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

net/publication/4022645

Analytical approach to cogging torque calculation in PM brushless motors

Conference Paper · July 2003

DOI: 10.1109/IEMDC.2003.1210329 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS
20 3,420

1 author:

Jacek F Gieras
University of Technology and Life Sciences in Bydgoszcz
293 PUBLICATIONS   4,770 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

What are you working on right now? View project

Axial flux permanent magnet machines View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jacek F Gieras on 04 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Analytical Approach to Cogging Torque Calculation in PM Brushless
Motors
Jacek F. Gieras, Fellow, IEEE
United Technologies Research Center
411 Silver Lane, East Hartford, CT 06108, U.S.A.

Abstract. The paper discusses the approach to t1 is the stator slot pitch, k = 1,2,3,..., k0k is the stator slot
analytical calculation of the cogging torque in PM opening factor and ksk is the stator slot skew factor. In
brushless motors. Magnetic field energy in the air gap general, both PMs and stator slots can be skewed. The
has been used to calculate the torque. Two equations skew of PMs is bfs and the skew of stator slots is bs. The
have been derived: with the PM width taken into skew factors and slot opening factor are defined by the
account, and simplified equation, i.e., without the effect following equations
of the finite width of the PM. The effect of eccentricity
has been included too. Analytical results have been • the rotor PM skew factor
compared with laboratory test results. b fs
sin( µπ )
I. AIR GAP MAGNETIC FLUX DENSITY k sµ = τ (5)
b fs
The normal component of the magnetic flux density µπ
distribution in the air gap (Fig. 1) of a PM brushless motor τ
with slotted air gap can be expressed as [6,13] • the stator skew factor
bPM ( x) bs
b f ( x) = + bsl ( x) (1) sin(kπ )
kC k sk = τ (6)
The x coordinate is in the direction of rotation. The bs
kπ
magnetic flux density component excited by the rotor PMs τ
is a sum of higher space harmonics µ, i.e., • the stator slot opening factor [14]
π
bPM ( x) = ∑ Bg bµ k sµ cos( µ x) (2)
τ  b 
sin  kρπ 14 
µ
and the magnetic flux density component due to stator 2t1 
slots is approxinated as k ok =  (7)
b
g ∞ 2π kρπ 14
bsl ( x) = −2γ ∑ k02k k sk cos(k ) 2t1
t1 k =1 t1
where
π
× ∑ Bg bµ k sµ cos( µ x) (3) b14 b
µ τ 2 1 + ( 14 ) 2
t1 t1
Eqn (3) results from the classical theory of a.c. electrical ρ= (8)
machines, e.g. [6,8,13]. In the above eqns (1), (2) and (3) b
kC is the Carter’s coefficient of the air gap, Bg is the flat- 5 + 14 1 + ( b14 ) 2 − 1
t1 1 t1
topped value of the periodical waveform excited by the
rotor PMs, µ = 6l ± 1 are the rotor higher space harmonics
where l = 1,2,3,..., bµ is the Fourier coefficient of the For surface type PMs the air gap g is to be replaced by an
magnetic flux density distribution [9] excited by the rotor equivalent air gap g' ≈ g + hM/µrrec where g is the
PMs, ksµ is the rotor PM skew factor, τ is the pole pitch, γ mechanical clearance, hM is the height of the PM, and µrrec
is the parameter depending on the slot opening b14 and the = 1.02 to 1.1 is the relative recoil permeability of the PM.
air gap g, i.e.,
  b14   b14  
2
4  b14
γ = arctan  − ln 1 +   , (4)
π  2g  2g   2 g  

