Comparison Between Permanent Magnet Assisted
Synchronous Reluctance Motors Considering
2023 IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2023 IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Europe (EEEIC / I&CPS Europe) | 979-8-3503-4743-2/23/$31.00 ©2023 IEEE |
Electric Vehicle Driving Cycle
Gianvito Gallicchio
Department of electrical engineering
and information technology
Politecnico di Bari
Bari, Italy
gianvito.gallicchio@poliba.it
Abstract—Permanent magnet assisted synchronous reluctance
motors are becoming a promising solution for electric vehicles,
thanks to their high power density, efficiency and increased
constant power speed range. The design of the rotor geometry,
in terms of amount of PM to be inserted within the machine
rotor slots, constitutes a challenging task which has to considered
the requirements in terms of speed and torque during a typical
electric vehicle driving cycle. This paper presents a compar-
ison among different permanent magnet assisted synchronous
reluctance motors for electric vehicles, by also investigating the
influence of the number of pole pairs on the main performance
indicators. The selected machines are therefore compared in
DOI: 10.1109/EEEIC/ICPSEUROPE57605.2023.10194784
terms of overall efficiency and operating limits, thus leading to
some design insights for a given outer envelope.
Index Terms—Analytical design, driving cycle, electric vehicles,
finite element analysis, magnetic model, permanent magnets,
saturation, synchronous reluctance machine.
I. I NTRODUCTION
The electrification of transportation is becoming a key topic
in many engineering areas, which include the study of the
energy system in terms of power demand, exchange and
quality [1] but also the study of the electrical machines design,
selection and performance analysis. Indeed, electric motors
along with the power electronics components represent key
devices of the electric power-train [2]. Synchronous motors,
including synchronous reluctance motors with and without
permanent magnets and surface-mounted permanent magnet
motors, represent promising solutions thanks to their high-
efficiency, high-speed capability and dynamic performance
[3], [4]. In the last decades, a lot of research effort has
been dedicated to the design and optimization of synchronous
motors for several applications, including high-speed [5]–
[7] and traction ones [8], [9], either referring to the rated
specification of the final application or also accounting for the
actual driving cycle. Indeed, the latter represents an important
specification when considering a motor embedded within an
979-8-3503-4743-2/23/$31.00 ©2023 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: the Leddy Library at the University of Windsor. Downloaded on May 16,2024 at 20:42:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Francesco Cupertino
Department of electrical engineering
and information technology
Politecnico di Bari
Bari, Italy
francesco.cupertino@poliba.it
electric vehicle whose operating conditions change according
to the considered trajectory profile [10]. A vehicle during a
common city profile scenario would operate far from the rated
conditions and its operations would be clearly intermittent,
whereas a highway driving would feature completely different
speed and torque behaviors [11]. It follows that the most
significant operating conditions should be included within the
design considerations, especially when performing a compar-
ative design exercise.
Among the available motor technologies, permanent mag-
net assisted synchronous reluctance motors (hereafter called
PMaSyRMs) represent a flexible solution since it is possible to
properly size the PMs to be inserted within the rotor slots so to
reach a particular target: the widest constant power speed range
or the maximum torque given the outer envelope. The design
of this particular machine topology has been investigated
by several authors in the last few decades, either adopting
analytical approaches [12], [13] or FE aided optimizations
[14], [15]. The approach presented in [12] is effective for
design purpose as it allows to obtain a reasonable design for
a given outer envelope, targeting a predefined performance
index for the PM insertion, with a limited computational effort
when compared to brute-force design optimizations. However,
once the machine geometry has been defined, the performance
including the torque, losses and therefore efficiency within the
overall required driving cycle have to be validated.
This paper proposes a comparative design exercise for
PMaSyRMs in terms of operating limits and efficiency consid-
ering two different vehicle driving cycles. Different number of
pole pairs are considered and different PM design criteria, with
the aim of inferring the influence of these two design choices
on the machine performance. In section II, the driving cycles
used within the design exercise are briefly described, whereas
section III re-calls the adopted design methodology. In section
IV the selection of the machines is described, whereas Section
V reports the performance comparison among number of pole
pairs and PM insertion criteria, while the main conclusions
are drawn in the last section.
 II. BACKGROUND ON VEHICLES DRIVING CYCLE

