Theoretical Evaluation of the Double U-core

Switched Reluctance Machine

Rasmus Jæger, Simon Staal Nielsen and Peter Omand Rasmussen
Department of Energy Technology, Aalborg University
Pontoppidanstræde 111, 9220 Aalborg Øst, Denmark
Email: raj@et.aau.dk, ssn@et.aau.dk and por@et.aau.dk

Abstract—The switched reluctance machine (SRM) has seen
a lot of interest due to its simplicity and ruggedness. Much
attention have been paid in academia to improve on some of the
disadvantages of the technology such as torque ripple, acoustic
noise and low torque density. In this paper a topology, namely
the double U-core SRM, is reviewed. This topology improves on
some of the disadvantages of the regular SRM. Torque ripple is
reduced and the torque density is increased for the same amount
of material, by reconfiguring the topology of the regular SRM
and increasing the number of poles. The result is a segmented
stator structure where each segment can be wound individually
and assembled afterwards. Several similar technologies have been
demonstrated, and the claimed advantages have been proven
in comparison with regular SRMs with a lower pole count.
In this paper, the technology will be compared to a regular
SRM with a similar pole count, to assess the advantages of the
technology, when disregarding the increased number of poles.
This paper therefore serves the purpose of proving and assessing
the technology through a straightforward theoretical comparison
of a regular and a double U-core SRM. From this comparison
the claims of the technology can be proven and the gain from
utilising the technology can be assessed objectively.
I. I NTRODUCTION
The switched reluctance machine (SRM) is a worthy com-
petitor to the market-dominating permanent magnet (PM) and
induction machines. While it is not as widespread and only
few established production facilities exist, it has interesting
features, making it superior in some areas. The SRM has a
high efficiency over a wide operating area, making it suitable
for variable-speed applications. It is fault tolerant, as it can
continue to run with a winding failure, and if power to the
motor is cut, there is no induced back-emf that can cause
damage to the motor or drive circuit. Finally, the SRM has a
very robust, rugged and simple construction compared to both
PM and inductions machines.
This paper is about a double U-core SRM. It has an
increased number of poles, which increases torque and reduces
torque ripple [1]. The copper is better utilised compared to a
regular SRM, meaning that a higher torque can be obtained for
the same amount of material. The machine has a segmented
stator consisting of double U-cores connected by a bridge. It is
The work is partly financed by the Energy Technology Development and
Demonstration Programme (EUDP - CIPED project, Journal Nr. 64013-0565).
a refinement of the U-core technology presented in [2]. First,
the basic theory behind the U-core technology, followed by an
explanation of the double U-core technology, is presented in
section II. In section III the requisites and models utilised for
the comparison are presented. In section IV the comparison
is presented. The results of the comparison are evaluated
and summed up in section V. Finally, the presented work is
concluded upon in section VI.
II. T HE DOUBLE U- CORE SRM
The simplest form of an SRM; a 1-phase 2/2 SRM, is
illustrated in fig. 1a. By considering the torque equation for
a non-saturated SRM, as given in (1), it can be seen that the
torque is dependent on the change in inductance, the change
in position, as well as the current. By splitting the regular 2/2
SRM in half, two U-cores can be formed, as seen in fig. 1b.
This means that the number of poles is doubled, hence the
change in position from unaligned to aligned, dθ, is halved.
The area of the air gap is the same if neglecting fringing, hence
the aligned inductance is not changed, and if the unaligned
inductance is assumed to be approximately the same, dL is
approximately the same. This means that the torque is doubled
for the same amount of material [2], compared to the regular
SRM with a lower pole count. This is the basic principle
behind the U-core technology.
45o
90o
tp
½tp
a) b)
Fig. 1. a) 1-phase 2/2 regular SRM. b) 1-phase 4/4 U-core SRM. Unaligned
position is indicated by the dotted grey lines.

