IEEE INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS MAGAZINE  NOV j DEC 2009  WWW.IEEE.

ORG/IAS

ARTVILLE

For power density and energy savings in industrial applications

HE PRESENT AND FUTURE MARKET for motors places high value on power density, operating efficiency, reliability, variable speed

and also have the additional advantages of higher power density (power per mass or volume), superior power factor (low current), low rotor temperature, and synchronous operation. Advancement in magnet technologies allows operation at higher temperatures without permanent magnetization loss. PM motors are now economically viable because of the availability of rare-earth magnets, such as neodymium iron boron, at lower prices. Performance comparisons among induction motors, surface PM, and salient pole PM motors,

operation, and low cost. Permanent magnet (PM) motors are now able to meet these market

BY MICHAEL J. MELFI, STEVE EVON, & ROBBIE MCELVEEN

expectations. Compared with the prolific induction motor, PM motors provide the attributes of efficiency and reliability
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MIAS.2009.934443

28

1077-2618/09/$26.002009 IEEE

first opportunity to achieve motor airincluding various configurations of PM gap flux levels comparable with inducmachines, are presented in this article. THE MOTOR tion motors. These magnets have outThree-phase induction motors have standing thermal capabilities both in been widely recognized as the workhorse RATING WAS terms of minimal variation in flux with of industrial applications in the pulp temperature and with regard to maxiand paper/forest products industry. Over IDENTICAL WITH mum temperature capability. However, the past 30 years, there have been clear THE INDUCTION the cost has remained high, limiting trends in motor utilization that demand their use to niche applications. higher power density and increased MOTOR WITH THE The introduction of neodymium energy efficiency. iron boron (Nd2 Fe14 B) magnets in In many industry applications, EXCEPTION THAT motor size and inertia are critical. the 1980s provided the promise of Motors with high-power density can substantially lower cost compared THE BASE offer a performance advantage in with samarium cobalt magnets. The applications such as paper machines. initial Nd2 Fe14 B magnet materials FREQUENCY However, high-power density cannot had very limited temperature capaWAS 120 Hz. compromise reliability and efficiency. bilities, with high susceptibility to Induction motors have been able to demagnetization above 120 C. Over incrementally improve energy effithe course of the past 15 years, the ciency to satisfy the past requirements. Both mandated material properties have been improved such that some (legislated) efficiency [1] [Electric Policy Act (EPACT)] grades can be used to 180 C (see Figure 1). In addition, and voluntary levels [2] [National Electric Manufacturing the magnetic field capabilities have been further Association (NEMA) Premium] have been provided using advanced, and equally important, the magnet costs have products derived from general-purpose induction motors. come down significantly. Furthermore, magnets have Another method considered for enhanced induction motor been developed that can be either injection or compresefficiency is using cast copper rotors in place of aluminum sion molded in place, allowing substantial rotor laminafor medium-size ratings [3]. tion design freedom. As further improvements to energy efficiency are desired, along with lower noise and variable-speed operat- PM Motor Primary Electromagnetic Configurations ing capability, other technologies beyond simple induction There are many possible rotor configurations for PM motors should be considered. Because of dramatic im- motors. All are synchronously operating machines but provements in magnetic and thermal properties of PM with various other characteristics. Examples of some of the materials over the past 20 years, along with considerable possible characteristics are possible across the line starting cost reduction, synchronous PM motors represent viable or the development of saliency-based torque (in addition alternatives. PM motors have long been recognized as pro- to the magnet torque). viding higher efficiency than induction motors, but limitaFigures 27 show typical electromagnetic (lamination) tions in terms of motor control, as well as magnet material configurations for PM motors and a typical induction limitations (performance and cost), have severely restricted motor. As can be seen, there is a wide range of possible their use. PM motors are now available to cover a signifi- configurations that can be employed in the design of PM cant portion of medium horsepower applications in the motors with the ultimate selection often being dependent pulp and paper industry. on systems issues and manufacturing preferences. In Figure 2, the rotor can be seen to have magnets on PM Motor Technology the outer surface of the rotor. Inside of the magnets is a
PM Materials

IEEE INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS MAGAZINE  NOV j DEC 2009  WWW.IEEE.ORG/IAS

