Comparative performance analysis of 3-phase IPMSM rotor configurations with dampers for integrated charging application in EVs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrated charging (IC) technology in electric vehicles (EVs) employing conventional power electronics and motor drivetrain components facilitates level 3 fast charging capabilities with reduction in overall weight and cost of the vehicle. However, when the winding inductances of 3-phase interior permanent magnet synchronous machines (IPMSMs) are realized as line inductors for battery charging, due to machine saliency, the magnetic fields produced by the sinusoidal AC supply results in 1) asymmetrical voltages in the air-gap as a function of rotor position and 2) relatively high magnitudes of oscillating torques causing harmful noise and vibrations. This can lead to significant AC losses with risk of permanent magnet demagnetization in the machine. Since the same motor is employed for traction application as well, it is of significance to optimally design the machine for IC operation. Thus, this paper exclusively investigates three IPMSM rotor configurations to be employed for IC operation in EV. This paper firstly presents a conventional dq-axis circuit model based damper design approach implemented for mitigating the saliency effect during IC. Then, a comparative performance analysis of the rotor configurations with damper bars during IC operation on machine saliency; asymmetrical voltage waveforms; oscillating electromagnetic torque; permanent magnet operating point and magnet losses is performed using finite-element analysis (FEA). Results obtained are analyzed and discussed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".