Electric Power Systems Research 156 (2018) 64–74

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electric Power Systems Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/epsr

Unbalanced distributed and balanced concentrated winding

comparison in servo motor applications
Erkan Mese a,∗ , Yusuf Yasa b , Baris T. Ertugrul c , Eyup Sincar c
a
Ege University, Department of Electrical and Electronics Eng., Izmir, Turkey
b
Yildiz Technical University, Electrical Engineering Department, Istanbul, Turkey
c
ASELSAN Inc., Ankara, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A comparison between unbalanced distributed winding and balanced concentrated winding is presented
Received 8 October 2015 in this paper. The application is a torque motor where low speed and high torque are main requirements.
Received in revised form 7 July 2017 Concentrated winding slot/pole combination is selected so that winding factor is maximum and as well as
Accepted 20 November 2017
it is equal to the winding factor of the unbalanced winding motor. Stator and rotor Magneto-Motive Force
Available online 6 December 2017
(MMF) functions are obtained for both motor types to model torque ripple components in the frequency
spectrum. Finite element analysis (FEA) and experimental results are presented to compare back EMF
Keywords:
waveforms, magnetic loading, torque constant and thermal performance of two motors.
Concentrated winding
Direct drive motor
Two designs have identical stator outer diameter (OD) and active axial length. The detailed comparison
Magnetic saturation shows that two motors have similar torque constant. The behavior of two motors under heavy load differs
MMF harmonics and concentrated winding design performs better. Thermal performance of the designs is also compared
Permanent magnet synchronous motor and it is observed that concentrated winding design has also less winding temperature rise.
Torque motor © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Torque constant
Unbalanced winding

1. Introduction This paper presents a comparison of a concentrated winding

Torque motors are direct drive low-speed servo machines, and
they are preferred when high torque density is a major require-
ment. Other requirements dictated by such direct drive servo
applications are usually low torque ripple, low cogging torque, low
inertia, and predictable torque constant under normal and heavy
load conditions. Designing a torque motor with low weight and
small volume in the face of these requirements is a major challenge.
Surface-mount permanent magnet motor with concentrated
winding offers a solution to reduce motor volume due to shorter
end turns. Lower copper losses due to shorter end winding, wider
constant power range, better fault tolerance are other advantages
cited in the literature [1,2]. On the other hand, the design of such a
machine should be handled more carefully since some side effects
such as higher torque ripple and higher radial force magnitude may
occur [3]. Root causes of these side effects are winding structure and
rotor/stator magnetic circuit structures.
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: erkan.mese@ege.edu.tr (E. Mese), yasa@yildiz.edu.tr (Y. Yasa),
bertugrul@aselsan.com.tr (B.T. Ertugrul), esincar@aselsan.com.tr (E. Sincar).
motor with an unbalanced winding one. The concentrated wind-
ing motor is a custom design motor for the application whereas
unbalanced winding motor is an off the shelf product and it is
currently being used in the application.The application details are
mentioned in Section 2. Some geometric data and winding details
of two motors are given in Section 3. Section 4 is the performance
comparison of two motors. Finally, thermal performances of the
motors are compared in Section 5.
2. Application
Stabilized turret platforms are commonly used in defense sys-
tems such as remote weapon stations, missile systems, main battle
tanks, etc. Those systems are designed to provide high accuracy and
reliability operation. The closed loop servo control of the system is
mainly achieved via electric motors, motor controllers, and feed-
back elements. Utilizing the brushless servo motors is considered as
a contemporary approach for the actuation subsystem due to their
highly accurate, reliable and maintenance-free characteristics. The
mechanical connection would be provided by mechanical trans-
mission elements such as pinion and ring gear, gearbox, lead screw,
belt & pulley, etc. But, those transmission elements induce some

