1

Introduction

Increases in the fuel cost and more concern for the environment are pressuring
automotive companies to redesign and optimize various components used in
automobiles. Initiatives focusing on weight reduction and efficiency are leading
automotive companies and their suppliers to consider and adopt bonded Nd-Fe-B
magnets for various motors used in the automobiles.
Due to an increased interest in alternative fuels fuel pump motors are being driven to
switch to brushless designs, and this trend is quickening the adoption of bonded Nd-
Fe-B for these motors. The fuel pump is usually located in the fuel tank or on the
frame rail and is run by the vehicles DC electrical power system. The fuel pump is a
submersible unit with a permanent magnet electric motor. Most current fuel pumps
use brush-type permanent magnet motors with sintered ferrite arcs used for the
magnets. However, because certain alternative fuels, especially ethanol, are more
caustic than gasoline, the brushes tend to corrode more quickly, causing the fuel
pump to fail at a much higher rate. Moreover, ferrite-based motors need to be larger
and heavier in order to deliver the required performance.
This specific issues of higher fuel price, need for better performance with compact
size and the corrosion of the brushes by the alternative fuels has lead to the need of
designing a compact, cost effective, high performance permanent magnet brushless
motor having similar torque-speed characteristics to that of the existing permanent
magnet ferrite based brushed DC motors.


2

Methodology
Benchmarking of the Original Motor

The original brushed PM motor with sintered ferrite arcs was dismantled and various
physical parameters like the dimensions and weight of various components were
measured. Figure 1 shows the three dimensional view of the motor and Figure 2
shows the exploded view of the benchmarked PM brushed DC motor. Figure 3
shows the winding pattern for the benchmarked ferrite PM brushed DC motor.

Fig. 1 Three dimensional view of the benchmarked Ferrite PM brushed DC motor


Fig. 2 Exploded view of the benchmarked Ferrite PM brushed DC motor

3


Fig. 3 Winding diagram for the benchmarked Ferrite PM brushed DC motor

Table 1 Physical Parameters of the benchmarked Ferrite PM brushed DC Motor

No. of slots = 8 Winding type = Lap
No. of magnet pole arcs = 2 Turns / Coil = 190 with Copper wire diameter =
0.01275 inches (AWG size 29)
Armature core length = 22.2
mm
Armature Outer diameter = 22.3 mm
Length of air gap = 0.6 mm Magnet outer diameter = 32 mm
Back iron thickness = 1.65
mm
Magnet inner diameter = 23.5 mm
Length of the motor = 30 mm Total motor weight = 165.9 gm
Overall diameter = 35.3 mm Total copper weight = 12.17 gm
Magnet length = 30 mm Total magnet weight = 38.18 gm


-3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
B
-
f
i
e
l
d

(
G
a
u
s
s
)
Rotor Position (deg)

(a) Set up for Flux scan (b) Variation of air gap flux
Fig. 4 Flux Scan for the benchmarked Ferrite PM brushed DC motor

4

To get the shape and the magnitude of the actual air gap flux density from the
magnet a flux scan was performed using a closed magnetic circuit of the magnet
with back iron and a solid steel piece replacing the armature. The complete set up
for the flux scan is shown in Figure 4 (a), and Figure 4 (b) shows the flux density
variation in the middle of the air gap for the actual air gap of 2.74 mm. From the flux
scan it is observed that the magnets are magnetized to achieve a radial flux pattern
in the air gap of the motor.

Fig. 5 Cogging torque measurement device and cogging torque scan for the benchmarked
Ferrite PM brushed DC motor

The cogging torque produced due to the presence of the permanent magnet when
the windings are not excited is measured using the cogging torque set up as shown
in picture of Figure 5, and the cogging torque waveform is shown in the chart of
Figure 5. The peak to peak cogging torque measured is 21.886 mN-m.
A Two dimensional (2-D) finite element (FE) model of the motor was made and
analyzed to predict the performance of the motor. Figure 6 (a) and (b) show the flux
density and the flux line plot for the motor with only permanent magnet excitation,
from which it is observed that some part of the modelled stator back iron is saturated
with peak flux density in excess of 2.0 T. Figure 7 shows the FE predicted radial
component of the flux density at the mid of the motor air gap, from which it is
observed that the peak air gap flux density is 0.35 T.
5


(a) Flux density plot (b) Flux line plot
Fig. 6 Flux density and Flux line plot from FE analysis of the benchmarked Ferrite PM brushed
DC motor


