See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/306323635

Electric Vehicle Traction based on a PM Assisted Synchronous Reluctance

Motor

Conference Paper · December 2014

CITATIONS READS

17 3,124

5 authors, including:

N. Bianchi Emanuele Fornasiero

University of Padova Università degli Studi di Trento
327 PUBLICATIONS   11,733 CITATIONS    49 PUBLICATIONS   1,663 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Enrico Carraro Silverio Bolognani

SEG Automotive University of Padova
11 PUBLICATIONS   485 CITATIONS    321 PUBLICATIONS   13,430 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Optimization-based Sensorless algorithms View project

AC machine drives for Renewable energy systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Silverio Bolognani on 20 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Electric Vehicle Traction based on a PM Assisted
Synchronous Reluctance Motor
Nicola Bianchi, Emanuele Fornasiero, Enrico Carraro, Silverio Bolognani, Mosè Castiello
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Padova,
via Gradenigo 6 A, Padova, Italy
Abstract—It is recently demonstrated that the syn-
chronous reluctance motor is well suited for electric as
well as for hybrid electric vehicles. Of course, a proper
rotor design is necessary, since the main torque is due
to the rotor anisotropy, that is, the permeance difference
between the direct- and the quadrature-axis. Then, the
flux-barrier ends are placed so as to reduce the torque
ripple due to the slot harmonics. The torque ripple is
also reduced adopting the ”Machaon” configuration, which
includes rotor asymmetries.
The impact of the rotor design on the motor perfor-
mance is presented deeply, showing several experimental
test results carried out on synchronous reluctance motors
with different rotor geometries. The impact of the assis-
tance of Ferrite permanent magnet (PM) inset in the flux-
barriers is also shown: highlighting the main benefits of
the PM assistance to the synchronous reluctance motor
capabilities.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Interior permanent magnet (IPM) motors with
rare-earth magnets are mainly used for electric
vehicles (EVs) and hybrid EVs (HEVs). They offer
high capabilities, particularly high torque density
and constant power operation in a wide speed range.
However, due to high cost of rare-earth magnets
and to limited supply, IPM motors are becoming
too expensive.
Therefore the synchronous reluctance (REL) ma-
chine is becoming of great interest in the recent
years. If properly designed, it represents a valid
alternative for EVs and HEVs for its simple and
rugged construction and for hazard-free operations
[1], [2]. The REL motor as well as the Ferrite
PM assisted REL (PMAREL) motor are becoming
competitors of both surface–mounted PM machines
and induction machines not only in automotive but
also in many other applications [3].
Flux barriers Rotor lamination
Iron
bridges
to sustain along the q-axis
the structure the flux lines are
obstructed
along the d-axis
Magnets assisting the flux lines are
reluctance motor not obstructed
Fig. 1: Synchronous reluctance rotor
A four–pole REL is sketched in Fig. 1. It refers
to a rotor with three flux barriers per pole. A rotor
configuration with several flux barriers per pole
allows to achieve a high rotor saliency, that is, a high
average torque. In designing such a REL motor, the
main attention has to be given (i) to maximize the
average torque, (ii) to minimize the torque ripple
and (iii) to maximize the motor efficiency in an
extended speed range. The rotor geometry has a
high influence on the machine performance, in terms
of both average torque and ripple. An optimization
is often required to the aim of determining a rotor
geometry achieving a high and smooth torque [4].
The synchronous PMAREL motor is achieved
when PMs are inset within the flux barriers [5], [6].
The inset of PMs within the flux barriers tends to
increase not only the average torque but the power
factor (PF), which is commonly quite low in a REL
motor, so that the rquired Volt-Amps power rating
is reduced. In fact, the PM flux saturates the iron
bridges, reducing the magnetizing stator current, and
 Fig. 2: Average torque versus current angle of Fig. 3: Average torque versus current angle of
non skewed REL motor. Currents used in the non skewed PMAREL motor. Currents used
tests are 5 A, 10 A, 15 A and 20 A (experimental in the tests are 5 A, 10 A, 15 A and 20 A
results) (experimental results)

13

Torque [Nm]
tends to rotate the flux linkage vector out of phase
of 90 degrees with respect the current vector. 12

