Comparative Study of Dual PM Vernier Machines
by
Huan Qu
1, 
Zi Qiang Zhu
1,*, 
Toru Matsuura
2,
Dusan Ivanovic
2,
Takashi Kato
2,
Kensuke Sasaki
2,
Jim Greenough
2,
Bob Bateman
2,
David A. Stone
1,
Martin P. Foster
1 and
Javier Riedemann
1 1
Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Sheffield, Mappin Street, Sheffield S1 3JD, UK
2
Research & Advanced Engineering, Nissan Technical Centre Europe, Cranfield Technology Park, Cranfield MK43 0DB, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12(1), 12; https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj12010012
Submission received: 30 December 2020
/
Revised: 8 January 2021
/
Accepted: 8 January 2021
/
Published: 12 January 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Novel Permanent Magnet Machines and Drives for Electric Vehicles)
Abstract
:In this paper, two types of dual permanent magnet (PM) machines, i.e., stator slot dual-PM (SSDPM) machine and split-tooth dual-PM (STDPM) machine, are investigated and compared. Both machines have consequent pole structure with Halbach array PMs. Their difference lies in the position of stator PM. The SSDPM machine has Halbach array PMs in the stator slots, while the STDPM machine has PMs between the split teeth. Torque characteristics, i.e., average torques and torque ripples, of different slot/pole number combinations of the two machines are compared. The 24 stator slots/20 rotor slots/4 armature pole pair (24S20R4Pa) SSDPM machine with distributed windings and the 24 stator slots/10 rotor slots/4 armature pole pair (12S20R4Pa) STDPM machine with concentrated windings are compared under both open-circuit and on-load conditions. The results show that the SSDPM machine is more competitive by delivering higher torque density and higher power density.
1. Introduction
Recently, flux modulation (FM) machines have been widely investigated due to their high torque density [1,2,3,4,5]. They can be a strong competitor for interior permanent magnet (IPM) machines.
Research shows that different FM machines, i.e., flux-switching permanent magnet (PM) (FSPM) machines, flux reversal PM (FRPM) machines, doubly salient PM (DSPM) machines, vernier PM (VPM) machines, magnetically geared machines, etc., share the same operation principle, i.e., magnetic gearing effect or flux modulation effect [6,7,8,9]. The FM machines can also be categorified by PM positions and stator/rotor numbers: stator PM FM machines that have PMs in the stator [10,11,12,13,14], rotor PM FM machines that have PMs in the rotor [15,16], dual-PM FM machines that have PMs in both the rotor and stator [5,17,18,19,20,21,22], dual stator/single rotor FM machines that have two stators and one single rotor [4,23,24,25,26,27,28], dual rotor/single stator FM machines that have two rotors and one stator [1,2,3,29], triple rotor/dual stator FM machines that have three rotors and two stators [30], etc.
Stator PM FM machines include FSPM machines, FRPM machines, and DSPM machines [10,11,12,13,14]. FSPM machines have better flux-focusing effect than the other two types of machines. Stator PM machines have easier heat management if a forced liquid cooling is employed. This means that the electric loading can be further increased to improve the torque density. Rotor PM FM machines mainly refer to VPM machines, which can produce high torque at low speed, albeit with poor power factor [15,16].
To further enhance the torque density, dual stator/single rotor [4,23,24,25,26,27,28], dual rotor/single stator [1,2,3,29], and multi stator/multi rotor [30] PM machines are proposed and developed, albeit with complex structures. Dual-PM machines can also help to increase the torque density significantly due to torque contribution by both stator PM and rotor PM [5,17,18,19,20,21,22].
In this paper, two types of dual-PM machines, i.e., stator slot dual-PM (SSDPM) machine and split-tooth dual-PM (STDPM) machine, together with consequent pole rotors, are investigated and compared. On one hand, they can deliver very high torque. More importantly, since there is only one airgap, they have much simpler structures than dual-stator/dual-rotor machines. The working principle, slot/pole number combination, together with comparison of two dual-PM machines, will be discussed. Figure 1 shows the SSDPM machine with 24 stator slots/20 rotor slots/4 armature pole pair (24S20R4Pa) and split-tooth dual-PM (STDPM) machine with (12S20R4Pa).
2. Machine Topologies and Working Principle
2.1. Machine Topology
In [5], the dual-PM machine employs radially magnetized PMs in both the rotor slots and the stator slots. Article [20] improves the dual-PM machine by replacing the radially magnetized stator PMs with Halbach PMs. In this paper, to further enhance the torque density, dual Halbach PMs are employed in the SSDPM machine, as shown in Figure 1a. Both the rotor PM and stator PM are Halbach PM arrays.
The STDPM machines also employ Halbach PM array in the rotor slots, but with radially magnetized PMs between the split teeth [17].
2.2. Working Principle
For the dual-PM machines, the torque can be attributed to two parts: rotor PM and stator PM. The 12S11R1Pa SSDPM machine and 12S23R1Pa STDPM machine are taken as examples to explain the machine decomposition, as shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. The key design dimensions are shown in Figure 4. The design details are given in Table 1 and Table 2.