PMs have been widely used in motion control motors for many years. Over the past 40 years, the magnet materials have gone through substantial changes with regard to everything from basic chemistry to cost. Today, there are materials available to allow much more power-dense, higher efficiency PM motors. Before the 1970s, PM motor designs typically included either Alnico or ceramic/ferrite magnet materials. Although ceramic magnets are quite economical, the motor air-gap flux densities that can be achieved with these magnets do not come close to the levels commonly achieved with induction motors. Although Alnico magnets can achieve higher flux densities, their poor resistance to demagnetization limits their use in motors. The rare-earth PM materials were introduced first with Samarium Cobalt products, both SmCo5 and Sm2 Co17 types. These were available since 1970 and provided the

Max. Operating Temperature (C)

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60

Nd2Fe14B (c. 1990)

Nd2Fe14B (c. 2005)

Sm2Co17

Ceramic

Alnico

1
Maximum magnet-operating temperature.

29

IEEE INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS MAGAZINE  NOV j DEC 2009  WWW.IEEE.ORG/IAS

higher saliency ratios than the singlerotor magnetic structure that has cirlayer design. However, if constructed cumferential symmetry. Because of this THE NONSALIENT from magnet blocks, the rotor assemsymmetry, this rotor can be said to have bly can be unusually complex. Another no saliency, i.e., no preferred/easy direcPM ROTOR option is to use either compression- or tion of magnetization. All motor torque injection-molded magnets for a multiis produced because of the interaction of CONSTRUCTION layer assembly such as this. stator current with magnet flux. Figure 6 shows another single-layer In contrast with Figure 2, it can be PROVIDES HIGH interior PM design, but this time, with seen in Figure 3 that, while the magnets EFFICIENCY AND a squirrel-cage rotor winding built into are still located at the rotor outer diamethe rotor. This provides a means to do a ter (OD), the teeth that are in between HIGH-TORQUE full-frequency line start of this type of each adjacent magnet create a dissymmotor, allowing it to be run across the metry or saliency. This saliency allows DENSITY. line, rather than just on inverter power. this motor to produce a torque compoFigure 7 shows the cross section of nent (reluctance torque) due to the same an induction motor. The rotor does not mechanism as employed in a synchronous reluctance motor. In addition, because of the rotor sali- have a specific direct and quadrature axis that is fixed relaency, the inductance of the stator has a different value as tive to the rotor. Rather, the flux actually rotates at slip aligned with the rotor quadrature (q) axis, compared with frequency within the rotor. If one were to consider a specific that of the direct (d) axis. The ratio of the q-axis inductance instant in time, there would not be substantial saliency in (Lq ) to the d-axis inductance (Ld ) is called the saliency ratio this rotor. There are rotor constructions with a combination of saliency, no magnets, and a squirrel cage (synchronous and is one figure of merit for salient rotor PM machines. With the rotor construction seen in Figure 4, the mag- reluctance motors), but those are not considered here. nets have been placed in the interior of the rotor magnetic structure. This again results in rotor saliency and a ratio of PM Motor System Implications Lq to Ld that is greater than one. This configuration also An obvious difference between PM and induction motors provides the opportunity to use simple rectangular block is that the magnetic field is there all the time for the PM magnets, which would be lower cost than the arc segment machine, whereas an induction motor field can reduce magnets seen in Figures 2 and 3. (when the motor is unpowered) to a small residual level. The rotor of Figure 5 takes the single layer, single flux This has implications for any potential overhauling loads barrier, and interior PM design of Figure 4 and extends it that the motor might be coupled to. If the motor was disto multiple layers. Doing so can provide a means to create connected from the line, there could still be a substantial

d d q +
Surface PM motor with no rotor saliency.

Interior PM motor with rotor saliency via a single-flux barrier.

d q +
Surface PM motor with teeth between magnets to create rotor saliency.

d q

+
Interior PM motor with multiple-flux barrier rotor saliency.

