MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984857546 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2006.277453

Efficiency Improvements from an Electric Vehicle Induction Motor Drive, with Augmentations to a PI Control

2006· article· en· W1984857546 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan Janzen, Narayan C. Kar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInduction motorElectronic speed controlControl theory (sociology)Vector controlTorqueEfficient energy usePID controllerRotor (electric)Control systemComputer scienceTransient (computer programming)Track (disk drive)Machine controlAutomotive engineeringElectric vehicleEngineeringControl (management)VoltageControl engineeringElectrical engineeringPower (physics)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel induction motor drive system has been designed for electric vehicles. The drive's speed controller includes an augmented proportion-integration (PI) control which increases drive efficiency and enhances overload protection. The augmented PI speed control is simply a traditional PI control with signal paths additively influenced by two new signals. These two new signals force the PI control to not only track the reference speed, but also control the difference between the synchronous speed and rotor speed. The synchronous-to-rotor speed difference is influenced towards an optimal value for increased energy efficiency, and is limited, in the service of overload protection. The system was evaluated in transient simulation using a magnetic saturation motor model. The system tracked randomly generated signals, designed to mimic the time-varying input a driver would provide. Simulations, run with the efficiency augmentation turned off and turned on, showed a 2.8% increase in average efficiency. A localized time interval efficiency improvement of 4.6% was detected

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207