Electric vehicles operations change according to the type

of cycle profile. A general distinction can be made between
city and highway ones. In the first case, the e-vehicles operate
at low-medium speeds whereas the wheel torque is clearly
dependent by the type of profile (i.e. if the route is flat or
characterized by climbs and/or downhills). Differently, higher
and more constant speeds characterize the highway driving
profiles. The two tangential speed profiles, obtained by two
standard U.S. driving cycles [11], are shown in Fig. 1a and 1b. (a) (b)
In the first case, called Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule
(UDDS) , a city driving profile is considered, whose top speed Fig. 1: Speed distribution during EV driving cycles: (a) UDDS and
is 90 km/h and the average one is 32 km/h. In the latter case, b) US06/SFTP
US06 Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (US06/SFTP), a
UDDS US06-SFTP
city profile has been combined to a highway scenario resulting 70
in an average speed of 78 km/h while the maximum one is T(t)
60

Motor torque [Nm]

Trms = 10 Nm
130 km/h. To obtain the motor rotational speed, the wheel
50 Tmax = 28 Nm T(t)
diameter and the gearbox ratio has to be known. Trms = 18 Nm
40
The torque profiles shown in Fig. 2a and 2b have been Tmax = 59 Nm
30
obtained according to the procedure reported in [2], [16], [17]
which is not here reported for the sake of brevity. After the 20
assumption of flat route, the resolution of the equation system 10
which takes into account the inertia, rolling and tangential 0
forces and other vehicles parameters leads to the calculation
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

00
00
00

0
20
40
60
80

10
20
30
40
50
60
(a) (b)

10
12
14
of the required torque at the motor shaft. time [s] time [s]
During the city driving cycle, the torque distribution Fig. 2: Torque distribution during EV driving cycles: (a) UDDS and
presents a RMS (root mean square) value of 10 Nm while b) US06/SFTP
its maximum one is equal to 28 Nm. Differently, the RMS
and maximum values considering the US06/SFTP scenario are 60
equal to 18 Nm and 55 Nm respectively. The torque vs speed
50
Motor torque [Nm]

points can be therefore derived and they are shown in Fig. 3,

thus leading to the following considerations. 40

• The distribution of the machine operating points change 30

according to the considered driving cycle. In the city 20
scenario, low speeds and torques mainly characterize
10
the driving cycle, whereas higher speeds and torque are
required in the US06/SFTP case. 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
• The machine speed range is wide, ranging from 0 to 11 (a) Motor speed [krpm] (b) Motor speed [krpm]
krpm. However, the most interesing areas are the one
between 2 and 4 krpm for UDDS and the one between 7 Fig. 3: Torque vs speed operating points during EV driving cycles:
(a) UDDS and b) US06/SFTP
and 10 krpm for US06/SFTP.
• In the above areas the maximum required torque is 28
Nm (UDDS) and 20 Nm (US06/SFTP). III. D ESIGN METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
According to the above reasonings, the main specification The adopted design methodology has been proposed by
of the electric motor can be deduced. Indeed, the rated speed the authors in [12] and it is based on the definition of two
can be set to 4 krpm while guaranteeing a costant power speed independent design variables, namely the split ratio and the
range able to reach the maximum speed (12 krpm). magnetic ratio, which can be written as follows:
In such way, the motor will mostly operate at the maximum  rr
torque per Ampére point when considering the city driving cy- sr = r

s
cle, whereas the flux weakening area will be mainly exploited (1)
B
when considering the US06/SFTP scenario. mr = g

Bf e
The rated torque has been set higher than 1.5 times the
RMS value of the US06/SFTP driving cycle, so to guarantee where rr and rs are the airgap and outer radii of the machine,
the proper flux weakening operations. Bg is the first harmonic of the airgap flux density and Bf e is

Authorized licensed use limited to: the Leddy Library at the University of Windsor. Downloaded on May 16,2024 at 20:42:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 ∆𝛼1
∆𝛼2 q Φri ΔZi
wt ly ∆𝛼3 ℛri Ribs

