Abstract
This paper proposes some consequent-pole (CP) modular permanent magnet (PM) machines with different flux gap (FG) widths and slot/pole number combinations. The corresponding inset modular PM machines having the same magnet volume are also presented for comparison. It has been demonstrated that the output torques of the consequent pole modular machines are always higher than those of the inset modular machines regardless of FG widths and slot/pole number combinations. Other electromagnetic performances such as back-EMF, cogging torque, and iron losses etc. are calculated by 2D FEA software and compared as well. The advantages and disadvantages of consequent and inset modular PM machines are summarised here.
Highlights
Permanent magnet (PM) machines are employed in a wide range of industrial applications due to their inherent advantages such as high torque density and high efficiency [1]
The inset permanent magnet (PM) machines and the CP PM machines investigated here have the same volume of PM material, and the PM pole-arcs of the inset modular PM machines with different slot/pole number combinations can be determined according to the optimal PM pole-arcs of the CP PM machines
It is worth noting that the peak-to-peak cogging torques of the CP modular PM machines become smaller than those of the inset modular PM machines regardless of the slot/pole number combinations when the modular PM machines have relatively large flux gap (FG) (e.g. >2.5 mm)
Summary
Permanent magnet (PM) machines are employed in a wide range of industrial applications due to their inherent advantages such as high torque density and high efficiency [1]. Several other new modular stator designs by applying flux barriers (or flux gaps here) for IPM machines are presented in [17,18,19] Such modular stator structures can help to effectively reduce the lower order space harmonics and their associated core losses. The electromagnetic performances such as back-EMF, cogging torque, on-load torque, iron losses etc. The electromagnetic performances such as back-EMF, cogging torque, on-load torque, iron losses etc. for different slot/pole number combinations are investigated and compared
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