On one hand, when the stator PMs are set as air, they become vernier PM machines and split-tooth vernier PM machines, and the slot/pole number combinations comply with the Equation (1) [31] and Equation (2) [32], respectively.
in which Ns is the stator slot number, Nr is the rotor slot number, Pa is the armature pole pair number, n is the split tooth number which is larger than 1.
Nr = Ns ± Pa,
Nr = nNs ± Pa,
On the other hand, when the rotor PMs are set as air, they become flux reversal PM machines, and the slot/pole number combinations also comply with the above-mentioned equations. Hence, the slot/pole number combinations of dual-PM machines comply with (1) and (2). To calculate the torque decomposition of dual-PM machines, linear material is employed, and the relative permeability is set as 50, considering the overload capability.
Before discussing detailed results, it should be mentioned that the torque, power, iron loss, power factor, back EMF, etc., are all normalized due to confidentiality. As shown in Figure 5, for the 12S11R1Pa SSDPM machine, the rotor PM machine and the stator PM machine produce 0.515 p.u. and 0.335 p.u. torque, respectively. The dual-PM machine delivers 1.7% lower torque than the sum of the rotor PM machine and the stator PM machine. This is mainly due to that the flux leakage increases when the rotor PM and stator PM are working together. Similarly, for the 12S23R1Pa STDPM machine, the dual-PM machine produces 1.5% lower torque than the sum of the corresponding rotor PM machine and stator PM machine, as shown in Figure 6.
3. Influence of Rotor Slot Number
As shown in (1) and (2), when the stator slot number and armature pole pair number are fixed, the rotor slot number can be chosen as Ns + Pa and Ns − Pa for SSDPM machine, and nNs + Pa and nNs − Pa for STDPM machine. To compare the effect of rotor slot number selection, 12S1Pa SSDPM machines with 11R and 13R, 12S1Pa STDPM machine with 23R and 25R are investigated, respectively, as shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8.
For fair comparison, all the investigated machine topologies are globally optimized for maximum torque under the same stator outer diameter, stack length, copper loss (120 °C) (copper loss is set according to the thermal restriction). All the optimizations are based on Genetic Algorithm (GA), and 30 individuals in each population with 35 generations have been employed. Table 1 and Table 3 list the key design dimensions. In addition, the end winding length is calculated by the following equation:
in which y is the slot pitch, r3 is the stator outer radius, yk is the stator yoke width, sh is slot height.
lend = yπ2(r3 − yk − 0.5sh)/Ns,
Figure 9 and Figure 10 show that when the rotor slot number is selected lower than the stator slot number, higher torque can be produced. More importantly, higher power factor, lower iron loss, and higher efficiency can also be achieved with lower rotor slot number, as listed in Table 4, due to lower electrical frequency.
4. Influence of Different Slot/Pole Number Combinations
Apart from the influence of stator yoke width, stator/rotor PM width, rotor diameter, stator/rotor PM height, for SSDPM machines with different slot/pole number combinations, the torques are mainly affected by pole ratio (pole ratio is an important index for flux modulation machines, and can be defined as Nr/Pa.) [33], flux leakage [33], end winding length, and winding factor. All the machine topologies are globally optimized for maximum torque under the aforementioned conditions, and the design details are all listed in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3.
Figure 11 shows the influence of stator slot number and armature pole pair number on the average torques of SSDPM machines. The peak torques of 12S, 18S, 24S, 30S, and 36S appear when the armature pole pair numbers are 2, 3, 2, 2, and 4, respectively. On one hand, these combinations have shorter end winding length compared with those having 1 armature pole pair number. On the other hand, they have higher pole ratio than those having larger armature pole pair number. The 12S7R5Pa SSDPM machine exhibits higher torque than the 12S8R4Pa one due to higher winding factor.
It should be noted that the maximum torque values also increase with the increase of stator slot number, as shown in Figure 12. Dual-PM machines with stator slot number larger than 36 are not calculated because:
- (a)
- The increase of electrical frequency significantly affects other indexes, e.g., increasing the losses, decreasing the power factor, increasing the carrier frequency. All of these will deteriorate the overall performances. Figure 12 shows that the torque/electrical frequency decreases with the increase of stator slot number.
- (b)
- The maximum torque increase rate decreases. When increasing the stator slot number from 12 to 18, the maximum torque increases by 0.176 p.u. However, when the stator slot number increases from 30 to 36, the maximum torque increases by 0.08 p.u. Hence, it is not cost-effective to further increase the stator slot number.
The torque ripples of SSDPM machines are shown in Figure 13. The 12S8R4Pa, 24S16R8Pa, and 30S20R10Pa exhibit significantly higher torque ripple than other combinations. This is due to the fact that these combinations have the smallest least common multiple (LCM) of the rotor slot number and the stator slot number.
Torques and torque ripples of STDPM machines are shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15, respectively. Apart from the aforementioned influence factors, split-tooth number will increase the pole ratio, and thus affect the torque characteristics.
When the stator slot number is 6, increasing the split tooth number will increase the torque. However, when the stator slot number is 12 and the armature pole number is 1, increasing the split tooth number does not increase the torque, due to the increased flux leakage, as shown in Figure 16.