978-1-5090-4281-4/17/$31.00 2017
c IEEE.
 deviates slightly from that of the double U-core, as it has a
1 dL 2 middle pole that splits out in two poles, whereas the double
τ= i (1) U-core has two full poles in the middle. In a comparison
2 dθ
with a conventional 12/8 SRM it was demonstrated that “the
In [2] a prototype of a 3-phase 12/10 U-core SRM was
stator-segmented SRM produces over 20 % higher torque in
developed and analysed. The result from the analysis was
comparison to the conventional SRM” [1]. In this analysis,
a comprehensive assessment of the technology and utilised
the two machines however have a different pole count, which
models. One of the biggest disadvantages of the U-core SRM
also affects the torque. The same is the case for the comparison
was the excessive amount of end windings, caused by the
conducted in [3], where a machine very similar to the U-core
full pitch winding topology. There was a number of other
SRM, with a segmented rotor [4], is compared to a regular
disadvantages, but in general, the concept of the U-core
3-phase 6/4 SRM. The increased torque is a result of the
SRM was proven. Therefore, the U-core technology is further
higher pole count, hence the results of these studies does not
developed. To reduce the amount of end winding, the full-pitch
necessarily apply when comparing machines with similar pole
windings should be avoided. This is obtained by doubling the
count. Therefore, similar pole count machines are compared in
number of U-cores, such that two coils are used per phase, and
the following. The short flux paths of the U-core technology
the U-cores sharing a coil are placed next to each other. The
has previously been claimed to reduce core losses [5] and have
result is seen in fig. 2a. As the two neighbouring segments of
been utilised in several topologies [6]. Similar flux-paths are
the same phase has equal magnetic potential, the U-cores can
also seen in rotor-segmented machines [7]. The topology of
be connected with a bridge, in order to form solid segments
the U-core machine is not new [8] [9] [5] [10] [11], but it
that can be wound individually. Due to the double U-core
is different due to the coil arrangement, where the copper is
segments, the minimum number of poles for a single phase is
much better utilised.
8. This means that a 3-phase machine would have 24 stator
The purpose of this paper is to try and verify some of
poles, similar to the machine seen in fig. 2b. It will have the
the above mentioned claims, to see if the double U-core has
same increased torque as the regular U-core machine, but due
the expected advantages and hence is superior to the regular
to the high number of poles, the commutation frequency will
SRM. The machines are compared with a similar pole count,
also be high. This means that this topology is not suitable for
to disregard the effect of increasing the number of poles. In
very high speed applications.
order to assess the advantages of the topology, the simplest
form of the double U-core SRM, a 1-phase 8/8 machine, will
be compared to a similar regular SRM, a 1-phase 8/8 SRM.

III. R EQUISITES

a) b)
Fig. 2. a) 1-phase 8/8 double U-core SRM. b) 3-phase 24/22 double U-core
SRM.

The double U-core technology is expected to lead to the

following advantages over the regular SRM:
• Increased torque for the same amount of copper, com-
pared to a lower pole regular SRM.
• Reduced copper usage compared to regular SRMs with
similar pole count.
• Reduced core loss due to shorter flux paths and reduced
flux reversal.
• Better manufacturability due to segmented structure.
• Cheaper material cost due to reduced copper usage.
• Cheaper material cost due to reduced sheet steel waste.
A topology with similar ideas to the double U-core is pre-
sented in [1]. It has a similar pole count and is built on some of
the same principles as the double U-core. The stator segments
a) b)
Fig. 3. 1-phase 8/8 a) Regular SRM and b) double U-core SRM. Blue lines
indicate the flux paths.
In order to make as fair a comparison as possible between
the regular SRM and the double U-core SRM, two very similar
machines are compared. Both machines are single-phase 8/8
SRMs, where the regular and double U-core SRM are seen
in fig. 3a and 3b respectively. The two machines are scaled
so that the slot areas and poles are identical. The air gaps
as well as the outer rotor and inner stator diameters are also
equal. The only differences in dimensions between the two
are the stator and rotor yoke thickness, which can be halved
in the regular SRM, since it carries half the flux of the poles,
as illustrated by the green and red dashed lines. Therefore,
the outer stator diameter is slightly smaller and the inner rotor
diameter is slightly larger in the regular SRM compared to the lreg,stack = lstack + 12 rmidcoil (θs − βs ) (2)
1
double U-core SRM. It is previously described how a bridge lreg,end = 2 rmidcoil(θs + βs ) (3)
can be made between the two neighbouring U-cores to form a lreg,coil = 2lreg,stack + 2lreg,end (4)
segment. This bridge is considered to be a part of the structural luc,stack = lstack + rmidcoil (θs − βs ) (5)
assembly, hence it is omitted in this analysis, where only active
material is included. luc,end = 2rmidcoil θs (6)
On the figures the coil direction is also illustrated. Notice luc,coil = 2luc,stack + 2luc,end (7)
on fig. 3a how the winding direction results in a distribution of
the flux through all of the core material. The winding direction
of the regular SRM can also be altered to obtain flux paths
similar to that of the double U-core SRM. This would however

