Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 28 references

A purely control-based strategy, using only standard drive signals, can keep a three-phase PMSM producing torque after an interturn short circuit and cut fault-induced power rise by up to 36%.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 11:50 UTC pith:XLDCW6LG

load-bearing objection Solid, well-scoped ISC mitigation for non-salient PMSMs with real experimental validation; the saliency limitation is explicit but the control claims are credible - worth a serious referee, not a desk reject. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.29195 v1 pith:XLDCW6LG submitted 2026-07-31 eess.SY cs.SY

Interturn Short Circuit Fault Mitigation in PMSMs

Lukas Zezula , Matus Kozovsky , Ludek Buchta , Petr Blaha This is my paper
classification eess.SY cs.SY
keywords interturn short circuitpermanent magnet synchronous motorfault-tolerant controlfield-oriented controlmaximum torque per ampereresistive-loss limitingfault diagnosticsfail-degraded operation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

An interturn short circuit is a motor winding fault that both heats the shorted turns and distorts the current measurements the controller depends on. This paper tries to establish that a standard three-phase permanent-magnet drive can keep operating through such a fault using software alone: an ISC-aware reference generator that keeps total resistive loss within the healthy motor's thermal envelope, plus a feedback path that reconstructs the fault-free, torque-producing currents. On a laboratory motor with stepped fault severities, the fault-induced increase in input power fell 23-36% and the rise in shorted-segment heating fell 18-27%, while torque and speed regulation were preserved. If the claim holds, fail-degraded operation after a winding short becomes a firmware update rather than a hardware redesign — which matters for vehicles and production machinery where an unplanned stop is itself a risk.

Core claim

The paper's claim: the two harms of an interturn short — local overheating and distortion of the torque-control feedback currents — can be managed jointly inside a field-oriented control loop, using only fault features the drive's diagnostics already provide. The mitigation feeds the controller with reconstructed fault-free currents and generates modified MTPA (maximum-torque-per-ampere) references bounded by a resistive-loss-limit circle, keeping total resistive loss within the healthy thermal envelope. Stepped-fault experiments confirm 23–36% lower fault-induced input-power rise and 18–27% lower shorted-segment heating rise, with derating when the loss limit makes the torque infeasible.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a discrete-time post-fault model that splits measured dq (rotating-frame) currents into healthy components plus a fault-current projection, and shows the settled fault-current amplitude is proportional to applied voltage magnitude. It yields a resistive-loss expression and converts the thermal limit into a circle in the dq-current plane whose center and radius are set by one lumped fault factor G_f(ω_e), combining shorted-winding fraction, fault resistance, and fault inductance. G_f is estimated online from standard control-loop signals, so mitigation runs on signals already in the drive. The ISC-aware maximum-torque-per-ampere (MTPA) reference generator places the

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise — flagged by the authors as the main limitation in Section II-A and the conclusion — is that d- and q-axis inductances are nearly equal (L_eq ≈ L_d ≈ L_q); on a salient machine the fault-current dynamics, the resistive-loss expression, and the derived ISC-aware MTPA all change, and the claimed loss reductions are not guaranteed.

What would settle it

Run the identical mitigation scheme on a permanently excited synchronous motor with known saliency (L_d/L_q ≈ 0.6–0.7), stepping the short-circuit resistance at a binding speed and torque, and compare the measured shorted-segment loss and input power against the predictions of equations (19)–(22). The model predicts the tightest loss-limit circle near R_f/L_f ≈ ω_e and a reconstructed healthy torque current that matches the shaft torque reading; if the worst-case ratio shifts away from ω_e, or the reconstructed current deviates from the torque sensor beyond the noise floor, the equivalent-indu

