Adviser: Ming-Shyan Wang Student: Cian-Yong Fong Student ID: MA120215 A Permanent Magnet Integrated Starter Generator for Electric Vehicle Onboard Range Extender Application Can-Fei Wang , Meng-Jia Jin , Jian-Xin Shen , and Cheng Yuan Department of Electrical Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China Wujiang Nanyuan Electric Appliance Co., Ltd., Suzhou 215231, China IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 48, NO. 4, APRIL 2012 1625 -1628 Adviser: Ming-Shyan Wang Student: Cian-Yong Fong Student ID: MA120215 2017/4/22

Robot and Servo Drive Lab. Outline 1.Abstract 2.Introduction 3. Proposed Machine Structures 4. Eddy Current Losses a. Sleeve on SPM Rotor b. Short Circuit Rings Around Magnets on SPM Rotor c. Axial Segmental Sleeves on SPM Rotor d. Short Circuit Rings Around Magnets on IPM Rotor 5. Experiment Results 6. Cost Evaluation 7. Conclusions 8. References 2017/4/22 Robot and Servo Drive Lab.

Robot and Servo Drive Lab. Abstract This paper deals with a permanent magnet (PM) brushless machine used for integrated starter generator (ISG) in an electric vehicle (EV) onboard range extender (ORX). ISGs with both surface-mounted PM (SPM) and interior PM (IPM) rotors have been developed for comparatively analysis. Some techniques for eddy current loss reduction are discussed, while influence of the rotor protecting sleeve material and thickness, axial segmental sleeves, and short circuit rings (ShCRs) around each magnet are particularly investigated. 2017/4/22 Robot and Servo Drive Lab.

Robot and Servo Drive Lab. Introduction In this paper, finite element method (FEM) is used for design and analysis of the ISG. Different stator-slot/rotor-pole combinations and rotor structures are analyzed. Especially, the eddy current loss and fixation method of magnets are comparatively studied for both surface-mounted PM (SPM) and interior PM (IPM) types. Some different techniques for the magnet fixation with low eddy current loss are analyzed. Subsequently, two 12-slot/10-pole ISG prototypes, with SPM and IPM rotors, respectively, are built for experimental validation. Furthermore, the cost is also evaluated, taking both material and manufacture cost into account. In conclusion, both SPM and IPM ISGs satisfy the requirements, while the IPM ISG has a slightly lower efficiency as well as lower cost. 2017/4/22 Robot and Servo Drive Lab.

Proposed Machine Structures TABLE II KEY PARAMETERS OF THE PROPOSED MACHINE Fig. 1. ISG configurations, (a) SPM, and (b) IPM. Optimizations based on FEM have been carried out. The proposed ISG machines with both SPM and IPM rotors are shown in Fig. 1 and the key parameters are listed in Table II.In the IPM rotor the laminated core can enclose the magnets by themselves, while in the SPM rotor an additional sleeve is need. The sleeve has to be dealt with cautiously in both electromagnetic design and manufacture process. 2017/4/22 Robot and Servo Drive Lab.

Proposed Machine Structures Fig. 6. Short circuit rings (ShCR) around magnets in IPM. To reduce the flux leakage, thinner bridge is preferred. However, the bridge should be thick enough to guarantee the mechanical strength, considering the significant centrifugal force when the machine operates at high speed. Usually, magnetic saturation occurs on the bridge rather than on the rib, which is between the two adjacent poles to support the bridge. 2017/4/22 Robot and Servo Drive Lab.

Sleeve on SPM Rotor A major consideration for the sleeve is its eddy current loss, which is associated with the electrical conductivity. Different nonmagnetic materials are comparatively analyzed, including copper, stainless steel and fiberglass. Their electrical conductivity is listed in Table III. Their skin depth when the machine runs at the maximum speed of 4500 rpm is also given in Table III. TABLE III PHYSICAL PARAMETERS OF SLEEVE MATERIALS 2017/4/22 Robot and Servo Drive Lab.