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2017.11.013
0378-7796/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 E. Mese et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 156 (2018) 64–74
Fig 1. An example of a stabilized turret platform: remote weapon station system —
®
MUHAFIZ (Photo Courtesy of ASELSAN Inc.).
problems based on the backlash, reduced efficiency, low rigidity
and mechanical complexity. Direct drive brushless servo motors
eliminate those problems with the help of the direct torque and
speed transfer to the mechanical system. So, direct drive servo
motors come into prominence when high dynamic performance
and high position accuracy is required. In addition to that, direct
drive brushless servo motors provide high torque/volume ratio, and
they are integrated into the mechanical platform without mount-
ing elements. As a result making use of direct drive brushless
servo motors imply low weight and low volume turret system.
One example of turret system is shown in Fig. 1. In this paper,
design considerations of a direct drive servo motor which is used
in electro-optical director application.
3. Basic design choices of two motors
3.1. Concentrated winding motor with 36 slots/32 poles
combination
Concentrated double layer winding is the design choice for the
motor. Shorter end turns and lower overall volume are two major
driving motivations for the selection. 36 slots and 32 pole combi-
nation is selected to maximize winding factor [1]. Pole number is
selected as high as possible to increase torque density. Since the
application requires low-speed operation of the motor, high pole
number does not constitute a harmful effect on the core loss and
efficiency.
3.2. Distributed winding motor with 39 slots and 12 poles
This motor is currently being used in the application. It was
designed with double layer distributed winding. 39 slots and 12
poles for three phase motor yields unbalanced winding.
36/32 motor is designed specifically for the application whereas
39/12 motor is an off the shelf product and adapted for the applica-
tion. The design of 36/32 motor is driven by a geometric envelope
of 39/12 motor which is confined by stator outer diameter (OD),
inner rotor diameter (ID) and axial length. Other internal geomet-
ric parameters are free variables, and they are optimized during the
design to meet torque output while obeying certain limits of slot
current density and magnetic flux density. Because of the inter-
mittent operation of the application, 8 A/mm2 of current density is
observed. Magnetic flux density limit is set to 1.7 T on average by
considering saturation limit of selected magnetic material.
Table 1 shows the summary of some key points of two motors.
As mentioned outer envelopes of two motors are identical whereas
65
Table 1
Some geometric and electrical data of 39/12 and 36/32 motors.
39/12 36/32
Average phase resistance (m) 539.5 357.9
Line-to-line inductance (mH) 5.4 1.734
Winding factor 0.947 0.945
Stator outer diameter (mm) 180 180
Rotor outer diameter (mm) 113 135.5
Stack length (mm) 30 30
Stacking factor (kstk ) 0.97 0.97
Skewing factor (kskew ) 1 0.88
36/32 motor has almost 20% larger rotor diameter than 39/12 motor
has. This case implicates more than 40% higher torque capabil-
ity for the same electric and thermal loading this is well known
from the T = KD2 L sizing equation. However, 40% torque increase
would not be possible because larger rotor diameter reduces stator
winding slot area for the fixed stator OD. Hence the slot current
density of 36/32 motor would be higher than slot current den-
sity of 39/12 motor because of the smaller winding area. On the
other hand, due to the longer end winding, distributed wound
39/12 motor has higher phase resistance value than concentrated
wound 36/32 motor as given in Table 1. Stator winding area versus
current density versus phase resistance relation is investigated
during thermal analysis for two motors. Analysis indicates that
concentrated-winding 36/32 motor has some advantages for ther-
mal loading of the machine.
4. Comparing two winding structures
Before starting performance comparison of two motors, it is
worth to give their characteristic features as cited in the literature.
The concentrated winding is well known for sub-harmonics in its
MMF distribution [4]. Although not commonly used, unbalanced
distributed winding also suffers from the low order magnetomo-
tive force (MMF) harmonic [5,6]. The unbalanced winding is a result
of improper slot/pole combination whose major advantage is lower
cogging torque. Sub-harmonics of MMF do not have any contribu-
tion to useful torque production. They may be responsible for many
performance deteriorating features such as torque ripple, higher
radial force, and additional core loss. As far as MMF harmonics
are concerned, balanced concentrated and unbalanced distributed
windings resemble each other.
Before starting a comparison of two motors, it would be helpful
to determine the sub-synchronous and super-synchronous com-
ponents in MMF. In the MMF harmonic content, a number of pole
pair is the main space harmonic order. Harmonic orders smaller
than main space harmonic order are called sub-synchronous
components. Similarly, harmonic orders greater than main space
harmonic order are called super-synchronous components.
4.1. Stator MMF comparison
Stator MMF distribution of the machine with 39/12 slot/pole
combination is given in Fig. 2. The results are given for 14.5 Arms
phase current, and 16 turns per coil winding design. Fig. 3, on the
other hand, shows the MMF distribution of the machine with 36/32
slot/pole combination. This machine has the same effective (RMS)
phase current. But its number of turn per coil is fixed at 18 dur-
ing the design. Fig. 4 shows the MMF harmonic contents of 39/12
and 36/32 machines. It should be noted that Fig. 2 is only valid for
symmetrical phase current. In this application, the current regula-
tion algorithm of the motor driver assures the current symmetry.
Hence, balanced current is considered in the analysis.
As seen from harmonic contents of two motors, sub and super
harmonics occur in two motors. Fundamental components of 39/12
66 E. Mese et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 156 (2018) 64–74