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Standard three-phase PMSM drives can achieve fail-degraded post-fault operation after interturn shorts with firmware changes alone — no multiphase windings, converter alterations, or added fault sensors are needed.
  • Because the fault current scales with the applied voltage magnitude, the loss-optimal references balance fault-current heating against ordinary copper loss rather than minimizing fault current outright; the thermal envelope is the binding limit, not fault current amplitude.
  • At operating points where the resistive-loss limit cannot be met, the controller deliberately derates torque (e.g., at 2000 rad/s, 1.5 N·m in the experiments), converting what would be an overheating failure into a controlled reduction in capability.
  • Shorts with different severities and resistances that yield the same ratio R_f/L_f produce nearly the same thermal effect, so one tuning per ratio covers many physical fault cases — a direct consequence of the lumped-parameter formulation.
  • The feedback path switches to reconstructed fault-free currents only after the estimator's covariance trace falls below a threshold, meaning the same estimation chain performs detection, localization, and mitigation enablement.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The tightest loss-limit circle appearing near R_f/L_f ≈ ω_e implies a falsifiable ordering the paper does not test directly: worst thermal stress occurs at a fault-impedance/speed ratio rather than at maximum short severity, so fault-emulation benches could benchmark worst-case heating at that ratio.
  • The equivalent-inductance assumption is the natural generalization point: with saliency, the loss-limit circle should deform into an ellipse parameterized by L_d and L_q; if small-signal excitation could separate the two inductances, the same reference-generation logic should extend to interior PMSM drives.
  • Because only aggregate fault parameters are needed, the recursive estimator plausibly generalizes from stepped faults to continuous insulation creep, yielding gradual derating along a slowly worsening σ rather than step-triggered switching — the paper demonstrates the stepped case only.
  • The validation measures input power at the motor terminals; the implied system-level consequence — that the same loss reduction would surface at the DC bus of a battery-fed traction drive as extended range — is left unquantified by the paper but is directly testable with the same power analyzer.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a control-based mitigation strategy for interturn short-circuit (ISC) faults in PMSM drives. Starting from a discrete-time post-fault model previously developed by the authors, it derives steady-state expressions for the fault-current amplitude and resistive losses. The mitigation consists of (i) an ISC-aware MTPA reference generator that enforces a resistive-loss constraint p_res ≤ (3/2)R_s I_max^2 via a circular constraint in the (i_d,h, i_q,h) plane, and (ii) a Kalman-filter-based reconstruction of fault-free dq currents used in the current-control feedback path. The method is integrated into a conventional FOC loop using online estimates of aggregate fault parameters. Experimental validation on one PMSM testbench, using an external power analyzer, reports reductions of about 23–36% in the fault-induced input-power increase and 18–27% in the local shorted-segment loss increase, with the controller adapting to stepped changes in the short-circuit resistance.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper offers a practical, hardware-free FTC layer for non-salient PMSM drives that combines thermal-loss limiting and torque-ripple attenuation within standard FOC. The use of an external power analyzer for validation is a clear strength, as is the grounding of the method in a discrete-time model with online estimation of the fault parameters. The main limitation is the equivalent-inductance assumption L_eq ≈ L_d ≈ L_q, which confines the derivation to surface/non-salient machines; the experimental evidence is from a single motor, so the quantitative claims are indicative rather than statistically established. With the scope narrowed appropriately and the validation statistics added, this would be a useful contribution to the fault-tolerant control literature.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II-A, Eqs. (1)–(6), (12), (14), (19); Conclusion] The derivation rests on the assumption L_eq ≈ L_d ≈ L_q, explicitly stated in §II-A and used in the fault-current dynamics (2), the power expression (6), the voltage magnitude (12), the fault-current amplitude (14), and the loss-limit circle (19). For salient IPMSMs, where L_d ≠ L_q, the fault-current response contains a rotor-position-dependent d/q split, the voltage magnitude has saliency-related cross terms, and the circular constraint (19) does not represent the true feasible set. The Conclusion acknowledges this as the main limitation, but the Abstract and title claim applicability to 'standard three-phase PMSM drives,' and Table II marks the proposed method as not considering saliency. This is a load-bearing scope issue: the method is validated only for a non-salient motor (Table I). Please either restrict all claims to non-salient SPMSMs or extend the model and validation to L_d ≠
  2. [§V, Figs. 5 and 6] The headline quantitative claims — 'reductions of up to 23–36%' in the input-power increase and '18–27%' in the segment-loss increase — are reported without trial counts, confidence intervals, or error bars. The main validation is a single motor at σ = 6/25, with a single trajectory per operating point; the additional σ = 3/25 and σ = 9/25 datasets are only mentioned as being on Zenodo. Because the method's central promise is a quantitative loss reduction, the paper should either provide mean ± std over repeated runs and a clear definition of the 'fault-induced increase' used to compute the percentages, or explicitly label the numbers as single-run illustrative observations.
  3. [§III, Eq. (20); §II-B after Eq. (14)] The worst-case resistive-loss circle is obtained by maximizing G_f(ω_e) over the admissible (σ, R_sc) set. The text states that the approximation K_f ≈ R_f/L_f is employed and yields arg max = R_f/L_f = ω_e. However, §II-B explicitly says a first-order Taylor expansion of K_f is not adopted because for low-severity ISCs (σ→0) R_f→∞ and L_f→0 make the approximation insufficiently accurate. Since the loss-limit circle (19) is conservative only if the true worst-case G_f is not underestimated, the paper should justify that the argmax is insensitive to this approximation (e.g., by a numerical sweep of the exact K_f expression over the admissible parameter set) or derive the maximizer without the approximation. The nearby sentence calling the limit (σ→1, R_sc→0) 'low-severity' is also mislabeled; that is the full-short limit, whereas the low-severity limit is σ→0.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and §V] The exact percentages '23–36%' and '18–27%' should be tied to the specific operating points and R_sc steps; currently 'approximately' and 'up to' make them hard to reproduce.
  2. [§II-A, Eq. (5)] The expression for R_f can be misread: the term (n_s/σ)R_sc is singular as σ→0; please add a sentence clarifying the domain of σ and the limiting behavior.
  3. [§II-B, Eq. (16)] The formula for ω*_e is typeset in a way that is difficult to parse (the line break after the fraction). Please rewrite with explicit parentheses and define all symbols in the text.
  4. [§III, Eq. (20)] The asymptotes are stated without derivation; a brief explanation of how the three regimes map to the fault parameter ranges would help.
  5. [Table II] The row 'Saliency considered: L_d ≠ L_q' shows '×' for the proposed method; consider adding a footnote clarifying that the method currently targets non-salient PMSMs and that IPMSM extension is future work.
  6. [Section V] The statement that 'additional datasets for σ = 3/25 and σ = 9/25 are shared on Zenodo [26]' is not accompanied by any analysis; either include the results or remove the mention from the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the mitigation derivation is self-contained and the headline loss reductions are measured with an independent power analyzer, not derived from the controller's own estimates.

