A Design Technique for Electric Vehicle Traction Machines

P. Lazari, J. Wang and L. Chen

Abstract This paper describes a new design technique for electric vehicle (EV) traction machines in order to achieve high efficiency against a defined driving cycle such as the New European Drive Cycle (NEDC) while satisfying the required torque-speed operating range and other volumetric and thermal design constraints. The work is undertaken as a part of the EU funded P-MOB project. By analyzing the energy distribution of a given driving cycle, the energy efficiency of the traction machine over the driving cycle can be characterized against a number of representative points and the design optimization can be carried out with respect to these points. This dramatically reduces the computation time of the design optimization process while improving the energy efficiency of the traction machines. The utility of the design technique has been illustrated through design case studies and its effectiveness validated by experimental results. Index TermsElectric vehicles, permanent machines, traction drive, design optimization magnet

I. NEDC FSCW

NOMENCLATURE

New European Driving Cycle Fractional Slot Concentrated Winding II. INTRODUCTION

worldwide campaign in the search for more energy efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles has emerged during the past two decades. It has widely been recognized that electric vehicles (EVs) [1] have the potential to offer an ultimate solution for sustainable personal mobility in future, particularly if they can be powered by electrical energy generated from renewable sources, such as solar, wind, wave and tide stream, etc. The traction requirements for such vehicles are highly demanding in terms of efficiency, torque and power density, wide constant power operating range, overload capacity and cost effectiveness. Of the competing electrical machine technologies for traction applications, induction machines are potentially the lowest cost, and they are able to operate over a wide speed range. However, they have a lower torque density and an inferior power factor and efficiency compared to permanent magnet (PM) brushless machines. Similarly, whilst switched reluctance machines are more robust than permanent magnet brushless machines, they have a higher torque ripple and a poorer power factor which increases the inverter cost. Thus, in general, permanent magnet brushless machines are preferred for traction applications, where energy efficiency and power density are the most important attributes [2]-[6].
The authors are with the Electrical Machines and Drives Group in the Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, The University of Sheffield, Mappin Street, Sheffield, S1 3 JD, United Kingdom. (e-mail: j.b.wang@shef.ac.uk).

The challenge for the EV traction machine design is that it has to produce high torque, usually 3~4 times of the nominal value, at standstill or low speed in order to provide required acceleration and climbing capability. Conversely, the machine needs to output peak power close to twice the rated value at medium to high speeds. The wide torque and speed operating range places significant constraints on achievable machine efficiency and power density using conventional design methodologies. Since an EV operates over a wide torque-speed range in response to various driving conditions, the machine design should be aimed to achieve overall energy saving over a driving cycle. The high efficiency operating region of current state-of-the-art PM brushless machines for EV traction is typically designed around the rated operating point [6] or a few points around the rated point [7]. However, EV traction machines during a typical urban or suburb driving operate frequently in the low torque region where the efficiency is much lower [8]. Clearly the mismatch between the regions of high efficiency and high operating duty with the existing PM brushless traction drives results in a low overall efficiency, high energy consumption and reduced vehicle range. Therefore, it is important to develop a viable and computationally efficient motor design method, allowing for minimizing the total energy loss over a driving cycle rather than at a few operating points. This paper describes design techniques for EV traction machines in order to achieve high efficiency against a defined driving cycle such as the New European Drive Cycle (NEDC) while satisfying the required torque-speed operating range. III. A. ENERGY DISTRIBUTION OVER A REFERENCE DRIVE CYCLE

Vehicle characteristics over NEDC cycle The NEDC has been extensively employed by manufacturers for vehicle energy consumption and emission testing during the past decades as it represents the typical usage of light-duty vehicles in Europe. It consists of four recurring ECE-15 city driving cycles along with an extra urban EUDC driving cycle with a maximum speed of 120 km/h [9-10]. The physical energy required for micro-sized vehicle propulsion was calculated based on the NEDC speed profile as well as the vehicle-specific parameters which are defined in Table I. The vehicle power train employs a distributed drive with two motors coupled to the front and rear axles, respectively, via two differentials. The corresponding speed, torque and power plots in absolute value are presented in Fig. 1 for each motor, assuming that the traction torque (power) is shared equally between the front and rear motors.