s
mean that the yoke should be the same thickness as the double
U-core SRM, meaning the yoke would not be utilised as well,
even though the frequency is reduced in part of the rotor.
rmidcoil
Therefore, the comparison is performed with the illustrated
coil configuration. Dimensions of the machine have not been
optimised, as the goal of this paper is not to demonstrate s
optimal performance, but rather to do a one-to-one comparison
of two machines with identical dimensions. The dimensions
Fig. 4. Dimensions used for determining end winding length.
are chosen based on experience, and are presented in table I.
C. Core loss
TABLE I
D IMENSIONS OF THE SRM S . The core loss of the SRMs are determined based on lookup
Dimension Regular Double U-core tables from data sheets. The lookup tables provided by the
Stator outer diameter [mm] 110.9 120 manufacturer are given as loss density as a function of peak
Stator inner diameter [mm] 70 70 flux density and frequency. Values are based on sinusoidal
Rotor diameter [mm] 69.46 69.46
Shaft diameter [mm] 46.9 37.8 excitation. For the analyses, 0.2 mm laminations are used as
Air gap [mm] 0.27 0.27 a reference, and the core loss data for 20HTH1200 are given
◦
Pole arc [ ] 15 15 in fig. 5.
Pole width [mm] 9.1 9.1
Yoke width [mm] 9.1 4.6
Single coil area [mm2 ] 140.6 281.2
10 50 Hz
100 Hz
200 Hz
400 Hz
A. Model 1000 Hz
10
Loss density [W/kg]

In order to compare the two SRMs, a finite element (FE)
model is set up in COMSOL. This allows a comparison of
the magnetic circuit as well as the torque output of the two
SRMs. The model is a 2D magnetostatic model. 3D effects
have not been taken in to account, as it is assumed that these
will have similar impact on both machines.
B. Copper loss
In order to determine the amount of copper as well as
the resistance of the coils, the length of the coils must be
determined. Due to the winding scheme of the two SRMs the
lengths alter. The regular SRM has more copper through the
stack length, whilst the double U-core SRM has longer end
windings for each coil. The length of the coil of the regular and
double U-core SRM used for the following analyses, is given
in (4) and (7). l−,stack is the length of the coil through the
stack plus an overhang in each end, l−,end is the end winding
arch and l−,coil is the total length of a single coil. rmidcoil ,
θs and βs are illustrated in fig. 4.
2000 Hz
1

1
0.03 0.1 0.5 1 2
Flux density [T]
Fig. 5. Core loss data for 20HTH1200 [12].
In order to use these data to determine core losses of the
SRMs, the frequency and flux density must be estimated. As
the yoke and pole thicknesses are uniform and flux is assumed
to be distributed evenly across the pole, it is assumed that
the flux density is also uniform throughout the laminations.
The flux waveform is estimated to an equivalent sinusoidal
waveform, even though the actual flux waveform is triangular.
By studying the flux variations in the laminations of the SRMs,
it is found that the laminations of the regular SRM has two
 areas with different flux waveforms, whilst the double U- • Material use and cost
core SRM has three areas with different flux waveforms. The • Copper loss
different areas are marked on fig. 6. The appertaining flux • Core loss
waveforms for each color are given in fig. 7. • Combined loss
The magnetisation and torque curves are derived from an
FE model, and indicates the performance of the machine,
regarding inductance and torque. By considering the geometry
of the two machines, material use and cost can be determined
and discussed. Finally, copper, core and combined loss are
considered, to give an indication of the efficiency of the two
machines.

