See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/393698690

Numerical Thermal Analysis of Six-Phase PMSMs With Single- and Double-

Layer Fractional-Slot Concentrated Windings in Healthy and Faulty Cases

Conference Paper · October 2025

CITATIONS READS

0 193

6 authors, including:

Wessam E. Abdel-Azim Alejandro Gómez Yepes

Alexandria University University of Vigo
24 PUBLICATIONS 117 CITATIONS 140 PUBLICATIONS 6,965 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ahmed Hemeida Ayman Samy Abdel-Khalik

AaltoUniversity Alexandria University
46 PUBLICATIONS 753 CITATIONS 380 PUBLICATIONS 5,713 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Wessam E. Abdel-Azim on 29 July 2025.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Numerical Thermal Analysis of Six-Phase PMSMs
With Single- and Double-Layer Fractional-Slot
Concentrated Windings in Healthy and Faulty Cases
Wessam E. Abdel-Azim1,2 , Alejandro G. Yepes1 , Ahmed Hemeida3,4 , Ayman S. Abdel-Khalik5 ,
Shehab Ahmed6 , and Jesús Doval-Gandoy1
1
CINTECX, Universidade de Vigo, APET, Vigo, Spain
2
Department of Electrical Engineering, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
3
Department of Electrical Engineering and Automation, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland
4
Department of Electrical Engineering, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt
5
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman
6
CEMSE Division, KAUST, Thuwal, Saudi Arabia
Email: wessam.essam@uvigo.es, agyepes@uvigo.es, ahmed.hemeida@aalto.fi, a.abdelkhalik@squ.edu.om,
shehab.ahmed@kaust.edu.sa, jdoval@uvigo.es