ℛai Zi-1 Zi
lt ℎ1 Barrier
PMs ℎ2 i
rs PM Ueqi ℛeq
ℛgi
ℎ3 Umi ℛmi
ribs d Thévenin
(a) (b) ℛgi Fi
rr Fi
Fig. 4: (a) Stator and (b) rotor parametrizations. (a) (b)
Fig. 5: (a) q-axis magnetic equivalent circuit;(b) Thévenin equivalent.
the peak value of the flux density within the stator yoke.
For a given outer envelope (i.e. rs and the axial length lf e 1) First, the iron bridges are sized, without considering the
are preliminary chosen), magnetic material exploitation (i.e. PMs mass, according to the following formulation:
Bf e is imposed) and cooling system capability, the machine
geometry (summarized in Fig. 4) and the performance can ks ks
wri = · Fci = · (miP M + mif g ) · Rcg
i 2
· ωm (5)
be expressed as function of sr and mr thus leading to σ s lf e σ s lf e
the definition of a design plane in which several machine where ks is a safety factor (between 2 and 3), σs is the
candidates can be compared. maximum Von Mises stress of the rotor material, Fci is
the centrifugal force acting on each rotor layer, miP M
A. Stator and rotor design
and mif g are the PM and flux guide masses of each layer
The stator can be fully described by three parameters, whereas Rcg is the center of gravity of the same masses.
namely the tooth length lt and width wt and the yoke thick- ωm is the mechanical speed.
ness ly which can be easily calculate adopting the following 2) Then a PM design criterion is chosen:
formulations [18]: • natural compensation approach: the PMs are sized so
π · sr · rs to increase the CPSR of the machine. Such condition
wt = · mr (2)
3·p·q is obtained by imposing the flux entering each airgap
π · sr · rs branch to be zero [20].
ly = · mr (3) • maximum torque approach: the PMs are sized so to
p
maximize the torque. Such condition is obtained by
lt = rs − rr − ly − lts (4) filling each central part of each barrier with PMs.
where p is the pole pairs number, q is the number of slots per 3) The iron bridges can be therefore updated still using (5)
pole per phase, whereas lts is the tooth shoe height. The other but also considering the PM mass.
stator parameters including the slot opening and the overall 4) The point 2 and 3 are therefore re-called within a iterative
shape of the slots are preliminary chosen. fashion until the maximum error between the iron bridges
The rotor design, except for the PM sizing, is performed at step k and the ones at the step k + 1 lies within a
according to the rules first presented in [19]. A 3-layers rotor predefined threshold.
and the so-called U-I shape (shown in Fig. 4b) have been The above described procedure has to also consider the non-
considered. Then, a uniform distribution of the equivalent rotor linear behavior of the iron bridges, whose magnetic working
slots and flux barriers sharing the same permeance are imposed point is located on the saturated rotor material BH curve.
so to fully define the orientation, width and surface of the flux Therefore an iterative procedure is applied with the aim of
barriers. determining the actual iron bridges working point and obtain-
The PM width and iron bridges dimensions are mutually ing a better estimation of the q-axis flux. The full description
dependent since the PMs mass influences the centrifugal forces of the circuit resolution can be found in [12] and it is not here
while the iron bridges dimensions affects the q-axix flux paths. reported for the sake of brevity.
Therefore, the magnetic circuit shown in Fig. 5 (one flux
B. Rated current calculation
barrier is shown) is adopted with the aim of properly size
both PMs and iron bridges. In the circuit, the F i generators The id current can be calculated using the Ampére’s law
stand for the stator magnetomotive force (m.m.f.), Rai accounts (when iq = 0)
for the flux barriers reluctance, the m.m.f. generators Um i
in π kc g p
id = Bg (6)
i
series with Rm model the PMs contribution, whereas the iron 3 µ0 kw Ns
bridges are taken into account by the flux generators ϕir in where kc is the Carter’s coefficient, Ns is the number of turns
parallel with the non-linear resistances Rri . in series per phase, µ0 is the vacuum permeability whereas
In particular, the following procedure is adopted. kw is the winding factor. Differently the q-axis current can

