Comparative study between interior and surface permanent magnet traction machine designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interior permanent magnet (IPM) brushless (sychronous) machines are a popular technology choice in commercial hybrid- or all-electric vehicles (HEVs/EVs), such as the Toyota Prius, GM Chevy Volt, Lexus LS, Nissan Leaf, for example. Much is claimed of IPM topologies in terms of their saliency torque contribution, minimum magnet mass, demagnetisation withstand, wide flux-weakening capability and high operational efficiencies when compared to brushless machines having surface mounted permanent magnets. This paper presents the findings of a comparative study assessing the design and performance attributes of an example IPM machine implemented in the Nissan Leaf EV, when compared to a surface permanent magnet (SPM) machine designed within the main Nissan Leaf machine dimensional constraints. The Nissan Leaf IPM traction machine has been widely analysed and there is much public domain data available for the machine. Hence, this machine is chosen as a representative benchmark design against which the SPM machine is assessed. The Nissan Leaf machine is analysed via finite element analysis (FEA) and the results confirmed via published experimental test data. The procedure is then applied to a SPM design and results compared. The study illustrates and concludes that both the IPM and SPM topologies have very similar capabilities with only subtle differences between the design options. The results highlight interesting manufacturing options and materials usage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".