5. Comparison of Stator Slot Dual-PM Machine and Split Tooth Dual-PM Machine
In this section, the 24S20R4Pa SSDPM machine with distributed windings and the 12S20R4Pa STDPM machine with concentrated windings, as shown in Figure 17, are compared. Employing split-tooth mainly helps to ease manufacturing and decrease end winding length. These two combinations are chosen for comparison since they have the same armature pole pair number, rotor tooth number, pole ratio, stator outer diameter, and stack length. The design details of these two machines are listed in Table 1 and Table 2.
Figure 18 compares the torque waveforms of the two machines under the same copper loss (120 °C). The SSDPM machine can deliver 48% higher torque with 63.2% lower torque ripple compared with the STDPM machine.
In actual operation, both DC voltage and phase current are limited. Here, space vector pulse width modulation (SVPWM) control strategy is employed. The turn number per slot is adjusted as 10. The parallel branch is adjusted to 2 and 1, for the SSDPM and STDPM machines, respectively.
Figure 19 shows the flux density distributions of the two compared dual-PM machines at open circuit condition and load condition (Id = 0 and Iq = Imax). For the SSDPM and STDPM machines, the maximum flux density appears in the tooth and the split teeth, respectively, no matter what the condition is. In addition, slightly higher flux density can be observed in the yoke of the SSDPM machine at load condition. Despite this, the SSDPM exhibits better overload capability, which will be shown later. Hence, for both machines, the iron core material is fully utilized.
Figure 20 compares the back EMFs of the two dual-PM machines. The SSDPM machine exhibits 40.4% higher fundamental harmonic, albeit with much higher 5th harmonic. The STDPM machine has obvious 2nd harmonic due to unbalanced PM magnetomotive force (MMF).
Figure 21 shows the cogging torques of the two compared machines. The cogging torque of the STDPM machine is 3.6 times larger than the SSDPM machine, which explains the higher torque ripple in the STDPM machine. For the SSDPM and STDPM machines, the fluctuation frequency in one electrical period is 6 and 3, respectively. The higher amplitude and lower fluctuation frequency of the cogging torque of the STDPM machine are mainly due to its smaller least common multiple (LCM) of the stator slots and the rotor poles.
Figure 22 shows that the SSDPM machine produces 46% higher torque than the STDPM machine, together with 51.7% lower torque ripple. This is due to the fact that the rotor PM and stator PM in the SSDPM machine produce 26% and 122% higher torque than their counterparts, as shown in Figure 23. It can also be concluded that the stator PM machine with Halbach array PMs in the stator slots can deliver much higher torque than that with PMs between split teeth.
Figure 24 shows that the SSDPM machine has better overload capability than the STDPM machine. The overload capability can be indicated by inductance. The former has smaller inductance than the latter. This is due to the fact that the inductance is inversely proportional to the length of the flux path and the SSDPM has a longer flux path, as shown in Figure 19a,b. The torques/powers versus speed are calculated according to [33], and shown in Figure 25. The two dual-PM machines have similar corner speed. The SSDPM machine can produce 50.3% higher power than its counterpart.
Table 5 compares the electromagnetic performances of the dual-PM machines. The SSDPM machine has higher torque, higher torque per PM volume, higher power factor, and higher efficiency. Hence, the SSDPM machine is preferred.
6. Conclusions
Two types of dual-PM machines, i.e., SSDPM machine and STDPM machine, are analyzed in terms of working principle, slot/pole number combinations, along with the comparison of electromagnetic performances. The results show that:
- (a)
- Dual-PM machines can be decomposed into stator PM machines and rotor PM machines that share the same slot/pole number combinations.
- (b)
- There exists one optimum armature pole pair number for maximum torque.
- (c)
- The SSDPM machines exhibits better electromagnetic performances than the STDPM machines.