Fig. 2. Stator MMF distribution for 39/12 machine.

Fig. 3. Stator MMF distribution for 36/32 machine.

motor have quite substantial compared to other components. On
the other hand, 36/32 motor has one sub-synchronous, and one
super-synchronous component and they are comparable in size
with the main components as seen from Fig. 4. As studied in the
literature [7,8], sub-synchronous harmonics in space moves faster
than a fundamental one which can be given mathematically,
w MMF components on the losses becomes a secondary issue.
wne =
n
where w is stator phase current’s fundamental frequency, wne is
the electrical rotation speed of the nth order space harmonic. For
a 16 pole pair machine, n = 16 is the main space harmonic and all
the harmonic orders with less than 16 are considered to be sub-
synchronous. 1st order (fundamental) harmonic is 16 times faster
than the main component. By using this fact, we can easily conclude
that machine with sub-synchronous space harmonics would have
a higher rotor core and magnet losses because of relatively higher
frequency [9,10]. Furthermore, sub-synchronous space harmonics
have a relatively greater wavelength, and this causes deeper pene-
tration of the flux to the core and further increase in losses [8]. On
the other hand, intended applications for the torque motors usu-
ally have very low operating speed. Hence, core and magnet losses
remain low, and the deteriorating effect of the sub-synchronous
(1)
4.2. Rotor MMF comparison
4.2.1. Calculating rotor MMF magnitude by magnetic equivalent
circuit
This section explains the calculation of rotor MMF waveform
and its magnitude using basic magnetic circuit representation. The
method is very well described in the literature [11,12]. Fig. 5 shows
the model based on main flux path of one rotor pole pair. Leakage
 E. Mese et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 156 (2018) 64–74 67

Fig. 4. Stator MMF harmonic content of 36/32 (blue) and 39/12 (red) machines. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to
the web version of this article.)

Fig. 5. Rotor magnetic equivalent circuit for one pole pair in PMSM.
Where Rm : Magnet reluctance, Rg : Airgap reluctance, Ørem1 : North pole remenance, flux, Ørem2 : South pole remenance flux, Ørem1 = Ørem2 = Br .A, Br : Magnet remenance flux
density, A: Magnet radial flux surface area.

Fig. 6. Rotor MMF waveform. Fig. 7. Rotor MMF waveforms of 39/12 and 36/32motors in one electric cycle.

flux is ignored in the model and permeability of the core is assumed By using Eq. (2), r1 and r2 values can be calculated for each motor.
to be infinite. As seen in the equation, magnet thickness (lm ), air gap length (lg ),
By solving magnetic circuit; magnet relative permeability (r ) and magnet remanent flux den-
  sity (Br ) effect the result. Table 2 summarizes the values of these
Rm Rg lg /o parameters for 36/32 and 39/12 motors.
r1 = −r2 = Br .A. = Br (2)
Rm + Rg 1+
lg
r39/12
o lm
= 0.8 (3)
r36/32
where
r1 and r2 are ampere turns provided by magnets to the magnetic Two motors have the same magnet embrace ratio of 0.81 in one
circuit, pole pitch. This information and the peak magnet MMF values r1
 is magnetic permeability of the magnet and given by  = r o . and r2 given in Table 2 are used to plot approximate MMF wave-
Hence the waveform of the one rotor pole pair MMF will be as forms shown in Fig. 7. This study about rotor MMF indicates that
shown in Fig. 6. 36/32 motor has the ability to create higher rotor MMF as given by
68 E. Mese et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 156 (2018) 64–74

Table 2
Comparison of rotor design parameters and rotor MMF magnitude for two motor types.