Abstract—Multiphase permanent-magnet synchronous ma- factor and higher torque density compared with distributed
chines (PMSMs) with fractional-slot concentrated windings winding [2]. Generally, FSCW can be designed with two dif-
(FSCWs) are favored for many uninterruptible applications ferent arrangements: single layer (SL) or double layer (DL). In
due to their high fault tolerance and torque density. Two
different configurations are often adopted: single layer (SL) and principle, each slot is occupied with one coil side for SL, while
double layer (DL). For SL, each slot is filled with one phase two coil sides can be included in each slot for DL [2], [3]. SL
winding, while for DL, two phases can share the same slot. produces higher harmonic content in back-electromotive force
Accordingly, many research papers advise adopting SL in fault- (back-EMF) and magnetomotive force (MMF) than DL, and
tolerant PMSMs, rather than DL, because SL offers higher thereby has a potentially higher overload torque capability than
physical, thermal, and electromagnetic isolation between phases.
However, the lower thermal isolation, as for DL, may enhance DL [3]. In addition, the greater electric, magnetic, and thermal
the heat transfer. This could be expected to reduce the hot-spot isolation between SL phases is usually considered to make SL
temperature for DL. Thus, the established preference of SL over a more suitable candidate for FT PMSMs than DL [2]–[6]. On
DL for fault-tolerant PMSMs may be questioned, and further the other hand, DL exhibits lower PM eddy-current and core
analysis is necessary. This paper compares the temperature losses and torque ripple [3].
distribution of six-phase PMSMs between SL and DL FSCWs
under both healthy and faulty conditions, considering open- For safety-critical applications, the fault tolerance should be
circuit and short-circuit (interturn) winding faults. For accurate ensured in multiphase PMSMs. Among various fault kinds,
results, finite-element analysis and computational fluid dynamics open-phase faults (OPFs) and short-circuit faults (SCFs) are
are employed for the loss calculation and thermal simulation, commonly investigated in FT PMSMs [1]. Some fault types
respectively. in multiphase drives, e.g., open-/short-circuit switch faults and
Index Terms—Fault tolerance, fractional-slot concentrated
winding, six-phase permanent-magnet synchronous machine, high-resistance connections, can be adapted as OPFs [1]. Some
thermal model. freedom degrees are missed under OPFs depending on the
fault locations, and thereby torque ripple usually increases
I. I NTRODUCTION if the machine control is not adapted. With FT control, an
Multiphase permanent-magnet (PM) synchronous machines enhanced performance can be achieved, in terms of maximiz-
(PMSMs) are versatilely deployed, compared with three-phase ing torque production with ripple-free torque and minimizing
ones, in high-performance and high-reliability applications stator copper losses, by optimizing the phase currents [7].
such as electric vehicles, ship propulsion, and aerospace due However, some phases having higher rms current values than
to their great fault tolerance, reduced torque ripple, better others tend to overheat, and hence, the torque capability is
dc-link utilization, and multiple fault-tolerant (FT) control constrained with the thermal limits [8]. Operating PMSMs
strategies [1]. To achieve an efficient PMSM design, the beyond their thermal limits can lead to insulation degradation
fractional-slot concentrated winding (FSCW) is adopted in the and an increased risk of PM demagnetization [1]. Thermal
stator because it offers shorter end-winding length, higher fill analysis under OPFs is therefore crucial for identifying local-
ized hot-spot regions, enabling the development of effective
This work was supported in part by the Government of Galicia FT control strategies that ensure better temperature distribution
under the grant GPC-ED431B 2023/12, and in part by the Spanish
State Research Agency MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/FEDER-UE un- and reasonable machine derating [4], [8]–[10].
der projects CNS2022-135773 and PID2022-136908OB-I00. The thermal behavior of FT PMSMs under SCFs should
also receive a great attention, because of the large resulting a b c d e f a b c d e f
currents and losses. Most severely, one or more turns of a
specific phase may be short-circuited, which is termed as an
inter-turn fault (ITF). The fault current in an ITF is inversely
proportional to the number of shorted turns [11] and depends
on its location, with closer to the slot opening being more
critical [1], [12]. For each phase driven by a separate full-
bridge (FB) inverter (commonly adopted in PMSMs [5], [6],
[11]), applying a terminal short circuit (SC) through the two
upper/lower switches is the simplest remedial action to tolerate (a) (b)
ITFs [12]. The circulating SC current produces a flux linkage Fig. 1. Cross-sectional view for winding layouts of the FSCW 6PMSMs.
