IEEE Industry Application Society
Electric Machinery Committee
Annual Meeting Minutes
Grand America Hotel, Salt Lake City, Utah
October 14, 2003
o
105 digests received, 70
accepted
o
67% acceptance ratio
o
Europe: 31
o
Asia/Pacific:
29
o
South America:
3
o
North America:
41
Chairman Bruno Lequesne present a chart showing the historical trend of the number of digests received by the Electric Machinery Committee. The number of digests peaked in Rome. Chicago and Pittsburgh received a boost in from the Rome conference and the number of digests submitted for Salt Lake City is showing that the submittals are dropping off toward the Pre-Rome conference levels. Since we raised the number of sessions to 10 as a response to the number of submittals, the committee may need to reduce the number of sessions for Seattle in order to conform to the rough 50% acceptance rate that the committee has been following.
o
Submitted: 85
o
Reviewed: 85
o
Rejected: 43
o
Magazine:
1
o
Sent to publication: 34
o
With authors for changes:
7
o
Conference of origin:
§
IAS 02 54
§
IAS 01
4
§
IEMDC 01 5
§
SDEMPED 01 6
§
Misc. conferences: 16
o
Received to date: 75 (projected: ~100)
o
Origin:
§
IAS 2003: 40
§
IAS 2001 and 2002 3
§
IEMDC 2003 24
§
SDEMPED 2003 5
§
Other conferences 2
Total 75
o
Status:
§
Withdrawn, misc:
1
§
Under review: 59
§
Completed: 10
§
Sent to publication: 3
§
With authors: 3
§
Rejected: 4
o
Transaction statistics:
§
~100 papers projected in 2003
for the first time (75 to date)
§
Many thanks to reviewers for
dedicated work!
§
Acceptance ratio steady at
40-50% level
Sub-committee: Aldo Boglietti, Uday Deshpande, Iqbal
Husain, Bruno Lequesne,
Tom
Nondahl, Longya Xu
3rd Prize:
“Dual-rotor, radial-flux, toroidally-wound, permanent magnet machines"
R. Qu,
General Electric Company, Niskayuna, NY, USA,
T. A.
Lipo, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
2nd Prize:
“Assessment of power losses of an inverter-driven induction
machine with its experimental validation”
C.A.
Hernandez-Aramburo, T. C. Green, Imperial College, London, United
Kingdom,
A.C.
Smith, UMIST, Manchester, United Kingdom
1st Prize:
" Line start permanent magnet motor: Single-phase starting performance analysis”
M. Popescu, T.J.E.
Miller, M.I. McGilp, SPEED Laboratory, Glasgow, United Kingdom,
G.
Strappazzon, N. Trivillin, R. Santarossa, Electrolux Compressors,
Pordenone, Italy
Prof. Lipo and Dr. Qu were present to receive their certificate and prize money. Prof. Miller was also present to represent his co-authors in receiving the certificate and prize money.
o There are no standards that are presently under review.
o Babak had inquired about IEEE 839, the Procedure for Testing 1 Phase and 3 Phase motors for hermetic compressor applications. According to Herb Johnson, the standard had gone to IEEE but was withdrawn. Babak had asked that anyone who is interested in reviving the review to please contact him.
o Ernesto Weidenbrug brought to the fore IEEE 1415, which has to do with Field Diagnostics standards for 3 phase induction motors. According to Ernesto, they are on version 10 of the draft standard and yet no one on the Electric Machinery Committee of the IAS has seen a draft. The standard is entirely in the hands of PES. Ernesto is asking that the subcommittee look into the status of the standard since it impacts the works of the EMC members.
o Prof. Lipo brought up the fact that there needs to be a new standard for measuring parameters of synchronous and permanent magnet machines which would covers variable speed operations for these machines. Prof. Demerdash pointed out that there does not seem to be any interest in doing this work. Prof. Lipo replied that this does not take up a lot of time and that the standard could be written if people can meet three times every two years.
o Babak started taking down names for those who are interested in helping with the standards activity. Uday Deshpande, Sergei Kolomeitsov, and Tom Lipo volunteered.
Prof. Aziz Rahman announced the unfortunate passing of Mr. Vernon Honsinger to the members of the committee. Both Prof. Rahman and Prof. Lipo gave remembrances of Mr. Honsinger. There was a moment in honor of Mr. Honsinger’s memory.
Avoki Omekanda: Reluctance Machines: 7 Papers. Max. 66. Average of 59 people.
Tom Jahns: Special Topics: 7 Papers. Between 50-90 people.
Farid Meibody-Tabar: Generators: 6 Papers. 5 given by authors, one by a colleague. Between 40-50 people.
Gerard Capolino: Induction Machines I: 7 Papers. Average of 40 people.
Thanks to Gerard for stepping in
to chair the session on the last moment.
Prof. Tim Miller will chair the very last session of the conference in
place of the original session chairman.
Chairman Rob Cuzner reports that the discussion had great variety ranging from medium voltage drives to capacitors, to small drives and large motors. This was a great opportunity to cross-pollinate ideas between academia and industry.
Prof. Tim Miller echoed Rob Cuzner’s report. Prof. Miller pointed out that the presentations were quite good with a lot of interesting work without having gone through a lot of analysis.
The plan is for EMC to present a solo vendor’s session at the next conference because IDC is planning on doing a panel discussion.
