Open Access
This article is
 freely available
 reusable
Energies 2018, 11(8), 2141; doi:10.3390/en11082141
Article
Quantitative Comparisons of SixPhase OuterRotor PermanentMagnet Brushless Machines for Electric Vehicles
^{1}
School of Energy and Environment, City University of Hong Kong, 83 Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong, China
^{2}
Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
^{*}
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 20 July 2018 / Accepted: 11 August 2018 / Published: 16 August 2018
Abstract
:Multiphase machines have some distinct merits, including the high power density, high torque density, high efficiency and low torque ripple, etc. which can be beneficial for many industrial applications. This paper presents four different types of sixphase outerrotor permanentmagnet (PM) brushless machines for electric vehicles (EVs), which include the inserted PM (IPM) type, surface PM (SPM) type, PM fluxswitching (PMFS) type, and PM vernier (PMV) type. First, the design criteria and operation principle are compared and discussed. Then, their key characteristics are addressed and analyzed by using the finite element method (FEM). The results show that the PMV type is quite suitable for the directdrive application for EVs with its high torque density and efficiency. Also, the IPM type is suitable for the indirectdrive application for EVs with its high power density and efficiency.
Keywords:
permanentmagnet machine; brushless machine; Vernier machine; flux switching machine; multiphase machine; outer rotor; electric vehicle1. Introduction
In recent years, interest in electrical vehicles (EVs) is growing rapidly driven by the concerns about environment issues [1,2]. EVs are environmentally friendly and enjoy many attractive merits compare to their tradition fossilfuel counterparts [3]. In particular, EVs offer definite advantages for fossilfuel use reduction, which causes less harmful gases, lower cost of driving, costeffective maintenance, less noise and vibration. Also, EVs provide more comfort at low speed than their conventional fossilfuel counterparts.
The electric machines for EVs are regarded as one of the key components of the whole EV system [4]. In order to ensure the driving quality of EVs, there are many strict requirements for the EV machines [5,6]. First of all, high reliability is essential for the challenging environment and frequent starting and stopping during driving. Secondly, a high power density is desirable for weight reduction. Moreover, high efficiency is particularly important for a better economic outcome. Nowadays, there are several types of electric machines available for EV applications. In the early years of EV development, DC motors were considered as the mainstream because of their easy control and excellent speed regulation [7]. However, they suffer from fragile mechanical structures, poor thermal dissipation and low efficiency, which are not desirable features for EV application. Then, AC asynchronous machines attracted much attention because of their high efficiency and simple structure [8,9]. However, they suffer from problems such as complex control algorithms and low torque density. Permanentmagnet synchronous (PMS) brushless machines which enjoy the high efficiency, high power density and high reliability, are considered an attractive option for EV applications [10,11]. In particular, the permanentmagnet fluxswitching (PMFS) type and permanentmagnet vernier (PMV) type, as the representatives of PMS brushless machines, are extraordinary for EV use. The PMFS type is a combination of a synchronous machine and a switched reluctant machine [12], which enjoys high torque density and a robust rotor structure [13], so it can enhance the high performance for EVs. The PMV type integrates a coaxial magnetic gear into a PM brushless machine. In this way, it is capable of achieving a high electric frequency at low rotation speed [14]. Meanwhile, it always adopts a concentric winding layout in order to have short end windings, which is more suitable for the limited space of EVs., The general advantages and disadvantages of the four different types of machines are summarized in Table 1 [15,16,17].
Moreover, multiphase machines with a higher degree of freedom have faulttolerant capability, so they are suitable for EVs, and can also be considered a great option [18,19]. In addition, the outerrotor structure of these machines, which are designed with a rotating outer structure and a fixed inner structure, is quite attractive for EV applications [20]. In this way, the structure has better performance for EV propulsion.
This paper is focused on four different types of sixphase outerrotor PM machines, which are suitable for EV applications. These four types of machines combine the advantages of PM machines and multiphase machines, thus achieving high power density, high torque density, better fault tolerance capability, and lower torque ripple. The key is to quantitatively compare the operation performance of the four different types of machines, namely the inserted PM (IPM) type, surface PM (SPM) type, PM fluxswitching (PMFS) type, and PM vernier (PMV) type. First, the design criteria and operating principles are elaborated in Section 2. Then, a quantitative comparison of the machines is described in Section 3, which includes the key characteristics, normal operation performance, and the faulttolerant operation. Finally, the conclusions of the quantitative comparison are summarized in Section 4.
