Favourable slot and pole number combinations for

fault-tolerant PM machines
A.J. Mitcham, G. Antonopoulos and J.J.A. Cullen

Abstract: A new approach is described for selecting pole and slot numbers for fault-tolerant
permanent-magnet machines so that there is inherently negligible coupling between phases
(regardless of other design detail). The preferred slot and pole number combinations thereby help
to ensure that a fault in one phase does not undesirably affect the remaining unfaulted phases.
Other well-known criteria for fault-tolerant operation, including high phase inductance, also have
to be met. It is demonstrated how particular slot and pole combinations can be used to eliminate
low pole number armature MMF, thereby reducing the vibration and stray loss present during
normal operation.

1 Introduction
Permanent-magnet (PM) brushless motors and generators
are increasingly required to have a high fault tolerance for
use in critical applications where any failure of the machine
or power electronics would jeopardise safety and conve-
nience (such as in aircraft and other transport systems). In
such cases, PM machines usually offer higher power density
and are the preferred technology, as long as they are
capable of continued operation (perhaps with reduced
power) following isolated failures in the machine or its drive
electronics.
The design and operating principles of fault-tolerant PM
machines were set out by Jack et al. [1, 2] in the early 1990 s,
as follows:
(i) The pole number must be similar to the number of stator
slots (typically with the number of slots per pole in the range
0.71.5).
(ii) Armature coils are wound around alternate teeth of the
stator, so that the coils of a given phase are physically
separated and magnetically decoupled from those of other
phases.
(iii) The number of phases is high (at least four) so that the
loss of one phase does not cause excessive torque ripple or
excessive disturbance to the DC link current in the
converter.
(iv) Each phase of the machine is connected to a separate
single-phase converter module (usually an H-bridge PWM
converter).
(v) The per phase synchronous reactance is typically 1.0 per
unit, or higher, so that the short-circuit current that ows
under single-phase fault conditions is no greater than the
rated phase current.
r IEE, 2004
IEE Proceedings online no. 20040584
doi:10.1049/ip-epa:20040584
Paper rst received 30th September 2003 and in revised form 2nd April 2004.
Originally published online: 10th August 2004
The authors are with Rolls-Royce plc, Strategic Research Centre, PO Box 31,
Derby DE24 8BJ, UK
520
(vi) The converter must be designed for fast detection and
response to various open-circuit and short-circuit fault
conditions (including turnturn faults).
Armature windings with coils around alternate teeth as in
(ii) are commonly called modular windings. Such windings
greatly reduce the magnetic coupling between phases but do
not necessarily minimise the coupling to the extent required
for fault-tolerant operation. From the designers viewpoint,
increasing the per-unit reactance usually requires semi-
enclosed stator slots with deep slot openings; reducing the
magnetic coupling frequently means having unnecessarily
deep magnets.
This paper shows that a more effective means of limiting
inter-phase coupling is by the precise choice of pole and slot
number. The medium-sized power-dense machine design
given as an example has a very low interphase coupling with
a high per unit reactance and open slots. As shown in the
paper, the choice of slot and pole number also inuences
rotor stray losses and stator vibration.
2 Three-phase and six-phase machines
Figure 1 shows two alternative slot and pole combinations
for a small three-phase PM machine with modular wind-
ings, which might be considered suitable for fault-tolerant
operation. One machine has 12 slots and 8 poles while the
other has 12 slots and 10 poles. Both machines are shown
with semi-closed slots, which would be normal for small
PM machines of this type.
The relationship between the respective phases (current
or EMF) for both designs is also shown in Fig. 1. The 12/8
design has an angular displacement of 120 electrical degrees
between coils. In contrast the 12/10 design has an angular
displacement of 601 between coils, but we can arrive at the
more usual 1201 three-phase system using anti-phase
connection of opposite coils. Note that the adjacent coils
of Fig. 1b would normally be labelled A, C-, B, A-, C, B- to
emphasise the usual 1201 angle between phases, whereas the
convention adopted here emphasises the 601 angle between
adjacent coils. As will be seen in Section 3, the alternative
convention is useful for deriving windings with higher phase
numbers.
IEE Proc.-Electr. Power Appl., Vol. 151, No. 5, September 2004
 A A number of phases and is likely to give unacceptable torque
ripple and DC link current ripple, operating with only two
C
N
B C S
N
B
out of three phases under faulted conditions. Although this

S
design could be operated as a six-phase machine (with six

S
S
separate H-bridge converters, feeding a single coil per

N
N
N
N

phase) this would require splitting of the phases, so that

S
there is again undesirable interphase coupling.