TABLE I PMOB VEHICLE DATA

12 Energy consumption (J)

x 10

Parameter (Unit) Tire size Radius of wheels (m) Vehicle mass (kg) Gravitational acceleration (m/s2) Rolling resistance Product of drug coefficient and front area (m2) Air density (kg/m3) Efficiency of differential

Value 165/50 R15 0.273 500 9.807 0.007 0.300 3.800 0.980

10 8 6 4 2 0 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Torque (Nm) 0 0 100 Speed (rad/s) 200 300 400

500

Fig. 2. Energy consumption plotted as a function of torque and speed, over NEDC cycle.

These six points associated with the six higher peaks of Fig. 2 correspond to the constant speed operations of the cycle where the time duration is relatively long while the torque is relatively low. The motor efficiency over these points is therefore of major importance. The energy distribution after excluding the former six points is depicted in Fig. 3. Since the energy levels at these widely scattered points are relatively low, it is possible to lump them into clusters of points together according to the energy distribution pattern and hence find their corresponding energy centre of gravity.

Fig. 1 Speed, torque and power characteristics of vehicle over the NEDC cycle.
Energy consumption (J) 15000 10000 5000 0 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Torque (Nm) 0 0 100 Speed (rad/s) 200 400 300 500

Energy Distribution over NEDC cycle Since EVs are zero-emissions vehicles, the only applicable outcome for testing over the NEDC cycle is energy consumption. The energy consumption and the power train efficiency of EVs depend heavily on their operating conditions, defined by means of road type, driving styles and traffic circumstances. As these operating conditions are standardized by the NEDC, it is important to note that various driving behaviors dissimilar to the NEDC will consequently have a significant influence on the energy ingestion and efficiency of the vehicles motors. The aforementioned behaviors are fundamentally related to the acceleration and braking habits of the drivers [11]. The energy consumption at the shaft of each motor in the vehicle, defined as a function of speed and torque, is illustrated in Fig. 2, where m(ti), Tm(ti), Pm(ti) and tiPm(ti), are, respectively, the corresponding speed, torque, power and energy consumption at a given time instant, t = ti, assuming constant speed and torque over the time interval ti. It is evident that the energy is distributed into hundreds of points over the torque and speed range. However, there exist six points where the energy consumption is significantly higher compared to the others.

B.

Fig. 3 Energy consumption plotted as a function of torque and speed, over NEDC cycle Excluding the six constant speed points.

Without loss of generality, the torque and speed region of Fig. 3 can be divided into six sub-regions as shown in Table II.
TABLE II TORQUE AND SPEED RANGES OF SIX NEDC SUB REGIONS

Region Number Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6

Tm (Nm) 30 35 30 35 0 25 0 25 0 20 0 20

m (rad/s) 0 50 50 250 0 50 50 200 200 300 300 500

For each region, the energy distribution is represented by the energy sum of

Ei =

j = 1 , 2 ,...

Ni

E ij

(1)

TABLE IV TRACTION MACHINE SPECIFICATIONS

centered at mci and Tmci given by:

Parameter (Unit) Topology Base speed (rpm) Maximum speed (rpm) Peak torque below and at base speed (Nm) Continuous torque below and at base speed (Nm)

mci =
Tmci

1 Ei

j =1, 2,... Ni

E
ij

Ni

ij

Value Fractional slot SPM 1350 5050 70.0 35.5 15.0 9.9 5.0 120

1 = Ei

(2)
ij mij

j =1, 2,...

E T

where Ni is the number of points in ith region. The resulting twelve points along with their energy distribution are shown in Table III. The first six points are those shown previously in Fig. 2, at which the energy level is high. The remaining six points represent the equivalent for the six sub-regions.