2. Proposed SixPhase Machine Topologies and Operation Principles
The proposed topologies are presented with both crosssection and exploded views in Figure 1. These four machine types adopt the sixphase arrangement and outerrotor structure. Figure 1a shows the IPM topology with PMs inserted inside the rotor, while Figure 1b shows the SPM type with PMs mounted on the surface of the rotor. The main difference between the IPM machine and the SPM machine is their arrangements of PMs. Figure 1c shows the topology of PMFS machine, while Figure 1d shows the PMV machine topology. The PMFS machine has all PMs inserted inside the stator teeth, while the PMV machine has PMs mounted on both stator side and rotor side.
The operating speed n of the machine is governed by the pole pairs and the electric frequency of the proposed machines:
where f is the electric frequency and p is the polepairs of the machines.
$$\text{}n=\frac{60f}{p}\text{}$$
The turns of armature coil ${N}_{a}$ can be determined by the following relationship:
where ${\alpha}_{a}$ is the factor of slots filling, ${S}_{a}$ is the slot area of the coil, and ${L}_{a}$ is the average coil length. In this paper, the turns of armature coil of each phase and slot filling factor for the proposed machines are set to be 200 and 40%, respectively.
$${N}_{a}=\sqrt{\frac{{\alpha}_{a}{R}_{a}{S}_{a}}{4\rho {L}_{a}}}\text{}$$
To achieve the fair comparison, the peripheral dimension, PM volume, air gap length and current density, are set as equal.
2.1. Proposed IPM Type and SPM Type
The IPM machine adopts the Vshape PM poles inserted within its rotor. As investigated, it has been suggested that the Vshape or Wshape PM poles would have the better operation performance than the traditional radial PM arrangement [21]. Moreover, in order to prevent the shortcircuiting PM fluxes, the magnetic insulation material is purposely implemented. The IPM type adopts the singlelayer fractional slot concentrated winding, which can reduce the end winding length and decrease the copper loss [22]. In fact, the IPM machine consists of 24 stator slots and 10 pole pairs, while the mechanical and electrical degrees between two slots can be calculated as [23]:
where z is the number of stator slots and p is the pole pairs. According to Equations (3) and (4), the mechanical angle is 15° and the electrical angle is 150° for each adjacent stator slot. In this case, the stator is able to produce a rotating magnet field with sixphase current. Referring to the principle of minimum magnetoresistance, namely the flux tends to flow along the path of minimum magnetoresistance and the rotor will rotate synchronously with the rotating magnetic field produced by the stator.
$$\text{}{\alpha}_{m}=\frac{360\xb0}{z}=\frac{360\xb0}{24}=15\xb0\text{}$$
$$\text{}{\alpha}_{e}=p\frac{360\xb0}{z}=10\times \frac{360\xb0}{24}=150\xb0\text{}$$
The SPM machine shares the same stator structure with IPM type, while the PM arrangement of the two machines are different. Unlike the IPM type with installed PMs within its stator, the SPM accommodates the PMs on the rotor surface. The SPM machine adopts the single layer distributed winding layout and consists of 24 stator slots and 20 pole pairs. Consequently, its mechanical degree and electrical degree between two slots can be found to be 15° and 300°, respectively.
2.2. Proposed PMFS Type
The proposed sixphase outerrotor PMFS machine consists of 12 stator slots and 22 salient rotor poles. It combines the special features of a switched reluctance machine and a synchronous machine, hence enjoying the advantages of robust rotor structure, high power density and high torque density. The PMs are inserted in each stator tooth with the opposite direction in each two adjacent ones. The proposed machine adopts the doublelayer concentrated winding method, where each coil is around a stator tooth with PM inserted in the middle of it.
The machine follows the flux switching principle [24], which is shown in Figure 2. Four typical positions are shown. First, as shown in Figure 2a, the right part of the stator tooth aligns directly with one of the rotor teeth, so it provides the largest flux linkage. Second, as shown in Figure 2b, the stator tooth is completely misaligned with the rotor tooth. Consequently, no magnetic flux flows inbetween them. Also, the flux linkage of the coil is reduced to zero. Third, as shown in Figure 2c, the left part of the stator tooth aligns directly again to another rotor tooth, so it provides the largest flux linkage. Finally, as shown in Figure 2d, the flux linkage of the coil decreases to zero again.
