Influence of Electric Motor Manufacturing Tolerances on End-of-Line Testing: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electric vehicles (EVs) are propelled by electric traction drive systems (ETDSs), which consist of various components including an electric motor, power electronic converter, and gear box. During manufacturing, end-of-line testing is the ultimate step for ensuring the quality and performance of electric motors in electric vehicle (EV) traction drive systems (ETDSs). The outcome of end-of-line testing of electric motors is significantly influenced by the tolerances of their structural parameters, such as stator inner and outer diameters, magnet dimensions, air gaps, and other geometric parameters. The existing literature provides insights into parametric sensitivity, offering guidance for enhancing the reliability of end-of-line testing. In this manuscript, the importance of end-of-line testing and the role of manufacturing tolerances of e-motor structural parameters in the manufacturing process of ETDSs are discussed. The impact of tolerances of e-motor structural parameters on the test results, such as torque, efficiency, back EMF, and e-NV (noise and vibration), is investigated. Finally, key challenges and research gaps in this area are identified, and recommendations for future research to mitigate the drawbacks of end-of-line testing are provided.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".