full rationale

The derivation chain starts from the stated discrete-time post-ISC model (1)-(6), including the explicit L_eq≈L_d≈L_q assumption. The steady-state voltage magnitude (12), fault-current amplitude (14), resistive-loss expression (15), worst-case loss (18), loss-limit circle (19), and ISC-aware MTPA references (21)-(22) are obtained by explicit algebra from that model. No predicted quantity is defined as a fitted input: G_f is estimated from control-loop signals and used to construct the references, but the validation metrics p_e and p_seg^res come from a HIOKI PW8001 power analyzer and LCR-measured segment resistances (25), independent of the controller's internal estimates. The headline 23-36% and 18-27% reductions are therefore measured outcomes, not renamed fits. The self-citations [21]-[25] supply the underlying model and diagnostic estimators, but the paper states the model equations and the diagnostics are prior published work; there is no uniqueness theorem or ansatz smuggled in via citation that forces the conclusion. Using the same G_f estimate for both reference generation and feedback reconstruction is a closed-loop control implementation, not a circular validation. The stated saliency limitation (L_eq≈L_d≈L_q) is a generality caveat and a correctness risk for IPMSMs, but it does not make the derivation circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central design pulls its model and diagnostics from the authors' earlier papers; no new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are the online-estimated fault parameters and a hand-chosen enable threshold; motor constants are treated as known testbench inputs.