1 A. Magnetisation and torque curves

2

3 In fig. 8 the magnetisation and torque curves for the two
SRMs are seen. These are found from an FE analysis. As
Fig. 6. Areas where flux waveforms vary on the SRMs.
expected, it is seen that the two SRMs have very similar curves
and differences are almost negligible. The regular SRM does
however have slightly higher flux linkage in both aligned and
1 unaligned positions. Furthermore, the regular SRM has slightly
Area 1 - Actual higher torque. The almost negligible differences means that
0 Area 1 - Equaivalent
it is assumed that the output of the two machines will be
-1 similar, when neglecting losses. The differences of the two
SRMs should therefore be found in material use, cost or power
Flux density [pu]

1
Area 2 - Actual
loss.
0 Area 2 - Equaivalent

10-3
-1
40 U-core
8
1 Regular
Area 3 - Actual
Flux Linkage [Wb]

0 Area 3 - Equaivalent 6 Torque [Nm] 30

-1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 4 20
Time [pu]
Fig. 7. Actual and equivalent flux waveforms of the areas given by color in 2 10
fig. 6. U-core (2 turns)
Regular (1 turn)
0 0
Notice in fig. 7 how the actual waveforms are triangular. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 50 100 150
The stator waveform is unipolar, whilst the rotor waveforms Current [A] Electrical Position [°]
are bipolar. Furthermore, the rotor yoke of the double U-core a) b)
SRM has half the frequency. The equivalent flux frequencies Fig. 8. a) Magnetisation and b) torque curves of the two SRMs.
can be written to be a function of the speed ω as well as
number of stator and rotor poles, Ns and Nr . B. Material use and cost
ω
f1,eq = Nr (8) As the laminations as well as winding topology of the two
4π
ω machines differ, the resulting material use will also differ. In
f2,eq = Ns (9) fig. 9 the total mass as well as copper and core material mass
4π
ω is given as a function of stack length. It is found that depending
f3,eq = Ns (10)
8π on the length of the machine, the relation between the mass of
Using these equivalent frequencies, as well as the maximum the two SRMs varies. This is due to a slightly larger amount
flux density, the core loss of each section and hence the total of end-windings on the double U-core SRM, meaning that
SRM can be determined. for shorter machines, the regular SRM uses less copper. For
the exemplified SRMs, there is an equal amount of copper
IV. C OMPARISON at a stack length of 23.9 mm. It is furthermore seen that the
In order to compare the two machines, they are judged based double U-core SRM always uses more core material than the
on the following analyses: regular SRM, due to the thicker yokes. This means that the
• Magnetisation and torque curves total mass of the double U-core SRM will be larger than that
 of the regular SRM for machines shorter than 95.3 mm and lengths, the resistance of the double U-core SRM decreases.
vice versa for longer machines. For example, with a stack length of 60 mm, the copper loss
of the double U-core SRM will be 19 % lower than that of
the regular SRM.
8
U-core total
Regular total
6 Break-even total
U-core copper 0.7 30
Regular copper U-core/Regular
Mass [kg]

Break-even copper 20 Break-even

0.6
4 U-core core
Regular core
0.5

Resistance [m ]
10

Copper loss [%]

2 0.4 0
0.3
-10
0 0.2
0 50 100 150 U-core (2 turns) -20
Regular (1 turn)
Stack length [mm] 0.1
Break-even -30
Fig. 9. Masses of the two SRMs. 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Stack length [mm] Stack length [mm]
Considering the cost of the two main materials of the
machine, copper and electrical sheet steel, the active material a) b)
Fig. 11. a) Resistance of the two SRMs. b) Resulting deviation of copper
cost can be determined. Even though material cost might only loss.
be a fraction of the total cost of an electrical machine, it gives
an idea of the result of using more or less of one material
or another. In fig. 10 it is seen when one of the machines is D. Core loss
cheaper than the other, depending on the price relation between
copper and core material as well as the stack length. The
price of copper is typically many times more expensive than In fig. 12a the total core loss is given and in fig. 12b the
electrical sheet steel [13], meaning that unless the machine is deviation between the two SRMs is given. It is seen that the
very short, the double U-core SRM has the lowest material regular SRM has lower core loss than the double U-core SRM.
cost. Notice that even though the double U-core uses more At lower speeds the core loss of the double U-core SRM is
core material, in most cases it has a lower total material cost, 12.5-13 % higher than that of the regular SRM, depending
due to the reduced amount of copper, caused by the winding on flux density. At higher speeds the deviation decreases. The
topology. core losses are given at a stack length of 60 mm, and are
linearly scaled if altering the stack length.

