4.4 Article

Comparison Study of Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machines With Consequent Pole and HUPM Rotor

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS
Volume 58, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TMAG.2022.3141905

Keywords

Rotors; Magnetic flux; Magnetic separation; Magnetic cores; Topology; Magnetic levitation; Harmonic analysis; Analytical approach; consequent pole permanent magnet (PM) rotor; harmonic utilization PM (HUPM) rotor; PM machine; PM utilization factor; rare earth material reduction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The consequent permanent magnet (CPM) pole rotor and harmonic utilization permanent magnet (HUPM) rotor are promising candidates for electric machines that require less rare earth materials. This article focuses on the analysis and comparison of these rotor types in terms of air-gap flux density characteristics, magnet utilization, and torque density. The results show that the HUPM rotor has advantages in terms of torque density and magnet utilization.
The consequent permanent magnet (CPM) pole rotor and harmonic utilization permanent magnet (HUPM) rotor are promising candidates for electric machines with less rare earth materials. Therefore, this article focuses on the analysis and comparison of these rotor types in terms of air-gap flux density characteristics, magnet utilization, and torque density. In the first part, an analytical approach is used to investigate the magneto motive force (MMF) distribution of the rotor and air-gap flux density characteristics. In the second part, finite-element methods (FEMs) are used to compare both rotor topologies with a conventional interior permanent magnet (PM) and spoke PM rotor. The results show that CPM and HUPM rotors can reduce the volume of PMs compared with the conventional configurations. However, with the HUPM rotor, a higher torque density and magnet utilization ratio can be achieved at the same time.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available