Peak torque at maximum cruise speed (Nm)

Peak power (kW) Continuous power (kW) Nominal DC link voltage (V)

Maximum permissible line-to-line voltage (V)

70 60

< 250 (for safety)

1 0.98 0.96

TABLE III TWELVE POINTS REPRESENTING THE ENERGY DISTRIBUTION OVER THE NEDC CYCLE OF THE VEHICLE

Speed (rad/s) 269.1 190.2 385.1 459.3 120.6 134.6 33.88 139.0 32.10 119.4 248.6 387.5

Torque (Nm) 3.784 2.408 6.536 8.600 1.720 1.720 33.03 33.64 15.92 12.96 10.89 10.56

Energy (kJ) 104.4 94.41 76.11 41.27 21.39 15.49 8.006 103.0 36.91 203.7 122.2 235.8

Normalized 0.0982 0.0888 0.0716 0.0388 0.0201 0.0146 0.0075 0.0969 0.0347 0.1917 0.1150 0.2219

50 Torque (Nm)
0.93 0.94

0.94 0.92 0.9 0.88

0.95

40 30

20
0.96

0.86
0.92 0.91 0.90

0.84 0.82

10

1000

2000 3000 Motor speed (rpm)

4000

5000

0.8

Fig. 4.

Predicted efficiency map of PMOB SPM traction machine.

It follows that the energy consumption of the vehicle over the NEDC can be represented by the 12 points. This would significantly reduce the number of calculations for evaluation of the motor energy efficiency during a design optimization process. C. Validation of twelve Characteristic Points

TABLE V COMPARISON OF PMOB SPM ENERGY LOSS OVER NEDC

Energy loss over all points in NEDC cycle (kJ) Energy loss over 12 points in Table III (kJ) Difference

55.104 53.387 3.1%

In order to validate the above representation, the energy loss over the NEDC is calculated according to (3) for all the points in Fig. 1 using the efficiency map of the vehicle traction motor whose specification and corresponding efficiency map are shown in Table IV and Fig. 4, respectively.
EL =

It can be seen that the twelve points listed in Table III could provide a good representation of the total energy loss over the NEDC cycle calculated by (4)
EL =
12 j =1, 2 ,...

nj

(1 j ) / j

(4)

i =1, 2 ,...

(ti )Tm (ti )ti (1 i ) / i

(3) where Enj and i is respectively the energy consumption and efficiency, at the jth point.

where i is the efficiency at m(ti) and Tm(ti) on the efficiency map. The energy loss over all the points of the NEDC is compared to that calculated using the twelve points of Table III and the same efficiency map. The result is shown in Table V.

IV. A.

DESIGN TECHNIQUE FOR EV TRACTION MACHINES Traction Machine Optimization over Driving Cycle

Vehicle weight and costs are fundamentally affected by

the electric driving range or the required battery capacity, which in turn are significantly influenced by the motor energy efficiency [11]. It is therefore indispensable to emphasize the significance of optimizing a traction machine over its corresponding driving cycle for maximum efficiency or minimum energy loss. Optimization against the rated power point will not necessarily yield the maximum possible efficiency over the driving cycle. The validity of this assertion can be understood by observing the distribution of the twelve representative points of the NEDC under the torque/speed envelope shown in Fig. 5.

70 60 50 Torque (Nm) 40 30 20 10 0 0

The outer stator diameter for both designs is set to 150mm and the maximum axial (active) length is limited below 135mm. The machine is air-cooled with no additional cooling fan. The back-EMF induced at the maximum speed must be limited below the maximum permissible line-to-line voltage, as the PM field cannot be turned off during an intermittent inverter fault. The required peak torque at both the base and maximum speeds should be obtained without exceeding the DC link voltage and maximum available current imposed from the inverter. Thus, the respective maximum and minimum limits of the d-axis inductance for a given number of pole-pair can be determined against the machine specifications shown in Table IV. A constant power speed ratio of 3.33 must be achieved within the specified inverter VA rating [12]. An important point to note is the time needed for the finite element (FE) calculations over the driving cycle. In fact, according to [13], several months would be required in order to obtain FE results for the hundreds of points over the NEDC. However, this limitation is effectively removed using the twelve representative points already presented. The two optimized motors along with their dimensions and key design parameters are shown in Fig. 6 and Table VI respectively.

