Comparative Analysis of Two Rotor Topologies for a High-Power Density Dual Three-Phase IPM Propulsion Motor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to simultaneously address the packaging and cost constraints stipulated by the U.S. Department of Energy for future electric vehicles, the necessity for high-power density interior permanent magnet motors (IPMs) has become more significant. Hence, maximizing the ratio of torque per permanent magnet mass (T <inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">max</inf> /G <inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">m</inf> ) of IPMs is considered an essential optimization target. In this paper, two different rotor structures, delta-shape, and double V-shape, for a dual three-phase traction motor design are comparatively investigated in terms of their electromagnetic performance. The two topologies are comprehensively evaluated for torque, torque ripple, demagnetization, and efficiency. The adopted design approach aims to bring a significant PM mass reduction along with achieving maximum torque yielding a cost-effective solution. The results show that the delta-shape configuration is a better candidate for the selected application in terms of the electromagnetic performance and PM material mass. However, the double V-shape is performing better with demagnetization and in the flux weakening region.
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 | 0.000 | 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".