free parameters (3)
  • θf,1, θf,2 (ISC aggregate parameters) = estimated online (no numeric values reported)
    G_f in (24) is computed from these recursive estimates; they determine the loss-limit circle and current references. Only aggregate R_f/L_f and R_f/σ are identifiable.
  • R_s, L_eq online estimates = Table I values as measured; adapted online by diagnostics [21], [24]
    Used in (19)-(22) and in the Kalman-based feedback reconstruction; the text says diagnostics recursively adapts R_s and L_eq to the operating point.
  • mitigation enable threshold ξ = not specified
    Switch to mitigation occurs when tr(P(k))≤ξ; no value or tuning rule is given, so it is a hand-chosen parameter.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Discrete-time post-ISC motor model (1)-(3), (5)-(6) from [23] accurately represents the faulty machine.
    All mitigation equations are derived from this model; adopted from the authors' prior work rather than re-derived or independently validated here.
  • domain assumption Electrical angular velocity is nearly constant over each sampling interval, giving θ_e(k+1)≈θ_e(k)+T_s ω_e(k).
    Stated in Section II-A; used to derive the orthogonal fault-current dynamics (9)-(10).
  • domain assumption Stator inductance fluctuation, higher-harmonic PM flux, saturation, and hysteresis are neglected in the power/loss expressions (6).
    Explicitly stated in Section II-A; makes T_e proportional to i_q,h and simplifies the resistive-loss objective.
  • domain assumption Equivalent-inductance assumption L_eq≈L_d≈L_q.
    Used throughout the model; acknowledged in the Conclusion as the main limitation and justified by weak identifiability of L_d vs L_q in velocity steady state.
  • ad hoc to paper Approximation K_f≈R_f/L_f for finding the worst-case G_f.
    Section III uses this approximation without rigorous error bounds; it sets arg max_{R_f/L_f} G_f = ω_e, which shapes the asymptotes (20) and the derived loss circles.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 16116 in / 12753 out tokens · 129131 ms · 2026-08-03T11:50:53.131389+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Interturn short circuits are among the most critical faults in permanent magnet synchronous motor drives, as they combine localized heating in the shorted stator phase with electrical asymmetry that distorts the current feedback used for torque-producing control. This article proposes a control-based mitigation method enabling the post-fault operation of standard three-phase motor drives without additional dedicated hardware. Using the diagnostic features inferred from standard control-loop signals, the method augments the field-oriented control structure with two mechanisms: resistive-loss-limited current-reference generation and reconstruction of the torque-producing current components in the feedback path. The reference generator is derived from a discrete-time post-fault model and minimizes resistive losses, whereas the feedback reconstruction provides fault-free torque-producing current components as controlled variables of the current loop. The experimental validation has demonstrated reductions of up to 23-36% in the fault-induced increase in the input power and 18-27% in the local segment-loss increase, while confirming real-time adaptation to progressive fault aggravation emulated by stepped changes in the short circuit resistance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29195 by Ludek Buchta, Lukas Zezula, Matus Kozovsky, Petr Blaha.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The post-ISC constraint curves and ISC-aware MTPA for diverse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A comparison of the reference trajectories under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The integration of the proposed fault mitigation into the field-oriented control structure. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The testbench with the experimental PMSM. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The real-time FOC response to stepped Rsc with disabled/enabled mitigation at ωe = 1400 rad s−1 . production. Additional datasets for σ = 3/25 and σ = 9/25 are shared on Zenodo [26]. VI. CONCLUSION This article presented control-based ISC mitigation for PMSM drives. The method used diagnostic information avail￾able from the standard control loop in two complementary ways: to generate loss-constrained post-… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The real-time FOC response to stepped Rsc with disabled/enabled mitigation at ωe = 2000 rad s−1 . ACKNOWLEDGMENT The MATLAB-compiled datasets attributed to this study are publicly available on Zenodo [26]. REFERENCES [1] A. Hossam, J. Villagra, F. Navas, and V. Milanes, “Scalable Fail- ´ Degraded Systems for Autonomous Vehicles: A Survey,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 26, no. 12, pp. 21 453–21 4… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Scalable Fail- Degraded Systems for Autonomous Vehicles: A Survey,

