MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Thermal Modelling of an Induction Motor with Liquid Cooling Optimization for Different EV Drive Cycles

2020· article· en· W4214738229 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Towhidi, Firoz Ahmed, Aida Mollaeian, Narayan C. Kar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomotive engineeringInduction motorComputer coolingDynamometerTorqueRotor (electric)EngineeringTraction motorMechanical engineeringVoltageElectrical engineeringPhysicsThermal management of electronic devices and systems

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Induction Motor (IM) is an alternative choice over permanent magnet motor in EV/HEV applications due to non–requirement of rare–earth magnets, greater thermal tolerance and low production costs. However, additional conductor losses in the rotor causes higher temperature in the IM which directly reduces the motor performance and in the long run it decreases motor life expectancy due to thermal stress in the rotor bars. Hence, it is critical to design and optimize the liquid cooling in induction motor to produce required torque and power for electric vehicles. Standard tests for UDDS (Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule) and HWFET (Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule) drive cycles are used to determine performance of traction motors in terms of torque, power, efficiency and thermal condition. This paper proposes a novel simplified Lumped Parameter Thermal Network (LPTN) model which monitors the required power and torque generation for both UDDS and HWFET driving conditions and regulates liquid coolant flow rate to the motor to maintain the motor temperature within the safe limit. A 15–hp Aluminum Rotor Induction Motor (ARIM) prototype with liquid cooling has been used for the proposed thermal model development.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.177 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207