MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Experimental Characterization and Modeling of a YASA P400 Axial Flux PM Traction Machine for Electric Vehicles

2022· article· en· W4284890482 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Allca-Pekarovic, Phillip J. Kollmeyer, Alexander Forsyth, Ali Emadi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWindageTorqueTraction (geology)Flux linkageInductanceMagnetAutomotive engineeringMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringTraction motorVoltageEngineeringElectrical engineeringDirect torque controlPhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates a popular off-the shelf performance traction machine, the yokeless and segmented armature YASA axial flux permanent magnet machine. A series of manual measurements and automated dynamometer tests were performed at various conditions. From these tests parameters are determined including friction and windage torque, phase resistance, permanent magnet flux linkage, and inductance. The efficiency, phase current, phase voltage, and power factor of the machine was measured over a wide torque and speed range, and these measurements were used to validate an analytical model of the machine. The measured efficiency map of the machine was integrated with a model of the Chevrolet Bolt electric vehicle (EV). The modeled performance of the YASA machine and of the Chevrolet Bolt EV machine were then compared, showing that for the HWFET drive cycle the YASA machine had about double the loss of the Bolt EV machine, translating to around 7% less range. The higher loss of the YASA machine likely has several causes, including higher phase resistance, significant friction, windage, and no-load iron losses, and the fact that Bolt EV machine was heavily optimized for this application while the YASA was optimized to be a highly power dense more general purpose machine.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207