S
S

N
B N C B N
S C As will be shown in the following Section, a six-phase
machine having minimal interphase coupling requires at
A A least 24 slots, combined with either 22 or 26 poles.

A
3 Preferred slot/pole combinations with
A
increased number of phases
C B
As intimated in the foregoing, certain slot and pole number
combinations give (inherently) negligible coupling between
C B B
phases. Windings with the desired low interphase coupling
C
may be constructed, following the example of Fig. 2b, using
A a sequence of m coils, where m is the phase number, with at
a b least two sequences alternately in anti-phase. Such windings
are feasible with any phase number (odd or even), as shown
Fig. 1 Diagrammatic three-phase PM machines with modular generally in Fig. 3.
windings, showing also the phase angle between coils
a 12 slots and 8 poles
b 12 slots and 10 poles
C

B
A
Figure 2 shows the single-phase armature ux pattern B
(ignoring the ux associated with slot leakage) for both of
A m C
these designs. For clarity, in each case, the magnets are
unmagnetised and only phase A is excited. It is clear that
the 12/8 design of Fig. 2a has a four-pole armature ux
pattern, whereas the 12/10 design of Fig. 2b has a two-pole m
A
armature ux pattern. It is also clear that the four-pole ux
pattern of Fig. 2a has appreciable magnetic coupling B
A
m
between phases, whereas the two-pole ux pattern of B
Fig. 2b has no coupling between phases (only between the b
coils of one phase). C

Fig. 3 Generalised m-phase machine with two anti-phase coils per

phase
a Coil sequence
b Phase sequence showing m phases and m anti-phases with separation
y p/m

For any modular winding with negligible electromagnetic

coupling between phases, the basic winding module (with
the smallest allowable number of slots and poles) has just
two anti-phase coils per phase. For any such winding with
a b m phases and S slots, the required number of poles is
given by:
Fig. 2 Single-phase armature flux pattern for 12/8 and 12/10 PM
machines (showing airgap flux only)  n
2p S 1
1
2m

and the resulting phase angle between adjacent coils is given

The signicant interphase coupling of the 12/8 design by:
means that a fault such as a terminal short circuit of one
 n
phase would have an undesirable effect on the remaining
ym 2p 1
radians electrical 2
(unfaulted) phases. A 12/8 design can only be used for fault 2m
tolerant applications if designed with deep slot openings and
deep magnets (hence retaining high phase reactance with where n 1, or n any non-zero odd integer less than m,
limited magnetic coupling). such that n and m do not share any common factors. Note
The 12/10 combination appears to have zero coupling that good design practice necessitates a high coupling
between phases and therefore seems a better design for fault between the magnets and coils and this implies that n/m
tolerant operation. Arguably this design has an insufcient should be no greater than about 0.6.

IEE Proc.-Electr. Power Appl., Vol. 151, No. 5, September 2004 521
Table 1: Slot and pole number combinations for modular PM machines

number of number of number of slot/pole Phase angle Fundamental one-phase Lowest m-phase armature
phases m slots S poles 2p constant n difference ym360 armature pole number pole number

3 12 10, 14 1 60 elec deg 2 2

4 16
5 20
5 20
6 24
7 28
7 28
8 32
8 32
9 36
10 40
14, 18 1 45 2 2
18, 22 1 36 2 2
14 3 108 2 6
22, 26 1 30 2 2
26, 30 1 28 2 2
22, 34 3 80 2 6
30, 34 1 22.5 2 2
26, 38 3 67.5 2 6
34, 38 1 20 2 2
38, 42 1 18 2 2

4 32
5 60
5 40
5 40
6 48
7 56
7 56
etc.
28, 32 1 45 4 4
54, 66 1 36 6 6
36, 44 1 36 4 4
28 3 108 4 12
44, 52 1 30 4 4
52, 60 1 28 4 4
44, 68 3 80 4 12
etc.

(Note that slot/pole number combinations shown below the break have four or more coils per phase and are multiple sequences of earlier
combinations.)