Actually, the number of stator slots and rotor polepairs are critical for the PMFS machine. The flux linkage and steady torque can be influenced substantially [25]. Since the magnetization direction of each two adjacent PMs are opposite, the number of PMs should be an even number. Thus, the number of stator slots ${N}_{s}$ should be an even number as well. As a result, the number of stators of a sixphase machine should be a multiple of six, i.e., ${N}_{s}=2\text{}\mathrm{km}$, k = 1, 2, 3, …etc. With this setting, ${N}_{s}$ can be determined as twelve. The relationship between stator pole number ${N}_{s}$ and rotor pole number ${N}_{r}$ is governed by [25]:
where n is a positive integer and should not be the multiple times of three. For the proposed sixphase machine, it adopts the combination of 12 stator slots and 22 rotor teeth.
$${N}_{r}=\frac{\left(12\pm n\right){N}_{s}}{6}\text{}$$
2.3. PMV Type
The proposed sixphase outerrotor PMV machine consists of six stator teeth each with three flux modulation poles. The machine adopts the doublelayer concentrated winding with each phase coil fitting around one stator tooth. It installs PMs on both its stator side and rotor side. Meanwhile, the consequent pole structure is employed to improve the utilization of PM materials.
The PMV machine utilizes the concept of magneticgearing effect, hence achieving the hightorque lowspeed capability. The flux modulation poles (FMPs) are introduced into the stator teeth of the proposed machine. The lower rotating speed PM field is modulated to couple with the higher rotating speed stator air gap magnetic field. Consequently, a selfgoverning speed effect results. Thus, when the outer rotor PM moves a little angle at a low speed, there will be a great change of flux interacting with the magnet field generated by the rotating armature winding. According to the magnetic gearing effect, the number of pole pairs of flux density distribution in the space harmonic is produced by the high speed stator winding rotating magnetic field and low speed rotor pole magnetic field as [26]:
where ${Q}_{s}$ is the number of FMP and ${p}_{r}$ is the number of rotor PM polepairs. Furthermore, the operating speed of the flux density in space harmonic ${\mathsf{\Omega}}_{r}$ can be described as:
when m = 1 and n = 1, the harmonic magnetic field of the air gap results in the largest modulated magnitude. Thus, the number of rotor magnet poles becomes:
where ${p}_{s}$ is the number of winding polepairs. For the proposed sixphase outerrotor PMV machine, the number of rotor pole pairs is selected as 17, the number of winding pole pairs is 1, and the number of flux modulation poles as 18. Consequently, the gear ratio is given as:
$${p}_{m,k}=m{p}_{r}+k{Q}_{s}\phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}m=1,\text{}3,\text{}5,\text{}\dots ,\text{}\infty \phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}k=0,\text{\hspace{1em}}\pm 1,\pm 2,\pm 3,\text{}\dots \pm \infty $$
$${\mathsf{\Omega}}_{m,k}=\frac{m{p}_{r}}{m{p}_{r}+k{Q}_{s}}{\mathsf{\Omega}}_{r}$$
$${p}_{r}={Q}_{s}{p}_{s}$$
$${G}_{r}=\frac{{p}_{r}{Q}_{s}}{{p}_{r}}=\frac{1718}{17}=\frac{1}{17}$$
3. Performance Comparison
In this section, the key operation characteristics, such as the magnetic flux distribution line, air gap flux density, flux linkage, noload EMF, cogging torque, steady torque and power loss of the proposed machines, are analyzed and compared by using the finite element method (FEM) with the JMAG Designer tool.
Moreover, the faulttolerant operation performance of each machine is demonstrated and compared with the normal operation. Table 2 shows the key parameters of the four proposed sixphase outerrotor PM machines, which follow the abovementioned comparison conditions.
3.1. Basic Characteristics
Firstly, the magnetic flux distribution and winding distribution of these four proposed machines at generating mode are presented in Figure 3. The IPM type and SPM type both adopt the singlelayer winding arrangement, while the PMFS type and PMV type adopt the doublelayer winding arrangement. The air gap flux density of the four proposed machines are shown in Figure 4, the maximum of the air gap fluxdensity are 0.8 T, 1.4 T, 2.5 T and 2.0 T, respectively. In general, the higher flux density will provide a higher torque density [27], so among the four machines the proposed PMV type and the PMFS type have the potential to produce the better performance. In addition, the fluxlinkage of the four proposed machines are shown in Figure 5, which indicates that all the proposed machines can offer the balance fluxlinkage among the sixphase patterns.
Second, the noload EMF is governed by [28]:
where $\mathsf{\Psi}$ is noload fluxlinkage shown in Figure 5. Hence, the noload EMF should be high, since the noload fluxlinkage sinusoidal wave changes rapidly with the time and has a high amplitude. The RMS values of noload EFM at different rotation speeds are presented in Figure 6. It can be seen that the output voltage has the positive correlation with the rotation speed. The PMV type has the highest noload voltage over the four machines due to the magnetic gearing effect. Hence, the rated rotation speed of the four machines are determined as 2000, 1000, 1000 and 600 r/min. The waveforms of the noload EMFs are presented in Figure 7. The amplitudes of the noload EMF of IPM type, SPM type, PMFS type and PMV type are 582, 615, 524 and 576 V, respectively.