150
U-core is cheapest
Regular SRM is cheapest 300 13
U-core/Regular, B=0.5 T
U-core, B=0.5 T U-core/Regular, B=1 T
Stack length [mm]

100 250 U-core, B=1 T U-core/Regular, B=1.5 T

U-core, B=1.5 T 12 U-core/Regular, B=2 T
Total core loss [W]

U-core, B=2 T
200
Deviation [%]

Regular, B=0.5 T
Regular, B=1 T
50 150 Regular, B=1.5 T 11
Regular, B=2 T

100
10
0 50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
pcu /plam [-] 0 9
0 5000 10000 15000 0 5000 10000 15000
Fig. 10. Combinations of copper/core price relation and stack length where Speed [rpm] Speed [rpm]
one SRM is cheaper than the other.
a) b)
Fig. 12. a) Total core loss and b) deviation between the two SRMs as a
C. Copper loss function of speed and flux density.
The reduced amount of copper also affects the copper loss.
The resistance is determined from the length of the coil and
can be seen in fig. 11a. The resulting deviation in copper loss In fig. 13 the core loss of the rotor and stator is seen. It is
due to the different resistances is seen in fig. 11b. Similar seen that the core loss of the rotor is almost identical on the
to what is seen in fig. 9, there is a break-even at 23.9 mm, two SRMs. This means that the main difference between the
where the coil resistance of the two is equal. At longer stack two is in the core loss of the stator.
 100 250
V. E VALUATION
U-core, B=0.5 T U-core, B=0.5 T Through the comparison of the double U-core SRM with
U-core, B=1 T U-core, B=1 T
80 U-core, B=1.5 T 200 U-core, B=1.5 T a similar regular SRM, the claims given in section II can be

Stator core loss [W]

Rotor core loss [W]

U-core, B=2 T U-core, B=2 T

Regular, B=0.5 T Regular, B=0.5 T verified or dismissed. Utilising the presented requisites and
60 Regular, B=1 T 150 Regular, B=1 T models, the SRMs have been analysed. From the analyses,
Regular, B=1.5 T Regular, B=1.5 T
Regular, B=2 T Regular, B=2 T the following conclusions can be drawn:
40 100
• The magnetisation and torque curves are almost identical,
20 50 differences are negligible.
• Output torque for the two machines is identical.
0 0 • Output torque per current is the same, when the double
0 5000 10000 15000 0 5000 10000 15000
Speed [rpm] Speed [rpm] U-core SRM has twice the number of windings per coil.
• Torque density is higher for the regular SRM, due to the
a) b)
reduced outer diameter.
Fig. 13. Core loss of a) rotor and b) stator.
• The regular SRM uses less lamination material, while at