Fig. 7 FE predicted variation of the flux density at the mid of air gap for only PM excitation


Fig. 8 FE predicted cogging torque for the
benchmarked Ferrite PM brushed DC motor

Fig. 9 FE predicted developed torque for
the benchmarked Ferrite PM brushed DC
motor at different armature currents

6

Figure 8 shows the FE predicted cogging torque variation for different rotor position,
from which it is observed that the cogging torque cycle is 2 /N
r
degree electrical,
where N
r
is the number of teeth on the armature. The peak to peak cogging torque
predicted using the FE analysis is 13.2 mN-m. This is less than the actual measured
value of 21.886 mN-m, and the difference appears to be mostly due to misalignment
in the cogging torque measurement device. This conclusion is drawn because the
measured peak to peak cogging can be seen to vary from ~15 to ~21mN-m as the
shaft is rotated.
Considering the linear commutation of the coils and the winding pattern as shown in
Figure 3, the current in various coils at different rotor positions was worked out, and
the developed torque of the motor was predicted for armature currents of 5 A and 8
A. These are shown in Figure 9. Table 2 gives the value of the average torque and
torque ripple for both currents. For the brushed PMDC motor with ferrite magnet arcs
it is normal design practice to provide higher magnet length compared to the
armature length, this will increase the average torque by about 10% in the motor by
utilizing the end leakage flux. To accommodate this end leakage flux effect the
average torque values achieved using the 2-D FE analysis are corrected and also
shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Measured and Predicted average torque at different armature currents

Armature current (A) 5.00 8.00
Average Torque from 2D FEA (mN-m) 47.10 75.23
Predicted average Torque considering the end leakge flux
(mN-m)
52.29 83.51
Measured Average Torque (mN-m) 51.00 87.00
Predcited Torque Ripple (%) 46.05 40.74

7


Fig. 10 Dyno test setup Fig. 11 Performance characteristics of the benchmarked PM
brushed DC motor

The actual performance characteristics of the motor were measured by connecting
the motor to a dyno as shown in Figure 10. Figure 11 shows various performance
characteristics of the benchmarked brushed PMDC motor from which it is observed
that the peak efficiency of the motor is 47%. The measured average torque for the
armature current of 5 A and 8 A are given in Table 2, which is in very close
agreement with the predicted values resulting from the FE analysis after considering
the effect of end leakage flux.

Redesigning the PMBLDC Motor
To overcome the difficulty of brush corrosion in the case of the PMDC motor working
with fuels such as Ethanol, brushless motor design alternatives are proposed. The
brushless motors are designed to achieve the same torque-speed characteristics of
the benchmarked ferrite brushed PMDC motor but with the minimum possible overall
volume and weight and also without much increase in the raw material cost from the
benchmarked one.
8


Bonded Neo Solution # 1

Table 3 Comparison of physical parameters and performance of benchmarked ferrite
PM DC brushed motor and redesigned PM BLDC motor with MQP-B2+ magnet and
0.6 mm air gap

Different design solutions using MQP-B2+
Magnet for PM BLDC motor with 0.6 mm air
gap
Parameter
Benchmark
PMDC
motor
Motor A
BLDC-MQP-
B2+
0.6 mm Gap
(featured in
Brochure)
Additional
Solution 1
Additional
Solution 2
Type of Magnet Ferrite
Compression
Moulded
Compressio
n Moulded
Injection
Moulded
Total motor weight (gm) 165.9 75.1 82.9 85
Length of the motor
(mm)
30.0
22.0
22.0 22.0
Overall diameter (mm) 35.3 26.2 27.5 28.0
Total copper weight (gm) 12.17 19.2 22.1 23.8
Total magnet weight
(gm)
38.18
7.5
8.9 9.5
Length of Air gap (mm) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
Current at 30 mN-m (A) 4.07 3.00 2.60 3.00
Current at 60 mN-m (A) 6.47 5.10 4.40 5.20
Efficiency at 30 mN-m
(%)
47.0
62.0
67.5 63.0
Efficiency at 60 mN-m
(%)
36.0
55.0
65.0 60.5
Normalized Volume 1 0.404 0.445 0.46
Normalized Weight 1 0.453 0.499 0.512
Normalized Diameter 1 0.742 0.779 0.793
Normalized Length 1 0.733 0.733 0.733

While maintaining the same air gap as the benchmarked ferrite fuel pump motor and
utilizing the magnetic strength of MQP-B2+ powder, Radially magnetized
compression moulded and injection moulded magnets are used to design brushless
9