$$E=\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathsf{\psi}}{\mathrm{d}t}\text{}$$
3.2. Normal Operation
The normal operations of the proposed machines are analyzed and discussed. These machines operate at 2000, 1000, 1000 and 600 r/min, respectively, which runs with the current density of 6 A/mm^{2}. The steady torque of the machines are given in Figure 8, which are 93.93, 91.14, 113.38 and 199.91 N·m, respectively. It can be found that the steady torque of PMV type is the largest, which is nearly 50% larger than the three counterparts. Moreover, the steady torque of IPM type and SPM type are very similar. However, the torque ripple of IPM type is much smaller than SPM type. In addition, the PMFS type has the smallest torque ripple among the four machines. The torquespeed characteristic of the four proposed machines are shown in Figure 9.
Furthermore, the torque density of each machine can be calculated as:
where V is the volume of electric machine. In this way, the torque density of the four proposed machines are 24.71, 23.98, 29.83 and 52.58 kN·m/m³, respectively, so the PMV type has the best torque density among the four types.
$${S}_{T}=\frac{{T}_{max}}{V}\text{}$$
In addition to this, the torque ripple is given as:
so, the torque ripples of the four proposed machines are 15.52%, 40.25%, 3.83% and 11.88%, respectively.
$${T}_{rip}=\frac{{T}_{max}{T}_{in}}{{T}_{avg}}\times 100\%$$
In addition, Figure 10 shows the cogging torque of the four proposed machines. Cogging torque is a distinctive problem of PM machines which results from the interaction between the PMs and the stator iron core when the armature winding is not electrified [29]. Cogging torque causes mechanical vibration and noise [30,31], and it can be reduced by certain ways such as changing the magnet shape [32]. The period of cogging torque is:
where LMC is the least common multiple of the stator slots number z and number of poles 2p. It can be seen that the SPM type suffers from a large cogging torque because of its slot number and polepair number combination [33,34]. Compared to the SPM type, the IPM type has a remarkably reduced cogging torque with a similar steady torque. The percentages of cogging torque to steady torque of the four machines are 0.58%, 17.56%, 1.59% and 1.00%, respectively. Hence, it can be concluded that except for the SPM type, the other three types are desirable in terms of cogging since they are well below 3%.
$${T}_{cog}=\frac{360}{LCM\left(z,2p\right)}$$
Moreover, the power losses and efficiency of the proposed machines are calculated by FEM. The iron losses of the IPM type, SPM type, PMFS type and PMV type machine are 1014, 1914, 1438 and 649 W, respectively. The copper loss of the SPM type is the highest, since it is the only one with a distributed winding. The values of the eddy current loss, hysteresis loss, copper loss and efficiency of each machine, are shown in Table 3.
3.3. FaultTolorant Operation Performance
Reliability is a vital characteristic of machines used for EV applications. One can improve the operation reliability by adopting the multiphase than the traditional threephase. In order to verify the faulttolerant operation performance for the proposed sixphase machines, the openphase fault case and shortcircuit fault case are simulated and discussed.
Figure 11 shows the steady torque of the proposed machines with Aphase open fault, and Aphase and Dphase both open faults. Also, the normal operation steady torque under motoring mode is given for comparison. It can be seen that the IPM type and SPM type have a large reduction of the average torque, when they meet the openphase fault, while the PMV type has the smallest influence by the openphase fault.
In addition, there may also be the shortcircuit faults during the EV operation. Actually, it’s considered as the most severe fault over all the winding faults in electrical machines [35], since the current value of the fault turns will become much higher than the healthy turns and there will be excessive heat generated in the fault phase [36]. In fact, this kind of fault is mostly caused by winding insulation humidity, overvoltage, overheating, etc. Figure 12 shows the electric model of an Aphase shortcircuit fault. When a shortcircuit fault occurs to Aphase, a resistor ${r}_{f}$ which represents the fault connection in the model and ${r}_{f}$→0. Once the fault occurs, a circuit through ${r}_{f}$ is created. The system equation is (14). This equation shows that during a shortcircuit fault, the healthy windings the sixphase PM machines can remain working [37]. Rows 1 to 6 show the healthy part and the influence of the fault part. The seventh row shows the fault circuit current model which is influenced by the winding turns included in the fault.
