Efficiency Comparison between Single-Channel and Double-Channel Operation in Dual Three-Phase PMSM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the high-power density, high torque rating, low torque ripples and fault-tolerant capability, the Dual Three-Phase Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor (DTP-PMSM) has recently emerged as a feasible alternative for automotive applications. However, it comes with its own challenge of increased losses at low torque due to the use of 6-phase inverter or two three-phase inverters. The DTP-PMSM drive model can be designed to function in two operating modes, double-channel (dual three-phase) mode with both the inverters operating, and single-channel (three-phase) with one of the two inverters shut down. This paper proposed an efficiency analysis between single channel and double channel modes in a DTP-PMSM drive. A simulation model is prepared to calculate efficiency, and the losses associated with different parts of battery fed DTP-PMSM drive system operated in both modes. Detailed loss model is simulated to represent efficiency of a battery-fed DTP-PMSM drive system. Both single-channel and double-channel operating modes are assessed in terms of system and component efficiency, switching and conduction losses, and current ripple. Efficiency maps that cover torque-speed plane are generated to show a clear boundary on the efficiency performance of single and double channel operations. It is demonstrated that at lower torque, the efficiency of the system under single channel mode is up to 3.31% superior to the double channel mode.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".