Authorized licensed use limited to: the Leddy Library at the University of Windsor. Downloaded on May 16,2024 at 20:42:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE I: Machine Parameters
be calculated knowing id and the rated current In which can
be determined by imposing the cooling system capability (i.e. Parameter Value Units
imposing the total stator losses) as in (7):
s Outer stator radius 90 mm
P ∗ − Pf e−st Stack length 80 mm
In = (7)
3 · Rph Cooling capability 20000 W/m2

where P ∗ is the maximum losses which can be dissipated by Stator yoke flux density 1.4 T
the cooling system, Pf e−st are the stator iron losses and Rph Stator tooth flux density 1.6 T
is the phase resistance. Airgap thickness 0.5 mm
Lamination material 10JNHF600 -
C. Performance indicators calculation
Split Ratio Range 0.4-0.8 -
Once the stator and rotor have been designed, the torque
Magnetic Ratio Range 0.4-0.9 -
can be evaluated using (8).
Base Speed 4000 rpm
3
T = p(λd iq − λq id ) (8) Maximum Speed 12000 rpm
2
Number of poles 4-6 -
where λd and λq are the d-axis and q-axis fluxes. The latter
can be calculated by the solving the above described magnetic
circuit, while the first can be easily computed as follows: p=2
Natural compensation Filled Barriers
"  2 # 0.9 50 50

34
38

26
π Ns rr lf e

34

38
30
38
λd = µ0 kw + Ls id (9) 0.8 40 40
2 p kc g
Magnetic ratio

30
34
38
26
38
34
30
38
0.7 30 30

22
where Ls takes into account the leakage flux [18].

30
38

34
26

38
34

30

26
However, the above flux computations do not take into 0.6 20 20

22

30
34

26
account the saturation and cross-saturation effects which could

26
0.5 10 10

22
be relevant in PMaSyRMs. Therefore, from the overall design

22
plane 4 machines are selected and FE-simulated thus leading 0.4 0 0
0.4 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.8
to the calculation of some correction factors which are then (a) (b)
Split ratio Split ratio
extended to the overall plane using a linear interpolation. More
details about this hybrid approach can be found in [12]. Fig. 6: Torque contour plot in the sr − mr plane in the (a) natural
compensation and (b) filled barriers scenarios when p = 2
IV. S ELECTION OF THE MACHINE
The above described procedure has been applied to the p=3
machine whose main parameters are shown in Table I, consid- Natural compensation Filled Barriers
0.9 50 50
42
38
46

46
42
42

ering two different number of pole pairs and the two different
34
46

46

0.8 40 40
Magnetic ratio

PM design criteria.

46
50
30
42
38
46

50
42

42
34
46

Fig. 6 reports the torque contour loci in the sr − mr 0.7 30 30

26

46

38
30

46
42

42
38

plane when the number of poles is 4 either considering the

42

42
46
34

0.6 20 20
26
38

42
38

PM designed using the natural compensation approach (a) 38

34
38
30

42
22

34 38
or by filling the flux barriers (b). Fig. 7 shows the results 34
0.5 10 34
38 10
26

30
30

34

when the number of poles is 6. It is worth to notice that the

22

30
0.4 0 0
increment of the number of pole leads to a general torque 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.8
improvement since the torque is proportional to p. The amount (a) Split ratio (b) Split ratio
of such improvement is mitigated by the reduction of the Fig. 7: Torque contour plot in the sr − mr plane in the (a) natural
maximum current when the number of poles increases. Indeed, compensation and (b) filled barriers scenarios when p = 3
higher p implies higher electrical frequency which in turn
determines higher iron losses. The latter directly influence to obtain the natural compensation condition would coincide
the rated current value for a given cooling system capability with the available flux barrier space.
according to (7). With the aim of performing a comparison on fair basis, from
Clearly, filling the barriers with PMs leads to a torque the 4 design planes the machine featuring the same split ratio
increment. However, for high magnetic ratios and low split (0.55) and magnetic ratio (0.67) is selected (the blue circle in
ratios, designing the PMs with the natural compensation or the figures). The above split and magnetic ratio combination
filled barriers criteria leads to very close results. The reason allows to always reach a rated torque higher than 30 Nm.
behind such behavior is related to geometric issues. Indeed, The four different cross-sections are shown in Fig. 8.
low split ratio and high magnetic ratio imply low available Clearly, the machines designed using the natural compensation
space for the PM placement therefore the required PM width (Fig. 8a and Fig. 8c) approach present a lower amount of PM

