Choosing what to test to improve motor torque density

The Challenge

The manufacturer was shifting its lineup from internal combustion engines toward electrified models. As pressure from EV regulations and tariff risks grew, its engineering, design, and innovation leaders needed to move faster from idea to validated design. Even minor design changes could take up to two years to implement.

For the electric motor team, one goal was higher torque density with no increase in motor size, mass, or cost. Engineers were comparing advanced winding designs, lightweight materials, and alternative electrical steel grades. Each option had to be weighed for performance and cost, and each raised its own questions about manufacturability and risk.

Those comparisons depended on groundwork. Engineers used free tools and other sources to find patents, papers, and technical data; mapped potential failure modes; and checked prior art and IP risk, sometimes waiting on outside IP teams and consultants. A first-pass analysis for discussion could tie up several engineers for days, and decisions about which routes deserved testing had to wait for it.

The Solution

The team evaluated Patsnap Eureka on a real engineering task and judged it by how quickly engineers could move from the technical challenge to their next engineering step.

To compare routes on a common basis, engineers needed the evidence in one place. Hiro and Quick Research brought together patents, papers, and prior art on winding designs and material maturity, along with approaches used in other industries.

To start failure analysis sooner, engineers used DFMEA Assistant to build an initial view of potential failure modes, their effects and causes, and possible controls for engineering review.

To work on the core tradeoff itself, engineers used Find Solutions with TRIZ to analyze the contradiction between more torque and fixed size, mass, and cost, and to explore inventive principles and solutions from adjacent fields that might be worth testing, rather than relying on personal brainstorming alone.

Engineers still made the design decisions.

The Result

The first-pass analysis was ready in hours rather than days. That gave engineers time back, earlier in the process, for the work that needs their judgment: checking whether the failure modes hold up, prioritizing risks, planning tests and validation, comparing materials and structures, and reviewing IP risk with IP specialists.

DFMEA also began to shift from a heavy documentation exercise toward an engineering step that informs design decisions while they are still open. Within that groundwork, the team could do more of the early research itself instead of waiting on outside support.

Since that first evaluation, the company has used Patsnap Eureka for patent research, prior-art analysis, competitive benchmarking, DFMEA, materials and technology scouting, and early-stage innovation projects.