PM motor solutions.. Table 3 shows the comparison of key physical parameters and
performance of three PMBL DC motor alternatives to the benchmarked ferrite PM
brushed DC fuel pump motor.
Figure 12 shows the three dimensional view, and Figure 13 shows the exploded view
of the re-designed BLDC motor-A which utilizes MQP-B2+ magnets. Figure 14
shows the flux density and the flux line plot, while figure 15 shows the phase current
waveforms for the redesigned motor-A at torque of 80mN-m. From these it can be
observed that two phases are conducting at any time, and each phase is conducting
for 120electrical in half cycle. Figure 16 shows the cogging torque variation, from
which it is observed that the peak-to-peak cogging torque is 16mN-m and the period
for one cycle of cogging torque is 60electrical.


Fig. 12 Three dimensional view of the redesigned PMBL DC motor-A with MQP-B2+ magnet
and 0.6 mm air gap
10


Fig. 13 Exploded view of the redesigned PMBL DC motor-A with MQP-B2+ magnet and 0.6 mm
air gap


(a) Flux density plot (b) Flux line plot
Fig. 14 Flux density and flux line plot for the redesigned PMBL DC motor-A with MQP-B2+
magnet and 0.6 mm air gap


Fig. 15 Phase currents for 80 mN-m torque
for the redesigned PMBL DC motor-A
having MQP-B2+ magnet and 0.6 mm air
gap


Fig. 16 Cogging torque for the redesigned
PMBL DC motor-A having MQP-B2+
magnet and 0.6 mm air gap

11


Fig. 17 Performance Characterisitcs of the Benchmarked ferrite PM Brushed DC and
redesigned PMBL DC motor-A with MQP-B2+ magnet and 0.6 mm air gap

Figure 17 shows the comparison between the performance characteristics of the
redesigned PMBL DC motor-A and the benchmarked ferrite brushed DC motor, from
which it is observed that for all torques the new redesigned motor draws less current
from the battery and also gives higher efficiency and thus consumes less fuel. Table
3 also gives the comparison of the weight and volume of the original benchmarked
motor and new redesigned motors. It is to be noted that for the benchmarked
ferrite PM Brushed DC motor the length of the motor and the overall diameter is the
magnet length and diameter of the magnet return ring respectively. For the
redesigned PM Brushless motor the length of the motor is defined by the magnet
length, and this is identical to the stator lamination stack length. The overall diameter
of the redesigned PM brushless motor is defined by the outside diameter of the stator
back iron. Considering this active magnetic circuit length and the diameter the
overall volume is calculated in both the cases and it is found that for the new
12

redesigned motor the volume and the weight of the motor is reduced by over
50%. It is observed from Table 3 that the motor with injection moulded magnets
needs higher weight/volume of the magnet and motor compared to the motor with
compression moulded magnets. It is also observed that for both the injection
moulded and the compression moulded motors the current drawn from the battery is
lower and efficiency is higher compared to benchmarked ferrite brushed PM DC
motor. The highest reduction in volume and weight for the redesigned PMBL DC
motors with compression moulded magnets is 60% and 55% respectively. Here two
designs are presented with compression moulded magnets to indicate that the
lowest size or weight of the motor does not always results in to the highest efficiency.
There is a trade of between the size\volume of the motor and the motor efficiency.

Bonded Neo Solution # 2

To provide protection to the magnet against corrosion when the fuel pump is used for
an alternative fuel like ethanol, a non magnetic over-moulding layer needs to be
provided on the magnet. In general the presence of non magnetic over-moulding
layer increases the physical air gap of the motor by 0.4 mm, so considering the
presence of this non magnetic over moulding layer alternative designs are provided
for the motor with air gap of 1.0 mm. Table 4 shows the comparison of key physical
parameters and performance of PMBL DC motor alternatives with 1.0 mm air gap to
the benchmarked ferrite PM brushed DC fuel pump motor. Figures 18 and 19 show
the three dimensional and exploded views of the redesigned PMBL DC motor-B
which utilizes MQP-B2+ magnets.