opposing the PM flux linkage in the shorted turns [11]. (a) SL. (b) DL.
Alternatively, the mutual interaction between the faulty and
healthy phases can be exploited to alleviate the SC current in
the shorted turns. To do so, the healthy-phase currents should a certain winding design under various FT control methods
be adapted such that the mutual flux linkage of the healthy without studying the influence of the winding configuration
phases nulls the PM flux linkage in the shorted turns [7]. (SL or DL) on the thermal distribution. Namely, some thermal
This method is more feasible for DL than for SL since the features of DL such as its thermal coupling between phases
mutual coupling between phases is higher [3]. Accordingly, (sharing slots) and the larger end-winding surfaces with con-
the remarks in [2]–[7] about the SL isolation being preferred vective heat transfer may play a crucial role in improving the
for FT PMSMs are questionable. heat dissipation. This could affect the temperature distribution
To assess the thermal performance of a machine design, and the hot-spot temperatures substantially, which requires
there are two main approaches, as follows. The well-known further research.
lumped-parameter thermal networks are computationally effi- In this paper, the thermal behavior of both SL and DL
cient and offers reasonable accuracy only when thermal param- windings is compared for six-phase PMSMs (6PMSMs) under
eter estimation and loss calculations are accurate [13]. On the different scenarios such as healthy, OPF, and ITF. The CFD
other hand, numerical methods based on either finite-element analysis is performed using Ansys Fluent for each studied
analysis (FEA) or computational fluid dynamics (CFD) give case. Furthermore, Ansys Maxwell is used to obtain the loss
more precise thermal prediction, just at the cost of increased model, which provides the heat sources in the thermal model.
computational burden [4], [8].
Many research works have used numerical analysis to assess
the thermal performance of FT PMSMs either with SL [4] or II. FSCW 6PMSM D ESIGN
DL [8] under healthy and faulty conditions. Bianchi et al. [5] For high-speed applications, a relatively low pole num-
perform 2D thermal FEA of a five-phase PMSM with SL under ber is typically selected among the possible FSCW slot-
OPFs while keeping the rated copper losses. To achieve higher pole combinations [14]. Since close values of slot and pole
postfault torque, not only the healthy-phase currents surpass numbers achieve a high fundamental winding factor and a
the rated value, but also the hot-spot temperature is higher than high torque density [14], the 12-slot/10-pole and 12-slot/14-
that of rated healthy condition. On the contrary, Jiang et al. [8] pole combinations are usually considered in the FSCW PMSM
evaluate the thermal performance of a five-phase PMSM with design. Nevertheless, the 12-slot/14-pole PMSM offers better
DL under minimum-loss (ML) current-control strategy while field-weakening capability, higher power density, and greater
respecting the maximum temperature rise of rated healthy values of maximum speed, compared with the 12-slot/10-
operation. In this manner, the healthy-phase currents, under pole counterpart [15]. Moreover, it also results in reduced
various OPF cases, can exceed the rated machine current to torque ripple and lower material cost [14]. Accordingly, the
increase the torque, while maintaining the hot-spot temperature 12-slot/14-pole FSCW 6PMSM is considered as a case study.
of rated normal operation. Furthermore, an FT control method It is designed with a high self-inductance such that the SC
with an even temperature distribution between faulty and current for a phase SC at rated speed is limited to the rated
healthy modules of a modular PMSM is proposed in [10]. machine current. This design approach is favored for FT
To achieve this, an electromagnetic-thermal coupled model is PMSMs without interrupted operation under SCFs [6]. The
used in the iterative algorithm to generate the optimum module optimization methodology outlined in [15] is employed to
current. In the same context, the ML and maximum-torque determine the machine design parameters provided in Table I.
(MT) current-control strategies are compared at rated healthy For SL [see Fig. 1(a)], each slot has one coil side with
conditions from the thermal point of view in [4], [9]. It has 160 turns/coil. As for DL [see Fig. 1(b)], each slot is filled
been found that MT exhibits higher maximum temperature with two coil sides either of the same phase or of two different
rise than ML, because higher copper losses are obtained under phases with 80 turns/coil, and thereby the cross-slot mutual
MT to achieve the rated healthy torque. All these works have coupling is higher than that in SL layout [3], [6]. For a fair
investigated the temperature fields of multiphase PMSMs with comparison, both layouts are wound with a symmetrical six-
 No-load Back-EMF (V)
TABLE I 100
D ESIGN D ETAILS OF THE FSCW PMSM 50
ea eb ec ed ee ef
Parameter Value Parameter Value 0

