insulated and a non-insulated
damper winding in a turbo generators with a massive rotor by non-steady
state operations," International Symposium on Power Electronics,
Electrical Drives, Automation and Motion, Sorrento, 2012, pp. 126-130.
[9] S. Müller, M. Keller, M. Maier, N. Parspour, "Comparison of iron loss
calculation methods for soft magnetic composite", Brazilian Power
Electronics Conference (COBEP), pp. 1-6, Nov. 2017.
[10] Z. Q. Zhu et al., "Evaluation of iron loss models in electrical machines",
Proc. ICEMS, pp. 1-6, Aug. 2017.
[11] L. Wang, W. Chen, D. Tao, W. Li and B. Ge, "Research on the Impact of
Screen Properties on Eddy Current and Flux in End Region of a Large
Air-Cooled Turbo-Generator," IEEE Trans. Energy Conver., vol. 31, no. 1,
pp. 218-227, March 2016.
[12] M. Ranlöf and U. Lundin, "The rotating field method applied to damper
loss calculation in large hydrogenerators," in Proc. XIX Int. Conf. Elect.
Mach., Rome, 2010, pp. 1-6.
[13]M. N. Soares, J. Gyselinck, L. G. B. Rolim, J. Helsen and Y. Mollet, "Loss
minimisation strategy for DFIG in wind turbine considering iron losses,"
2018 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT),
Lyon, 2018, pp. 1025-1030.
[14] W. Guan, D. Zhang, Y. Zhu, Y. Gao and K. Muramatsu, "Numerical
Modeling of Iron Loss Considering Laminated Structure and Excess Loss,"
IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 54, no. 11, pp. 1-4, Nov. 2018, Art no. 6300804.
[15] P. Rasilo, W. Martinez, K. Fujisaki, J. Kyyräand A. Ruderman, "Simulink
Model for PWM-Supplied Laminated Magnetic Cores Including Hysteresis,
Eddy-Current, and Excess Losses," IEEE Trans. Power Electr., vol. 34, no.
2, pp. 1683-1695, Feb. 2019.
[16] L. Ortombina, F. Tinazzi and M. Zigliotto, "Magnetic Modeling of
Synchronous Reluctance and Internal Permanent Magnet generators Using
Radial Basis Function Networks," IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 65, no. 2,
pp. 1140-1148, Feb. 2018.
[17] F. Cheng, J. Wang, L. Qu and W. Qiao, "Rotor-Current-Based Fault
Diagnosis for DFIG Wind Turbine Drivetrain Gearboxes Using Frequency
Analysis and a Deep Classifier," IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. vol. 54, no. 2, pp.
1062-1071, March-April 2018.
[18] P. Qian, X. Ma, D. Zhang and J. Wang, "Data-Driven Condition
Monitoring Approaches to Improving Power Output of Wind Turbines,"
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 66, no. 8, pp. 6012-6020, Aug. 2019.
[19]G. Kwon, C. Lee and Y. Shin, "Diagnosis of Shielded Cable Faults via
Regression Based Reflectometry," IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., doi:
10.1109/TIE.2018.2840529
[20] G. O. Sahinoglu, M. Pajovic, Z. Sahinoglu, Y. Wang, P. V. Orlik and T.
Wada, "Battery State-of-Charge Estimation Based on Regular/Recurrent
Gaussian Process Regression," IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 65, no. 5,
pp. 4311-4321, May 2018.
[21] A. C. Damianou and N. D. Lawrence, "Deep Gaussian processes". In 16th
International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics,
Scottsdale, 2013, pp. 207–215.
[22] Bui T, Hernández-Lobato D, Hernandez-Lobato J, et al., "Deep gaussian
processes for regression using approximate expectation propagation,"
International Conference on Machine Learning, New York, 2016,pp.
1472-1481.
[23] L. Wang and W. Li, "Assessment of the Stray Flux, Losses, and
Temperature Rise in the End Region of a High-Power Turbogenerator
Based on a Novel Frequency-Domain Model," IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 65, no. 6, pp. 4503-4513, June 2018.
Jingying Zhao (M’18) received the B.S. and M.S.
degrees from School of Computer Science and
Technology, Changchun University of Science and
Technology, Jilin, China, in 2000 and 2003. She is
currently working towards the Ph.D. degree at Faculty
of Electronic Information and Electrical Engineering,
Dalian University of Technology, LiaoNing, China. His
current research interests include complex system
modeling and forecasting method and machine learning
method and their applications to electrical engineering.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2019.2931487, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS 11

Hai Guo received the B.S. in Electronic Engineering

from the Heilongjiang University, in 2000, the M.S. in
Pattern Recognition and Intelligent Systems from the
Kunming University of Science and Technology, in
2004, and the Ph.D. degree in Material Science from the
Harbin University of Science and Technology (HUST),
Harbin, China. Since 2003, he has been a Associate
professor with the College of Computer Science and
Engineering, Dalian Minzu University. He has authored
over 30 articles in international journals and conference
proceedings. His current research interests include artificial intelligence
method and their applications.

Likun Wang (M’17) received the B.Sc., M.Sc., and

Ph.D. degrees in electrical machinery and appliance
from the Harbin University of Science and Technology
(HUST), Harbin, China, in 2010, 2013, and 2015,
respectively.
Since 2017, he has worked as a postdoctoral fellow at
the Institute of Electromagnetic and Electronic
Technology, Harbin Institute of Technology. He is
currently a Lecturer with the College of Electrical and
Electronic Engineering of HUST. His research interests
include synthesis physical fields and dynamic operation
mechanism of electrical machines and its system.
Dr. Wang has awarded the first prize of science and technology progress
of colleges and universities of Heilongjiang province in 2019.

Min Han (M'95-A'03-SM'06) received the B.S. and M.S.

degrees from the Department of Electrical Engineering,
Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China, in 1982
and 1993, respectively, and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees
from Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan, in 1996 and
1999, respectively. Since 2003, she has been a Professor
with the Faculty of Electronic Information and Electrical
Engineering, Dalian University of Technology. She
serves as the Deputy Director of the Chinese Society of
Instrumentation Youth Work Committee, a committee member of the Chinese
Society of Artificial Intelligence, and an Organizing Chair of ISNN2013,
ICICIP 2014, ICIST2016. She has authored five books, over 300 articles in
international journals and conference proceedings. She has made a deep
research on the multivariate chaotic time series prediction, remote sensing
image interpretation, and optimization of industrial process. Her current
research interests include complex system modeling, chaotic time series
analysis and forecasting, artificial intelligence method, and neural networks,
and their applications to control and identification.

0278-0046 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.