Authorized licensed use limited to: the Leddy Library at the University of Windsor. Downloaded on May 16,2024 at 20:42:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Natural compensation Filled barriers p=2
half-load rated-load over-load
Natural compensation Filled Barriers
90 30 90 30
80 80
25 25
70 70

Torque [Nm]

Torque [Nm]
Power [kW]

Power [kW]
60 20 60 20
50 50
15 15
40 40
30 10 30 10
20 20
5 5
10 10
(a) (b) 0 0 0 0

0
2
4
6
8

0
2
4
6
8
10
12

10
12
(a) Speed [krpm] (b) Speed [krpm]
Fig. 9: Torque and power vs speed characteristics when considering
(a) natural compensation and (b) filled barriers scenarios when p = 2.

p=3
half-load rated-load over-load
Natural compensation Filled Barriers
90 30 90 30
(c) (d) 80 80
25 25
70 70

Torque [Nm]

Torque [Nm]
Power [kW]

Power [kW]
Fig. 8: Cross section of the selected machine when adopting (a,c) the 60 20 60 20
natural compensation or (b,d) the filled barriers approach and when 50 50
the number of poles is (a,b) 4 or (c,d) 6. 15 15
40 40
30 10 30 10
20 20
5 5
10 10
material, while the higher pole pairs machines present lower 0 0 0 0
tooth and yoke thickness.
0
2
4
6
8

0
2
4
6
8
10
12

V. P ERFORMANCE COMPARISON
The four machines have been fully analyzed using the FE
method with the aim of characterizing the d-q flux maps, the
MTPA and MTPV (maximum torque per voltage) points and
therefore evaluating the operating limits in the torque-speed
plane. Along with the ohmic losses, also the iron and PM
ones have been computed with the adopted FE suite, with the
aim of calculating the steady-state efficiency for each operating
point.
The results are shown in Fig. 9 and 10 where the torque and
power vs speed curves are reported for the 4-pole (Fig. 9) and
the 6-pole (Fig. 10) machines. The following considerations
can be drawn.
• The adopted design approach allows to accurately design
the PM so to reach the natural compensation condition
(i.e. ideally infinite constant power speed range) at rated
condition, as shown in Fig. 9a and 10a.
• Differently, filling the flux barriers with PMs increases
the performance at lower speed but also results in worse
performance when considering the flux weakening oper-
ations as shown in Fig. 9b and 10b.
• Indeed, considering the 6-pole machines as an example
and the two PM design criteria (natural compensation and
filled barriers), while the torque at MTPA is about 47 Nm
and 55 Nm, the torque at the maximum speed is 15 Nm
and 11 Nm respectively. Furthermore, when considering
the half-load condition, the filled barriers machines are
not able to reach the target maximum speed.
10
12
(a) Speed [krpm] (b) Speed [krpm]
Fig. 10: Torque and power vs speed characteristics when considering
(a) natural compensation and (b) filled barriers scenarios when p = 3.
Fig. 11 and 12 report the efficiency plot in the torque-speed
plane when considering the 4-pole and the 6-pole machines
respectively, along the with the torque vs speed curves at
half-load, rated load and over-load conditions. It is worth
noticing that, regardless the number of poles, the location
of the maximum of the efficiency changes according to the
adopted PM design criterion. As expected, adopting the natural
compensation approach leads to a right shift of the efficiency
contour plot thanks to the higher torque provided in such
conditions when compared to the filled barriers scenario where
the maximum of the efficiency is obtained for lower speeds.
The number of poles has also an effect on the efficiency
plots. Indeed, increasing p leads to higher iron losses as the
speed increases. Therefore, a left-shift of the maximum of the
efficiency can be depicted when passing from p = 2 to p = 3.
All the machines are capable of covering most of the city
driving cycle shown in Fig. 3a without exceeding the rated load
conditions. Differently, considering the US06/SFTP scenario
(Fig. 3b), the adoption of the natural compensation approach
is beneficial since it allows to never exceed the rated current
in the flux weakening operations, whereas a slight over-load
is required to match the driving cycle requirements when
considering the filled barriers design scenario. The above
reasoning is independent by the number of poles, for the
considered case of study.