Stator outer diameter (mm) 130 Stator slot number 12 -50

Stator inner diameter (mm) 62 Rotor pole number 14 -100
Airgap length (mm) 1 Turns/slot number 160 0 1 2 3 4 4.29
PM width (mm) 10.68 Rated power (kW) 2 Time (ms)
Stack length (mm) 60 Rated torque (Nm) 9.75 (a)

No-load Back-EMF (V)

Core steel material M235-35 Rated speed (r/min) 2000 100
PM material N42sh Rated phase voltage (V) 110 50 ea eb ec ed ee ef
0
-50
phase arrangement. As illustrated in [16], asymmetrical con-
-100
figurations are not feasible for SL machines with a 12-slot/14- 0 1 2 3 4 4.29
Time (ms)
pole topology. It is noteworthy that symmetrical configuration
(b)
achieves higher postfault torque than other arrangements [17].
Fig. 2. No-load per-phase back-EMF of the FSCW 6PMSMs at rated speed.
Besides symmetrical winding layout, each phase winding is (a) SL. (b) DL.
fed by an FB inverter so as to separately control each phase [5],
[6], [11]. TABLE II
L OSS M ODEL PARAMETERS
III. E LECTROMAGNETIC FEA
Parameter Symbol Value
In this section, the electromagnetic model for both machines
Copper conductivity (S/m) σcu 58 · 106
is developed in Ansys Maxwell to acquire the losses, which PM conductivity (S/m) σPM 0.6 · 106
will then be required for thermal analysis. Fig. 2 shows Hysteresis loss coefficient Kh 172.042
the no-load back-EMF of both windings with trapezoidal Eddy-current loss coefficient Kc 1.368
Excess loss coefficient Ke 1.765
waveforms. The optimum phase currents can be generated
using the generalized strategy in [7]. This strategy is employed
here because it not only minimizes the stator copper loss
compared with SL. This is mainly attributed to the lower
with ripple-free torque, but also considers many possibilities
harmonic components in the DL MMF. It is noteworthy that
such as nonsinusoidal back-EMF, any number of phases,
the PM eddy-current losses of both layouts are much lower
different winding connections, various operating modes, and
than the other losses.
any fault locations. While retaining most of the previous
features, the current-reference generation method in [18] can B. OPF Case
also be adopted if the additional functionalities are desired In this case, both machines are simulated under the same
such as extending the torque range with minimal torque ripple, torque and speed (i.e., rated) as in the healthy case, keeping
including current and torque-ripple limitations, and enabling the machine operation without derating, while phase a is open-
automatic transition from overload to steady-state operation. circuited (ia = 0). Similarly, the procedures of the healthy case
The heat sources in PMSMs are mainly stator copper loss are replicated here to obtain the optimal healthy-phase currents
Pcu , core loss Pcore , and PM loss PPM . The loss calculations shown in Fig. 4. It is worth highlighting that DL still results
adopted in Ansys Maxwell are well-established and detailed in 9.24% lower total losses than SL, as indicated in Table III.
in [4], [8]. All the loss model parameters are listed in Table II.
C. ITF Case
A. Healthy Case To ensure a fair comparison of the resulting losses in both
For a fair comparison, the same operating conditions (rated machines under the ITF case, the same number of shorted turns
torque and speed) are applied for both machines. With the (specifically, 10 turns of phase a) is adopted in both machines.
closed-form solution in [7], the phase currents, depicted in The fault resistance between shorted turns is assumed to
Fig. 3, are obtained for both designs considering the two be 20 mΩ. As recommended in [11], [12], to alleviate the
different back-EMFs in Fig. 2. It should be emphasized that SC current, an external SC is applied across the faulty-
no constraint of zero phase-current summation is applied to phase terminals by turning on the upper/lower switches of the
the solution of [7], since each phase is driven by an FB corresponding FB inverter. The healthy-phase currents are the
inverter. It can be seen from Fig. 3 that the phase-current rms same as in the healthy case shown in Fig. 3, but discarding ia .
value for SL is 3.68% lower than for DL at the same torque It is clear from Table III that DL produces higher total losses
due to the higher harmonic content in the back-EMF for SL. than SL by 19.85% due to the higher resulting fault current
Ansys Maxwell is used to obtain the losses of each layout in DL compared with SL. This may be due to the mutual flux
by exciting the electromagnetic model with the corresponding linkage of DL healthy phases reinforcing the PM flux linkage
phase currents. Table III shows the calculated loss components in shorted turns, and further research into the actual causes
of each winding layout. DL exhibits 9.50% lower total losses may be conducted in the future.
 5 7
Phase current (A)

Phase current (A)

2.5 3.5 ib ic ie if
ia ib ic id ie if id
i a= 0
0 0
-2.5 -3.5

-5 1 2 3 4 4.29 -7
0 0 1 2 3 4 4.29
Time (ms) Time (ms)
(a) (a)
5 7
Phase current (A)

Phase current (A)

2.5 3.5 ib ic id ie if
ia ib ic id ie if
0 ia= 0
0
-2.5 -3.5
-5 -7
0 1 2 3 4 4.29 0 1 2 3 4 4.29
Time (ms) Time (ms)
(b) (b)
Fig. 3. Phase-current references of the FSCW 6PMSMs under the healthy Fig. 4. Phase-current references of the FSCW 6PMSMs under an OPF in
case at rated torque and speed. (a) SL. (b) DL. phase a at rated torque and speed. (a) SL. (b) DL.