$$\begin{array}{l}\left(\begin{array}{c}{v}_{a}\\ {v}_{b}\\ {v}_{c}\\ {v}_{d}\\ {v}_{e}\\ {v}_{f}\\ 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}{r}_{s}& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& {r}_{af}\\ 0& {r}_{s}& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& {r}_{s}& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& {r}_{s}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& {r}_{s}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& {r}_{s}& 0\\ {r}_{af}& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& {r}_{af}+{r}_{f}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}{i}_{a}\\ {i}_{b}\\ {i}_{c}\\ {i}_{d}\\ {i}_{e}\\ {i}_{f}\\ {i}_{f}\prime \end{array}\right)+\\ \left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}{L}_{ah}& {M}_{ahb}& {M}_{ahc}& {M}_{ahd}& {M}_{ahe}& {M}_{ahf}& {M}_{ahaf}\\ {M}_{ahb}& {L}_{b}& {M}_{bc}& {M}_{bd}& {M}_{be}& {M}_{bf}& {M}_{baf}\\ {M}_{ahc}& {M}_{bc}& {L}_{c}& {M}_{cd}& {M}_{ce}& {M}_{cf}& {M}_{caf}\\ {M}_{ahd}& {M}_{bd}& {M}_{cd}& {L}_{d}& {M}_{de}& {M}_{df}& {M}_{daf}\\ {M}_{ahe}& {M}_{be}& {M}_{ce}& {M}_{de}& {L}_{e}& {M}_{ef}& {M}_{eaf}\\ {M}_{ahf}& {M}_{bf}& {M}_{cf}& {M}_{df}& {M}_{ef}& {L}_{f}& {M}_{faf}\\ {M}_{ahaf}& {M}_{baf}& {M}_{caf}& {M}_{daf}& {M}_{eaf}& {M}_{faf}& {L}_{af}\end{array}\right)\frac{d}{dt}\left(\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{c}{i}_{a}\\ {i}_{b}\\ {i}_{c}\\ {i}_{d}\\ {i}_{e}\\ {i}_{f}\\ {i}_{f}\prime \end{array}\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}{e}_{a}\\ {e}_{b}\\ {e}_{c}\\ {e}_{d}\\ {e}_{e}\\ {e}_{f}\\ {e}_{af}\end{array}\right)\end{array}$$
Figure 13 shows that the steady torque of 50% shortcircuit of Aphase occurs to the proposed machines for both the sixphase winding and threephase winding configurations. It can be seen that the torque ripple of the threephase winding is larger than sixphase winding configuration in normal operation. When a shortcircuit fault occurs, the torque ripple of a threephase winding is much larger than that of a sixphase as well. Moreover, under sixphase winding conditions, the torque of all the proposed machines are still periodical and the average torque only shows a little decrease. This indicates that the four proposed machines have good fault tolerance ability when shortcircuit faults occur.
It should be noted that for practical normal conditions, the results generally won’t be changed. This is well proven by most researchers with the help of FEA design [38,39,40]. However, for practical harsh conditions, the results may be different to some degree. As we know, machines suffer from many unexpected problems in harsh conditions, such as high temperature, large overcurrent, iron breakage issues, PM fixing problems, etc. In general, the salient machine should have a high robustness for intermittent operation [41,42,43], and the PMFS type meets this condition by having a relatively high robustness for harsh conditions.
4. Conclusions
This paper presents four sixphase outerrotor PM machines with different working principles, which include the IPM type, SPM type, PMFS type and PMV type. The working principle of each machine has been elaborated and discussed. By analyzing the operating performance of the four machines, it is shown that the PMV type has the best operating performance and fault tolerance ability among the four machines, so it is more suitable for electric vehicle applications. The key parameters of working performance are summarized in Table 4. Moreover, the evaluation of the four types of machines proposed is summarized in Table 5.
Thus, based on the above analysis and discussion, we can conclude the following from the comparison:
 The PMV type can produce the largest steady torque under the low rotation speed.
 Based on the operation principle, the PMV type can be used for inwheel directdrive EV applications.
 The arrangement of PMs for the PMFS type can protect the PMs from rotational stresses, which is also suitable for EV applications.
 The SPM type should be carefully considered for EV applications, since it has the high cogging torque and the lowest related efficiency.
 The outerrotor topology can be directly connected with the tire rim of the EV.
 The multiphase machine has a good fault tolerance ability, which is suitable for EV applications.