E. Combined loss a given length the double U-core SRM uses less copper.
• Depending on the length of the machine as well as the
In fig. 14 the combined copper and core loss is given at relation between copper and core material cost, in most
two stack lengths and three different current densities, as a cases, the total material cost of the double U-core SRM
function of speed. This gives an overview of the total loss, will be less than that of the regular SRM.
neglecting mechanical loss, for the exemplified SRMs. The • The double U-core SRM has lower copper loss at a given
current densities represent three different scenarios. Running length.
continuously with 5 A/mm2 is possible without forced cool- • The regular SRM has lower core loss.
ing, 10 A/mm2 is possible using liquid cooling, while 15
A/mm2 is possible, but challenging, using liquid cooling [14]. These findings apply only for the comparison between
For the shorter exemplified stack length, the loss of the two the two single-phase 8/8 SRMs. In other configurations, the
SRMs is almost equal. The double U-core SRM has lower findings might be different. The purpose of these analyses is to
losses at high currents, whilst the regular SRM has lower give a direct comparison between two very similar machines,
losses at high speeds. For the longer stack length, the double where the only differences are the lamination and winding
U-core SRM has much lower losses at high currents, whilst at topologies, allowing for a direct assessment of the double U-
low currents and high speeds, the two SRMs has equal losses. core technology, leaving out as many influential parameters
It is evident that for longer stack lengths, the double U-core as possible. As expected, the magnetic circuits and therefore
SRM has a lower combined loss. output torque are similar. The analysis of the mass and cost
indicates that the double U-core SRM is cheaper in most cases,
OVWDFN PP even though it uses more material in total. The real benefit of
400
the double U-core SRM is however expected to be lowered
manufacturing costs due to the segmented structure, which
300
can reduce the amount of waste material substantially. It is
Total loss [W]

also found that the double U-core SRM has lower copper loss
200
in most configurations. This is due to the better utilisation of
copper, where each coil magnetises four poles, where each
100
coil of the regular SRM only magnetises a single pole. This
also significantly reduces the number of coils from eight to
0 U-core, i=5 A/mm2 / B=1.42 T
0 5000
U-core, i=10 A/mm2 / B=1.69 T
10000 15000 two.
U-core, i=15 A/mm2 / B=1.84 T OVWDFN PP Contrary to the expected, the regular SRM has lower core
1000 Regular, i=5 A/mm2 / B=1.43 T loss than the double U-core SRM. In the presented 1-phase
Regular, i=10 A/mm2 / B=1.72 T
800 topology, the advantages of short flux paths and reduced flux
Regular, i=15 A/mm2 / B=1.87 T
reversal are present in both SRMs. Considering a multi-phase
Total loss [W]

