## 5 Results: Impact of Faults in LSHT Machines
### Evaluation of Shared Faults Across 10-Pole and 16-Pole LSHT Machines  
The variation in the performance metrics after the implementation of the different eccentricity types described in Section 3.2.1 is presented in Table 4 for the 10-pole machines. From the results, the following can be noted:  
* Static and dynamic eccentricity do not have a significant impact on the torque capacity. The mean torque variability is lower than 0.1% in the PMSM, lower than 0.8% in the SynRM, and lower than 0.8% in the SCIM. * Static and dynamic eccentricity do not have a significant impact on losses. The variability is lower than 0.2% for the PMSM, lower than 0.5% for the SynRM, and lower than 0.2% for the SCIM. * Static and dynamic eccentricity have virtually no effect on efficiency or power factor for all machines. * Static and dynamic eccentricity impact the torque ripple of different topologies in distinct ways. For the PMSM, no significant effects were observed. However, for both the SynRM and the SCIM, a slight increase in the ripple was noted at higher eccentricity values, specifically when \(\Delta_{\text{se}}+\Delta_{\text{de}}=0.5\). It can be noted that the effect on torque ripple is relatively mild and may be difficult to detect in systems lacking direct torque measurement capabilities. Additionally, variations in torque ripple can arise from a range of electromagnetic and mechanical factors. Detecting this phenomenon through speed ripple analysis would also be challenging, as it is heavily influenced by the inertia of the system. It can therefore be concluded that static and dynamic eccentricities cannot be directly detected by monitoring basic performance metrics in the 10-pole LSHT PMSM, SynRM, and SCIM. For the 16-pole machines, the variation in performance metrics after the implementation of the different eccentricity types described in Section 3.2.1 is presented in Table 5. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Parameter** & **Symbol** & **PMSM** & **SynRM** & **SCIM** \\ \hline Mean Torque & \(\text{T}_{\text{mean}}\)\([\text{Nm}]\) & 1522 & 608.6 & 640.1 \\ Torque Ripple & \(\text{T}_{\text{PP}}\)\([\%]\) & 2.7 & 45.4 & 10.8 \\ Efficiency & \(\text{\eta}\)\([\%]\) & 96.3 & 90.3 & 90.7 \\ Active Losses & \(\text{L}_{\text{cp}+\text{fe}+\text{edd}}\)\([\text{W}]\) & 2258 & 2565 & 2543 \\ Power Factor & \(\text{pf}\)\([-]\) & 0.98 & 0.35 & 0.63 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Main performance comparison of the optimized 16-pole LSHT machines. From the evaluation, the following can be stated:  
* Static and dynamic eccentricities do not have a significant effect on the mean torque. The variability is lower than 0.5% across the PMSM, SynRM, and SCIM. * Static and dynamic eccentricity do not have a significant impact on losses. The variability is lower than 0.7% for the PMSM, the SynRM, and the SCIM. * Static and dynamic eccentricity have virtually no effect on efficiency or power factor for all machines. * Static and dynamic eccentricity affect the torque ripple differently across the different topologies. For the PMSM, a 45% increase in the ripple was observed with static and dynamic eccentricity values of \(\Delta_{\rm se}=0.5\) and \(\Delta_{\rm de}=0.5\), while a 12% increase occurred for lower eccentricity severities (\(\Delta_{\rm se}=0.25\) and \(\Delta_{\rm de}=0.25\)). In the case of the SynRM, ripple variations remained below 10% across all severity scenarios, with minimal impact from low-severity eccentricities (\(\Delta_{\rm se}=0.25\) and \(\Delta_{\rm de}=0.25\)). The SCIM displayed a similar trend to the SynRM, with ripple variations below 12% for the most severe cases, and under 3% for lower eccentricity values.