Motor type Air gap length (lg ) Magnet thickness Magnet relative Magnet remanent flux r1 (A − t) r2 (A − t) Hm = −r/lm (kA/m) Bm (T)
(lm ) permeability (r ) density (Br )

36/32 1 mm 5 mm 1.1 1.235 T 802 −802 −160.4 1.0132

39/12 0.75 mm 10 mm 1.1 1.15 T 634 −634 −63.4 1.0624

net flux density can be interpreted as higher air gap flux density. If
two motors had the same stator slot and yoke dimensions, some-
one should have expected 5% more flux density in the core. This
may raise the concerns about saturation.
Measurements made for 39/12 motor’s stator yoke thickness
and stator tooth width show that they are smaller than the associ-
ated dimensions of the 36/32 motor. Having given this geometric
comparison, and by using the operating point summary given in
Table 2 and Fig. 8, someone could easily reach the conclusion that
the core of the 39/12 motor has the tendency to saturate even before
the armature reaction starts. With deep armature reaction under
heavy load conditions, saturation would become more severe. This
is validated by finite element analysis in the upcoming sections.

4.2.2. Rotor MMF harmonic content

FFT is applied to rotor MMF waveform to find its harmonic con-
tent. Fig. 9 shows the MMF harmonic of 39/12 and 36/32 machines.
As expected, fundamental harmonic order coincides with pole pair
number for each motor. These are also major torque-generating
Fig. 8. Magnet operating point in 36/32 and 39/12 motors.
components.

Eq. (3). For the geometric dimensions of two motors given in Table 2,
a simple 1-D calculation is performed to figure out the operating 4.3. Torque output comparison
point of the magnets. Calculated operating points of two motors
are shown in Fig. 8 where M1 (Hm1 , Bm1 ) and M2 (Hm2 , Bm2 ) are Stator and rotor MMF harmonic content can be used to calculate
the magnets operating points of balanced, concentrated winding two motors’ torque output by applying Lorentz Force Law as in Ref.
and unbalanced distributed winding motor, respectively. Although [13].
36/32 motor has higher magnet MMF magnitude effective in its
magnetic circuit, 39/12 motor has almost 5% higher magnet flux
density effective in its magnetic circuit. This is due to shorter air P o
T1 = kstk kskew rg lstk fs,1 fr,1 sin (d ) (4)
gap length and longer magnet length in 39/12 motor. Higher mag- 2 g

Fig. 9. Rotor MMF harmonic content of 36/32 (blue) and 39/12 (red) machines. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to
the web version of this article.
 E. Mese et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 156 (2018) 64–74 69

Fig. 10. Back EMF waveforms and harmonic contents of 39/12 (upper) and 36/32 (lower) motors.

P o

Tripple = −kstk kskew rg lstk  hfs,h fr,h sin ((h ± 1) ωe t ± d ) (5) ripple in torque although their spread in the spectrum is signif-
2 g
icantly different. On the other hand, average torque comparison
shows that 39/12 motor has approximately 6% higher output than
h = 6m ± 1
36/32 motor has.
m = 1, 2, 3, . . .

