MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Teardown Analysis and Fea Motor Model of Chevrolet Bolt Ev Drivetrain

2025· article· en· W4412987085 on OpenAlexaff
Harsh Dipakkumar Patel, Batuhan Sirri Yilmaz, Phillip J. Kollmeyer, Berker Bilgin, Ali Emadi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Engineering and Vibrations Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrivetrainAutomotive engineeringFinite element methodComputer scienceEngineeringTorqueStructural engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electric vehicles (EVs) are increasingly seen as a key element in the future of transportation. Consequently, substantial research efforts are focused on improving EV powertrain efficiency, reducing noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH), lowering costs, and minimizing size. A primary area of focus within powertrain research is the electric traction machine, a critical component driving EV performance. Benchmarking data is essential for advancing research and technology in this field. However, publicly available data on traction machines remains limited, posing a challenge for researchers. To address this gap, a comprehensive teardown study was conducted on the drive unit of the 2017 Chevrolet Bolt, including the 150 kW traction machine and gearbox. Each component was meticulously measured for size and weight, with the findings presented in this paper. An electromagnetic Finite Element Analysis (FEA) model was developed using measured rotor, stator, and magnet geometries to validate motor performance compared to published data. Simulation results showed discrepancies of less than 1.6 % for torque and 3% for torque ripple. Additional detailed teardown data from this study is made available online to support ongoing EV powertrain research.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMechanical Engineering and Vibrations ResearchFrench-language works237,207