30

can control the stator currents to voltage at the motor leads if such an weaken the magnet flux via negative overhauling load caused rotation of the THE SALIENT-POLE d-axis current, there is an issue that PM motor. Depending on the speed of occurs if the inverter were to shut down rotation, it is possible to have a hazardPM MOTOR CAN while operating at above base speed. In ous level of voltage present on an elecsuch a case, the motor terminal voltage trically unconnected motor. This could ESSENTIALLY would rise to the full value predicted require special maintenance procedures by (1). While running at above base to provide workers safety. This is not PROVIDE ITS OWN speed, the motor terminal (lineline) different from the case for dc brushROTOR POSITION voltage could have a peak value that type PM motors or motion-control PM exceeds the rated inverter dc-bus voltbrushless motors. However, the indusFEEDBACK age. The freewheeling diodes of the try using PM machines needs to be inverter output stage would then form familiar with these characteristics. INFORMATION. an uncontrolled diode rectifier connectWhen running a motor across a range ing the PM motor to the dc bus. The of speeds, the transition from below to high-motor terminal voltage would be above base speed requires a transition from constant flux to field weakening. Motors operated rectified and put power onto the dc bus, resulting in a rapid strictly at below base speed do not go through this transition. rise in the dc-bus voltage level. A scope trace showing this In an induction motor run on adjustable frequency, the effect is seen in Figure 8, where the bus voltage rose from transition is a matter of the volts per hertz ratio (V/Hz), 618 to 796 Vdc, with about half of that rise occurring in 10 ms. For this system, the 796-V level was acceptable, but an changing from a fixed value to a decreasing level. For PM motors, the excitation from the magnets is con- inverter trip at higher speeds could have damaged the stant, so field weakening is less of a natural phenomenon. inverter components. Another advantage that salient-pole PM motors offer Because of the constant magnet excitation, the PM motor has an open-circuit internally generated voltage, which is a linear compared with nonsalient designs is the opportunity for self-sensing of the rotor position. This can allow a highfunction of speed throughout the entire operating range bandwidth speed and torque performance without the need p E 3 Xr 3 Kpm, (1) for a speed or position-sensing device such as an encoder or resolver. By taking advantage of the fact that the stator 2 winding inductance can be quite different in the d and q where E is the peak phase voltage; p, the number of poles; axes, the salient-pole PM motor can essentially provide its Xr , the rotor rotational frequency in rad/s; and Kpm , the own rotor position feedback information. magnet flux linkage in Weber. As a result of the constant magnet flux, operation of the PM motor at above base speed requires that the stator current has a phase relationship to the rotor position that allows it to reduce the air-gap flux. This can be thought of as having negative current in the d axis [5]. With PM motors that have no rotor saliency (Figure 2), the stator current would be strictly in the q axis at below base-speed operation. As the motor speed moves beyond the base speed, to keep terminal voltage constant, there is a need to d q provide negative d-axis current, effectively field weakening the air-gap flux. The further above base speed the motor is + run, the more negative d-axis current is required to counter 6 the magnet flux. As a result, the total stator current (vector Interior PM motor with rotor saliency via a single-flux barrier sum of the d- and q-axis components) increases without a and a squirrel-cage winding for starting. commensurate increase in output power. Eventually, the negative d-axis current is too high to sustain. As opposed to the nonsalient design, a salient pole type of PM motor (Figures 36) does not derive all of its torque from the magnet flux. Instead, it achieves a portion of its torque via magnetic reluctance, similar to that for a synchronous reluctance motor. One advantage of developing torque via both magnet flux and rotor saliency is that there is less negative d-axis current needed to counter the magnet flux at high speeds. This additional design freedom to proportion the relative torque contributions of the rotor saliency and magnets generally allows the salient pole PM motors to be designed for greater operation at above base speed [6]. 7 Another system-level issue for PM machines is related to this operation at above base speed. Although the inverter Induction motor.

IEEE INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS MAGAZINE  NOV j DEC 2009  WWW.IEEE.ORG/IAS

31

enclosed fan-cooled (TEFC) motor. It Comparative Performance should be noted that the motor is not a Induction/PM THE RATING standard NEMA cast iron-frame motor It can be seen in Figures 9 and 10 that but is manufactured for a wide range of PM motors provide an opportunity to CHOSEN FOR THE variable-speed applications. Figure 11 extend efficiency to a level beyond that shows a picture of the surface PM test defined by EPACT and NEMA PreTEST WAS 75 hp AT motor. It is interesting to note that the mium. In addition to the improved 1,800 r/min BASE dc-load motor that it is coupled to is efficiency at rated load seen for the PM both larger in size and has to be intermotors in Figure 9, there are also adSPEED. nally ventilated to achieve the same vantages with regard to more lightly rating as the TEFC PM motor. loaded efficiency [Figure 10(a)]. BeThe rating chosen for the test was cause of the reduced no-load current, as a result of the magnets providing the required flux, the PM 75 hp at 1,800 r/min base speed. For this testing, three momotor efficiency stays quite high even at fairly light loads. tors were manufactured using identical stator laminations This same feature of having the flux provided by PMs also provides very high-power factor, especially noticeable at 98 light loads [Figure 10(b)]. Comparative Test Data The motor used for the comparative testing of induction and PM rotors is a laminated NEMA 250 frame, totally
97 % Efficiency 96 95 94 93 92 Energy Efficient Premium Efficiency PM 0 20 40 60 % Load (a)
IEEE INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS MAGAZINE  NOV j DEC 2009  WWW.IEEE.ORG/IAS