    A. Hossam, J. Villagra, F. Navas, and V . Milan ´es, “Scalable Fail- Degraded Systems for Autonomous Vehicles: A Survey,”IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 26, no. 12, pp. 21 453–21 471, Dec. 2025. doi: 10.1109/TITS.2025.3612262

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Fault Diagnosis and Self-Healing for Smart Manufacturing: A Review,

    J. Aldrini, I. Chihi, and L. Sidhom, “Fault Diagnosis and Self-Healing for Smart Manufacturing: A Review,”J. Intell. Manuf., vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 2441–2473, Aug. 2024. doi: 10.1007/s10845-023-02165-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10845-023-02165-6 2024

  3. [3]

    Architectural Design and Analysis of a Steer-by- Wire System in View of Functional Safety Concept,

    C. Huang and L. Li, “Architectural Design and Analysis of a Steer-by- Wire System in View of Functional Safety Concept,”Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., vol. 198, p. 106822, Apr. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2020.106822

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Taxonomy to Unify Fault Tolerance Regimes for Automotive Systems: Defining Fail-Operational, Fail- Degraded, and Fail-Safe,

    T. Stolte, S. Ackermann, R. Graubohm, I. Jatzkowski, B. Klamann, H. Winner, and M. Maurer, “Taxonomy to Unify Fault Tolerance Regimes for Automotive Systems: Defining Fail-Operational, Fail- Degraded, and Fail-Safe,”IEEE Trans. Intell. Veh., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 251–262, Jun. 2022. doi: 10.1109/TIV .2021.3129933

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Fault Diagnosis and Fault-Tolerant Control of PMSM Drives—State of the Art and Future Challenges,

    T. Orlowska-Kowalska, M. Wolkiewicz, P. Pietrzak, M. Skowron, P. Ew- ert, G. Tarchala, M. Krzysztofiak, and C. T. Kowalski, “Fault Diagnosis and Fault-Tolerant Control of PMSM Drives—State of the Art and Future Challenges,”IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 59 979–60 024, 2022. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3180153

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    J. Hang, W. Sun, Q. Hu, X. Ren, and S. Ding, “Integration of Interturn TABLE II COMPARISON OF CONTROL-BASEDISCMITIGATION STRATEGIES Feature [6] [7] [8] [11] [12] [16] [19] [20] Prop. Standard three-phase PMSM ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓×✓ No additional diagnostic hardware ×✓ ✓△ × △ ×✓ ✓ No exact fault current required ✓×✓△✓×✓ ✓ ✓ Thermal/loss mitigation ×✓×✓×✓× ×✓ Expl...

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Online Stator Inter-Turn Short Circuit Estimation and Fault Management in Permanent Magnet Motors,

    K. H. Baruti, C. Li, F. Erturk, and B. Akin, “Online Stator Inter-Turn Short Circuit Estimation and Fault Management in Permanent Magnet Motors,”IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 1016–1027, Jun. 2023. doi: 10.1109/TEC.2022.3220544

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Fault Diagnosis and Adaptive Fault-Tolerant Control of Interturn Short-Circuit Fault in PMSM Drives,