13




Table 4 Comparison of physical parameters and performance of benchmarked ferrite
PM DC brushed motor and redesigned PM BLDC motor with MQP-B2+ magnet and
1.0 mm air gap

Different design solutions using MQP-B2+
Magnet for PM BLDC motor with 1.0 mm air
gap
Parameter
Benchmark
PMDC
motor
Motor-B
BLDC-MQP-B2+
1.0 mm Gap (featured
in Brochure)
Additional Solution
3
Type of Magnet Ferrite Compression Moulded
Total motor weight (gm) 165.9 80.5 93.0
Length of the motor
(mm)
30
22.0
22.0
Overall diameter (mm) 35.3 27.5 29.5
Total copper weight (gm) 12.17 20.20 28.60
Total magnet weight
(gm)
38.18
7.50
10.20
Length of Air gap (mm) 0.6 1.0
Current at 30 mN-m (A) 4.07 2.85 2.40
Current at 60 mN-m (A) 6.47 5.05 4.30
Efficiency at 30 mN-m
(%)
47.0
62.5
68.0
Efficiency at 60 mN-m
(%)
36.0
57.0
66.0
Normalized Volume 1 0.445 0.512
Normalized Weight 1 0.485 0.561
Normalized Diameter 1 0.779 0.834
Normalized Length 1 0.733 0.733

14


Fig. 18 Three dimensional view of the redesigned PMBL DC motor-B having MQP-B2+ magnet
with non magnetic over-moulding layer


Fig. 19 Exploded view of the redesigned PMBL DC motor-B having MQP-B2+ magnet with non
magnetic over-moulding layer

Figure 20 shows an enlarged view of the air gap portion for the redesigned PMBL
DC motor-B to illustrate the presence of the non magnetic over-moulding layer on
the magnets. Figure 20 does not show over-moulding protection on the axial ends of
the magnet, but in a production solution the magnet would be completely
encapsulated with protection over-moulding.
15


Fig. 20 Enlarged view of the air gap for the redesigned PMBL DC motor-B having MQP-B2+
magnet with non magnetic over-moulding layer

Figure 21 shows the flux density and the flux line plot for only permanent magnet
excitation for redesigned PMBL DC motor-B. The peak flux density in the stator
teeth, stator back iron and rotor back iron is 1.35 T, 1.60 T and 1.0 T respectively.
Figure 22 shows the redesigned PMBL DC motor-B phase currents for a torque of 25
mN-m at 6500 rpm - again each phase is conducting for 120electrical for one half
cycle. Figure 23 shows the cogging torque profile for redesigned PMBL DC motor-B
from which it is observed that the peak-to-peak cogging torque is 8 mN-m, which is
less than the peak-to-peak cogging torque for the motor with 0.6 mm air gap. The
reduction in cogging torque is due to larger air gap.
16


(a) Flux density plot (b) Flux line plot
Fig. 21 Flux density and flux line plot for the redesigned PMBLDC motor-B having MQP-B2+
magnet with non magnetic over-moulding layer



Fig. 22 Phase currents for 25 mN-m torque
for the redesigned PMBLDC motor-B
having MQP-B2+ magnet with non
magnetic over-moulding layer


Fig. 23 Cogging torque for the redesigned
PMBL DC motor-B having MQP-B2+
magnet with non magnetic over-moulding
layer
17


Fig. 24 Performance Characterisitcs of the Benchmarked ferrite PM Brushed DC and
redesigned PMBL DC motor-B having MQP-B2+ magnet with non magnetic over-
moulding layer

Figure 24 shows the comparison between the performance characteristics of the
redesigned PMBL DC motor-B and the benchmarked ferrite PM brushed DC motor.
From which it is observed that for all torque values the redesigned PMBL DC motor-
B draws less current from the battery and gives higher efficiency compared to the
benchmarked ferrite PM brushed DC motor. Table 4 also gives the comparison of
the weight and volume of the original benchmarked motor and new redesigned
motors. Again, the volume and the weight are both reduced by more than 50%.
This virtual design demonstrates that motor with Bonded Neo delivers
increased performance, while at the same time providing an additional level of
protection against corrosion and other wear.


18


Bonded Neo Solution # 3

Magnetic powder MQP-14-12 is useful for applications needing higher flux with
higher temperature and corrosion resistance, and as PPS has already been
approved by automotive suppliers, a motor is designed with this cutting-edge high
temperature magnetic powder MQP-14-12 in an injection moulded PPS magnet.