 2
Li g D2 out ∂ X + b  bPM ( x) 
2µ 0 2 ∂x X∫+ a  kC
1
Tc ( X ) = − + bsl ( x) dx (11)

1.0
0.8
0.6 
0.4 According to [4], the maximum energy change occurs for
0.2
b f ( x)
a = 0.5t1 and b = 0.5b14 + ct where ct = t1 − b14. Taking into
0
0.2 account only fundamental space harmonics µ = 1 and k = 1
0.4 the expression in the square bracket under the integral will
0.6 have the following form
0.8 2
− 1.0 1
 bPM ( x) 
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5  + bsl ( x ) (12)
0 x 2⋅ p ⋅ τ  kC 
2
1 
=  B cos βx − AB cos αx cos βx 
Fig. 1. Distribution of the normal component of the magnetic k
 C 
flux density bf (x) in the air gap (Tesla versus meter) of a 2-pole,
where
36-slot PM brushless motor according to eqns (1) to (3).
g 2
A = 2γ kok =1k sk =1 B = Bg bµ =1k s =1 (13)
t1
II. CALCULATION OF COGGING TROQUE
2π π
α= β= (14)
Neglecting the magnetic saturation and armature reaction, t1 τ
the cogging torque is independent of the stator current. The
frequency of the fundamental component of the cogging t1 b14
torque is fc = z1 ns, where z1 is the number of the stator
slots and ns is the rotor speed in rev/s. Analytical methods
STATOR
of cogging torque calculation usually neglect the magnetic
flux in the stator slots and magnetic saturation of the stator
teeth [1,2,3,4,5,11,12,14,15]. Cogging torque is derived
from the magnetic flux density distribution either by
calculating the rate of change of total energy stored in the bf(x)
air gap with respect to the rotor angular position bsl(x)
[1,2,3,5,11,12] or by summing the lateral magnetic forces
N S x
along the sides of the stator teeth [14]. Many cogging
torque calculations are specific to a particular method of ROTOR ns
reducing the cogging effect [7]. Neglecting the energy bPM(x)
stored in the ferromagnetic core, the cogging torque is
expressed as
dW D dW bf(x) bPM(x)
Tc ( x) = − = − 2out (9)
dθ 2 dx
N S x
where D2out ≈ D1in is the rotor outer diameter, D1in is the
stator inner diameter, θ = 2x/D2out is the mechanical angle, ROTOR ns
and the x axis is in circumferential direction of rotation.
For totally embedded magnets (closed slots for magnets)
the rate of change of the air gap coenergy is
Li g 2
2µ 0 ∫
W ( x) = b f ( x)dx (10) Fig. 2. Magnetic flux density waveforms in the air gap: bPM(x)
excited by the rotor PMs, bsl(x) due to stator slots and bf(x) –
resultant. Only bPM(x) moves with the rotor.
where Li is the effective length of the stator stack, µ0 is the
magnetic permeability of free space, g is the air gap, and
bf(x) is the air gap magnetic flux density distribution With a stationary stator, only the magnetic flux density
according to eqn (1). Substituting eqns (1) and (9) into (10) excited by the rotor PMs depends on the rotor position
and assuming that the maximum energy change is in the with respect to the coordinate system fixed to the stator
interval X + b ≤ x ≤ X + a, the cogging torque equations [13]. Magnetic flux density waveforms are visualized in
becomes Fig. 2. It is easier to take the integral over bf(x)2 assuming
that the rotor is stationary and the stator moves with
synchronous speed, i.e. only stator slots expressed by the
term Acosαx change their position. Thus, (a)
Li g D2 out 1X +b

Tc ( X ) = −
2µ 0 2 k
X +a  C
∫
2 B cos βx − AB cosαx cos βx  (15)
 0.043
0.05
0.04
× (− ABα sin αx cos βx)dx 0.03
0.02
I 1( x) 0.01
After performing integration with respect to x the cogging 0
I 2( x)
torque equation has the following form: 0.01
0.02
0.03
L g D2out
Tc ( X ) = − i [I1 ( X ) + I 2 ( X )] (16)
0.04
− 0.043 0.05
2µ 0 2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 x 2⋅ p ⋅ τ
where
X +b
 2α  (b)
I1 ( X ) = ∫ −
X +a 
kC
AB 2 sin αx cos 2 βx dx