Author Contributions
The work presented in this paper is the output of the research projects undertaken by C.L. In specific, Y.Y. and C.L. developed the topic, designed the system, analyzed the results, and wrote the paper. C.H.T.L. helped to provide the guidance and review the paper.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by a grant (Project No.: ECF Project 92/2016) from Energy and Conservation Fund of HKSAR, China. Also, it was supported a grant (Project No.: ITS/353/16) from ITF Tier3 of Innovation and Technology Commission (ITC) of HKSAR, China.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
 UnNoor, F.; Padmanaban, S.; MihetPopa, L.; Mollah, M.N.; Hossain, E. A comprehensive study of key electric vehicle (EV) components, technologies, challenges, impacts, and future direction of development. Energies 2017, 10, 1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 Chau, K.T.; Chan, C.C.; Liu, C. Overview of PermanentMagnet Brushless Drives for Electric and Hybrid Electric Vehicles. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2008, 55, 2246–2257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 De Santiago, J.; Bernhoff, H.; Ekergård, B.; Eriksson, S.; Ferhatovic, S.; Waters, R.; Leijon, M. Electrical Motor Drivelines in Commercial AllElectric Vehicles: A Review. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2012, 61, 475–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 Lulhe, A.M.; Date, T.N. A technology review paper for drives used in electrical vehicle (EV) & hybrid electrical vehicles (HEV). In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Control, Instrumentation, Communication and Computational Technologies (ICCICCT), Kumaracoil, Tamilnadu, 18–19 December 2015; pp. 632–636. [Google Scholar]
 Lee, C.H.T.; Chau, K.T.; Liu, C. Design and Analysis of an ElectronicGeared Magnetless Machine for Electric Vehicles. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2016, 63, 6705–6714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 Jenal, M.; Sulaiman, E.; Kumar, R. Effects of rotor pole number in outer rotor permanent magnet flux switching machine for light weight electric vehicle. In Proceedings of the 4th IET Clean Energy and Technology Conference (CEAT 2016), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 14–15 November 2016; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
 Rahim, N.A.; Ping, H.W.; Tadjuddin, M. Design of an InWheel Axial Flux Brushless DC Motor for Electric Vehicle. In Proceedings of the 2006 International Forum on Strategic Technology, Ulsan, Korea, 18–20 October 2006; pp. 16–19. [Google Scholar]
 Reddy, G.V.V.; Reddy, B.P.; Sivakumar, K. Design constraints of multiphase induction motor drives for electric vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2017 National Power Electronics Conference (NPEC), Pune, India, 18–20 December 2017; pp. 234–239. [Google Scholar]
 Ulu, C.; Korman, O.; Kömürgöz, G. Electromagnetic and thermal analysis/design of an induction motor for electric vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2017 8th International Conference on Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (ICMAE), Jeju, Korea, 21–24 November 2017; pp. 6–10. [Google Scholar]
 Gu, W.; Zhu, X.; Quan, L.; Du, Y. Design and optimization of permanent magnet brushless machines for electric vehicle applications. Energies 2015, 8, 13996–14008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 Zhang, L.; Fan, Y.; Li, C.; Liu, C. Design and Analysis of a New SixPhase FaultTolerant HybridExcitation Motor for Electric Vehicles. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2015, 51, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
 Mbadiwe, E.I.; Sulaiman, E.; Khan, F. Consideration of permanent magnet flux switching motor in segmented rotor for inwheel vehicle propulsion. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Computing, Mathematics and Engineering Technologies (iCoMET), Sukkur, Pakistan, 3–4 March 2018; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
 Tang, Y.; Ilhan, E.; Paulides, J.J.H.; Lomonova, E.A. Design considerations of fluxswitching machines with permanent magnet or DC excitation. In Proceedings of the 2013 15th European Conference on Power Electronics and Applications (EPE), Lille, France, 3–5 September 2013; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
 Oner, Y.; Zhu, Z.Q.; Chu, W. Comparative Study of Vernier and Interior PM Machines for Automotive Application. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference (VPPC), Hangzhou, China, 17–20 October 2016; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
 Gudivada, R.; Bodnapu, K.K.; Vavillapalli, K.R. Virtual characterization of Interior Permanent Magnet (IPM) motor for EV traction applications. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Transportation Electrification Conference (ITECIndia), Pune, India, 13–15 December 2017; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
 Shu, Z.; Zhu, X.; Quan, L.; Du, Y.; Liu, C. Electromagnetic performance evaluation of an outerrotor fluxswitching permanent magnet motor based on electricalthermal twoway coupling method. Energies 2017, 10, 677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 AbdelKhalik, A.S.; Ahmed, S.; Massoud, A. A new permanentmagnet vernier machine using a single layer winding layout for electric vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 23rd International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (ISIE), Istanbul, Turkey, 1–4 June 2014; pp. 703–708. [Google Scholar]
 Tong, C.; Wu, F.; Zheng, P.; Sui, Y.; Cheng, L. Analysis and design of a faulttolerant sixphase permanentmagnet synchronous machine for electric vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2014 17th International Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems (ICEMS), Hangzhou, China, 22–25 October 2014; pp. 1629–1632. [Google Scholar]
 Huang, J.; Kang, M.; Yang, J.Q.; Jiang, H.B.; Liu, D. Multiphase machine theory and its applications. In Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems, Wuhan, China, 17–20 October 2008; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