Examination of (2) with n 1 shows that the phase angle
difference between adjacent coils is p/m rad, as shown in
Fig. 3b.
Table 1, derived from (1) and (2), lists the various slot
and pole combinations with negligible interphase coupling
for phase numbers between 3 and 10. As seen in Table 1,
the majority of preferred slot combinations have n 1; but
higher values are also feasible, for example n 3 (with 5, 7,
8, 10 or 11 phases) and n 5 (with 11 or 12 phases). A
higher value of n is advantageous in that it contributes to
reduced rotor stray loss (see Appendix) and reduced
vibration; these factors are considered in the case study in
Section 4.
The phase number given in Table 1 is the maximum
number of distinct phases, with the given slot and pole
number, incorporating both phase and anti-phase coils.
However, as can be shown from Fig. 3, with an even
number of phases, the phase number can be halved by series
connecting adjacent pairs of coils. For example, the ten-
phase winding given in Table 1 could be reduced to ve-
phases with twice the number of coils per phase; both ve-
phase and ten-phase designs would have negligible coupling
between phases and be equally suited to fault-tolerant
operation.
Other papers have considered the formulation of
modular windings from a different perspective (for example
in [3]). The approach used in this paper is based on the
perceived need for low phasephase coupling.
4 Case study: a fault-tolerant generator for the
More Electric Aircraft
4.1 Description of design
This case study examines in more detail the design
implications and nite-element (FE) results for a ve-phase
522
machine being considered by Rolls-Royce plc as part of the
More Electric Aircraft initiative [4]. Some key design
parameters for the machine are shown in Table 2. The
generator is designed for directly mounting on the low-
pressure (LP) shaft of a multi-shaft gas turbine. It will be
mounted at the rear of the engine in a shrouded space
within the tailcone, close to the LP shaft rear bearing. The
generator will be indirectly oil-cooled using engine lube oil
in contact with the stator housing.
Table 2: Key design parameters of fault tolerant generator
Rated power 250 kW Number of poles 28
Rated speed 1400 rpm Number of slots 40
Speed range 14003100 rpm Phase emf 130 V
Stator bore 350 mm Sync reactance xs 0.47 O(1.39 pu)
Number of 5
phases
The ve-phase generator output will be rectied to a DC
link (e.g. DC aircraft power bus) via a voltage source PWM
converter (active rectier) using ve single-phase converter
modules, one for each phase. The high generator reactance
(here in excess of 1.0 per unit) combined with a PWM active
rectier enables good voltage control over the 2.2:1 speed
range and also facilitates fault-tolerant operation [5]. Note
that the per unit reference is dened here, in the normal
convention for permanent-magnet machines, as the rated
EMF divided by rated current.
The chosen design has 40 slots and 28 poles (this being
one of the favoured combinations shown in Table 1). The
IEE Proc.-Electr. Power Appl., Vol. 151, No. 5, September 2004
magnet system would be held in place by a non-conducting
retaining system.
4.2 Mutual coupling
This 40-slot 28-pole generator has been analysed with the
aid of 2D FE analysis. Figure 4 shows the full load
armature ux plot with single-phase excitation (phase A
only) with the magnets unmagnetised. Visual inspection of
the FE plot suggests (as expected) that there is no phase A
armature ux linking the other phase coils B, C, D or E.
However the detailed results of Table 3 show that there is a
small but nite mutual ux linking all the phases, which is
due to tooth tip leakage ux jumping across two or more
slots. Saturation in the iron is not a factor here, since the
ux density in the rotor body and the stator core and teeth
is no more than about 1.0 T.
interconnections (avoiding unpaired conductors in the end
windings).
A comparable FE analysis has been done for a ve-phase
design with 40 slots and 32 poles, the results also being
shown in Table 3. The mutual coupling in this case is 4.4%,
which is 20 times greater than for the 28-pole design. In
most other respects the two designs perform almost
identically.
Other PM machine designs with non-preferred slot/pole
combinations may have rather greater interphase coupling
than in the example given here, consequently degrading the
performance of the machine/converter system and poten-
tially confusing the health monitoring and fault-detection
scheme. Using a preferred slot/pole combination will
automatically lead to minimal coupling between phases
irrespective of dimensional design details.

4.3 Stator MMF harmonics

Another important consideration for all modular (fractional
slot) machine designs is the presence of armature MMF
harmonics and the effect that these have on rotor stray loss
and noise and vibration.
Figures 5a and b show the armature mmf distributions
for the 28-pole and 36-pole designs, both of which have
preferred slot/pole combinations as dened earlier. The 36-
pole design is subject to a signicant fundamental (four-
pole) MMF whereas the 28-pole design is subject only to
3rd harmonic MMF (12-pole) and above. Clearly, for
modular windings of the type discussed, the principal
harmonic of armature MMF is related to the value of n in
the equations of Section 3.