Robot and Servo Drive Lab. Sleeve on SPM Rotor Fig. 2. Eddy current losses in both magnets and different sleeves. Obviously, fiberglass sleeve is the best in terms of minimum eddy current loss. However, the thermal expansion of fiberglass is quite different from that of the magnets and rotor core. Due to the considerable temperature rise of the rotor when running at high speed, the fiberglass might be broken as a result of the different thermal expansion. Thus, fiberglass is not preferred to serve as the sleeve. 2017/4/22 Robot and Servo Drive Lab.

Sleeve on SPM Rotor TABLE III PHYSICAL PARAMETERS OF SLEEVE MATERIALS Fig. 2. Eddy current losses in both magnets and different sleeves. This is related to the material skin depth. As can be seen from Table III, the skin depth of both copper and stainless steel is much larger than the investigated sleeve thickness in Fig. 2, hence, eddy current exists in the whole thickness of the sleeve. Therefore, the thinner the sleeve is, the lower the eddy current loss. 2017/4/22 Robot and Servo Drive Lab.

Short Circuit Rings Around Magnets on SPM Rotor Fig. 3. Short circuit rings (ShCR) around magnets in SPM. In it is proposed to add a short circuit ring (ShCR) around each magnet, as shown in Fig. 3, so as to reduce the eddy current loss in the rotor. Such ShCRs are also examined in this project. Theoretically, the induced currents caused by the flux linkage variation in the ShCR would build an inverted magnetic field to prevent the flux variation. And, the decreased flux variation would also result in eddy current loss reduction in the magnets. 2017/4/22 Robot and Servo Drive Lab.

Short Circuit Rings Around Magnets on SPM Rotor Fig. 4. Comparison of losses with or without sleeve or ShCR in SPM rotor. When both “sleeve and ShCR” are employed, their influence on the eddy current loss cancels each other. Apparently, the ShCR plays a remarkable role to reduce the eddy current loss. However, it suffers from a considerable ohmic loss due to its extremely large short circuit current. This is also evident in Fig. 4. Therefore, considering the overall losses and the rotor mechanical strength, the stainless sleeve is essential while the ShCR is not employed. 2017/4/22 Robot and Servo Drive Lab.

Axial Segmental Sleeves on SPM Rotor Fig. 5. Prototype SPM rotor, (a) without sleeve, and (b) with two axially segmental sleeves. As analyzed earlier, the thinner sleeve produces the less eddy current loss. However, the radial thickness of the sleeve has to be large enough to contain the magnets safely at hgih rotary speed. By other means, the sleeve could be separated into some shorter sleeves in axial direction. 2017/4/22 Robot and Servo Drive Lab.

Short Circuit Rings Around Magnets on IPM Rotor Fig. 7. Comparison of losses with or without ShCR in IPM rotor. Fig. 8. Prototype IPM machine, (a) IPM rotor, and (b) IPM rotor and nonoverlapping winding stator. Clearly, by using the ShCR, the eddy current loss is drastically decreased by 90%, viz., from 202W to 18W. However, much more extra ohmic loss exists in the ShCR, so that the total loss of the case “with ShCR” is about 65% higher than that with the “original” IPM rotor. Therefore, the ShCR is not adopted in this application. 2017/4/22 Robot and Servo Drive Lab.

Robot and Servo Drive Lab. Experiment Results Fig. 9. Prototype ISG, (a) ISG alone, and (b) ICE-ISG unit. Fig. 10. Phase current during operations in (a) starter mode, and (b) generator mode. The speed in Fig. 10(a) is about 340 rpm, and only two phases of currents are illustrated. Variation of current amplitude reveals that the ICE shaft torque changes in a rotation cycle. When the speed was above 800 rpm, the ISG was turned off and the ICE was run by fuel. The ISG did not work as a generator until the ICE run over the speed of 4000 rpm. Fig. 10(b) demonstrates the phase current waveform at 4800 rpm with a peak value of 47 A. 2017/4/22 Robot and Servo Drive Lab.

Cost Evaluation The main cost saving for the IPM rotor is the magnet cost. Although more magnets are employed in the IPM rotorthan in the SPM rotor, the IPM rotor uses block magnets while the SPM rotor uses tile-shaped magnets, and the former are 20% cheaper per unit weight than the latter. Moreover, the sleeve also increases the cost of the SPM rotor. TABLE IV COST COMPARISON (UNIT: CNY) 2017/4/22 Robot and Servo Drive Lab.