II. T ORQUE VERSUS CURRENT VECTOR ANGLE 11

0 90 180 270 360

A prototype (main data are in Appendix) design θ [degrees]
m
for such an application is tested experimentally.
(a) non skewed rotor
Figs. 2 shows the measured torque versus the
current angle for the REL machine, according to 13
Torque [Nm]

different current amplitudes. It refers to the motor

prototype without skewing. At the same current, the
torque is slightly lower for the motor with skewed
rotor, expecially at higher current. At 20 A, the
torque difference is about 6%. The current angle
corresponding to the MTPA trajectory, instead, re-
mains quite constant with the current amplitude,
being quite unchanged for the two motor prototypes.
To highlight the assistance of PMs, Fig. 3 shows
the torque versus the current angle of the PMAREL
machine, without skewing, according to different
current amplitudes. Ferrite PMs are used in the pro-
totype, characterized by a remanence Bres = 0.4 T
(at 20o C). Torque of the motor with step–skewed
rotor is about 5% lower.
As expected, comparing the torque exhibited by
the REL motors (Fig. 2) and by PMAREL motors
(Fig. 3) it is verified that there is a higher average
torque when the PMs assist the motors. According
to a current of 10 A, the average torque increases
from 11.3 Nm to 12.1 Nm. According to a current
of 15 A, the average torque increases from 17.7 Nm
to 19.0 Nm.
In addition, the current angles corresponding to
the MTPA trajectory are slightly lower for the
PMAREL motors. In fact, the current vector moves
in the direction of the added PM flux linkage vector.
12
11
0 90 180 270 360
θ [degrees]
m
(b) skewed rotor
Fig. 4: REL motor: measured torque versus
mechanical position I = 10 A
A. Skewing effect on torque ripple
Due to the interaction between the spatial har-
monics of magneto-motive force (MMF) and the
rotor geometry, the REL machine is characterised
by a high torque ripple [7]–[10].
Fig. 4 shows the measured torque versus the
mechanical position for the REL motor, when it is
supplied with a stator current I = 10 A, without
and with rotor skewing. The torque ripple decreases
from about 17% to about 9% of the average torque.
Similar results are measured in the PMAREL.
When PMs are used a step–skewing is adopted: the
rotor is split in three parts, each of them is skewed
with respect to the others. Fig. 5 shows the measured
torque behaviour of the PMAREL motors, according
to the same stator currents I = 10 A.
 13
TABLE I: REL motor: steady state operations
Torque [Nm]

REL motor PMAREL motor

12 n T I PF∗ η I PF∗ η
(rpm) (N m) (A) (%) (A) (%)
11 2 2.26 0.64 52 2.00 0.71 68
4 3.35 0.72 58 3.07 0.78 66
0 90 180 270 360
θm [degrees] 6 4.4 0.78 58 4.06 0.84 64
250
8 5.39 0.81 57 5.03 0.87 62
(a) non skewed rotor 10 6.42 0.83 54 6.03 0.88 59
12 7.43 0.85 52 6.99 0.90 57
13
Torque [Nm]

2 2.25 0.70 61 2.00 0.77 79

4 3.34 0.75 69 3.07 0.81 77
12
6 4.38 0.79 71 4.06 0.86 77
500
8 5.38 0.82 70 5.03 0.87 75
11 10 6.38 0.83 69 6.03 0.88 73
12 7.44 0.84 67 6.99 0.89 71
0 90 180 270 360
θm [degrees]

