Analysis reveals enhanced torque generation and material efficiency in consequent-pole permanent magnets, suggesting new optimization methods.
In consequent-pole permanent magnet (CPPM) machines, the configuration where PM poles and iron poles are alternately arranged causes distortion in the air-gap magnetic field. This results in significant differences in magnetic circuit characteristics compared to conventional PM machines. To address the requirements of reducing torque ripple and enhancing average output torque, the cogging torque and optimization methods for CPPM machines were investigated. A general analytical model for cogging torque was established. This model accounts for asymmetric pole configurations and is particularly well-suited for analyzing CPPM machines. The mechanism through which the consequent-pole (CP) structure improves the utilization rate of PM material was explored, and the parameters influencing the main flux were analyzed. By replacing PMs with soft magnetic materials, the conventional topology of a 12-slot/8-pole surface-inserted PM machine with stator skewing was directly converted into a CP topology. Performance optimization was conducted based on this original scheme. This approach ensures manufacturing convenience while maximizing the sharing of identical components. Simulation results demonstrate that, compared to the benchmark machine, the optimized CPPM machine uses only 60.16% of the PM material while producing 88.19% of the electromagnetic torque, resulting in a 46.61% increase in torque generated per unit volume of PM material. Finally, the benchmark and optimized CPPM prototypes were fabricated, and their torque output capabilities were tested. The finite element simulation results and the measured data show good consistency, validating the correctness of the theoretical analysis and the effectiveness of the finite element model. This study provides a theoretical basis and engineering reference for the performance analysis and optimal design of CPPM machines.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: