4.4 Article

Two-level global sensitivity analysis of the excitation contributions leading to acoustic noise in an electric motor for the purpose of robust optimisation

期刊

IET ELECTRIC POWER APPLICATIONS
卷 15, 期 12, 页码 1666-1677

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1049/elp2.12129

关键词

electric motors; manufacturing processes; noise; optimisation; sensitivity analysis; vibrations

资金

  1. Vibratec

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study introduces a sensitivity analysis methodology for electric motor design, which evaluates the impact of design and uncertain parameters on design objectives. The analysis reveals that acoustic criteria are more sensitive to parameter deviations compared to mean torque. The study indicates robustness issues in acoustic optimization of electric motors.
This study presents a sensitivity analysis methodology used for electric motor design. This innovative approach evaluates both global effects of parameter variations in their design range and of parameter deviations in their tolerance intervals on design objectives. For the purpose of robust optimisation, this method helps to select the most influent design parameters and uncertain parameters, which are not necessarily the same. Suitable for any design approach, this method is particularly useful in dealing with objectives defined by non-linear and non-regular functions, such as electric motor acoustic criteria. In this study, the method is applied to the sensitivity evaluation of electromagnetic tangential excitations responsible for acoustic emissions in an electric motor. The sensitivity of output mean torque is also investigated. The sensitivity analysis shows that acoustic criteria appear generally more sensitive to parameter deviations than mean torque. Parameter deviations can be even more influent on acoustic criteria than larger parameter variations in their design range. As can be expected from the sensitivity results, the study eventually shows that the acoustic optimisation of the electric motor faces robustness issues.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据