MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of Memory Motors on Electric Vehicle Inverter Efficiency

2023· article· en· W4390416311 on OpenAlexaff
Akrem Mohamed Aljehaimi, Bassam S. Abdel-Mageed, Pragasen Pillay

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInverterTraction motorAutomotive engineeringMagnetComputer scienceTraction (geology)Electrical engineeringAC motorElectric vehicleElectric motorPower (physics)EngineeringPhysicsVoltageMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the impact of using variable-flux memory motors on inverter efficiency for traction applications. Memory motor technologies have been introduced as strong rivals to conventional interior permanent magnet synchronous motors (IPMSMs) for electric vehicles. This is due to the marked improvement in motor efficiency in the field weakening region. The low-coercivity (low-H <inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">c</inf> ) permanent magnets (PMs) reduce the current excitation requirement in the field weakening region compared to conventional rare-earth IPMSMs. However, the effect of this technology on traction inverters has not yet been reported in the literature. Thus, this paper investigates the impact of this technology on the inverter power loss and efficiency by using a prototyped 8 hp series-hybrid variable-flux IPMSM as a test motor and a six-pack (750V <inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">DC</inf> , 30 A <inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">RMS</inf> ) IGBT-based test inverter. The investigation is carried out in simulation and then experimentally validated.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207