500

1000

1500

2000 2500 Speed (rpm)

3000

3500

4000

4500

Fig. 5 Distribution of twelve NEDC torque-speed envelope of the traction motor.

cycle

points

under

the

The high energy consumption in the NEDC, as can be verified from Table III, is dominated by low torque/high speed points where the time duration is longer. Furthermore, the majority of the cycle points are located in the low torque region in contrast to the rated and peak torque points which are utilized mainly during short transients for hill climbing or acceleration purposes during driving. Hence, a trade-off is imposed on the selection of a suitable optimization strategy. In order to demonstrate the difference between optimization at the rated point and over the NEDC cycle, two case studies along with their design constraints and loss components will be presented in the next section of this paper. Without loss of generality, two FSCW surface mounted PM motors were optimized with respect to pole-slot number combination, magnet arc width to pole-pitch ratio, tooth to slot width ratio, back iron width and split ratio (the ratio of the rotor diameter to the outer stator diameters). The optimization was conducted through the use of both lumped parameter and finite element methods. One machine, denoted as Design I was optimized over the NEDC cycle and the other, denoted as Design II against the rated point. The target was the maximum attainable efficiency under a given set of thermal and volumetric constraints. In order to obtain the fully optimized machines, several constraints had to be satisfied during the design process. Only the outlines of those constraints are presented in the paper since space limitations do not allow for a comprehensive analysis.

Fig. 6 Cross sections and flux density plots (at 1350rpm/35Nm) of optimized FSCW SPM motors over NEDC cycle (top) and against the rated point (bottom).

B.

Comparison of Major Loss Components The results summarized in the tables of this section were obtained through the utilization of finite element analysis (FEA) tools for the two machines under consideration. A breakdown of the main loss components will assist in quantitative understanding of the impact of the optimization strategies on design outcomes for traction applications. Copper and iron losses for both motors were investigated against the rated and peak power points and are presented in Table VII along with their corresponding efficiencies.

TABLE VI OPTIMIZED FSCW SPM MOTORS DATA

Parameter (unit) Pole number Slot number Outside Diameter (mm) Stack Length (mm) Split Ratio Coercive Force of PM (kA/m) Air gap Length (mm) Slot Opening (mm) Number of turns per coil Number of coils per phase Fundamental Winding Factor Phase resistance at 120 oC (m) Synchronous inductance (mH) Packing factor Magnet Material Jrms at 1350rpm/35Nm (Arms/mm2) Jrms at 1350rpm/70Nm (Arms/mm2)

Design II 14 12 150 135 0.56

Design I

118 0.55 771.1 1.0 3.75

lower copper loss. Conversely, (as expected) a higher iron loss occurs in this machine since its magnetic saturation levels are higher as well as its axial length/volume is larger. However, the trend of loss distribution in the two motors changes once they are tested over the twelve points of the NEDC cycle, since, as already explained, the highest energy consumption predominantly occurs at low torque/high speed points. The cycle efficiency and total values of the loss components are summarized in Table VIII for the two designs.

TABLE VIII LOSS COMPONENTS AND EFFICIENCY OVER THE TWELVE POINTS OF NEDC CYCLE

7 4 0.933 14.3 0.280

20.8

Parameter (Unit) Copper Loss (kJ) Iron Loss (kJ) Efficiency (%)