Author Contributions
The work presented in this paper is the output of an Innovate UK research project, HiTEV, jointly undertaken by The University of Sheffield and Nissan Technical Centre Europe. Z.Q.Z., D.A.S., M.P.F., and B.B. are the project investigators, while H.Q., J.R., T.M., D.I., T.K., K.S., and J.G., are the project team members, all contributed to the FEA calculation, analyses, discussions and the paper writing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by Innovate UK, grant number 105386.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to confidentiality.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Nomenclature
| µr | Relative permeability of PM material |
| Br | Remanence of PM material |
| g | Airgap length |
| h1 | Stator PM height |
| h2 | Rotor PM height |
| ht | Tooth tip height |
| lstk | Stack length |
| r1 | Rotor outer radius |
| r3 | Stator outer radius |
| tw | Stator tooth width |
| Sslot | Slot area |
| w1 | Stator PM width |
| w1hal | Width of radially magnetized PM in stator Halbach PM array |
| w2 | Rotor PM width |
| w2hal | Width of radially magnetized PM in rotor Halbach PM array |
| yk | Stator yoke width |
| Imax | Amplitude of maximum current |
| Id | D-axis current |
| Iq | Q-axis current |
References
- Atallah, K.; Rens, J.; Mezani, S.; Howe, D. A Novel “Pseudo” Direct-Drive Brushless Permanent Magnet Machine. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2008, 44, 4349–4352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooke, G.; Atallah, K. “Pseudo” Direct Drive Electrical Machines with Alternative Winding Configurations. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2017, 53, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Penzkofer, A.; Atallah, K. Analytical Modeling and Optimization of Pseudo-Direct Drive Permanent Magnet Machines for Large Wind Turbines. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2015, 51, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, D.; Qu, R.; Lipo, T.A. High-Power-Factor Vernier Permanent-Magnet Machines. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2014, 50, 3664–3674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ishizaki, A.; Tanaka, T.; Takasaki, K.; Nishikata, S. Theory and optimum design of PM Vernier motor. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Electrical Machines and Drives, Durham, UK, 11–13 September 1995; pp. 208–212. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, Z.Z.; Zhu, Z.Q. Analysis of Air-Gap Field Modulation and Magnetic Gearing Effects in Switched Flux Permanent Magnet Machines. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2015, 51, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qu, R.; Li, D.; Wang, J. Relationship between magnetic gears and vernier machines. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems, Beijing, China, 20–23 August 2011; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, Z.Z.; Zhu, Z.Q. Analysis of Magnetic Gearing Effect in Partitioned Stator Switched Flux PM Machines. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2016, 31, 1239–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Fu, W.; Weng, X. A Concept of General Flux-Modulated Electric Machines Based on a Unified Theory and Its Application to Developing a Novel Doubly-Fed Dual-Stator Motor. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2017, 64, 9914–9923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, M.; Chau, K.; Chan, C. Static characteristics of a new doubly salient permanent magnet motor. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2001, 16, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, J.T.; Zhu, Z.Q. Winding Configurations and Optimal Stator and Rotor Pole Combination of Flux-Switching PM Brushless AC Machines. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2010, 25, 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.T.; Zhu, Z.Q.; Iwasaki, S.; Deodhar, R. A novel E-core flux-switching PM brushless AC machine. In Proceedings of the IEEE Energy Conversion Congress & Expo, Atlanta, GA, USA, 12–16 September 2010; pp. 3811–3818. [Google Scholar]
- Deodhar, R.; Andersson, S.B.; Boldea, I.; Miller, T. The flux-reversal machine: A new brushless doubly-salient permanent-magnet machine. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 1997, 33, 925–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.; Nasar, S.A.; Boldea, I. Three-phase flux reversal machine (FRM). IEEE Proc. Electr. Power Appl. 1999, 146, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Chau, K.T.; Jiang, J.Z.; Liu, C.; Li, W. A New Efficient Permanent-Magnet Vernier Machine for Wind Power Generation. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2010, 46, 1475–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, B.; Lipo, T.A. Operation and design principles of a PM vernier motor. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2014, 50, 3656–3663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jang, D.K.; Chang, J.H. Design of a Vernier Machine with PM on Both Sides of Rotor and Stator. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2014, 50, 877–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Niu, S.; Yang, L. Design Optimization and Comparative Study of Novel Dual-PM Excited Machines. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2017, 64, 9924–9933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Fu, W.N.; Guo, X.; Li, Z.; Fang, R. A dual permanent magnet machine for high-torque low-speed applications. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems (ICEMS), Sydney, Australia, 11–14 August 2017; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, K.; Li, D.; Qu, R.; Gao, Y. A Novel Permanent Magnet Vernier Machine with Halbach Array Magnets in Stator Slot Opening. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2017, 53, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, Y.; Li, D.; Qu, R.; Ding, H. Synthesis of Novel Flux Modulation Machine with Permanent Magnets on Both Stator and Rotor. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Electric Machines & Drives Conference (IEMDC), San Diego, CA, USA, 12–15 May 2019; pp. 678–685. [Google Scholar]
- Jia, S.; Qu, R.; Li, D.; Li, J. A High Torque Density Vernier PM Machines for Hybrid Electric Vehicle Applications. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference (VPPC), Hangzhou, China, 17–20 October 2016; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, Z.Q.; Hua, H.; Wu, D.; Shi, J.T.; Wu, Z.Z. Comparative Study of Partitioned Stator Machines with Different PM Excitation Stators. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2016, 52, 199–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Z.Z.; Zhu, Z.Q. Partitioned Stator Flux Reversal Machine with Consequent-Pole PM Stator. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2015, 30, 1472–1482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Z.Z.; Zhu, Z.Q.; Shi, J.T. Novel Doubly Salient Permanent Magnet Machines with Partitioned Stator and Iron Pieces Rotor. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2015, 51, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, D.J.; Zhu, Z.Q. Novel Partitioned Stator Switched Flux Permanent Magnet Machines. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2014, 51, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, F.; Zhou, L.; Wang, J.; Xiao, Y.; Zhou, J.; Shentu, L. A Novel Dual-Stator Permanent Magnet Vernier Machine with Magnets in Rotor and Both Stators. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems (ICEMS), Jeju, Korea, 7–10 October 2018; pp. 197–201. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Q.; Niu, S. Design optimization and comparative analysis of dual-stator flux modulation machines. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, Beijing, China, 5–8 November 2017; pp. 3719–3724. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, H.; Fang, S.; Jahns, T.M.; Yang, H.; Lin, H. Design and Analysis of a Dual-Rotor Field Modulation Machine with Triple PM Excitation. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE), Portland, OR, USA, 23–27 September 2018; pp. 3302–3309. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, R.; Li, J.; Qu, R.; Li, D. A Novel Triple-Rotor Axial-Flux Vernier Permanent Magnet Machine. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2016, 26, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, L.; Qu, R.; Li, D.; Gao, Y. Influence of Pole Ratio and Winding Pole Numbers on Performance and Optimal Design Parameters of Surface Permanent-Magnet Vernier Machines. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2015, 51, 3707–3715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, S.L.; Niu, S.; Fu, W.N. Design and Comparison of Vernier Permanent Magnet Machines. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2011, 47, 3280–3283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chu, W.Q.; Zhu, Z.Q.; Zhang, J.; Liu, X.; Stone, D.A.; Foster, M.P. Investigation on Operational Envelops and Efficiency Maps of Electrically Excited Machines for Electrical Vehicle Applications. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2015, 51, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Machine topologies of dual permanent magnet (PM) machines. (a) 24S20R4Pa stator slot dual-PM (SSDPM) machine; (b) 12S20R4Pa split-tooth dual-PM (STDPM) machine.