Authorized licensed use limited to: the Leddy Library at the University of Windsor. Downloaded on May 16,2024 at 20:42:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 p=2 R EFERENCES
Natural compensation Filled Barriers
90 [1] F. Marasciuolo, M. Dicorato, G. Tricarico, P. Montegiglio, G. Forte, and
Efficiency Efficiency
80 T T M. Trovato. The influence of ev usage scenarios on dc microgrid techno-
half-load half-load
70 Trated-load Trated-load
economic operation. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications,

90 8
Torque [Nm]

58(3):3957–3966, 2022.

60

8
60

70
80
Tover-load Tover-load [2] E. Carraro, M. Morandin, and N. Bianchi. Traction pmasr motor

84
884
886

86
50
90

93 92
optimization according to a given driving cycle. IEEE Transactions

9088

9293
60

92
70

60
84 80

70
40 on Industry Applications, 52(1):209–216, 2016.
90

80

94
93

84
9
886

86
8

94 932 [3] J. Cekani, F. G. Capponi, G. De Donato, and F. Caricchi. Mechanical

90

30

92
9290
92

88

9495
60

95 9394

95
flux weakening methods for the achievement of a very wide constant
3
70

60
9
80

7080
9

94
20 932

90
9
952 93

93 92
94

96 power speed range in automotive applications. IEEE Journal of Emerg-

84
95
86
84
88

86

94
90

96

96
96
10 97 95

95
92
96
92

80 70 80 89086 993492
ing and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, 10(3):3443–3458, 2022.

88
670

97 93 90
93

88 90 94929593 96 4 909492 60

60
95 88
86
0

0 84
80
70 [4] L. Wang, Z.Q. Zhu, H. Bin, and L. M. Gong. Recent developments
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 of high speed electrical machine drive systems. In 2021 Sixteenth In-
(a) Speed [krpm] (b) Speed [krpm] ternational Conference on Ecological Vehicles and Renewable Energies
(EVER), pages 1–10, 2021.
Fig. 11: Efficiency in the torque-speed plane when considering (a) [5] M. Di Nardo, G. Gallicchio, M. Palmieri, A. Marfoli, M. Degano,
natural compensation and (b) filled barriers scenarios when p = 2. C. Gerada, and F. Cupertino. High speed permanent magnet assisted
synchronous reluctance machines – part ii: Performance boundaries.
IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, 37(4):2567–2577, 2022.
p=3 [6] C. Babetto, G. Bacco, and N. Bianchi. Analytical power limits curves
Natural compensation Filled Barriers of high-speed synchronous reluctance machines. IEEE Transactions on
90 Industry Applications, 55(2):1342–1350, 2019.
Efficiency Efficiency
80 Thalf-load Thalf-load [7] G. Gallicchio, M. Di Nardo, M. Palmieri, M. R. Ilkhani, M. Degano,
70 60 70 60 70
80

70 C. Gerada, and F. Cupertino. Surface permanent magnet synchronous

884
6

T Trated-load
8
Torque [Nm]

machines: High speed design and limits. IEEE Transactions on Energy

8

rated-load
60
88
60

86
70
80

Tover-load Tover-load
0

Conversion, pages 1–14, 2022.