Robot and Servo Drive Lab. Conclusions It has also been observed that the thinner the sleeve is, the less eddy current loss exists as long as the skin depth is larger than the sleeve thickness. Furthermore, axially segmenting the sleeve can reduce the eddy current loss effectively, while the short circuit rings (ShCRs) around magnets can reduce the eddy current loss but meanwhile bring significant ohmic loss. Both SPM and IPM machines can satisfy the requirements, while the IPM machine has a relatively lower cost as well as lower efficiency. 2017/4/22 Robot and Servo Drive Lab.

Robot and Servo Drive Lab. References [1] T. B. Gage, SAE Int. 1997, Paper Number: 972634. [2] M. Barcaro, L. Alberti, A. Faggion, L. Sgarbossa, M. Dai Pre, N. Bianchi, and S. Bolognani, “IPM machine drive design and tests for an integrated starter-alternator application,” in Conf. Rec. IEEE IAS Annu. Meeting, Edmonton, Canada, Oct. 2008. [3] M. Yoneda, M. Shoji, Y. Kim, and H. Dohmeki, “Novel selection of the slot/pole ratio of the PMSMfor auxiliary automobile,” in Conf. Rec. Ind. App. Conf. 41st IAS Annu. Meeting, Oct. 2006, vol. 1, pp. 8–12. [4] N. Bianchi, S. Bolognani,M. D. Pre, and G. Grezzani, “Design considerations for fractional-slot winding configurations of synchronous machines,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 997–1006, Jul./Aug. 2006. [5] G. Ombach and J. Junak, “Two rotors designs’ comparison of permanent magnet brushless synchronousmotor for an electric power steering application,” in Proc. Eur. Conf. on Power Electronics and Applications, Sep. 2–5, 2007, pp. 1–9. [6] Z. Q. Zhu, “Fractional slot PM brushless machines and drives for electric and hybrid propulsion systems,” in Proc. EVER’2009, Monte Carlo, Monaco, Mar. 2009. [7] N. Bianchi, M. Dai Pre, L. Alberti, and E. Fornasiero, “Theory and design of fractional-slot PM machines,” in Conf. Rec. IEEE IAS Annu. Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Sep. 23, 2007. 2017/4/22 Robot and Servo Drive Lab.

Robot and Servo Drive Lab. References [8] J. X. Shen, C. F. Wang, D. M. Miao, M. J. Jin, D. Shi, and Y. Wang, “Analysis and optimization of a modular stator core with segmental teeth and solid back iron for PM electric machines,” in Proc. IEMDC’11, Niagara Falls, May 15–18, 2011, pp. 1286–1291. [9] J. D. Ede, K. Atallah, G. W. Jewell, J. B. Wang, and D. Howe, “Effect of axial segmentation of permanent magnets on rotor loss of modular brushless machines,” in Conf. Rec. IEEE IAS Annu. Meeting, Oct. 2004, vol. 3, pp. 1703–1708. [10] Z. Q. Zhu, K. Ng, N. Schofield, and D. Howe, “Improved analytical modeling of rotor eddy current loss in brushless machines equipped with surface-mounted permanent magnets,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng.- Elect. Power Appl., vol. 151, no. 6, pp. 641–650, Nov. 2004. [11] D. Ishak, Z. Q. Zhu, and D. Howe, “Rotor eddy current loss in PM brushless machines with fractional slot number per pole,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 41, no. 9, pp. 2462–2469, Sep. 2005. [12] J. Wang, K. Atallah, R. Chin, W. M. Arshad, and H. Lendenmann, “Rotor eddy-current loss in permanent-magnet brushless AC machines,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 2701–2707, Jul. 2010. [13] F. Z. Zhou, J. X. Shen, W. Z. Fei, and R. G. Lin, “Study of retaining sleeve and conductive shield and their influence on rotor loss in highspeed PM BLDC motors,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 3398–3400, Oct. 2006. [14] N. Bianchi, S. Bolognani, and A. Faggion, “A ringed-pole SPM motor for sensorless drives-electromagnetic analysis, prototyping and tests,” in Proc. IEEE ISIE, Bari, Italy, Jul. 4–7, 2010, pp. 1193–1198. 2017/4/22 Robot and Servo Drive Lab.