Figure 1.
Machine topologies of dual permanent magnet (PM) machines. (a) 24S20R4Pa stator slot dual-PM (SSDPM) machine; (b) 12S20R4Pa split-tooth dual-PM (STDPM) machine.
Figure 2.
Machine decomposition of 12S11R1Pa SSDPM machine.
Figure 3.
Machine decomposition of 12S23R1Pa STDPM machine.
Figure 4.
Key design dimensions of dual-PM machines. (a) SSDPM machine; (b) STDPM machine.
Figure 5.
Torque decomposition of 12S11R1Pa SSDPM machine when relative permeability is 50.
Figure 6.
Torque decomposition of 12S23R1Pa STDPM machine when relative permeability is 50.
Figure 7.
Twelve-stator-slot SSDPM machines with a different rotor slot number. (a) 12S11R1Pa; (b) 12S13R1Pa.
Figure 7.
Twelve-stator-slot SSDPM machines with a different rotor slot number. (a) 12S11R1Pa; (b) 12S13R1Pa.
Figure 8.
Twelve-stator-slot STDPM machines with a different rotor slot number. (a) 12S23R1Pa; (b) 12S25R1Pa.
Figure 8.
Twelve-stator-slot STDPM machines with a different rotor slot number. (a) 12S23R1Pa; (b) 12S25R1Pa.
Figure 9.
Torque waveforms of 12S1Pa SSDPM machines.
Figure 10.
Torque waveforms of 12S1Pa STDPM machines.
Figure 11.
Torques versus armature pole pair number and stator slot number when rotor slot number is selected as Ns − Pa.
Figure 11.
Torques versus armature pole pair number and stator slot number when rotor slot number is selected as Ns − Pa.
Figure 12.
Maximum torque and torque/electrical frequency versus stator slot number at 600 rpm.
Figure 13.
Torque ripples versus armature pole pair number and stator slot number when rotor slot number is selected as Ns − Pa.
Figure 13.
Torque ripples versus armature pole pair number and stator slot number when rotor slot number is selected as Ns − Pa.
Figure 14.
Torques versus stator slot number, armature pole pair number, and split-tooth number when rotor slot number is selected as nNs − Pa.
Figure 14.
Torques versus stator slot number, armature pole pair number, and split-tooth number when rotor slot number is selected as nNs − Pa.
Figure 15.
Torque ripples versus stator slot number, armature pole pair number, and split-tooth number when rotor slot number is selected as nNs − Pa.
Figure 15.
Torque ripples versus stator slot number, armature pole pair number, and split-tooth number when rotor slot number is selected as nNs − Pa.
Figure 16.
Flux line distributions of 12S1Pa STDPM machines with a different split tooth number at open-circuit condition. (a) 2 split teeth; (b) 3 split teeth; (c) 4 split teeth.
Figure 16.
Flux line distributions of 12S1Pa STDPM machines with a different split tooth number at open-circuit condition. (a) 2 split teeth; (b) 3 split teeth; (c) 4 split teeth.
Figure 17.
Topologies of two dual-PM machines. (a) 24S20R4Pa SSDPM machine; (b) 12S20R4Pa STDPM machine.
Figure 17.
Topologies of two dual-PM machines. (a) 24S20R4Pa SSDPM machine; (b) 12S20R4Pa STDPM machine.
Figure 18.
Comparison of torque waveforms of two dual-PM machines under the same copper loss (120 °C).
Figure 18.
Comparison of torque waveforms of two dual-PM machines under the same copper loss (120 °C).
Figure 19.
Flux density distributions of two dual-PM machines. (a) 24S20R4Pa SSDPM machine at open circuit condition; (b) 12S20R4Pa STDPM machine at open circuit condition; (c) 24S20R4Pa SSDPM machine at load condition (Id = 0 and Iq = Imax); (d) 12S20R4Pa STDPM machine at load condition (Id = 0 and Iq = Imax).