80
8684

9
84

50
8886

90 9
88

[8] S. Nategh, A. Boglietti, Y. Liu, D. Barber, R. Brammer, D. Lindberg,

88
90

88
86
60

40
70

92

90 and O. Aglen. A review on different aspects of traction motor design

2

92
80

90
94 93

93 88
80
90
8684

8
84

92 8 for railway applications. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications,

86
90 8

30
9394

92 9
8

88

94 930 95 90
60

88 56(3):2148–2157, 2020.
60
70

92

20 9594 92
92

70 60
80

93
90 88

93
93

9394
80
8684

95

[9] C. Lu, S. Ferrari, and G. Pellegrino. Two design procedures for pm

92
84
88

96 95
86

10 96
9029493
94

95

95

synchronous machines for electric powertrains. IEEE Transactions on

90

70 8
0 84 86988
2 9390 994592 93 6
994 80 84986 88 993284
8980
60

95
0 70
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
(a) Speed [krpm] (b)
Fig. 12: Efficiency in the torque-speed plane when considering (a)
natural compensation and (b) filled barriers scenarios when p = 3.
VI. C ONCLUSION
This paper has presented a comparative design exercise
between permanent magnet assisted synchronous reluctance
motors for electric vehicles. First, two driving cycle scenarios
have been described so to deduce the inputs for the machine
design. Then, the influences of the PM design criteria and the
number of pole pairs have been investigated by comparing
four machines sharing the same split and magnetic ratios.
According to the results presented in section V, the following
conclusions can be written.
• For a given number of pole pairs, the machine perfor-
mance at rated condition are increased when full filling
the flux barriers with PMs, whereas the adoption of the
natural compensation approach allows to reach better
performance in the flux weakening region.
• For a given PM design criterion, the increment number
of pole pairs leads to a left-shift of the efficiency plot,
caused by the increment of the iron losses as the speed
increases.
• The adoption of the natural compensation criterion is
beneficial as it allows to better match the electric vehicles
driving cycles requirements.
86
80
60 Transportation Electrification, 3(1):98–107, 2017.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 [10] L. Pugi, M. Pagliai, A. Nocentini, G. Lutzemberger, and A. Pretto.
Speed [krpm] Design of a hydraulic servo-actuation fed by a regenerative braking
system. Applied Energy, 187:96–115, 2017.
[11] United states environmental protection agency (usepa) - available:
http://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-fuel-emissions-testing/dynamometer-
drive-schedules.
[12] G. Gallicchio, M. Di Nardo, M. Palmieri, A. Marfoli, M. Degano,
C. Gerada, and F. Cupertino. High speed permanent magnet assisted
synchronous reluctance machines – part i: A general design approach.
IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, 37(4):2556–2566, 2022.
[13] B. Boazzo, A. Vagati, G. Pellegrino, E. Armando, and P. Guglielmi.
Multipolar ferrite-assisted synchronous reluctance machines: A gen-
eral design approach. Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on,
62(2):832–845, 2015.
[14] M. Barcaro, N. Bianchi, and F. Magnussen. Permanent-magnet opti-
mization in permanent-magnet-assisted synchronous reluctance motor
for a wide constant-power speed range. IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics, 59(6):2495–2502, 2012.
[15] K. Yamazaki, S. Tamiya, K. Utsuno, K. Shima, T. Fukami, and M. Sato.
Rotor shape optimization for output maximization of permanent-magnet-
assisted synchronous machines. IEEE Transactions on Industry Appli-
cations, 51(4):3077–3085, 2015.
[16] M. Ehsani, Y. Gao, and A. Emadi. Modern Electric, Hybrid Electric, and
Fuel Cell Vehicles: Fundamentals, Theory, and Design, Second Edition.
Power Electronics and Applications Series. CRC Press, 2017.
[17] M. Degano, E. Carraro, and N. Bianchi. Selection criteria and robust
optimization of a traction pm-assisted synchronous reluctance motor.
IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, 51(6):4383–4391, 2015.
[18] T. Jokinen, V. Hrabovcova, and J. Pyrhonen. Design of rotating electrical
machines. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
[19] A. Vagati, G. Franceschini, I. Marongiu, and G. P. Troglia. Design
criteria of high performance synchronous reluctance motors. In Industry
Applications Society Annual Meeting, 1992., Conference Record of the
1992 IEEE, pages 66–73 vol.1.
[20] A. Vagati, B. Boazzo, P. Guglielmi, and G. Pellegrino. Design of ferrite-
assisted synchronous reluctance machines robust toward demagnetiza-
tion. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, 50(3):1768–1779,
2014.

Authorized licensed use limited to: the Leddy Library at the University of Windsor. Downloaded on May 16,2024 at 20:42:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.