TeK PreVu

Trig? 178 V 6 796 V

d dc Bus s Voltage Volt g Vol age

80

100

120

95 90 % Power Factor 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 0 20 40 60 % Load (b) 80 100 120 Energy Efficient Premium Efficiency PM

Ch1 5.00 Ch1 5 0 Ch1 5.00 V h

C Ch2 2.00 V M 100 ms ACh1 100 Ch4 40.0 V h 40.0 0 40.60%

2.80 V

8
Increase in dc-bus voltage due to inverter trip while at 7,200 r/min on a 5,000 r/min base-speed PM motor trace 4: dc-bus volts, 40 V/Div.

10
98 96 % Efficiency 94 92 90 88 86 1 10 hp 100 1,000
PM IEEE 841 Premium Efficiency Energy Efficient dc PM
Typical partial-load (a) efficiencies and (b) power factors of 75 Hp, TEFC, 1,800 r/min motors.

32

11
A 75-hp, TEFC PM motor (on the right) coupled to a dcload motor.

Efficiencies of low voltage, TEFC, 1,800 r/min motors.

TABLE 1. INDUCTION MOTOR-PERFORMANCE DATA. Horsepower (heat run) Volts Base frequency Full-load amperes Full-load speed Full-load efficiency Full-load power factor Full-load torque Total motor losses Temperature rise by resistance 75.5 hp 459 V 60 Hz 92.3 A 1768 r/min 93.6% 82.0% 224 lb/ft 3.88 kW 111.5 C

TABLE 2. SURFACE PM MOTOR-PERFORMANCE DATA. Horsepower (heat run) Volts Base frequency Full-load amperes Full-load speed Full-load efficiency Full-load power factor Full-load torque Total motor losses Temperature rise by resistance 75.4 hp 405 V 120 Hz 85 A 1,800 r/min 96.2% 98.1% 220 lb/ft 2.23 kW 70.7 C

and core lengths. Every effort was made to minimize the variations in cooling while optimizing the performance of each motor. Since these motors were design for variable-speed operation, all the test data are with the motors powered by a pulsewidth modulation (PWM) inverter. After the testing of the surface PM motor resulted in a large gain in efficiency, it was decided to test the salient pole PM design at a yet higher torque rating, corresponding to the torque of a 100-hp motor. The following sections will present the result of each motor and a summary to compare the overall results. Induction Motor Test Data The first test is for an induction motor with a cast aluminum rotor. To minimize material variations, the motor was pushed to 75 hp. Typically, this motor would be rated at 60 hp. Since the insulation system of this motor is class H (180 C), the motor is capable of operation with a class H temperature rise (125 C). The frame size of the motor is FL2586, which is a NEMA 250-frame shaft height, and is not designed to conform to the NEMA rating per frame size table. A 250-frame NEMA, TEFC motor would have a maximum of 20 hp in this frame. The induction motor was wound as a four-pole motor with a 60-Hz base frequency. The motor was dynamometer tested on a 100 hp, dc dynamometer per IEEE 112 Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators method B. The test results for this motor can be found in Table 1.
Surface PM Motor Test Data

with the exception that the base frequency was 120 Hz. The decision was made in the development process to wind this motor as an eight-pole motor. The surface PM eight-pole design had both performance and cost advantages over the surface PM four-pole design. The stator lamination was identical with the induction motor lamination and was such it could be wound for an eight-pole surface PM stator. The stator core length and frame size were identical with the induction motor. The same fan, fan cover, and brackets were used for this motor. The motor was also operated on a PWM drive with different software for the PM motor. As with the induction motor, the rating was 75 hp at 1,800 r/min. Figure 12 shows a picture of the surface PM rotor. The surface PM motor was load tested per IEEE 112 method B (as modified for an inverter-fed PM motor) on the same 100-hp dc dynamometer. The test results can be found in Table 2.
Salient Pole PM Motor Test Data