Design II 19.3 55.2 93.6

Design I 24.6 38.0 94.7

0.330 0.4 NdFeB (Br = 1.1 T) 3.9 8.5 5.4 11.3

TABLE VII LOSS COMPONENTS AND EFFICIENCY AT THE RATED AND PEAK POWER POINTS

As will be seen, the iron loss becomes the most dominant loss component during the NEDC and therefore the motor optimized over the cycle achieves 1.1% higher efficiency. The higher iron loss of Design II penalizes its efficiency over the driving cycle. It can be clearly seen that there is a tradeoff between the efficiency at the rated point and over the driving cycle. In order to further clarify this tradeoff, the loss distributions and efficiency over the six high energy consumption points of the NEDC cycle shown previously in Table III are listed in Table IX for the two designs.
TABLE IX LOSS DISTRIBUTION AND EFFICIENCY OVER THE SIX HIGH ENERGY CONSUMPTION POINTS OF NEDC CYCLE FOR TWO DESIGNS Speed (rad/s) 190.2 138.9 269.1 248.6 119.4 387.5 Speed (rad/s) 190.2 138.9 269.1 248.6 119.4 387.5 Torque (Nm) 2.4 33.6 3.8 10.9 12.9 10.6 Torque (Nm) 2.4 33.6 3.8 10.9 12.9 10.6 Energy (kJ) 94.4 103.0 104.4 122.2 203.7 235.8 Energy (kJ) 94.4 103.0 104.4 122.2 203.7 235.8 Design I Wfe (kJ) Efficiency(%) 3.71 97.0 0.92 96.3 10.5 90.3 2.8 97.0 6.54 92.9 4.76 96.3 Design II Wfe (kJ) Efficiency(%) 5.43 96.5 1.26 96.6 15.6 86.5 4.00 96.1 9.36 90.6 6.76 95.6

Parameter (Unit) Copper Loss at 1350rpm/35Nm (W) Copper Loss at 1350rpm/70Nm (W) Iron Loss at 1350rpm/35Nm (W) Iron Loss at 1350rpm/70Nm (W) Efficiency at 1350rpm/35Nm (%) Efficiency at 1350rpm/70Nm (%)

Design II 133.0 623.0 59.6 78.2 96.3 93.4

Design I 198.0 841.0 43.6 64.5 95.3 91.6

Wcu (kJ) 3.68 3.95 0.2 1.33 1.87 5.58 Wcu (kJ) 2.53 2.72 0.14 1.10 1.90 4.67

Since the copper loss is dominant under these operating conditions, it is evident that the machine (Design II) optimized against the rated point has 1% higher efficiency compared to that (Design I) optimized against the entire NEDC. The efficiency difference grows up to 1.8% as the torque increases towards its peak value. The optimization for Design II was mainly made on minimizing the copper losses in the windings. Therefore, the slot area was maximized while the saturation level at the stator teeth and back iron was designed in the vicinity of 1.4 1.5 T as it can be seen from Fig. 6. In addition, Design II has one less turn per coil compared to the motor optimized over NEDC for the purpose of reducing the winding resistance while its axial length is 17mm longer in order to achieve the required torque production capability. Consequently, the motor optimized against the rated point has a smaller phase resistance leading to a lower current density and in turn

Design I, which was optimized over the NEDC cycle, outperforms Design II in terms of energy efficiency on the NEDC since special attention was paid to minimize the losses over the 12 points of Table III during the optimization process. These 12 points significantly influenced the selection of the appropriate set of key design parameters. Therefore, the lower saturation levels in the stator laminations as well as the shorter axial length justify the considerably lower iron loss of Design I over the driving cycle. However, there is one load point where the efficiency of Design I is slightly lower compared to

Design II. Apparently this point is very close to the rated load point (141rad.s-1/35Nm). In order to further assess the two designs at a system level, the converter loss was calculated using a loss model that is described in [13]. The loss data along with the system efficiency of the two machines are shown in Table X and were obtained using their respective phase voltages and currents over the twelve points, under both the constant torque and field weakening operating regions.
TABLE X LOSS COMPONENTS (INCLUDING CONVERTER LOSS) AND OVERALL SYSTEM EFFICIENCY OVER THE TWELVE POINTS OF NEDC CYCLE

A preliminary experimental work was carried out in order to verify the predicted performance results of the traction machine. The predicted and experimentally measured efficiency maps are shown in Fig. 8 and 9 respectively. Comparisons between the maps suggest a good match between measured and predicted efficiencies. It can be also established that the prototype machine can essentially achieve a constant power operation up to the maximum specified speed of 5050 rpm.
70 60 1 0.98 0.96 50 Torque (Nm)
0.93 0.94