 Zhao, J.; Zheng, Y.; Zhu, C.; Liu, X.; Li, B. A Novel ModularStator OuterRotor FluxSwitching PermanentMagnet Motor. Energies 2017, 10, 937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 Wang, A.; Jia, Y.; Soong, W.L. Comparison of Five Topologies for an Interior PermanentMagnet Machine for a Hybrid Electric Vehicle. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2011, 47, 3606–3609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 Zhang, X.; Ji, J.; Zheng, J.; Zhu, X. Improvement of Reluctance Torque in FaultTolerant PermanentMagnet Machines with FractionalSlot ConcentratedWindings. IEEE Trans. Appl. Superconduct. 2018, 28, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 Fan, Y.; Chen, S.; Tan, C.; Cheng, M. Design and investigation of a new outerrotor IPM motor for EV and HEV inwheel propulsion. In Proceedings of the 2016 19th International Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems (ICEMS), Chiba, Japan, 17 March 2016; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
 Yu, J.; Liu, C. Design of a doublestator hybrid flux switching permanent magnet machine for directdrive robotics. In Proceedings of the 2017 20th International Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems (ICEMS), Sydney, Australia, 11–14 August 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
 Chen, J.T.; Zhu, Z.Q.; Thomas, A.S.; Howe, D. Optimal combination of stator and rotor pole numbers in fluxswitching PM brushless AC machines. In Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems, Wuhan, China, 17–20 October 2008; pp. 2905–2910. [Google Scholar]
 Atallah, K.; Howe, D. A novel highperformance magnetic gear. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2001, 37, 2844–2846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 Shan, Z.; Liu, C.; Lee, C.H.T.; Chen, W.; Yu, F. Design and Comparison of DirectDrive StatorPM Machines for Electric Power Generation. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference (VPPC), Hangzhou, China, 17–20 October 2016; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
 Saeed, M.S.R.; Mohamed, E.E.M.; Ali, A.I.M. Parallel PartitionedRotor Switched flux PM machine for light hybrid/electric vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Innovative Trends in Computer Engineering (ITCE), Aswan, Egypt, 19–21 February 2018; pp. 380–385. [Google Scholar]
 Zhu, Z.Q.; Howe, D. Influence of design parameters on cogging torque in permanent magnet machines. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2000, 15, 407–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 Li, Z.; Chen, J.H.; Zhang, C.; Liu, L.; Wang, X. Cogging torque reduction in externalrotor permanent magnet torque motor based on different shape of magnet. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Cybernetics and Intelligent Systems (CIS) and IEEE Conference on Robotics, Automation and Mechatronics (RAM), Ningbo, China, 19–21 November 2017; pp. 304–309. [Google Scholar]
 Liu, Y.; Yin, J.; Gong, B.; Yang, G. Comparative analysis of cogging torque reduction methods of variable flux reluctance machines for electric vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2017 20th International Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems (ICEMS), Sydney, Australia, 11–14 August 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
 Setiabudy, R.; Rahardjo, A. Cogging torque reduction by modifying stator teeth and permanent magnet shape on a surface mounted PMSG. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Seminar on Intelligent Technology and Its Applications (ISITIA), Surabaya, Indonesia, 28–29 August 2017; pp. 227–232. [Google Scholar]
 Lee, D.H.; Jeong, C.L.; Hur, J. Analysis of cogging torque and torque ripple according to unevenly magnetized permanent magnets pattern in PMSM. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE), Cincinnati, OH, USA, 1–5 October 2017; pp. 2433–2438. [Google Scholar]
 Ma, G.; Li, G.; Zhou, R.; Guo, X.; Ju, L.; Xie, F. Effect of stator and rotor notches on cogging torque of permanent magnet synchronous motor. In Proceedings of the 2017 20th International Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems (ICEMS), Sydney, Australia, 11–14 August 2017; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
 Wu, F.; Zheng, P.; Jahns, T.M. Analytical Modeling of Interturn Short Circuit for Multiphase FaultTolerant PM Machines with Fractional Slot Concentrated Windings. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2017, 53, 1994–2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 Zhang, S.; Habetler, T.G. A transient model of interior permanent magnet machines under stator winding interturn short circuit faults. In Proceedings of the IECON 2017–43rd Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, Beijing, China, 5–8 November 2017; pp. 1765–1770. [Google Scholar]
 Kim, K.H.; Choi, D.U.; Gu, B.G.; Jung, I.S. Fault model and performance evaluation of an inverterfed permanent magnet synchronous motor under winding shorted turn and inverter switch open. IET Electr. Power Appl. 2010, 4, 214–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 Zhang, Y.; Chau, K.T.; Jiang, J.Z.; Zhang, D.; Liu, C. A finite element–analytical method for electromagnetic field analysis of electric machines with free rotation. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2006, 42, 3392–3394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 Liu, C.; Chau, K.T.; Zhong, J.; Li, W.; Li, F. Quantitative Comparison of DoubleStator Permanent Magnet Vernier Machines With and Without HTS Bulks. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2012, 22, 5202405. [Google Scholar]
 Liu, C.; Chau, K.T.; Li, W. Loss analysis of permanent magnet hybrid brushless machines with and without HTS field windings. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2012, 22, 1077–1080. [Google Scholar]
 Liu, C. Emerging electric machines and drives—An overview. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 Chen, M.; Chau, K.T.; Li, W.; Liu, C. Development of Nonrareearth Magnetic Gears for Electric Vehicles. J. Asian Electr. Veh. 2012, 10, 1607–1613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 Liu, C.; Luo, Y. Overview of advanced control strategies for electric machines. Chin. J. Electr. Eng. 2017, 3, 53–61. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1.