Figure 19.
Flux density distributions of two dual-PM machines. (a) 24S20R4Pa SSDPM machine at open circuit condition; (b) 12S20R4Pa STDPM machine at open circuit condition; (c) 24S20R4Pa SSDPM machine at load condition (Id = 0 and Iq = Imax); (d) 12S20R4Pa STDPM machine at load condition (Id = 0 and Iq = Imax).
Figure 20.
Back EMFs of two dual-PM machines at 600 rpm. (a) Waveforms; (b) spectra.
Figure 21.
Cogging torques of two dual-PM machines.
Figure 22.
Torque waveforms of two dual-PM machines when I = Imax and turn number per phase is adjusted to satisfy inverter requirements.
Figure 22.
Torque waveforms of two dual-PM machines when I = Imax and turn number per phase is adjusted to satisfy inverter requirements.
Figure 23.
Torque decomposition of two dual-PM machines using frozen permeability method.
Figure 24.
Torques versus current of two dual-PM machines.
Figure 25.
Torques/powers versus speed of two dual-PM machines.
Table 1.
Parameters of optimized SSDPM machines with different slot/pole number combinations.
| Symbol | 12S11R | 12S13R | 12S10R | 12S8R | 12S7R | 18S17R | 18S16R | 18S15R | 18S14R | 18S13R | 24S23R | 24S22R | 24S20R | 24S19R | 24S16R | 24S14R |
| 1Pa | 1Pa | 2Pa | 4Pa | 5Pa | 1Pa | 2Pa | 3Pa | 4Pa | 5Pa | 1Pa | 2Pa | 4Pa | 5Pa | 8Pa | 10Pa | |
| r3 (mm) | 100 | |||||||||||||||
| lstk (mm) | 140 | |||||||||||||||
| g (mm) | 0.5 | |||||||||||||||
| Br, µr | 1.3 T, 1.05 | |||||||||||||||
| tw (mm) | 11.7 | 8.5 | 13.5 | 16 | 18.2 | 5.75 | 9.2 | 10.3 | 10.3 | 10.6 | 5.0 | 6.5 | 6.95 | 8.4 | 8.6 | 9.6 |
| w2 (deg) | 10.4 | 17.6 | 26.2 | 30.3 | 35.9 | 13.1 | 15.4 | 16.2 | 18.0 | 18.3 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 10.5 | 10.9 | 12.5 | 17.5 |
| yk (mm) | 25.1 | 22.3 | 14.5 | 9.3 | 9.4 | 25.8 | 13.2 | 9.9 | 6.3 | 6.7 | 24.6 | 15.4 | 9.6 | 8.1 | 5.5 | 5.9 |
| r1 (mm) | 60.9 | 64.3 | 67.8 | 70 | 65.7 | 62.1 | 69.8 | 73.8 | 69.0 | 72.6 | 64.8 | 71.5 | 73.0 | 74.2 | 75.9 | 68.1 |
| h1 (mm) | 5.3 | 5.2 | 4.7 | 4.2 | 4.9 | 5.3 | 4.3 | 5.3 | 4.7 | 4.4 | 5.1 | 4.9 | 4.1 | 4.5 | 5.1 | 4.2 |
| h2 (mm) | 7.4 | 7.3 | 7.1 | 6.7 | 7.3 | 7.2 | 7.0 | 6.8 | 7.4 | 7.3 | 7.3 | 7.1 | 7.1 | 6.2 | 7.2 | 7.4 |
| Sslot (mm2) | 208.0 | 232.3 | 349.9 | 436.8 | 470.6 | 120.0 | 231.4 | 202.8 | 370.6 | 303.5 | 70.4 | 112.7 | 192.5 | 177.8 | 187.7 | 260.9 |
| w1hal | 0.63 | 0.58 | 0.60 | 0.66 | 0.4 | 0.41 | 0.5 | 0.64 | 0.58 | 0.52 | 0.39 | 0.41 | 0.58 | 0.53 | 0.4 | 0.51 |
| w2hal | 0.64 | 0.62 | 0.75 | 0.72 | 0.78 | 0.59 | 0.71 | 0.65 | 0.66 | 0.64 | 0.60 | 0.58 | 0.64 | 0.7 | 0.74 | 0.69 |
| Symbol | 30S29R | 30S28R | 30S26R | 30S25R | 30S23R | 30S22R | 30S20R | 36S35R | 36S34R | 36S33R | 36S32R | 36S31R | 36S30R | 36S29R | 36S28R | 36S26R |