0.0005 .
5 .10
4 10
4
4
4
3 .10
4
   a + b   a − b   2 .10
1 .10
4

2 sin α  X +  sin α  
2  
I 2( x) 0
   2   1 .10
4
4
2 .10
 α   a + b   3 .10
4

+ sin (α + 2 β ) X +   4 .10

4

 α + 2β   2   (17) − 0.0005 5 .10 4

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
  0 x 2⋅ p ⋅ τ
AB 2    a − b  
= × sin (α + 2 β )  
kC    2  
 α   a + b   Fig. 3. Comparison of the first and second term in eqn (16):
+ sin (α − 2 β ) X +   (a) integrals I1(X) and I2(X) according to eqn (17) and (18), (b)
 α − 2β   2   integral I2(X). Calculation results for a PMBM with z1 = 36 stator
  slots, 2p = 10 poles, g = 1 mm, Li = 198 mm, t1 = 14 mm, τ =
× sin (α − 2 β ) a − b   50.3 mm, b14 = 3 mm, bfs = 0, bs = 12.6 mm, Bg = 0.76 T, ns = 11
    rev/s.
  2 
X +b

∫ [2αA B ]
2 2 Fig. 3 clearly shows that the fundamental frequency of the
I2 (X ) = sin αx cos αx cos 2 bx dx cogging torque (first integral) is fc = z1 ns, i.e., there are z1
X +a
pulses per one revolution which is modulated by fcp = 2p
1   a + b   ns, i.e., 2p pulses per revolution. The second integral
 sin 2α  X +  sin (α (a − b) )  indicates that there is negligible frequency fc2 = 2z1ns, i.e.,
2   2   2z1 pulses per revolution.
 α   a + b   (18)
+ sin  2(α + β ) X +  
 4(α + β )   2  
  III. SIMPLIFIED COGGING TORQUE EQUATION
= A2 B 2 × sin[(α + β )(a − b )] 
 
+ α   a + b   Putting bPM(x) = Bg in eqn (11), the cogging torque will
sin 2(α − β ) X +  become a waveform with frequency fc = z1 ns and constant
 4(α − β )   2  
  amplitude independent of the rotor position with respect to
× sin[(α − β )(a − b )]  the stator. Such simplified equation which does not take
  into account the finite width of rotor poles has been
  derived in earlier publications of the author [10,11]. For
bPM(x) = Bg, µ = 1 and k = 1 the simplified equation has the
It can be found that I1(X) >> I2(X) and the following following form
simplified cogging torque equation can be used
Li g D2out
Tc ( X ) ≈ − I1 ( X ) (19)
2µ 0 2
 (a)
2
Li g D2 out d X +b
 Bg 
Tc ( X ) = −
2 µ 0 2 dX ∫ 
k
X +a  C
− AB g cos αx  dx

3⋅ 10
−3
0.003

0.002
K 3( x)
L g D2 out 0.001
=− i K 4( x)
2µ 0 2 0
K 5( x) 0.001

0.002

d
X +b  B g 
2
2  − 3⋅ 10
−3
0.003
∫  k  − dx
2 2 2 2
×  AB g cos α x + A B g cos α x 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

X + a  C 
dX  kC (b)
0 x 2⋅ p ⋅ τ

5
4 .10
L g D 2 out −5
=− i [K 1 ( X ) + K 2 ( X )] 4⋅ 10

2µ 0 2 2 .10
5

(20) K 4( x) 0
(a) 5
2 .10

−5
− 4⋅ 10 4 .10
5
0.05
0.05 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0.04
0.03 0 (c) x 2⋅ p ⋅ τ
0.02
K 1( x) 0.01 .10 6
−6 2
K 2( x)
0 2⋅ 10
0.01
6
0.02 1 .10
0.03
0.04
− 0.05 0.05 K 5( x) 0
(b) 0
0
0.1 0.2
x
0.3 0.4 0.5
2⋅ p ⋅ τ
6
1 .10
4
5 .10
0.0005 . 4 −6
4 10 − 2⋅ 10 2 .10
6
4
3 .10 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
4
2 .10
4 0 x 2⋅ p ⋅ τ
1 .10
K 2( x) 0
4
1 .10
2 .10
4 Fig. 5. Comparison of the third, fourth and fifth terms in eqn
4
3 .10 (26): (a) integrals K3(X), K4(X) and K5(X) according to eqns (27),
4
4 .10
− 0.0005 5 .10 4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 (28) and (29), (b) integral K4(X), (c) integral K5(X) Simulation
0 x 2⋅ p ⋅ τ has been done for a PMBM with the same parameters as
specified in Fig. 2 caption, relative eccentricity ε = 0.1.

