Objective
| Topology | IPMSM |
|---|---|
| Model Types | Electromagnetic subdomain model EM2.SPMSM Electromagnetic linear magnetostatic FEM EM3.PMSM |
| Quantities | Airgap radial and tangential armature flux density waveforms Cogging torque |
| Geometry | Internal rotor Semi-closed slots |
| Winding | Double layer non-overlapping windings with "all teeth wound" |
Machine
This validation case simulates a machine that you can find in the article : A. Rahideh and T. Korakianitis, “Analytical Magnetic Field Calculation of Slotted Brushless Permanent-Magnet Machines With Surface Inset Magnets,” vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 2633–2649, 2012.
This IPMSM (Inset Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machine) has 6 stator slots for 2 poles pairs (6s/4p). The airgap computation is done in 4 distinct subdomains : airgap, stator slots, stator slots openings, and inset permanent magnet (IPM) with air space at each side.
Stator slots are filled with double layer non-overlapping windings with "all teeth wound".
The IPM magnetization pattern is radial magnetization.
An "exact" semi-analytical subdomain model was developped and compared to FEM.
- Topology of machine IPMSM_002
- Manatee model for machine IPMSM_002
Results
The same model is implemented on MANATEE. The figure below shows the comparison between airgap radial and tangential armature flux density waveforms obtained by both subdomain model and FEMM (See the different Electromagnetic Modules).
- Publication radial airgap flux
- Radial and Tangential airgap flux comparison (FEMM vs Subdomain)
The airgap flux density maximum is reached when a stator teeth is facing an iron interpole, meaning when the permeance is maximal.
The subdomain model is very accurate and this enables to compute Maxwell forces along the airgap and determine electromagnetic forces.
To see the results for a IPMSM with a different winding pattern, click here.