Table 5 Comparison of physical parameters and performance of benchmarked ferrite
PM DC brushed motor and redesigned PM BLDC motor with MQP-14-12 magnet
and 0.6 mm air gap

Parameter Benchmark PMDC motor
Motor-C
BLDC MQP-14-12 (IM)
0.6 mm Gap as par the
broacher
Type of Magnet Ferrite Injection Moulded
Total motor weight (gm) 165.9 85.0
Length of the motor (mm) 30.0 22.0
Overall diameter (mm) 35.3 28.0
Total copper weight (gm) 12.17 23.80
Total magnet weight (gm) 38.18 9.50
Length of Air gap (mm) 0.6 0.6
Current at 30 mN-m (A) 4.07 2.75
Current at 60 mN-m (A) 6.47 4.75
Efficiency at 30 mN-m (%) 47.0 64.0
Efficiency at 60 mN-m (%) 36.0 59.0
Normalized Volume 1 0.46
Normalized Weight 1 0.512
Normalized Diameter 1 0.793
Normalized Length 1 0.733

Table 5 gives the comparison of key physical parameters and performance of the
redesigned PMBL DC motor with MQP-14-12 magnet with 0.6 mm air gap (Motor-C)
to the benchmarked ferrite PM brushed DC fuel pump motor. Figure 25 shows the
phase currents of motor-C for torque of 70 mN-m at 4200 rpm, from which it is
19

observed that each phase is conducting for 120 electrical for one half cycle with
single pulse mode. Figure 26 shows the cogging torque profile for motor-C, from
which it is observed that the cogging torque cycle is repeated after every 60
electrical and the peak-to-peak cogging torque is 4.4 mN-m.


Fig. 25 Phase currents for 70 mN-m torque
for the redesigned PMBL DC motor-C
having MQP-14-12 magnet and 0.6 mm air
gap


Fig. 26 Cogging torque for the redesigned
PMBL DC motor-C having MQP-14-12
magnet and 0.6 mm air gap


Fig. 27 Performance Characterisitcs of the Benchmarked ferrite PM Brushed DC and
redesigned PMBL DC motor-C with MQP-14-12 magnet and 0.6 mm air gap

20

Figure 27 shows the comparison between the performance characteristics of the
redesigned PM BLDC motor-C and the benchmarked ferrite PM brushed DC motor.
From which it is observed that for all torque values the redesigned PMBL DC motor-
C draws less current from the battery and gives higher efficiency compared to the
benchmarked ferrite PM brushed DC motor. Table 5 also gives the comparison of
the weight and volume of the original benchmarked motor and new redesigned
motor. Again, the volume and the weight are both reduced by 50%.


Summary


Table 6 summarizes the key physical parameters and the performance of the
benchmarked ferrite PM brushed DC motor and the redesign PMBL DC motors.
The results presented here show that there are many possibilities and options
when making important decision about magnetic material. By selecting high
energy Bonded Neo material a drastic reduction in the weight and the volume
and increase in efficiency and overall performance of the motor can be
achieved. By making a more efficient motor, it would draw less battery current
and consume less fuel. In addition every 10% reduction in the weight of the
automobile yields 7% increase in the fuel efficiency. Therefore the reduction in
weight of the bonded Nd-Fe-B motor yields consequential results, and the
reduction in size would in turn allow automobile suppliers to shrink the size
and weight of the other related components.





21



Table 6 Comparison of physical parameters and performance of benchmarked ferrite
PM brushed DC motor and different redesigned PMBL DC motors with Bonded Neo
Magnets

Parameter
PMDC
Ferrite
Benchmark
Motor-A
BLDC-MQP-
B2+ 0.6 mm
Air gap
Motor-B
BLDC-MQP-
B2+ 0.6 mm
Air gap
Motor-C
BLDC-MQP-
14-12 (IM)
0.6 mm Air
gap
Type of Magnet Ferrite
Compressio
n Moulded
Compression
Moulded
Injection
Moulded
Total motor weight (gm) 165.90 75.10 80.50 85.00
Length of the motor (mm) 30.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Overall diameter (mm) 35.3 26.2 27.5 28.0
Total copper weight (gm) 12.17 19.20 20.20 23.80
Total magnet weight (gm) 38.18 7.50 7.50 9.50
Length of Airgap (mm) 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.6
Current at 30 mN-m (A) 4.07 3.00 2.85 2.75
Current at 60 mN-m (A) 6.47 5.10 5.05 4.75
Efficiency at 30 mN-m (%) 47.0 62.0 62.5 64.0
Efficiency at 60 mN-m (%) 36.0 55.0 57.0 59.0
Normalized Volume 1 0.404 0.445 0.46
Normalized Weight 1 0.453 0.485 0.512
Normalized Diameter 1 0.742 0.779 0.793
Normalized Length 1 0.733 0.733 0.733