Proposed sixphase outerrotor machine topologies: (a) IPM type; (b) SPM type; (c) PMFS type; (d) PMV type.
Figure 2.
Working principle of PMFS type at four typical positions: (a) Positon 1; (b) Position 2; (c) Position 3; (d) Position 4.
Figure 3.
Magnetic flux distribution of proposed sixphase outerrotor PM machines: (a) IPM type; (b) SPM type; (c) PMFS type; (d) PMV type.
Figure 4.
Airgap fluxdensity of proposed sixphase outerrotor PM machines: (a) IPM type; (b) SPM type; (c) PMFS type; (d) PMV type.
Figure 5.
Noload fluxlinkage of proposed sixphase outerrotor PM machines: (a) IPM type; (b) SPM type; (c) PMFS type; (d) PMV type.
Figure 7.
Noload EMF of proposed sixphase outerrotor PM machines: (a) IPM type; (b) SPM type; (c) PMFS type; (d) PMV type.
Figure 9.
Torquespeed characteristic of proposed sixphase outerrotor machines: (a) IPM type; (b) SPM type; (c) PMFS type; (d) PMV type.
Figure 10.
Cogging torque of proposed sixphase outerrotor PM machines: (a) IPM type; (b) SPM type; (c) PMFS type; (d) PMV type.
Figure 11.
Torque at openphase fault of proposed sixphase outerrotor PM machines: (a) IPM type; (b) SPM type; (c) PMFS type; (d) PMV type.
Figure 13.
Steady torque of proposed outerrotor PM machines of both sixphase and threephase occur to shortcircuit condition: (a) IPM type; (b) SPM type; (c) PMFS type; (d) PMV type.
Machine Type  Advantages  Disadvantages 

IPM 


SPM  
PMFSM 


PMVM 


Items  IPM  SPM  PMFSM  PMVM 

Outer rotor diameter  220 mm  220 mm  220 mm  220 mm 
Stator diameter  179 mm  179 mm  197 mm  169 mm 
Air gap  0.5 mm  0.5 mm  0.5 mm  0.5 mm 
Stack length  100 mm  100 mm  100 mm  100 mm 
PM volume  406 cm^{3}  406 cm^{3}  406 cm^{3}  406 cm^{3} 
PM thickness  5 mm  5 mm  5 mm  5 mm 
Stator slots  24  24  12  18 
Rotor polepairs  10  20  22  17 
Item  IPM  SPM  PMFS  PMV 

Eddy current loss  874 W  1763 W  1291 W  424 W 
Hysteresis loss  140 W  151 W  147 W  225 W 
Copper loss  163 W  283 W  178 W  197 W 
Other loss  200 W  200 W  200 W  200 W 
Overall power  21,047 W  11,461 W  13,686 W  13,678 W 
Efficiency  93.45%  79.09%  86.73%  92.89% 
Items  IPM  SPM  PMFS  PMV 

Torque ripple  15.52%  40.25%  3.83%  11.88% 
Torque density  24.71 kN·m/m³  23.98 kN·m/m³  29.83 kN·m/m³  52.58 kN·m/m³ 
Efficiency  93.45%  79.09%  86.73%  92.89% 
Power  21,047 W  11,461 W  13,686 W  13,678 W 
Base speed  2000 r/min  1000 r/min  1000 r/min  600 r/min 
Items  IPM  SPM  PMFS  PMV 

Efficency  high  moderate  moderate  high 
Torque density  moderate  moderate  moderate  high 
Thermal dissipaition  moderate  moderate  good  moderate 
Cost effectivelyness  moderate  low  moderate  high 
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).