Presented by the Nomination Subcommittee (Longya Xu):
§ Chairman: Hamid Toliyat
§ Vice-Chairman: Peter Wung
§ Secretary: Iqbal Husain
New slate of officers passed unanimously.
Prof. Nabeel Demerdash presented the case for a Energy Conversion and Utilization Council. His argument is that the IEMDC, a conference that has been in existence for four years has been very successful and has grown legs. This ad hoc cooperative endeavor between PELS, PES, IES, and IAS should be formalized in some form by creating this council. The council will act as a liaison amongst the various committees in the different societies. The scope of the council would encompass everything in energy conversion, including drives. There is also a possibility that renewable energy would be included. The initiative for the council came about from the Tesla Award Committee. They saw a need to formally unite all the disparate committees to encourage nominations to the Tesla award from IAS.
At this point, the council idea is still at a talking stage. It is a rough proposal. Prof. Demerdash asked that Prof Toliyat take the lead in organizing this effort as the chair of the next IEMDC.
Dean Patterson: We will have 12 months to talk about the viability of this idea. In the mean time there is a jointly sponsored conference on the Hydrogen Economy in Washington DC. The conference is co-sponsored by PELS, PES, IAS, and SSIT.
Ron Harley: The council is an umbrella organization that consists of committees from multiple societies which promotes cross pollenization. Since the machines field is disappearing from the PES domain, i.e. the hydrogen-cooled generators are disappearing from discussions; there is no reason for electric machines to remain an aegis of PES.
Longya Xu: Why would we want a council if IEMDC is already successful without a council?
Tom Habetler: A council is generally used as a way to foster new technologies. Councils are used as a first step toward forming a new society. We already have too many societies as it is.
Nabeel Demerdash: The purpose of the council isn’t really to form a new society, it is to serve as a bridge between societies and the energy conversion focused constituents in the societies.
IAS Proposal:
The past chairman will perform the transactions review process for papers authored or co-authored by current chairman.
Moved by Antonio Cardoso, seconded by Uday Deshpande. Unanimously approved.
Transactions editorial board decided:
o 1-year limit between conference presentation and submission of paper to Transactions review;
o The chairman can waive this condition if there are extraordinary circumstances.
The rule originated with the IAS and approved by the Transactions editorial board. The IEEE guideline is 2 years.
Is responsible for the proper maintenance of the EMC web page.
Moved: Nabeel Demerdash. Seconded: Pragasen Pillay. Passed unanimously.
Ed Lovelace volunteered to maintain the web page.
Tom Jahns and Nicola Bianchi proposed giving the Interior Permanent Magnet Machine tutorial.
Discussion about whether we should reduce the number of sessions because of the reduced number of digests submitted. We are presently running 10 sessions with two double sessions.
Tom Jahns: Both EPE and IEMDC fell on this year too, so the reduced number of digest could be a function of that.
We will keep the same number of sessions and decide after we see how many digests have been submitted. We would like to keep an acceptance rate of between 50-67%.
During the discussion concerning the vendor session, the following salient points were brought up:
Rob Cuzner: The possibility of jointly sponsoring the session with the Drives committee is not feasible because the Drives committee is sponsoring a panel discussion. As organizer, the presence of the machines committee was pretty woeful. Not sure if a solo vendor session can be organized.
Prof. Crescimbini: Is there a way to have the vendor’s presentation as a part of the conference proceedings.
Bruno Lequesne: This is an IAS edict that there should be no commercial content in the conference proceedings. There are also some legal points to consider.
Two people volunteered to be the co-organizers of the session: Co Huynh and Rob Cuzner.
o Session organizers: Franco Leonardi, Uday Deshpande, Ronghai Qu, Patrick Chapman, Nicola Bianchi, Zack Fu, Aldo Boglietti, Ed Lovelace, Jason Stack, Malakondaiah Naidu
o
Session
chairpersons (co-chairs):Uday
Deshpande, Jerry Lloyd, Ernesto Weidenbrug, Tom Jahns, Avoki Omekanda, William
Cai, Alan Wallace, Co Huynh, Zach Fu, Roy McCann, Tomy Sebastian, Sergi
Kolomeitsev, Chris Edrington, Mustafa Guven, Pragasen Pillay, Keith Bradley,
Won-Jay Kim, Malakondaiah Naidu, Art Lyons, Gerard Capollino, Farid
Meibody-Tabar, S. M. Madani.
Many members voiced their concern about the quality of the papers being presented as well as the reviewing and grading process that each digest undergoes. Hamid Toliyat has asked that the session organizers to continue to do a diligent job of reviewing these digests. There have been many suggestions:
o Use five reviewers per session.
o Use the same ranking system and use the raw scores to decide which papers get accepted.
o Both systems have drawbacks, we just need to be more cognizant of these drawbacks and ameliorate them.
The committee discussion centered on two methods of determining the accepted papers:
o System 1: determine the sessions and then assigning the top papers after the review to each session. The other papers are distributed according to the organizer recommendation into that session or other sessions.
o System 2: No predetermined sessions. All papers are reviewed and then put into sessions after having determined the papers that needs to be accepted.
The decision was left up to the Technical Program Chairman.
Seattle, WA, USA, on Tuesday, 5:30 – 7:00.