MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548916233 · doi:10.1109/icelmach.2016.7732804

Response surface methodology based optimization of surface PM machine incorporating stator slotting and PM sizing effects to extend the operating limits for direct-drive EV application

2016· article· en· W2548916233 on OpenAlexaff
Shruthi Mukundan, K. Lakshmi Varaha Iyer, Himavarsha Dhulipati, Kaushik Mukherjee, Jimi Tjong, Narayan C. Kar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatorSizingTorque rippleCogging torqueTorqueControl theory (sociology)Rotor (electric)MagnetAutomotive engineeringPower (physics)Direct torque controlSynchronous motorEngineeringComputer scienceInduction motorMechanical engineeringVoltageElectrical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Direct-drive electric vehicle motors have requirements such as high-torque, low-speed and a constant power speed range (CPSR) between 3 and 5 depending on the tire size. Furthermore, these motors must deliver lower cogging torque and torque ripple when compared to conventional electric vehicle high-speed motors due to absence of any damping mechanism. Surface permanent magnet synchronous machines (SPMSMs) with distributed winding configuration are found to favor the aforementioned characteristics for the above application. However, in spite of the lower CPSR requirements for direct-drive application, SPMSMs suffer from poor flux weakening operation. Various rotor structural modifications as well as optimal PM sizing solutions are proposed in literature. However, they fail to take into account the stator slotting effect which significantly affects the flux weakening operation of the machine. Thus, in order to alleviate the challenges involved in realizing a SPMSM as a direct-drive motor, Response Surface Methodology (RSM) is implemented with magnet size and stator slot dimensions as design variables in an effort to optimize the characteristic current and further enhance the CPSR of the machine. Finite element models of the optimal machine are used to verify the output power- and torque-speed characteristics over entire operating range calculated from analytical equations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207