TABLE III
C OMPARISON OF L OSS C OMPONENTS FOR B OTH L AYOUTS AT R ATED speed [21]. The calculated convection coefficient of the sta-
T ORQUE AND S PEED U NDER T HREE D IFFERENT S CENARIOS
tor surface is hst = 60.55 W/m2 /K. Since the hot-spot
Pcu (W) Pcore (W) PPM (W) Total losses (W) temperature typically locates at the end windings [4], [10],
Scenario [19], heat transfer at end-space surfaces should be taken into
SL DL SL DL SL DL SL DL
Healthy 47.67 47.01 64.86 55.80 7.00 5.36 119.53 108.17 account. The convective heat transfer coefficient of the end-
OPF 58.77 57.91 69.70 61.10 8.92 5.69 137.39 124.70 space surface can be computed by [20]
ITF 68.09 99.67 53.10 46.67 6.55 6.76 127.74 153.10
hend = 15.5 + 4.495vend (3)
where vend is the air velocity at the end space, which equals
IV. CFD-BASED T HERMAL A NALYSIS ωr Rro . From (3), hend = 43.74 W/m2 /K.
The loss model provided in Ansys Maxwell is coupled to
the thermal model via Ansys Workbench. The CFD-based A. Healthy Case
thermal analysis is carried out using Ansys Fluent. The ther-
The generated losses of both machines at the same rated
mal properties of the used materials are given in Table IV.
torque and speed from the electromagnetic model are injected
Regarding the air-gap modeling, a turbulent flow occurs,
as heat sources in the thermal model to obtain the steady-
when the air-gap Reynolds number Reg is greater than the
state temperature distribution. Fig. 5 shows the temperature
critical Reynolds number Recrit (as usual in rotating electric
distribution of both designs. The maximum temperatures are
machines). Otherwise, a laminar flow is considered in the air
located at the end windings. Both layouts exhibit uniform
gap with the air thermal conductivity [19]. For the turbulent
temperature distributions across phases due to the equal phase-
flow, the air gap is modeled as a solid with an equivalent air-
current rms values under healthy conditions displayed in
gap thermal conductivity λg , which can be calculated by [4],
Fig. 3. However, DL outperforms in reducing the hot-spot
[19], [20]
temperature by 9.31% with respect to SL, as shown in Fig. 5,
0.4614 ln(3.33361η)
λg = 0.069η −2.9084 Reg ; possibly because both layouts have different thermal transfer
» (1) characteristics. For instance, DL offers greater conduction heat
Reg = ν > Recrit = 41.2 δ ; η = R
ωr Rro δ Rsi ro
Rsi
transfer between phases sharing the same slots and larger end-
where ωr is the angular rotor velocity, Rro is the rotor outer winding surfaces exposed to convective heat transfer with air.
radius, Rsi is the stator inner radius, η is th radius ratio, δ is To clarify whether the decrease in hot-spot temperature for DL
the air-gap length, and ν is the air kinematic viscosity. The is due to its lower losses or to greater heat dissipation, another
heat exchange on the stator outer surface is a combination of simulation is performed. Namely, the input losses of SL are
natural and forced convection, with the latter resulting from manually forced to be the same as for DL in Ansys Fluent,
the air blown by a fan. Accordingly, the mixed convection as indicated in Table V. From Table V and Fig. 6, DL still
coefficient of the stator surface can be expressed as [4], [8] keeps a lower hot-spot temperature than SL (by 4.64%). This
0.62 reveals that the lower DL losses (at the same rated torque and
hst = 9.73 + 14vst (2)
speed) are not the only important cause of the lower maximum
where vst is the air velocity on the stator surface (vst = temperature for DL, but also the better heat transfer of DL
8 m/s), which can be estimated from the rotor operating machine.
 TABLE IV 76.00 67.43
73.43 65.50
T HERMAL M ODEL PARAMETERS 70.86 63.56
