MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769353249 · doi:10.1109/ecce.2017.8096415

A novel hybrid approach towards drive-cycle based design and optimization of a fractional slot concentrated winding SPMSM for BEVs

2017· article· en· W2769353249 on OpenAlexaff
Philip Korta, K. Lakshmi Varaha Iyer, Chunyan Lai, 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
KeywordsDriving cycleTorqueTorque densityEngineeringElectric vehicleScheduleAutomotive engineeringHybrid vehicleDynamometerDrivetrainControl engineeringComputer scienceRotor (electric)Mechanical engineeringPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research conducted previously has shown that a battery electric vehicle (BEV) motor design incorporating drive-cycle optimization can lead to achievement of a higher torque density motor that consumes less energy over the drive-cycle in comparison to a conventionally designed motor. Such a motor indirectly extends the driving range of the BEV. Firstly, in this paper, a baseline fractional slot concentrated winding (FSCW) surface permanent magnet synchronous machine (SPMSM) designed for a direct-drive BEV utilizing the conventional machine design approach has been developed. A vehicle dynamics model for the baseline machine and its associated vehicle parameters are used against an urban dynamometer driving schedule (UDDS) to derive loading data in terms of torque, speed, and energy. Energy Center of Gravity (ECG) and K-means clustering are two existing methods for reducing the number of machine operating points of the drive-cycle while preserving the characteristics of the entire cycle are implemented, which offer high computational efficiency and low computational time cost while optimizing an electric machine. Understanding the merits and demerits of the two existing methods, a novel hybrid approach of drive-cycle data representation is proposed. The drive-cycle data elicited from all of the approaches are thereafter used towards optimization of FSCW SPMSMs. Finally, a comparative performance analysis of optimally designed SPMSMs using the two existing approaches and the proposed approach is conducted.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207