0.6

0.5
c (n)
0.4
Fig. 4 FE armature flux plot of 40/28 PM machine with phase A
excitation and magnets unmagnetised 0.3

0.2

0.1

Table 3: Armature flux linkage with IA 300 A (zero current 0

in other phases) 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
harmonic
40 slots, 28 poles 40 slots, 32 poles
a
0.6
Phase A 11.95 mWb 100% 11.466 mWb 100%
Phase B 0.028 mWb 0.23% 0.507 mWb 4.42% 0.5
c (n)
Phase C 0.007 mWb 0.06% 0.498 mWb 4.34% 0.4
Phase D 0.007 mWb 0.06% 0.494 mWb 4.31%
0.3
Phase E 0.029 mWb 0.24% 0.510 mWb 4.45%
0.2

0.1

0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
Note that the FE analysis covers just half of the motor harmonic
(two coils of each phase). With an anticlockwise numbering
b
of slots, the phase distribution is phase A in slots 1 and 2
then phase B in slots 3 and 4 etc. Fig. 5 Armature MMF distributions for the 36-pole and 28-pole
The greatest phase A mutual ux (linking with phases B designs (1.0 pu MMF baseline is the MMF in one armature coil)
and E) amounts to only 0.24%; thus an open-circuit or a 40/28 design
short-circuit fault in phase A has almost no effect on other b 40/36 design
phases, which would then continue to operate normally.
Note that a similarly low mutual coupling may be achieved
with a 36-pole design. In either case the low mutual Note that the harmonic number, indicated in Fig. 5, is
coupling also requires that due attention be given to the coil based on the four-pole fundamental present under single-