68.29 61.63
Thermal conductivity Mass density Heat capacity 65.72 59.69
Material 63.15 57.76
(W/m/K) (Kg/m3 ) (J/Kg/K)
60.58 55.82
Copper 387.6 8978 381 58.01 53.89
Insulation 0.3 2000 502 55.44 51.95
M235-35 22 7600 460 52.87 50.02
N42sh 6.45 7600 460.55 50.30 48.08
[°C] [°C]
Air gap 1.94 1.1 1006
(a) (b)
Fig. 7. Temperature distribution under the OPF case with phase a open at
63.72 57.79 rated torque and speed. (a) SL. (b) DL.
62.66 57.01
61.60 56.23
60.54 55.45 71.36 67.43
59.49 54.67 69.15 65.50
58.43 53.89 66.93 63.56
57.37 53.11 64.71 61.63
56.31 52.33 62.50 59.69
55.25 51.56 60.28 57.76
54.19 50.78 58.06 55.82
53.14 50.00 55.85 53.89
[°C] [°C] 53.63 51.95
51.41 50.02
(a) (b) 49.20 48.08
Fig. 5. Temperature distribution under the healthy case at rated torque and [°C] [°C]
speed. (a) SL. (b) DL.
(a) (b)
Fig. 8. Temperature distribution under the OPF case (with phase a open) for
60.60 57.79 the same input losses and rated speed. (a) SL. (b) DL.
59.67 57.01
58.75 56.23
57.82 55.45
56.89 54.67
55.97 53.89 and thermal runaway [1]. In contrast to the maximum tem-
55.04 53.11 perature of OPF case, the faulty phase in ITF case produces
54.11 52.33
53.18 51.56 the highest temperature with respect to other healthy phases
52.26 50.78 due to the excessive SC current in the faulty phase. It can be
51.33 50.00
[°C] [°C] observed from Fig. 9 that the hot-spot temperature is higher for
(a) (b) DL than for SL, mainly due to the higher copper losses of DL
Fig. 6. Temperature distribution under the healthy case for the same input compared with SL in this case (see Table III). Nevertheless,
losses and rated speed. (a) SL. (b) DL. if the losses of SL are manually defined to match the DL
losses, DL showcases a 4.07% lower hot-spot temperature than
SL thanks to the greater heat transfer for DL, as depicted in
B. OPF Case
Fig. 10 and Table V.
Opening phase a makes it a passive phase, while the other
healthy phases are active ones. The heat transfer between V. C ONCLUSIONS
active and passive phases can be better exploited for DL than In this study, the steady-state temperature distribution of
for SL due to the physical sharing of two DL phases within FSCW 6PMSMs with both SL and DL windings is investi-
the same slot. As depicted in Fig. 7, DL outperforms SL by gated using CFD-based thermal model under the prospective
lowering the maximum temperature by 11.28%. Moreover, if operating cases (healthy, OPF, and ITF). Under each case,
the losses of DL are manually forced as equal inputs for both both layouts are thermally compared twice: one at the same
SL and DL, as shown in Table V and Fig. 8, the maximum rated torque and speed, and the other at the same input
temperature for DL is still lower (by 5.51%). This confirms losses. Thanks to the reduction of the MMF harmonics for
that the greater heat transfer for DL has a significant impact in DL, it achieves reduced total losses by 9.50% and 9.24%
decreasing the hot-spot temperature, regardless of the losses. under healthy and OPF conditions, respectively, compared
It can also be noted from Fig. 7 that the hot-spot temperature with SL. However, under the ITF case, it generates 19.85%
of both designs is located at phase d, which has the highest higher losses than SL, possibly due to the mutual flux linkage
phase-current rms value (see Fig. 4). of healthy phases boosting the PM flux in shorted turns.
Thermally, the hot-spot temperature is notably reduced by
C. ITF Case 9.31% and 11.28% (at the same rated torque and speed)
Fig. 9 displays the temperature fields of both machines under healthy and OPF cases, respectively, compared with SL.
under the ITF condition discussed in Section III-C. The hot- Under the ITF case, a much higher hot-spot temperature is