| 1Pa | 2Pa | 4Pa | 5Pa | 7Pa | 8Pa | 10Pa | 1Pa | 2Pa | 3Pa | 4Pa | 5Pa | 6Pa | 7Pa | 8Pa | 10Pa | |
| tw (mm) | 5.2 | 5.2 | 7.3 | 6.9 | 7.3 | 7.9 | 8.1 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.1 | 6.7 | 5.2 | 6.8 | 6.2 | 7.3 |
| w2 (deg) | 8.6 | 8.9 | 9.5 | 10.8 | 10.7 | 11.4 | 12.6 | 7.5 | 7.3 | 7.7 | 7.7 | 7.7 | 7.6 | 7.7 | 9.0 | 9.1 |
| yk (mm) | 24.8 | 14.6 | 8.6 | 7.7 | 6.3 | 5.1 | 4.3 | 23.5 | 15.0 | 9.9 | 9.7 | 7.3 | 6.2 | 6.8 | 5.5 | 4.8 |
| r1 (mm) | 64.9 | 74.2 | 76.3 | 77.9 | 73.9 | 74.2 | 71.4 | 67.5 | 67.5 | 77.8 | 75.3 | 78.1 | 76.9 | 78.7 | 77.4 | 78.5 |
| h1 (mm) | 5.4 | 4.0 | 4.9 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 3.7 | 3.8 | 4.4 | 5.5 | 4.7 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 4.5 | 3.9 |
| h2 (mm) | 6.9 | 6.9 | 6.4 | 7.4 | 7.0 | 6.5 | 7.1 | 6.4 | 6.6 | 7.1 | 6.5 | 7.4 | 6.0 | 7.4 | 6.7 | 7.1 |
| Sslot (mm2) | 44.4 | 80.3 | 105.0 | 114.9 | 165.9 | 168.2 | 197.8 | 42.0 | 122.7 | 64.1 | 96.1 | 90.7 | 129.6 | 89.8 | 111.8 | 101.4 |
| w1hal | 0.50 | 0.42 | 0.56 | 0.43 | 0.41 | 0.39 | 0.79 | 0.31 | 0.34 | 0.49 | 0.33 | 0.54 | 0.41 | 0.58 | 0.44 | 0.63 |
| w2hal | 0.38 | 0.57 | 0.50 | 0.66 | 0.55 | 0.68 | 0.54 | 0.41 | 0.48 | 0.39 | 0.40 | 0.55 | 0.53 | 0.50 | 0.45 | 0.49 |
Table 2.
Parameters of optimized 6-slot STDPM machines with a different split-tooth number and armature pole pair number.
Table 2.
Parameters of optimized 6-slot STDPM machines with a different split-tooth number and armature pole pair number.
| Symbol | 2 Split-Tooth | 3 Split-Tooth | 4 Split-Tooth | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6S11R1Pa | 6S10R2Pa | 6S8R4Pa | 6S17R1Pa | 6S16R2Pa | 6S14R4Pa | 6S23R1Pa | 6S22R2Pa | 6S20R4Pa | |
| tw (mm) | 34.5 | 34.9 | 34.1 | 17.7 | 37.8 | 15.5 | 26.9 | 34.0 | 28.8 |
| w1 (deg) | 19.7 | 19.1 | 17.3 | 12.3 | 12.0 | 11.4 | 9.2 | 7.8 | 8.9 |
| yk (mm) | 22.4 | 21.0 | 13.8 | 25.4 | 16.1 | 9.5 | 25.8 | 14.9 | 11.2 |
| ht (mm) | 7.9 | 7.0 | 7.3 | 7.2 | 7.1 | 6.1 | 6.2 | 8 | 5.7 |
| so (deg) | 19.7 | 19.1 | 17.3 | 12.3 | 12 | 11.4 | 9.2 | 7.8 | 8.9 |
| r1 (mm) | 61.5 | 56.7 | 61.8 | 59.9 | 62.6 | 75.3 | 60.4 | 64.8 | 73.8 |
| h1 (mm) | 4.2 | 4.0 | 4.8 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.7 | 4.4 | 4.8 | 4.8 |
| h2 (mm) | 7.7 | 8.0 | 7.1 | 7.5 | 7.1 | 7.9 | 6.6 | 7.8 | 7.9 |
| Sslot (mm2) | 330 | 586.9 | 585.1 | 401.2 | 578.7 | 637.4 | 333.5 | 575.9 | 521.8 |
| w2 (deg) | 22.3 | 26.3 | 33.3 | 16.3 | 16.3 | 19.0 | 12.9 | 11.8 | 13.0 |
| w2hal | 0.85 | 0.80 | 0.87 | 0.57 | 0.53 | 0.56 | 0.45 | 0.59 | 0.58 |
Table 3.
Parameters of optimized 12-slot STDPM machines with a different split-tooth number and armature pole pair number.
Table 3.