(b) skewed rotor

Fig. 5: PMAREL motor: measured torque ver-
sus mechanical position I = 10 A

As expected [4], the torque ripple is not completly

reduced by means of the rotor skewing. In fact, the
same stator current yield different d– and q–axis
components along the rotor axial length when the
rotor is skewed.
III. S TEADY- STATE O PERATIONS
The tests of the steady-state performance have
been carried out feeding the motors by different
currents I in order to produce a given output torque,
at given rotation speeds.
Table I reports some measurements at steady-state
operations, for torque values in the range between 2
and 12 Nm. The d– and q–axis currents are selected
so as to operate along the MTPA trajectory.
Even though the PM is a low–energy (Ferrite)
magnet, it is worth noticing that the insertion of the
PMs allows a lower stator current to be required. At
low speed, the motor efficiency results to be quite
low, but enough to verify the impact of the PM on
the losses reduction, for given torque.
In the two tables the power factor (PF) is reported.
The PF reported in the table has to be considered
only as an index, whose value is close to the PF
(for this reason a star is added as superscript, P F ∗ ).
Anyway, it is possible to observe an increase of
this index in the PMAREL motor. A higher increase
Fig. 6: REL motor: torque and power versus
speed. Experimental versus simulated results.
is expected when comparing the fundamental har-
monic waveforms.
IV. F LUX –W EAKENING P ERFORMANCE
The motors have been tested also for various
rotating speeds to determine their Flux–Weakening
(FW) performance [11], [12]. Fig. 6 shows the
torque and power versus speed for the REL ma-
chine. Solid line refers to the simulated curve, while
circles refer to the measurements. Fig. 7 shows the
torque and power versus speed for the PMAREL
machine. There is a good agreement between the
simulated and the measured operating points, even if
at higher speeds the predicted torque is quite higher
than the measured torque for the PMAREL motor.
V. A SYMMETRIC ROTOR F LUX -BARRIERS
When the flux barrier geometry is different in
adjacent poles, a sort of compensation of the torque
 (a) Symmetric rotor A-type

Fig. 7: PMAREL motor: torque and power

versus speed. Experimental versus simulated
results.

(b) Symmetric rotor B-type

harmonics is achieved [13]–[15]. The resulting mo-
tor is referred to as ”Machaon“ motor (the name
of a butterfly with two large and two small wings),
since the flux barriers of the adjacent poles are large
and small alternatively.
Fig. 8 shows three different rotors: two rotor with
symmetric flux barrier geometry (A–type and B–
type) and a rotor with asymmetric rotor, that is,
(c) Asymmetric rotor
a machaon–type rotor. In this third rotor, the PMs
remain in the same position, and only the lateral part Fig. 8: Geometries of symmetric and asymmet-
of the flux barriers and the end angles are modified. ric (”Machaon“) rotor
Fig. 9 shows the torque versus the rotor position
15
θm of the REL motor. The motors are fed with 14 A B
torque (Nm)

the same current, amplitude and phase angle. The 13

12
motors with symmetric A–type and B–type rotors 11
exhibit a torque ripple, whose the harmonic of 18th 10
9
order is well recognized (i.e., with three periods 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
each 30 mechanical degrees). This is expected since rotor position (deg)