    Y . Zhang, X. Wang, J. Peng, L. Kong, Z. Wang, and Y . Mao, “Fault Diagnosis and Adaptive Fault-Tolerant Control of Interturn Short-Circuit Fault in PMSM Drives,”IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 74, pp. 1–11,

  9. [9]

    A Comprehensive Analysis of Short-Circuit Current Behavior in PMSM Interturn Short- Circuit Faults,

    Y . Qi, E. Bostanci, V . Gurusamy, and B. Akin, “A Comprehensive Analysis of Short-Circuit Current Behavior in PMSM Interturn Short- Circuit Faults,”IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 10 784– 10 793, Dec. 2018. doi: 10.1109/TPEL.2018.2809668

    arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    Interturn Short-Circuit Faults in Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machines: An Extended Review and Comprehensive Analysis,

    M. Zafarani, E. Bostanci, Y . Qi, T. Goktas, and B. Akin, “Interturn Short-Circuit Faults in Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machines: An Extended Review and Comprehensive Analysis,”IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Topics Power Electron., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 2173–2191, Dec. 2018. doi: 10.1109/JESTPE.2018.2811538

    arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    Interturn Fault Tolerant Drive Method by Lim- iting Copper Loss of Interior Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor,

    S.-H. Im and B.-G. Gu, “Interturn Fault Tolerant Drive Method by Lim- iting Copper Loss of Interior Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 67, no. 9, pp. 7973–7981, Sep. 2020. doi: 10.1109/TIE.2019.2941146

    arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    Integration of Interturn Fault Diagnosis and Torque Ripple Minimiza- tion Control for Direct-Torque-Controlled SPMSM Drive System,

    J. Hang, S. Ding, X. Ren, Q. Hu, Y . Huang, W. Hua, and Q. Wang, “Integration of Interturn Fault Diagnosis and Torque Ripple Minimiza- tion Control for Direct-Torque-Controlled SPMSM Drive System,”IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 11 124–11 134, Oct. 2021. doi: 10.1109/TPEL.2021.3073774

    arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    A Critical Review of Fault- Tolerant Control for Multiphase PMSM Drive Systems,

    X. Liu, S. Liu, Z. Fu, and L. Ge, “A Critical Review of Fault- Tolerant Control for Multiphase PMSM Drive Systems,”IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrific., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 13 684–13 704, Dec. 2025. doi: 10.1109/TTE.2025.3598977

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    A Turn Fault Mitigation Strategy Based on Current Injection Technique for a Triple Three-Phase PMA SynRM,

    B. Wang, J. Wang, A. Griffo, and L. Huang, “A Turn Fault Mitigation Strategy Based on Current Injection Technique for a Triple Three-Phase PMA SynRM,”IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 2511– 2522, Apr. 2020. doi: 10.1109/TIE.2019.2908595

    arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Compensation Methods of Interturn Short-Circuit Faults in Dual Three-Phase PMSM,

    M. Kozovsky, L. Buchta, and P. Blaha, “Compensation Methods of Interturn Short-Circuit Faults in Dual Three-Phase PMSM,” inProc. IECON 46th Annu. Conf. IEEE Ind. Electron. Soc., 2020, pp. 4833–

    2020

  16. [16]

    Mitigation of Interturn Short-Circuits in IPMSM by Using MTPCC Control Adaptive to Fault Severity,

    S. Huang, A. Aggarwal, E. G. Strangas, B. Khoshoo, K. Li, and F. Niu, “Mitigation of Interturn Short-Circuits in IPMSM by Using MTPCC Control Adaptive to Fault Severity,”IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 4685–4696, Apr. 2022. doi: 10.1109/TPEL.2021.3127538

    arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Mitigation of Interturn Short Circuit Fault Based on Axial Split Phase Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machine,

    L. Geng, F. Chai, and Y . Pei, “Mitigation of Interturn Short Circuit Fault Based on Axial Split Phase Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machine,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 2578–2587, Dec. 2022. doi: 10.1109/TEC.2022.3177696

    arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    A Fault Toler- ant Electric Drive Based on Bifilar Coils Wound Machine,