IEEE INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS MAGAZINE  NOV j DEC 2009  WWW.IEEE.ORG/IAS

The final motor to be tested was a salient-pole PM design. Similar to the induction motor, this motor was designed as a four-pole motor. The motor actually used the same stator and a different winding than the induction motor. The fan, fan cover, and brackets were also identical with those used in the induction and surface PM motor. Figure 13 shows a

The second motor to be tested was the surface PM motor. The motor rating was identical with the induction motor

12
Surface PM rotor. Salient pole PM rotor.

13

33

TABLE 3. SALIENT POLE PM MOTOR-PERFORMANCE DATA. Hp (heat run) Volts Base frequency Full-load amperes Full-load speed Full-load efficiency Full-load power factor Full-load torque Total motor losses Temperature rise by resistance 75.0 hp 395 V 60 Hz 90.2 A 1,800 r/min 96.8% 93.2% 219 lb/ft 1.85 kW 59.9 C 100 hp 400 V 60 Hz 119 A 1,800 r/min 96.9% 93.4% 292 lb/ft 2.40 kW 77.6 C

picture of the salient-pole PM rotor. The salient-pole PM motor was also load tested per IEEE 112 method B. Test results can be found in Table 3. As seen in Table 3, this motor was also tested at the next higher rating of 100 hp or a 33% increase in load. This increased load capability was met while still remaining within a class B temperature rise.
Comparison of Test Results

It can immediately be seen that a PM motor can provide a more efficient, higher power factor, cooler running motor for this 75-hp, 1,800-r/min rating. As an alternative to simply increasing efficiency and reducing temperature rise, it can also be seen (through the salient pole PM test results in Table 3) that a substantial rating increase is also possible. Test results comparing the three motors at a 75-hp rating can be found in Table 4. Comparative Power Density The data previously shown in Table 3 gives an idea of the opportunity for increased rating capability of a given size of motor that is designed for PM rather than induction. The 33% rating increase is fairly typical in such a comparison. In Tables 5 and 6, a slightly different approach is taken into comparison with regard to rating capability or power density. In Table 5, it can be seen that, while a NEMA induction motor in a 256-T frame would be rated 20 hp at 1,800 r/min, a 250-T frame PM motor can achieve a fivefold increase in this rating to 100 hp. Similarly, Table 5 also shows that for a 100-hp typical NEMA induction motor, a 405-T frame would be used, resulting in about twice

TABLE 4. COMPARISON OF TEST RESULTS. Frame Type Rotor Type Enclosure Horsepower Volts Full load speed Base frequency
IEEE INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS MAGAZINE  NOV j DEC 2009  WWW.IEEE.ORG/IAS

Laminated Steel Induction TEBC 75.5 hp 459 v 1,768 r/min 60 Hz 92.3 A 82.0% 3.88 kW 93.6% 224 lb/ft 111.5 C Surface PM TEBC 75.4 hp 405 v 1,800 r/min 120 Hz 85.0 A 98.1% 2.23 kW 96.2% 220 lb/ft 70.7 C Salient Pole PM TEBC 75.0 hp 395 v 1,800 r/min 60 Hz 90.2 A 93.2% 1.85 kW 96.8% 219 lb/ft 89.9 C

Full-load current Full-load power factor Losses Full-load efficiency Full load torque Temp rise

TABLE 5. ENCLOSED MOTOR COMPARISON. Frame Type Rotor Type Enclosure Hp @ 1,800 r/min NEMA frame size Weight lb/hp Full-load current Full-load power factor Full-load losses Full-load efficiency Rotor inertia Temp Rise TEFC 20 256 T 325 lb 16.25 25.5 A 78.9% 1.116 kW 93.0% 2.42 lb=ft 66 C
2

Cast Iron Induction TEFC 100 405 T 1,160 lb 11.60 115 A 86.4% 4.381 kW 94.5% 26.1 lb=ft 74 C
2

Laminated Steel Surface PM TEBC 100 250 532 lb 5.32 117 A 90.3% 4.12 kW 94.8% 4.9 lb=ft 120 C
2

Salient Pole PM TEBC 100 250 532 lb 5.32 119 A 93.4% 2.396 kW 96.9% 4.9 lb=ft2 77.6 C