this is the slot harmonic. Let’s note that these two
A–type and B–type motors exhibit such a torque
harmonic of 18th order with almost the same am-
plitude but out of phase of about 180 degrees.
When these two geometries are combined to-
gether, and the machaon–type rotor is achieved,
there is a sort of compensation of the harmonic of
18th order. The torque ripple of the machaon–type
motor exhibits no harmonic of 18th order, so that
the torque harmonic of 36th order is more evident
(i.e., with six periods each 30 mechanical degrees).
With this geometry the torque ripple has been
found to be reduce to two third, for both REL and
PMAREL motor. In addition, the skewing angle can
Fig. 9: REL motor: torque behaviour with
symmetric and asymmetric rotor (I=10 A,
αie =64 deg)
be reduced. On the other hands, the average torque
remains almost the same, as highlighted in Fig. 9
by the thin solid line.
A PPENDIX
Test bench description
The typical stator of a induction motor is used
for the synchronous REL motors under test. The
slot number is 36 and the back iron is designed
according to four poles. Outer and inner diameter
are De =200 mm and Di =125 mm, respectively, and
the stack length is Lstk =40 mm.
Fig. 10 shows a picture of the test bench used for
these measurements. The motor under test is on the
left hand side. The master machine is on the right
hand side. The torquemeter can be seen between the
two machines.
Fig. 10: Test bench for motor test.
Several experimental tests are reported according
to a synchronous reluctance motor and a PM as-
sisted reluctance.
Introducing PMs in the rotor, (i) the torque
increases of about 10%, mainly in FW opera-
tions where a wide constant power–speed range is
achieved, and (ii) the power factor improves in the
whole operating region.
With a rotor skewing, (i) the average torque
slightly decreases, but (ii) the torque ripple de-
creases down to about one third.
With an asymmetrical rotor (Machaon geometry):
(i) the average torque remains the same, and (ii) the
torque ripple decreases.
Further details will be given in the full paper.
The REL motor seems to be a good competitor
for electric vehicles, exhibiting high torque density,
properly low torque ripple, and a high overload ca-
pability. Its construction is robust and it is free from
rare–earth magnets, which makes it very actractive
from the cost point of view.
R EFERENCES
[1] K. M. Rahman, B. Fahimi, G. Suresh, A. V. Rajarathnam, and
M. Ehsani, “Advantages of switched reluctance motor applica-
tions to ev and hev: Design and control issues,” IEEE Trans. on
Industry Applications, vol. 36, no. 1, Jan/Feb 2000.
[2] D. A. Staton, T. J. E. Miller, and S. E. Wood, “Maximising the
saliency ratio of the synchronous reluctance motor,” IEEE Trans.
on Industry Applications, vol. 140, no. 4, July 1993.
View publication stats
[3] M. Barcaro and N. Bianchi. “Interior PM Machines using Ferrite
to Substitute Rare–Earth Surface PM Machines.” Conf. Rec. of
Int. Conf. of Electr. Machines, ICEM, Marsille (F), pp. 1–7, June
2012.
[4] A. Vagati, M. Pastorelli, G. Franceschini, and S.C. Petrache.
”Design of low-torque-ripple synchronous reluctance motors.”
IEEE Trans. on Industry Application, IA-34(4):758–765, July–
Aug. 1998.
[5] A. Fratta, A. Vagati, and F. Villata. ”Permanent magnet assisted
synchronous reluctance drive for constant-power application:
Drive power limit.” In Proc. of Intelligent Motion European
Conference, PCIM, pages 196–203, April Nurnberg, Germany,
1992.
[6] W.H. Kim, K.S. Kim, S.J. Kim, D.W. Kang, S.C. Go, Y.D. Chun,
J. Lee, “Optimal PM Design of PMA-SynRM for Wide Constant-
Power Operation and Torque Ripple Reduction,” IEEE Transac-
tions on Magnetics, vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 4660–4663, Oct. 2009.
[7] A. Fratta, G. P. Troglia, A. Vagati, and F. Villata, “Evaluation
of torque ripple in high performance synchronous reluctance
machines,” in Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting,
1993., Conference Record of the 1993 IEEE, Toronto, Ont., Oct.
1993, pp. 163–170.
[8] T. M. Jahns and W. L. Soong, “Pulsating torque minimization
techniques for permanent magnet AC motor drives-a review,”
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 43, no. 2, pp.
321–330, Apr. 1996.
[9] J.M. Park, S.I. Kim, J.P. Hong, J.H. Lee, “Rotor Design on
Torque Ripple Reduction for a Synchronous Reluctance Motor
With Concentrated Winding Using Response Surface Method-
ology,” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 42, no. 10, pp.
3479–3481, Oct. 2006.
[10] S.-H. Han, T. Jahns, W. Soong, M. Guven, and M. Illindala,
“Torque ripple reduction in interior permanent magnet syn-
chronous machines using stators with odd number of slots per
pole pair,” Energy Conversion, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 25,
no. 1, pp. 118–127, 2010.
[11] A. Fratta, A. Vagati, and F. Villata, “Permanent magnet assisted
synchronous reluctance drive for constant-power application:
Drive power limit,” in Proc. of Intelligent Motion European
Conference, PCIM, April Nurnberg, Germany, 1992, pp. 196–
203.
[12] W.-H. Kim, K.-S. Kim, S.-J. Kim, D.-W. Kang, S.-C. Go,
Y.-D. Chun, and J. Lee, “Optimal pm design of pma-synrm
for wide constant-power operation and torque ripple reduction,”
Magnetics, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 4660–
4663, 2009.
[13] N. Bianchi, S. Bolognani, D. Bon, and M. Dai Prè, “Rotor
flux-barrier design for torque ripple reduction in synchronous re-
luctance and pm-assisted synchronous reluctance motors,” IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 921–
928, 2009.
[14] M. Barcaro and N. Bianchi, “Torque Ripple Reduction in
Fractional-Slot Interior PM Machines Optimizing the Flux-
Barrier Geometries,” in International Conference on Electrical
Machines (ICEM), 2012, sept. 2012.
[15] L. Alberti, M. Barcaro, and N. Bianchi “Design of a Low
Torque Ripple Fractional-slot Interior Permanent Magnet Motor.”
in Conf. Rec. of the 2012 IEEE Energy Conversion Conference
and Exposition, ECCE, Raleigh NC, USA, vol. 1, pp. 1–8, 2012.