Parameters of optimized 12-slot STDPM machines with a different split-tooth number and armature pole pair number.
| Symbol | 2 Split-Tooth | 3 Split-Tooth | 4 Split-Tooth | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12S23R1Pa | 12S25R1Pa | 12S22R2Pa | 12S20R4Pa | 12S19R5Pa | 12S35R1Pa | 12S34R2Pa | 12S32R4Pa | 12S31R5Pa | 12S47R1Pa | 12S46R2Pa | 12S44R4Pa | 12S43R5Pa | |
| tw (mm) | 14.6 | 19.9 | 18.6 | 22.2 | 23.0 | 6.7 | 21.7 | 22.1 | 22.4 | 11.7 | 16.1 | 21.8 | 15.8 |
| w1 (deg) | 8.6 | 10.4 | 8.9 | 8.3 | 9.4 | 6.4 | 6.6 | 6.2 | 6.0 | 4.6 | 4.1 | 4.2 | 3.8 |
| yk (mm) | 24.3 | 22.6 | 16.1 | 12.4 | 12.0 | 24.7 | 17.4 | 10.2 | 11.1 | 24.4 | 18.9 | 12.2 | 8.6 |
| ht (mm) | 7.6 | 6.5 | 7.5 | 8.1 | 6.8 | 6.5 | 7.6 | 6.9 | 5.9 | 6.1 | 5.8 | 6.6 | 5.4 |
| so (deg) | 8.6 | 10.4 | 8.9 | 8.3 | 9.4 | 6.4 | 6.6 | 6.2 | 6.0 | 4.6 | 4.1 | 4.2 | 3.8 |
| r1 (mm) | 59.3 | 61.2 | 64.8 | 66.9 | 69.1 | 61.4 | 65.5 | 71.7 | 68.7 | 61.0 | 64.5 | 73.1 | 73.4 |
| h1 (mm) | 3.8 | 4.9 | 4.6 | 4.5 | 4.1 | 4.6 | 4.2 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 4.9 | 2.60 | 3.6 | 3.2 |
| h2 (mm) | 7.7 | 6.3 | 7.6 | 5.6 | 7.6 | 5.8 | 7.0 | 6.7 | 8.0 | 3.7 | 5.9 | 6.9 | 7.6 |
| Sslot (mm2) | 190 | 168.2 | 248.2 | 246.2 | 231.3 | 210.9 | 173 | 235.6 | 281.8 | 205.8 | 242.3 | 167.8 | 351.4 |
| w2 (deg) | 12.6 | 9.9 | 12.9 | 13.4 | 12.6 | 7.5 | 6.9 | 7.6 | 7.8 | 6.1 | 5.5 | 5.8 | 6.3 |
| w2hal | 0.47 | 0.58 | 0.52 | 0.47 | 0.54 | 0.41 | 0.57 | 0.69 | 0.58 | 0.49 | 0.49 | 0.47 | 0.42 |
Table 4.
Comparison of electromagnetic performances with a different rotor slot number selection under 600 rpm and the same copper loss.
Table 4.
Comparison of electromagnetic performances with a different rotor slot number selection under 600 rpm and the same copper loss.
| Normalized Torque (p.u.) | Normalized Power Factor (p.u.) | Normalized Iron Loss (p.u.) | Efficiency | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12S11R1Pa | 0.625 | 0.547 | 0.36 | 83.0% |
| SSDPM | ||||
| 12S13R1Pa | 0.597 | 0.493 | 0.38 | 82.3% |
| SSDPM | ||||
| 12S23R1Pa | 0.550 | 0.293 | 0.89 | 80.3% |
| STDPM | ||||
| 12S25R1Pa | 0.477 | 0.267 | 0.95 | 77.8% |
| STDPM |
Table 5.
Comparison of electromagnetic performances of two dual-PM machines under 600 rpm and the same copper loss.
Table 5.
Comparison of electromagnetic performances of two dual-PM machines under 600 rpm and the same copper loss.
| 24S20R4Pa SSDPM | 12S20R4Pa STDPM | |
|---|---|---|
| Normalized torque (p.u.) | 0.725 | 0.497 |
| Torque per PM volume (p.u./cm3) | 1.34 | 1.28 |
| Normalized power factor (p.u.) | 0.93 | 0.69 |
| D-axis inductance (µH) | 56.9 | 61.1 |
| Q-axis inductance (µH) | 62.59 | 61.4 |
| Normalized iron loss (p.u.) | 0.33 | 0.24 |
| Efficiency | 93.5% | 89.7% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 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/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Qu, H.; Zhu, Z.Q.; Matsuura, T.; Ivanovic, D.; Kato, T.; Sasaki, K.; Greenough, J.; Bateman, B.; Stone, D.A.; Foster, M.P.; et al. Comparative Study of Dual PM Vernier Machines. World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj12010012
AMA Style
Qu H, Zhu ZQ, Matsuura T, Ivanovic D, Kato T, Sasaki K, Greenough J, Bateman B, Stone DA, Foster MP, et al. Comparative Study of Dual PM Vernier Machines. World Electric Vehicle Journal. 2021; 12(1):12. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj12010012
Chicago/Turabian StyleQu, Huan, Zi Qiang Zhu, Toru Matsuura, Dusan Ivanovic, Takashi Kato, Kensuke Sasaki, Jim Greenough, Bob Bateman, David A. Stone, Martin P. Foster, and et al. 2021. "Comparative Study of Dual PM Vernier Machines" World Electric Vehicle Journal 12, no. 1: 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj12010012
APA StyleQu, H., Zhu, Z. Q., Matsuura, T., Ivanovic, D., Kato, T., Sasaki, K., Greenough, J., Bateman, B., Stone, D. A., Foster, M. P., & Riedemann, J. (2021). Comparative Study of Dual PM Vernier Machines. World Electric Vehicle Journal, 12(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj12010012