where
P: number of poles 5. Comparison of basic performance metrics
g: air gap length
rg : air gap radius 5.1. Back EMF harmonics
lstk : stack length
fs,h and fr,h : hth order stator and rotor MMF harmonics, respec- Back EMF data is an important metric for the performance. High
tively. h = 1 for the main component back EMF constant as V/(rad/s) is an indicator for high torque con-
kstk : stacking factor of laminations stant. Hence this may be interpreted as high torque density motor.
kskew : coefficient to account for the effect of skewing Measurements show that 39/12 motor has slightly higher back EMF
d : spatial angle between main stator and rotor harmonic. It is constant than 36/32 motor. Fig. 10 shows back emf waveforms and
taken as 90 electric degrees by assuming no flux weakening. harmonic contents for two designs at around 100 Hz electrical fre-
Based on the harmonic contents calculated in the preceding sub- quency. 36/32 design is skewed by 0.5 slot pitch whereas 39/12
sections and also by using Eqs. (4) and (5), Table 3 is prepared to design has no skewing. The effect of skewing on 36/32 design has
show the torque output of two motors. been quantified by comparing back emf waveforms of skewed and
Tripple is defined for the first four harmonic torque components non-skewed motors. The ratio of back emf peak values has been
as found to be 0.88. This number has been used as kskew in the torque
 calculations.
Tripple = T6 2 + T12 2 + T18 2 + T24 2 (6)
As far as back-EMF harmonics are concerned, concentrated
Table 3 shows two motors have different ripple components in winding has lower harmonic content. Fig. 10 shows back EMF har-
their torque spectrums. 39/12 motor’s overall torque ripple defined monic content of two motors. It should be noted here, there is a DC
by Eq. (6) is approximately 37% higher than 36/32 motor’s overall component (meaning zero order harmonic) in the back-EMF wave-
torque ripple. As a result, two motors have comparable cumulative form. The reason is measuring the waveform with non-calibrated
70 E. Mese et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 156 (2018) 64–74

Table 3
Average torque and torque ripple comparison of two motors for 14.5 RMS phase current.

Motor type T1 |T6 | |T12 | |T18 | |T24 | Tripple Tripple /T1

36/32 24.61 0.877 0.642 0.429 0.080 1.172 4.75%

39/12 26.17 0.054 1.602 0.12 0.087 1.610 6.15%

Where T1 is the average torque and T6 , T12 , T18 , T24 are the harmonic torque components.

Fig. 11. (a) Cogging torque variations of 36/32 (PMSM-1) and 39/12 (PMSM-2) motors at 400 rpm. (b) instantaneous torque variations of 36/32 (upper) and 39/12 (lower)
motors at 32 rpm.

digital oscilloscope. In the reality, generating DC component in
PMSM is not possible.
5.2. Cogging torque and torque ripple
39/12 slot/pole combination is wound by unbalanced winding
which can be considered as a disadvantage. On the other hand, it
offers very low cogging torque hence it is the only motivation to
be used in the application. 36/32 motor slot pole combination also
offers significantly low cogging torque. Fig. 11a shows the exper-
imental cogging torque comparison. Similar argument is valid for
the torque ripple comparison of two motors. Lower harmonic con-
tent in back EMF means lower torque ripple as cited by many
researchers [13–15]. From this point of view, we can conclude
concentrated winding design has lower torque ripple as well. This
statement has also been validated in the preceding subsection by
 E. Mese et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 156 (2018) 64–74 71

Fig. 14. Torque saturation curve of 39/12 slot/pole configuration.

Fig. 12. Loading test system of PMSM for torque constant measurement.

Table 4
Comparison of torque constant in concentrated and distributed winding motor.

(36/32) PMSM-1 39/12 (PMSM-2)

Kt (Nm/Aline-max ) 1.17 1.24

Fig. 15. Flux density map of 39/12 motor for Iq = 10 A current.

Fig. 13. Torque saturation curve of 36/32 slot/pole configuration.

an analytical model which is based on harmonic contents of two

motors. Fig. 11b shows torque ripple comparison obtained by finite
element analysis.