34

TABLE 6. OPEN ENCLOSURE MOTOR COMPARISON. Frame Type Rotor Type Enclosure Hp @ 1,800 r/min NEMA frame size Weight lb/hp Full-load current Full-load power factor Full-load losses Full-load efficiency Rotor inertia Temp rise ODP 5 184 T 69 lb 13.8 6.4 A 83.1% 0.504 kW 88.1% 0.3 lb=ft 69 C
2

Cast Iron Induction ODP 50 326 T 639 lb 12.8 59.2 A 83.8% 2.21 kW 94.4% 4.9 lb=ft 76 C
2

Laminated Frame Induction DPFV 50 210 363 lb 7.3 60.6 A 85.7% 4.03 kW 90.2% 2.32 lb=ft 79 C
2

Salient Pole PM DPFV 50 180 230 lb 4.6 56 A 92.6% 2.32 kW 94.1% 0.8 lb=ft2 74 C

the weight of the equivalent rating supplied as a PM motor in a 250-T frame. Table 6 demonstrates a similarly dramatic improvement, this time with open motors rather than the enclosed motors shown in Table 5. Table 6 also uses different horsepower and frame sizes for the comparison to demonstrate the scalability of the gains that can be made. It can also be seen in these comparisons that the improved power density is achieved without a sacrifice of energy efficiency, power factor, or temperature rise. Conclusions It is clear that a premium will continue to be placed on energy efficiency in motors. The circumstances around global warming and the availability of future oil supplies only increase the focus on electric motors as key elements in the efficient utilization of energy resources. PMs offer an important tool in the quest for cost-effective ways to further increase motor efficiencies. The characteristics of PM motors are sufficiently distinct from that of induction motors that users need to understand their operation to ensure successful applications. The nonsalient PM rotor construction provides high efficiency and high-torque density, whereas the salientpole construction offers some distinct advantages, especially with regard to system issues. Full flexibility to use other than 50 or 60 Hz base frequencies to further optimize performance obviously requires application with an inverter. Once the decision is made to use an inverter, the variable-frequency degree of freedom, with regard to pole selection, works in favor of the PM motor design. The improving performance to cost relationship of PM materials is getting to the point where the increased power density of the PM motor can be large enough to offset the cost of the magnets. While the authors would not suggest that PM motors are going to replace the widespread usage of induction motors, the PM motors provide an interesting alternative, especially in the case where an inverter is

to be used in the application. It is for those inverter-fed applications that the first usage is expected in the pulp and paper industry. Recommendations At this time, it would be prudent for NEMA and IEEE standards and application guides to be revised to reflect the application of PM motors. Areas for revision may include starting performance plus integrated behavior with adjustable frequency controls. Standards and Application Guides, which should be evaluated for revision to provide PM machine considerations, include NEMA MG1, IEEE 841, and IEEE 1349. Application guidelines for the use of machines without any slip would also be another area to consider. References
[1] EPACT legislation, Congressional Rec., Jan. 1994. [2] Motors and Generators, NEMA Standards Publication MG1-2003, Paragraph 12.60. [3] J. Malinowski, J. McCormick, and K. Dunn, Advances in construction techniques of ac induction motorsPreparation for superpremium efficiency levels, in Proc. IEEE PCIC Conf., Sept. 2003, pp. 16651670. [4] Standard Specifications for Permanent Magnet Materials, MMPA Standard 100. [5] N. Bianchi and T. Jahns, Design analysis and control of interior PM synchronous machines, in Proc. IEEE Annu. Meeting, IAS Tutorial Notes, Oct. 2004, pp. 2.12.22. [6] R. F. Schiferl and T. A. Lipo, Power capability of salient pole permanent magnet synchronous motors in variable speed drive applications, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 26, pp. 115123, Jan./Feb. 1990.

IEEE INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS MAGAZINE  NOV j DEC 2009  WWW.IEEE.ORG/IAS

Michael J. Melfi is with Baldor-Reliance in Richmond, Ohio. Steve Evon (stevon@baldor.com) and Robbie McElveen are with Baldor-Reliance in Greenville, South Carolina. Melfi and Evon are Senior Members of the IEEE. McElveen is a Member of the IEEE. This article first appeared as Permanent Magnet Motors for Energy Savings and Power Density in Industrial Applications at the 2008 Paper and Pulp Industry Conference.

35