MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407361646 · doi:10.1109/tia.2025.3540731

Impact of Memory Motors on an IGBT-Based Inverter Efficiency

2025· article· en· W4407361646 on OpenAlexaff
Akrem Mohamed Aljehaimi, Bassam S. Abdel-Mageed, Pragasen Pillay

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industry Applications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSilicon Carbide Semiconductor Technologies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsulated-gate bipolar transistorInverterElectrical engineeringInduction motorBrushed DC electric motorVoltage source inverterAutomotive engineeringElectric motorComputer scienceAC motorEngineeringElectronic engineeringVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the impact of hybrid memory motors on an IGBT-based inverter in the field-weakening region. Hybrid variable-flux motors have been introduced to overcome the limitations of conventional IPMSMs in traction applications. Different memory motor topologies have been introduced and compared in the literature. Yet, their impact on the drive inverter has not been reported. An existing prototyped ten-horsepower series-hybrid variable motor has been used as a case study in this paper. In the field weakening region, comparing the operation with partially demagnetized magnets to fully magnetized magnets, it is found that not only does the motor current decrease, but the motor power factor also improves. This unique finding of improved power factor operation positively impacts the inverter conduction loss. This has significant practical implications, suggesting that hybrid memory motors can lead to more efficient traction inverters. An air-cooled IGBT-based three-phase 750 <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$\text{V}_\text{DC}$</tex-math></inline-formula>, 30 <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$\text{A}_\text{RMS}$</tex-math></inline-formula>, is used in this study. In the simulation, the switch characteristics from the datasheet have been used for loss calculations. Also, the inverter power loss and efficiency have been measured at different speeds, loads, and magnetization states. A two to three percent improvement in inverter efficiency was noted in the high-speed region beyond two per unit speed.

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 score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.871

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Industry ApplicationsSame topicSilicon Carbide Semiconductor TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207