600 machine, the double U-core SRM retains both advantages,

400
whilst the regular SRM does not. Therefore, the results might
be different for a multi-phase machine. It should furthermore
200 be noticed that for multi-phase regular SRMs, the yokes will
be the same or even thicker than that of the double U-core
0
0 5000 10000 15000 SRM, as the phases share the same yoke.
Speed [rpm] One of the fundamental claims of the U-core technology
Fig. 14. Combined loss of the SRMs at different stack lengths and current is increased torque density and reduced torque ripple. This
densities, as a function of speed. is also not demonstrated in the presented comparison. The
underlying basis for these claims is actually the increased
number of poles, hence in many of the presented prior art,
where machines are compared with lower-pole regular SRMs,
this claim will be true. In a comparison of similar pole count
machines, there will be no improvement in neither torque
density nor torque ripple. However, it is demonstrated that the
double U-core SRM has lower copper losses than the regular
SRM, meaning that it will be able to deliver the same torque at
a lower copper loss, which might in fact mean that it delivers
a higher torque density.
The presented analyses demonstrate the core advantages of
the double U-core SRM in the most simplified configuration.
In multi-phase machines many other aspects start to arise. One
thing is the mentioned expected advantages with respect to
core loss. Another thing to consider is the inherent high pole
count of the double U-core SRM. As mentioned, the lowest
pole count for a 3-phase machine is 24/22 - this is beneficial
in some applications. Due to the segmented structure, where a
single segment constitutes four poles, the ratio between stator
and rotor poles will also be very different to that of a regular
SRM. Making a regular SRM with a similar pole count to
the 3-phase double U-core SRM results in a 3-phase 24/16 -
16 rotor poles, where the double U-core has 22 for the same
stator pole count. Further investigation to examine the results
of this difference would be very interesting.
VI. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, the double U-core SRM is presented and
theoretically demonstrated. The basic theory behind the U-
core SRM is presented, followed by a short summary of the
advantages and disadvantages of it. This leads to a presentation
of the new and enhanced double U-core SRM. The claimed
advantages of the topology are presented along with a review
of similar technologies. Through a comprehensive comparison
with a double U-core SRM and a regular SRM, both in a 1-
phase 8/8 configuration, the claimed advantages of the double
U-core SRM can be verified or dismissed. By comparing two
SRMs with similar pole count, the effect of increasing the
number of poles can be disregarded. This means that the
advantages obtained solely by reconfiguring the regular SRM
are demonstrated. The results of the comparison are evaluated,
and it is found that the double U-core SRM has similar output
torque compared to the regular SRM. It is found that the
double U-core SRM has lower copper loss, but higher core
loss. Finally, it is found that in most configurations, the double
U-core SRM has lower active material cost.
The double U-core SRM has some distinct advantages that
makes it superior to the regular SRM in some applications.
With the comparison given in this paper, a solid verification
of the claimed advantages is given, which proves the contri-
bution.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The development of the U-core SRM and double U-core
SRM is a part of the CIPED [15] project. The authors of this
paper would like to acknowledge the members of the CIPED
[15] consortium for assisting and financing during the project.
R EFERENCES
[1] S. Mousavi-Aghdam, M. Feyzi, N. Bianchi, and M. Morandin, “Design
and analysis of a novel high torque stator-segmented srm,” Industrial
Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–1, 2015.
[2] R. Jæger, S. S. Nielsen, P. O. Rasmussen, and K. Kongerslev, “Devel-
opment and analysis of u-core switched reluctance machine,” in 2016
IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE), Sept 2016,
pp. 1–8.
[3] N. Vattikuti, V. Rallabandi, and B. Fernandes, “A novel high torque and
low weight segmented switched reluctance motor,” in Power Electronics
Specialists Conference, 2008. PESC 2008. IEEE, June 2008, pp. 1223–
1228.
[4] B. Mecrow, J. Finch, E. El-Kharashi, and A. Jack, “Switched reluc-
tance motors with segmental rotors,” Electric Power Applications, IEE
Proceedings -, vol. 149, no. 4, pp. 245–254, July 2002.
[5] C. Hancock and J. Hendershot, “Electronically commutated reluctance
motor,” May 14 1991, US Patent 5,015,903. [Online]. Available:
http://www.google.com/patents/US5015903
[6] P. Lobato, J. Dente, J. Martins, and A. Pires, “Short flux-paths in
switched reluctance generators for direct drive wind energy converters,”
in Compatibility and Power Electronics (CPE), 2015 9th International
Conference on, June 2015, pp. 307–311.
[7] V. Rallabandi and B. Fernandes, “Design procedure of segmented rotor
switched reluctance motor for direct drive applications,” Electric Power
Applications, IET, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 77–88, March 2014.
[8] T. Burress and C. Ayers, “Development and experimental characteri-
zation of a multiple isolated flux path reluctance machine,” in Energy
Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE), 2012 IEEE, Sept 2012,
pp. 899–905.
[9] C. Kim, G. Lee, K. Lee, J. Lee, Y. Cho, J. H. Won, H. Shin, C. Choi,
and H. K. Bae, “Design of π core and π 2 core pm-aided switched
reluctance motors,” in Electric Vehicle Conference (IEVC), 2012 IEEE
International, March 2012, pp. 1–6.
[10] T. Burress and C. Ayers, “Reluctance motor,” Jan. 23 2014, US Patent
App. 13/944,731. [Online]. Available: http://www.google.com/patents/
US20140021809
[11] C. KIM, C. Choi, H. Bae, and G. Lee, “Switched reluctance
motor,” Dec. 6 2012, US Patent App. 13/292,173. [Online]. Available:
http://www.google.com/patents/US20120306297
[12] Nippon Steel Corporation, Non-Oriented Electrical Steel Sheets Typical
Properties, 2002.
[13] A. Fatemi, D. M. Ionel, N. A. O. Demerdash, S. J. Stretz, and T. M.
Jahns, “Rsm-de-ann method for sensitivity analysis of active material
cost in pm motors,” in 2016 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and
Exposition (ECCE), Sept 2016, pp. 1–7.
[14] J. Gieras, Advancements in Electric Machines, ser. Power Systems.
Springer Netherlands, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.
dk/books?id=FzHgWqRZ moC
[15] EUDP, Kompakt, Intelligent, Kraftfuld Elektrisk Drivlinje til elektriske
køretøjer, URL: http://www.energiteknologi.dk/node/7541, 2014.