spot temperature is higher than for the healthy and OPF cases. observed in DL, undoubtedly due to the corresponding higher
Consequently, reducing this temperature is essential to avoid copper losses. Nevertheless, it has been found that the greater
problems like PM demagnetization, insulation degradation, heat transfer for DL, presumably associated with the larger
 86.51 127.35 TABLE V
83.24 120.02
79.98 112.69 C OMPARISON OF H OT-S POT T EMPERATURES FOR B OTH M ACHINES AT
76.71 105.36 THE S AME I NPUT L OSSES U NDER D IFFERENT S CENARIOS
73.44 98.03
70.17 90.70 Input losses (W) Hot-spot temperature (◦ C)
66.90 83.37 Scenario Fig.
63.64 76.03 Pcu Pcore PPM SL DL
60.37 68.70 Healthy 6 47.01 55.80 5.36 60.60 57.79
57.10 61.37 71.36 67.43
OPF 8 57.91 61.10 5.69
53.83 54.04
[°C] [°C] ITF 10 99.67 46.67 6.76 132.75 127.35
(a) (b)
Fig. 9. Temperature distribution under the ITF case at rated torque and speed.
(a) SL. (b) DL. [6] H. Guo, J. Xu, and Y.-H. Chen, “Robust control of fault-tolerant
permanent-magnet synchronous motor for aerospace application with
132.75 127.35 guaranteed fault switch process,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 62,
124.93 120.02 no. 12, pp. 7309–7321, Dec. 2015.
117.11 112.69 [7] A. Mohammadpour and L. Parsa, “Global fault-tolerant control tech-
109.29 105.36 nique for multiphase permanent-magnet machines,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
101.48 98.03
93.66 90.70 Appl., vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 178–186, Jan.-Feb. 2015.
85.84 83.37 [8] S. Jiang, M. Gao, J. Niu, H. Feng, L. Ai, and X. Xu, “Temperature
78.02 76.03 field analysis and equal-amplitude temperature rise constraint current
70.21 68.70 control method under open-circuit fault-tolerant operation for five-phase
62.39 61.37 permanent magnet motor,” Int. J. Therm. Sci., vol. 202, Aug. 2024, Art.
54.57 54.04 no. 109088.
[°C] [°C]
[9] Z. Kuang, S. Wu, B. Du, H. Xu, S. Cui, and C. C. Chan, “Thermal
(a) (b) analysis of fifteen-phase permanent magnet synchronous motor under
Fig. 10. Temperature distribution under the ITF case for the same input losses different fault tolerant operations,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 81 466–
and rated speed. (a) SL. (b) DL. 81 480, Jun. 2019.
[10] Y. Liu, B. Zhang, M. Zong, and G. Feng, “Thermal analysis of a modular
permanent magnet machine under open-circuit fault with asymmetric
temperature distribution,” Electronics, vol. 12, no. 7, Mar. 2023, Art.
end-winding surfaces exposed to convection and the thermal no. 1623.
coupling between DL phases (sharing slot), is a very effective [11] J. Haylock, B. Mecrow, A. Jack, and D. Atkinson, “Operation of fault
factor in lowering the hot-spot temperature: by 4.64%, 5.51%, tolerant machines with winding failures,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers.,
vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1490–1495, Dec. 1999.
and 4.07% (at the same input losses) under healthy, OPF, [12] P. Arumugam, T. Hamiti, and C. Gerada, “Turn–turn short circuit fault
and ITF cases, respectively. However, determining the most management in permanent magnet machines,” IET Electr. Power Appl.,
effective heat transfer characteristic among these terms will vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 634–641, Nov. 2015.
[13] Z. Jia, G. Xu, P. Qian, Q. Chen, and Y. Zhou, “A simplified LPTN model
be addressed in future work. for a fault-tolerant permanent magnet motor under inter-turn short-circuit
The reduced hot-spot temperature for DL may be exploited faults,” Energies, vol. 15, no. 22, Nov. 2022, Art. no. 8651.
in elevating the overload capability either under healthy or [14] M. Y. Metwly et al., “Investigation of six-phase surface permanent