IEE Proc.-Electr. Power Appl., Vol. 151, No. 5, September 2004 523
phase excitation. The FE plots of Fig. 6, which show the
armature ux under normal ve-phase operation, conrm This represents a three-fold reduction in armature ux per
that the four-pole armature MMF is present in the
armature MMF wave of the 36-pole design but not in that
of the 28-pole design. Note in Fig. 5 that the 36-pole design
has a strong 36-pole armature MMF, whereas the 28-pole
design has a strong 28-pole armature MMF. These are the
respective MMF harmonics, which are responsible for
producing useful torque.
Fig. 6 Finite element armature flux plot of 40/28 and 40/36
machines with full load five-phase excitation
a 40/28 design
b 40/36 design
The (fundamental) four-pole armature MMF harmonic,
which arises in the 36-pole design, is undesirable for several
reasons:
 The corresponding harmonic ux penetrates deeply into
the rotor core and signicant eddy current losses may
therefore be induced in the rotor core and the magnets. (In
practice, the need to minimise rotor losses often requires a
laminated core and some degree of magnet subdivision.)
 The stator core will be subject to a four-pole (eight-node)
ovalising force, which will be manifested as stator vibration.
An increased stator core section is likely to be needed to
increase core stiffness to low node-number vibration.
 As well as radial vibration of the stator, additional
torsional vibration can occur owing to the interaction of
low pole number armature mmf harmonics with low pole
number variations in magnet ux (for example due to rotor
eccentricity).
The detailed FE results (Fig. 6) show that the peak rotor
core ux density due to armature MMF for the 28-pole
524
design is 0.57 T (compared to 1.81 T for the 36-pole design).
pole. The radial ux density in the air gap (and in the
magnets) is similar for both designs.
In the normal (unfaulted condition) the 28-pole design
produces substantially less ovalising vibration (which is a
major source of noise in radial ux machines) and
substantially lowers the armature-induced stray loss in the
rotor core (which is a signicant contribution to overall
rotor loss), as shown in the Appendix and Table 4.
Table 4: Rotor core eddy loss due to fundamental armature
flux harmonic
28-pole design 36-pole
design
Rated speed of rotor (1.0 per unit) 1050 rpm 1050 rpm
Rated fundamental frequency 245 Hz 315 Hz
Principle armature MMF harmonic 3 1
Armature pole number 12 4
Rotational speed of arm flux 2.33 pu 9 pu
(with respect to stator)
Rotational speed of arm flux 3.33 pu 10 pu
(with respect to rotor)
Frequency of stray flux in rotor 350 Hz 350 Hz
Peak rotor stray flux density 0.59 T 1.81 T
(see Fig. 6)
Rotor eddy loss due to principle 8.2 W 77.5 W
arm harmonic
In the faulted condition, both the stray loss and ovalising
vibration will increase because of the reappearance of the
four-pole armature MMF. However, increased vibration
and stray loss would usually be expected in any machine
with a faulted winding, regardless of slot and pole number.
In many applications, a reduced performance under faulted
conditions is usually acceptable (but a suitable choice of slot
and pole number improves the performance under normal
conditions).
5 Conclusions
As shown by this paper, certain combinations of slot and
pole number force the coupling between phases to be
essentially zero, regardless of magnet depth and other
details of the design. These newly identied slot and pole
number combinations open up new options for permanent-
magnet machine design and are particularly useful for fault-
tolerant applications.
The paper also shows that particular slot and pole
number combinations effectively eliminate low-order arma-
ture MMF harmonics, leading to useful reductions in rotor
stray loss and stator ovalising vibration under normal
operation.
6 Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of
Rolls-Royce plc, who have sponsored this work as part of
its More Electric Engine initiative. The nite-element
analysis was undertaken using the proprietary SPEED
software from the University of Glasgow.
IEE Proc.-Electr. Power Appl., Vol. 151, No. 5, September 2004
7 References
1 Jack, A.G., and Mecrow, B.C.: Safety critical drives for aerospace
applications. Int. Conf. Electrical Machines ICEM94, Paris, France,
1994, pp. 9196
2 Mecrow, B.C., Jack, A.G., Haylock, J.A., and Coles, J.: Fault tolerant
permanent magnet machine drives, IEE Proc., Electr. Power Appl.,
1996, 143, (6), pp. 437442
3 Ede, J.D., Atallah, K., Wang, J.B., and Howe, D.: Modular fault
tolerant permanent magnet brushless machines. Int. Conf. on Power
Electronics, Machines and Drives (PEMD), Bath, UK,, 2002, pp.
415420
4 Provost, M.J.: The more electric aero-engine: a general overview from
an engine manufacturer. Int. Conf. on Power Electronics, Machines
and Drives (PEMD), Bath, UK, 2002, pp. 246251
5 Mitcham, A.J., and Cullen, J.J.A.: Permanent magnet generator
options for the More Electric Aircraft. Int. Conf. on Power Electronics,
Machines and Drives (PEMD), Bath, UK, 2002, pp. 241245
6 Haylock, J.A., Mecrow, B.C., Jack, A.G., and Atkinson D., J.:
Operation of a fault tolerant PM drive for an aerospace fuel pump
application, IEE Proc., Electr. Power Appl., 1998, 145, (5), pp. 441448
7 Mitcham, A.J., Antonopoulos, G., and Cullen, J.J.A.: Implications of
shorted turn faults in bar wound PM machines, IEE Proc., Electr.
Power Appl. (in press)
8 Appendix
Rotor stray loss calculations
The rotor stray loss comprises armature-induced eddy
current and hysteresis loss in the magnets and the rotor core
and also eddy current loss in the magnet faces due to tooth
ripple. This Appendix looks just at the eddy current loss,
under normal steady-state conditions, in the rotor core due
to the fundamental armature-induced uxes as indicated in
Fig. 6.
IEE Proc.-Electr. Power Appl., Vol. 151, No. 5, September 2004
As shown in Table 4, the armature-induced ux in the
rotor core for the 28-pole design has a peak 12-pole ux
density of 0.59 T whereas that of the 36-pole design has a
peak four-pole ux density of 1.81 T. The eddy loss due to
the fundamental armature ux may be estimated from the
classic formula, P (o2B2t2)/24r (W/m3), where B and o
are the peak ux density (tesla) and the electrical frequency
(rad/s), respectively. The rotor core is assumed to comprise
laminations of thickness t 0.20 mm and resistivity
r 40  108 O m. The formula must be used with care,
using the correct relative speed for the mmf harmonic to
properly predict the armature ux passing frequency.
The rotor core eddy current loss for the 28-pole design is
calculated to be an order of magnitude lower than for the
36-pole design (and is such that it may be feasible to use a
solid rotor core). More detailed calculation shows that the
28-pole design also has lower armature-induced eddy losses
in the magnets and hysteresis in the rotor core. (The two
designs would have similar tooth-ripple loss and in both
cases it is likely that tooth ripple would be minimised by
using magnetic slot wedges or by segmenting the magnets.)
Under various fault conditions, as analysed in [6] and [7],
the rotor losses will increase due to unbalanced armature
loading. For example, in a ve-phase fault tolerant machine
loss of one phase will result in the output being up to 80%
of full rated power, subject to satisfying both the cooling
requirements due to additional rotor losses and the system
requirements such as torque ripple.
525