5.3. Torque constant and performance under heavy saturation

Two motors are compared for torque constant values. During the
test, the rotor position is aligned to d axis. After position alignment,
the shaft is locked then the motor is tested. By giving controlled
current to the q axis, torque is observed with torque transducer.
The test system is shown in Fig. 12. The torque–current relationship
for the magnetically linear case can be expressed with Eq. (8). For
magnetically nonlinear (saturated) case, current torque relation is
expressed as in Eq. (9).
T = Kt irms
100 − x
T = Kt ( )irms
100
Here, x is the percentage torque reduction due to magnetic sat-
uration. Kt represents the torque constant which is measured by
injecting small current through motor windings so that magnetic
saturation does not occur. Comparison of two motors’ Kt values is
given in Table 4.
For normal loading conditions, torque constant of 39/12 motor
is a bit higher than 36/32 motor’s torque constant as shown in
Figs. 13 and 14.
From Figs. 13 and 14, 36/32 design has higher torque constant
than 39/12 motor under heavy load conditions.This is an impor-
tant aspect in comparing two motors hence frequent heavy loading
Fig. 16. Flux density map of 36/32 motor for Iq = 10 A current.
situation may occur in torque motor applications. The underlying
(8)
reason for the performance difference could be armature reaction
and its effect on the magnetic saturation [16]. Finite element anal-
(9)
yses have been performed to compare magnetic loading of two
motors. Figs. 15 and 16 show flux density map for normal load-
ing conditions where both motors are excited with Iq = 10 A q axis
current.
As seen from flux density maps, 39/12 motor subjects heavy
saturation in the stator back iron (yoke) even for normal loading
conditions. Heavy loading conditions aggravate the saturation. This
is shown in Figs. 17 and 18 for 40 A load where flux density maps of
two motors are given for 39/12 and 36/32 motors; respectively we
can conclude that 39/12 motor has already been designed with high
magnetic loading, and its torque constant gives away its linearity
as electric loading increases with rising mechanical load.
72 E. Mese et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 156 (2018) 64–74

Fig. 17. Flux density map of 39/12 motor for Iq = 40 A current.

Fig. 19. Pictures of motors under investigation. (a) 39/12 distributed winding motor
(b) 36/32 concentrated winding motor.

motor with 36/32 slot/pole configuration has better thermal per-

Fig. 18. Flux density map of 36/32 motor for Iq = 40 A current.
Table 5
Comparison summary of concentrated and distributed winding motor.
formance than 39/12 distributed winding motor. The main cause of
that is obviously high phase resistance of 39/12 motor. The analy-
sis results also show that magnet temperature has 12 ◦ C difference
which has a significant impact on motor performance because
magnet flux density depends on the temperature that the typical
example is shown in Fig. 22. Table 5 summarizes these two PMSMs
performance parameters.

Attribute 39/12 PMSM 36/32 PMSM

Weight (kg) 5.88
Nominal torque constant (Nm/A peak) 1.24
Cogging (peak to peak) (Nm) 0.18
Ripple (peak to peak) (Nm) 1.61
Rated copper loss (at rated torque-26 Nm) (W) 357.8
Thermal max temperature (◦ C) 144.2
6. Thermal performance comparison
Thermal performance comparison is done by finite element
analysis. Identical electric loading is considered. Furthermore, two
motors have identical housing as it plays an important role in the
heat transfer path. Both motors are designed for natural cooled
application and comparison is performed for identical cooling con-
ditions. Fig. 19 shows the picture of two motors’ stators and rotors.
6.1. FEA for two winding sets
Thermal FEA is performed by using COMSOL software. For the
thermal performance comparison of two motor types, each motor
is loaded with rated torque. Since the designed motors are planned
to be used in low-speed high torque applications, copper losses
are more dominant which are given in Table 5. The corresponding
results are shown in Figs. 20 and 21. The analysis shows that the
7. Conclusion
3.99
1.17
This paper investigates the performance of two servo motors
0.16
1.17 having identical stator outer diameter and active axial length. Major
266.83 differences between two motors are slot pole combination and con-
103.2 sequently winding structure. A motor with 39 slots and 12 poles has
been wound with unbalanced distributed winding whereas another
motor with 36 slots and 32 poles has been wound with tooth con-
centrated winding. One dimensional analytical model is established
in obtaining MMF waveforms of the motors, and this simple model
gives an insight in comparison of various design aspects. Magnetic
loading of the motors is compared to the model. Furthermore, MMF
harmonic spectrums of two motors are used in predicting average
and ripple torque components.
As a result, the analyses have shown that 36/32 concentrated
winding and 39/12 distributed winding designs are comparable
regarding back EMF constant and torque constant under normal
loading conditions. However, the concentrated winding design is
quite effective in minimizing the cogging and the ripple of the
torque. Also, the torque constant drops much faster in 39/12 motor
structure under heavy loading conditions. The underlying reason
for this drop has been linked to magnetic saturation in the motor.
From the FEA analyses, under heavy loading, the stator teeth and
the stator back iron reach to excessively high magnetic field density
in 39/12 machine. Beside, copper losses are lower in concentrated
winding due to shorter end winding. This essentially means higher
 E. Mese et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 156 (2018) 64–74 73

Fig. 20. Steady-state thermal analysis results of 39/12 and 36/32 motor.