magnet machine with typical slot/pole combinations for integrated
OPF conditions while respecting the insulation and PM ther- onboard chargers through methodical design optimization,” IEEE Trans.
mal limits. Transport. Electrific., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 866–885, Mar. 2023.
Maintaining the healthy-phase currents during the ITF op- [15] A. Hemeida, M. Taha, A. A.-E. Abdallh, H. Vansompel, L. Dupré,
and P. Sergeant, “Applicability of fractional slot axial flux permanent
eration for DL is found to be an ineffective FT control strat- magnet synchronous machines in the field weakening region,” IEEE
egy, likely due to the inter-phase electromagnetic coupling. Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 111–121, Mar. 2017.
Further investigation into the underlying causes and possible [16] M. Barcaro, N. Bianchi, and F. Magnussen, “Six-phase supply feasibility
using a PM fractional-slot dual winding machine,” in Proc. IEEE ECCE,
approaches to improve the thermal behavior is recommended. Nov. 2010, pp. 1058–1065.
Experimental validation may be considered in future work. [17] W. N. W. A. Munim, M. J. Duran, H. S. Che, M. Bermúdez, I. González-
Prieto, and N. A. Rahim, “A unified analysis of the fault tolerance
R EFERENCES capability in six-phase induction motor drives,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 7824–7836, Oct. 2017.
[1] A. G. Yepes, O. Lopez, I. Gonzalez-Prieto, M. J. Duran, and J. Doval- [18] A. G. Yepes et al., “Open-phase-tolerant online current references for
Gandoy, “A comprehensive survey on fault tolerance in multiphase maximum torque range and minimum loss with current and torque-ripple
ac drives, Part 1: General overview considering multiple fault types,” limits for n-phase nonsalient PMSMs with nonsinusoidal back EMF,”
Machines, vol. 10, no. 3, Mar. 2022, Art. no. 208. IEEE Trans. Transport. Electrific., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 432–449, Mar.
[2] A. Boglietti, M. Cossale, S. Vaschetto, and T. Dutra, “Thermal con- 2024.
ductivity evaluation of fractional-slot concentrated-winding machines,” [19] L. Cuiping, P. Yulong, N. Ronggang, and C. Shukang, “Analysis of 3D
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 2059–2065, May-Jun. 2017. static temperature field of water cooling induction motor in mini electric
[3] A. M. El-Refaie and T. M. Jahns, “Impact of winding layer number and vehicle,” in Proc. ICEM, Nov. 2011, pp. 1–5.
magnet type on synchronous surface PM machines designed for wide [20] P.-O. Gronwald and T. A. Kern, “Traction motor cooling systems:
constant-power speed range operation,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., A literature review and comparative study,” IEEE Trans. Transport.
vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 53–60, Mar. 2008. Electrific., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 2892–2913, Dec. 2021.
[4] H. Tang, J. Di, Z. Wu, and W. Li, “Temperature analysis for the [21] D. Staton, A. Boglietti, and A. Cavagnino, “Solving the more difficult
asymmetric six-phase permanent magnet synchronous motor in healthy aspects of electric motor thermal analysis in small and medium size
and fault-tolerant modes,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 70, no. 7, pp. industrial induction motors,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 20,
6482–6493, Jul. 2023. no. 3, pp. 620–628, Sep. 2005.
[5] N. Bianchi, E. Fornasiero, and S. Bolognani, “Thermal analysis of a five-
phase motor under faulty operations,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 49,
no. 4, pp. 1531–1538, Jul.-Aug. 2013.

View publication stats