Objective
| Topology | SPMSM |
|---|---|
| Model Types | Electromagnetic subdomain model EM2.SPMSM Electromagnetic linear magnetostatic FEM EM3.PMSM |
| Quantities | Airgap radial and tangential armature flux density waveforms |
| Geometry | Internal rotor Open stator slots and semi-closed slots |
| Winding | Single layer overlapping & double layer non-overlapping windings |
Machine
This validation simulates a machine that can be found in the article : Lubin, S. Mezani, and A. Rezzoug, “2-D Exact Analytical Model for Surface-Mounted Permanent-Magnet Motors with Semi-Closed Slots,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 479–492, 2011.
This SPMSM (Surface Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machine) has 6 stator slots for 2 pole pairs (6s/4p). The airgap flux density computation is done in 4 distinct subdomains : airgap, stator slots, stator slots openings, and surface permanent magnet (SPM).
Stator slots are filled with single layer non-overlapping "concentrated" tooth windings with "alternate teeth wound".
The SPM are unmagnetized, there is only the armature field.
An "exact" semi-analytical subdomain model was developped and compared to FEM, and is the same as for the SPMSM with 12s/8p.
- Topology of machine SPMSM_002
- Topology of the machine in the article: Lubin, S. Mezani, and A. Rezzoug, “2-D Exact Analytical Model for Surface-Mounted Permanent-Magnet Motors with Semi-Closed Slots,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 479–492, 2011.
- Manatee model for machine SPMSM_002
- Manatee Model of the machine in the article : Lubin, S. Mezani, and A. Rezzoug, “2-D Exact Analytical Model for Surface-Mounted Permanent-Magnet Motors with Semi-Closed Slots,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 479–492, 2011.
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 and Tangential airgap flux
- Radial and Tangential Airgap Flux (Femm vs subdomain)
The subdomain model is very accurate and this enables to compute Maxwell forces much faster than FEM along the airgap and determine electromagnetic forces with armature load (for example electromagnetic torque and cogging torque).