Fig. 21. Steady-state thermal results of (a) 39/12 and (b) 36/32 motors.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank ASELSAN Inc., Ankara, Turkey

for their financial support and granting permission to publish pho-
tographs and specifications of designed motors. Also, the authors
acknowledge MPPT LLC for technical support during development
and test stages.

References

[1] J. Cros, P. Viarouge, Synthesis of high performance PM machines with

Fig. 22. Typical temperature effects on magnet performance.
efficiency and lower temperature rise for the same load and duty
cycle. The thermally superior design would enable higher torque
output if higher phase current can be supplied by the inverter.
concentrated windings, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 17 (2) (2002) 248–253.
[2] A.M. El-Refaie, T.M. Jahns, D. Novotny, Analysis of surface PM machines with
fractional-slot concentrated windings, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 21 (1)
(2006) 34–43.
[3] N. Bianchi, M.D. Pré, G. Grezzani, S. Bolognani, Design considerations for
fractional-slot winding configurations of synchronous machines, IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl. 42 (July/August (4)) (2006) 997–1006.
[4] S. Bianchi, Magnetic loading of fractional-slot three phase PM motors with
nonoverlapped coils, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 44 (September/October (5)) (2008)
1513–1521.
[5] Michael Liwschitz-Garik, Clyde C. Whipple, Alternating Current Machines, vol.
2, D. Van Nostrand Co. Inc., 1961.
[6] E. Favre, M. Jufer, R. Osseni, Permanent magnet synchronous motors-steady
state and transient performance prediction, in: Fourth International
Conference on Electrical Machines and Drives, 13–15 Sep 1989, 1989, pp.
90–94.
74 E. Mese et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 156 (2018) 64–74
[7] N. Bianchi, E. Fornasiero, Impact of MMF space harmonic on rotor losses in
fractional-slot permanent-magnet machines, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 24
(June (2)) (2009) 323–328.
[8] N. Schofield, K. Ng, Z.Q. Zhu, D. Howe, Parasitic rotor losses in a brushless
permanent magnet traction machine, in: Eighth International Conference on
Electrical Machines and Drives (Conf. Publ. No. 444), 1–3 Sep 1997, 1997, pp.
200–204.
[9] F. Magnussen, H. Lendenmann, Parasitic effects in PM machines with
concentrated windings, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 43 (September–October (5))
(2007) 1223–1232.
[10] J.R. Hendershot, T.J.E. Miller, Design of Brushless Permanent Magnet Motors,
Magna Physics Publishing and Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994.
[11] H. Seok-Hee, T.M. Jahns, W.L. Soong, M.K. Guven, Illindala, MS, Torque ripple
reduction in interior permanent magnet synchronous machines using stators
with odd number of slots per pole pair, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 25 (March
(1)) (2010) 118–127.
[12] J. Stepina, Matrix analysis of space harmonics of asymmetrical stator
windings, IEE Electric Power Appl. 134 (Pt. B, July (4)) (1987).
[13] D.C. Hanselman, Minimum torque ripple, maximum efficiency excitation of
brushless permanent magnet motors, IEEE Trans Ind. Electron. 41 (3) (1994)
292–300.
[14] J.Y. Hung, Z. Ding, Design of currents to reduce torque ripple in brushless
permanent magnet motors, IEE Proc. B 140 (4) (1993) 260–266.
[15] M.S. Islam, S. Mir, T. Sebastian, S. Underwood, Design considerations of
sinusoidally excited permanent magnet machines for low torque-ripple
applications, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 41 (4) (2005) 955–962.
[16] R.P. Deodhar, D.A. Staton, T.J.E. Miller, Variation of torque constant with
armature current in brushless PM motors, in: Seventh International
Conference on Electrical Machines and Drives (Conf. Publ. No. 412), 11–13 Sep
1995, 1995, pp. 405–409.