Fig. 4. Comparison of the first and second term in eqn (20):

(a) integrals K1(X) and K2(X) according to eqn (21) and (22), (b)
integral K2(X). Simulation has been done for a PMBM with the IV. INFLUENCE OF ECCENTRICITY
same parameters as specified in Fig. 2 caption.
The variation of the air gap for static eccentricity can be
expressed analytically as [13]
where
g ( x) = g (1 − ε cosθx) (24)
4   a + b   a − b  (21)
K1 ( X ) = − AB g2 sin α  X +  sin α 
kC   2   2 
where g is the mean air gap, ε = e/g, θ = π /(p τ) and e is
  a + b  the displacement between the stator and rotor axis. Since
 sin [α ( a − b) ] (22)
2 2
K 2 ( X ) = A B sin 2α  X +
2 
g
  the air gap is now the function of the x coordinate, the
magnetic energy change depends on the variation of the air
Since K1(X) >> K2(X) (Fig. 4), eqn (20) can also be written gap with the x coordinate. Eqn (11) with g(x) in the square
in a simpler form: bracket is difficult to analyse so that it is more convenient
to use the simplified eqn (20) in which
Li g D2out
Tc ( X ) ≈ − K1 ( X ) (23)
2µ 0 2
 g ( x) 2 V. CALCULATIONS AND COMPARISON WITH
A = 2γ kok =1ksk =1 (25) MEASUREMENTS
t1
Thus The results of analytical calculation of the cogging torque
according to eqn (16) which includes the finite width of
Li g D2 out the rotor magnet are shown in Fig. 5a while the results of
Tc ( X ) = − calculations according to simplified eqn (20) are shown in
2µ 0 2 Fig. 5b. Measured cogging torque produced by the same
× [K1 ( X ) + K 2 ( X ) + K 3 ( X ) + K 4 ( X ) + K 5 ( X )] (26 motor and the same air gap magnetic flux density is shown
in Fig. 6. To capture the cogging torque pulsations, a
Li g D2 out torque transducer and oscilloscope have been used. The
≈− [K1 ( X ) + K3 ( X )] measured cogging torque waveform is modulated by a
2µ 0 2
sinusoid with period equal to one revolution 2pτ. This
effect is due to the misalignment of the rotor and
where K1(X) and K2(X) are according to eqns (21) and (22),
transducer shafts.
respectively, and remaining terms are
(a)
1
K3 (X ) = 2 AB g2 ε 0.3
kC 0.2

   a + b    a − b  
sin (θ + α ) x +   sin (θ + α )  
   2    2   T c( x) 0
× 
+ sin (θ − α ) x + a + b  sin (θ − α ) a − b   
    

   2    2    0.2

(27) − 0.3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
K 4 ( X ) = − A 2 B g2 ε (b) 0 x 2⋅ p ⋅ τ

   a + b    a − b  
2 sin θ  x +  sin θ   0.3

   2    2   0.2

   a + b    a − b  
× + sin (θ + 2α ) x +  sin (θ + 2α )  
   2    2   T c( x) 0

  a + b    a − b  
+ sin (θ − 2α ) x +  sin (θ − 2α ) 
   2    2   0.2

− 0.3
(28) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
2 2 2
K5 ( X ) = A B ε g
0 x 2⋅ p ⋅ τ

Fig. 5. Cogging torque calculation results (Nm versus meter): (a)

1   a + b  
 sin[(θ + α )(a − b )] 
acording to eqn (16), (b) according to eqn (20). Design data of
 sin 2(θ + α ) x + the PMBM are the same as specified in Fig. 2 caption, relative
4   2   eccentricity ε = 0.1.
 1   a + b  
+ sin 2(θ − α ) x +  sin[(θ − α )(a − b )]
 4   2  
× 
+ 1 sin 2γ  x + a + b  sin[γ (a − b )] 
 2   
2  
 