    T. L. Yirisaw, A. Reeh, W. Birkmayer, and Y . Burkhardt, “A Fault Toler- ant Electric Drive Based on Bifilar Coils Wound Machine,”IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrific., pp. 1–1, 2026. doi: 10.1109/TTE.2026.3673214

    arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    Common Predictive Model for PMSM Drives With Interturn Fault Considering Torque Ripple Suppression,

    W. Li, J. Hang, S. Ding, and Q. Wang, “Common Predictive Model for PMSM Drives With Interturn Fault Considering Torque Ripple Suppression,”IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrific., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 4071– 4079, Sep. 2023. doi: 10.1109/TTE.2022.3232820

    arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Interturn Short-Circuit Fault Diagnosis and Fault-Tolerant Control of DTP-PMSM Based on Subspace Current Residuals,

    J. Hang, X. Wang, W. Li, and S. Ding, “Interturn Short-Circuit Fault Diagnosis and Fault-Tolerant Control of DTP-PMSM Based on Subspace Current Residuals,”IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 3395–3404, Feb. 2025. doi: 10.1109/TPEL.2024.3484469

    arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Diagnostics of Interturn Short Circuits in PMSMs With Online Fault Indicators Estimation,

    L. Zezula, M. Kozovsky, and P. Blaha, “Diagnostics of Interturn Short Circuits in PMSMs With Online Fault Indicators Estimation,”IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 71, no. 11, pp. 15 001–15 011, Nov. 2024. doi: 10.1109/TIE.2024.3363775

    arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Online Monitoring of Interturn Short Circuit Current in PMSMs,

    L. Zezula and P. Blaha, “Online Monitoring of Interturn Short Circuit Current in PMSMs,” inProc. IECON 50th Annu. Conf. IEEE Ind. Elec- tron. Soc., 2024, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/IECON55916.2024.10905190

    arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Discrete-Time Modeling of Interturn Short Circuits in Interior PMSMs,

    L. Zezula, M. Kozovsky, L. Buchta, and P. Blaha, “Discrete-Time Modeling of Interturn Short Circuits in Interior PMSMs,”IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 1425–1436, Jan. 2026. doi: 10.1109/TIE.2025.3591680

    arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Interturn Short Circuits in Synchronous Motors with Perma- nent Magnets: Modeling and Fault Diagnostics,

    L. Zezula, “Interturn Short Circuits in Synchronous Motors with Perma- nent Magnets: Modeling and Fault Diagnostics,” Doctoral Thesis, Brno Univ. Technol., Brno, Czech Republic, 2025, fac. Elect. Eng. Commun., Dept. Control Instrum

    2025

  25. [25]

    Discrete-Time Modeling of PMSM for Parametric Estimation and Model Predictive Control Tasks,

    L. Zezula and P. Blaha, “Discrete-Time Modeling of PMSM for Parametric Estimation and Model Predictive Control Tasks,” inProc. IECON 49th Annu. Conf. IEEE Ind. Electron. Soc., 2023, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/IECON51785.2023.10312226

    arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Interturn Short Circuit Fault Mitigation in PMSMs – Datasets,

    L. Zezula, M. Kozovsky, L. Buchta, and P. Blaha, “Interturn Short Circuit Fault Mitigation in PMSMs – Datasets,” inZenodo, 2026. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.21717722 . Lukas Zezulawas born in Brno, Czech Repub- lic, in 1998. He received the M.Sc. degree in cy- bernetics, control and measurements; the M.Sc. degree in strategic company development; and the Ph.D. de...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.21717722 2026

  27. [2025]

    doi: 10.1109/TIM.2025.3645891

    arXiv 2025

  28. [4838]

    doi: 10.1109/IECON43393.2020.9254734

    arXiv 2020