Performance comparison of a two-level and three-level inverter permanent magnet synchronous machine drives for HEV application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the performance of a two level and a three level inverter drives for a permanent magnet synchronous machine (PMSM) under different switching frequencies. The experiments were conducted via a real time based system called Opal-RT. The inverters were operated at 1 kHz and 5 kHz switching frequencies. The torque was varied between 2 N.m and 4 N.m at a constant speed of 800 rpm. However the torque ripples and the copper losses between the two inverter drives were similar and the copper losses were independant of the swicthing frequency. At 5 kHz inverter switching frequency the two level inverter performed better at 4 N.m with a total current harmonic distortion of 2.55% and a torque ripple of 10%. However overall the three level inverter had low voltage and current harmonic distortion which translates to lower iron losses. Swicthing at 5 kHz frequency showed to have lower overall harmonic distortion than at 1 kHz for both inverters. The greater the capcitor voltage error the more the torque ripples even though the machine registered lower current total harmonic distortion for the three level inverter.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".