 1   a + b  
+ sin 2α  x +  sin[α (a − b )] 
 2   2  
(29) Fig. 6. Cogging torque test results for one full rotor revolution.
Design data of the PMBM are the same as specified in Fig. 2
Fig. 4 shows that K3(X) >> K4(X) and K3(X) >> K5(X). caption, relative eccentricity ε = 0.1.
 [14] Z.Q. Zhu and D. Howe, “Analytical prediction of the
VI. CONCLUSIONS cogging torque in radial field permanent magnet brushless
motors”. IEEE Trans on MAG, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 1371-1374,
In comparison with the FEM, the presented analytical 1992.
[15] Z.Q. Zhu and D. Howe, “Influence of design
method gives immediate results. It can easily be parameters on cogging torque in permanent magnet machines”.
implemented in the design procedure of PM brushless IEEE Trans on EC, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 407-412, 2000.
motors. Eqn (16) can capture the effect of the finite width
of PMs while simplified equation (20) can only predict the
fundamental frequency of the cogging torque and
approximately its amplitude. The effect of eccentricity can
be included with the aid of eqn (26).

There is a certain discrepancy between the analytical

prediction and measurements. On the other hand, cogging
torque measurements are difficult and the accuracy of
measurements is questionable.

REFERENCES

[1] B. Ackermann, J.H.H. Janssen, and R. Sottek, “New

technique for reducing cogging torque in a class of brushless d.c.
motors”. IEE Proc. Part B, Vol. 139, No.4, pp. 315-320, 1992.
[2] N. Bianchi and S. Bolognani, “Design techniques for
reducing the cogging torque in surface mounted PM motors”,
IEEE Trans. on IAS, vol. 38, No. 5, pp. 1259-1265, 2002.
[3] C. Breton, J. Bartolome, J.A. Benito, G. Tassinario, I.
Flotats, C.W. Lu, and B.J. Chalmers, “Influence of machine
symmetry on reduction of cogging torque in permanent magnet
brushless motors”, IEEE Trans on MAG, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp.
3819-3823, 2000.
[4] S.X. Chen, T.S. Low, H. Lin, and Z.J. Liu, “Design
trends of spindle motors for high performance hard disk drives”.
IEEE Trans on MAG, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 3848-3850, 1996.
[5] J. de La Ree, and N. Boules, “Torque production in
permanent magnet synchronous motors”. IEEE Trans on IAS,
Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 107-112, 1989.
[6] M. Dąbrowski, “Magnetic fields and circuits of
electrical machines” (in Polish). Warsaw, WNT, 1971.
[7] R.P. Deodhar, D.A. Staton, T.M. Jahns, and T.J.E.
Miller, “Prediction of cogging torque using the flux-MMF
diagram technique”. IEEE Trans on IAS, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 569-
576, 1996
[8] L. Dreyfus, L.: Die Theorie des Drehstrommotors mit
Kurzschlussanker, Ingeniörsvetenkapsakademiens, Handlingar
No 34, Stokholm, pp. 1-47, 1924.
[9] J.F. Gieras, “Electrodynamic levitation forces – theory
and small-scale results”. Acta Technica CSAV, No. 4, pp. 389-
413, 1981.
[10] J.F. Gieras and M. Wing, Permanent magnet motors
technology: design and applications, Marcel Dekker, New York,
1996, 2002 (2nd edition).
[11] J.F. Gieras and M.E. Marler, “Analytical prediction of
torque ripple in permanent magnet brushless motors”, Int. Conf.
on Electr. Machines ICEM’02, Brugge, Belgium, pp. 33-34,
2002.
[12] D.C. Hanselman, “Effect of skew, pole count and slot
count on brushless motor radial force, cogging torque and back
EMF”. IEE Proc. Part B 144 (5), 1997, pp. 325-330.
[13] B. Heller and V. Hamata, Harmonic field effects in
induction machines, Academia, Prague, 1977.

View publication stats