Parameter (Unit) Copper Loss (kJ) Iron Loss (kJ) Inverter Loss (kJ) Overall System Efficiency (%)

Design II 19.3 55.2 58.6 89.2

Design I 24.6 38.0 55.5 90.3

0.94 0.92 0.9 0.88

0.95 0.92

40 30

20
0.96

0.86
0.91 0.90

The efficiency difference of 1.1% is maintained between the two machines, after considering the converter losses. It can be seen that Design I yields slightly low inverter loss despite its winding resistance is much higher. This is due to its higher synchronous inductance as observed Table VI. The machine with lower inductance requires a higher phase current during the field weakening operation [14]. The inductance difference between the two machines also affects the losses at high speeds when field weakening operation is required, since a 10% increase in current would result in about 20% increase in copper loss. It should also be noted that in order to maximize the efficiency at the rated operating point, Design II uses the maximum available axial length and hence results in heavier machine and higher cost compared to that of Design I. Unfortunately, the higher cost does not yield better efficiency over the NEDC. Based on the foregoing analysis and discussion, it can therefore be deduced that the optimization of a traction machine over a defined driving cycle is of paramount importance as inappropriate optimization strategy may lead to high cost and low efficiency over the driving cycle.

0.84 10 0.82 0 1000 2000 3000 Motor speed (rpm) 4000 5000 0.8

Fig. 8 Predicted efficiency map of FSCW SPM motor optimised over the NEDC cycle.

Experimental Efficiency Map

70 1 0.98 60 0.96 0.94

Torque (N.m)

50 0.90 0.91 40 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.95 20 0.96 0.82 10 500 0.97 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 0.8 0.92 0.9 0.88 0.86 0.84

30

Motor speed (r/min)

Fig. 9 Measured efficiency map of FSCW SPM motor optimised over the NEDC cycle. TABLE XI COMPARISON OF EFFICIENCY VARIATION AT THE RATED SPEED 1350 RPM FOR DIFFERENT LOAD TORQUE

V.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

The FSCW SPM motor optimized against the twelve points of the NEDC was fabricated. The stator with the concentrated windings and the rotor with carbon fiber banding of the prototype motor are shown in Fig. 7.

Torque (Nm) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Predicted Efficiency (%) 95.5 95.6 94.8 93.6 92.0 89.3 87.0

Measured Efficiency (%) 97.0 96.0 95.0 92.0 90.0 88.0 85.0

Fig. 7 FSCW SPM motor stator assembly (left) and rotor can with carbon fibre banding (right).

Measured and predicted efficiencies under different torque loads at the base speed of 1350 rpm are shown in Table XI. The magnet loss, produced by the space harmonics of such winding configuration, is accounted for in the prediction.

The deviation between the measured and predicted efficiencies can be visualized in Fig. 10. From 10 30 Nm the measured efficiency appears to be higher compared to the predicted one. This is because a slightly higher magnet remanence (Br) of the prototype motor. When the torque is increased to 40 70 Nm, the measured efficiencies are lower and this can be attributed to mechanical and other parasitic losses which are not included in the prediction.
100 95 90 85 Efficiency (%) 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 10 20 30 40 Torque (Nm) 50 60 70 Predicted Measured

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

Fig. 10 Comparison of predicted and measured efficiencies for different load torque at the rated speed (1350 rpm).

[9]

VI.

CONCLUSION

A new design technique has been presented in this paper for maximizing the energy efficiency of EV tractions over a defined driving cycle. It has been shown that the energy distribution of the traction machine over the NEDC can be represented by 12 points. The design optimization can therefore be made against these representative points. This dramatically reduces the computation time required for the optimization process. It has also been shown that a design optimized against a few points close to the rated operating condition will not yield optimal results against a driving cycle. The proposed design technique is validated by design case studies and measurement results from a prototype permanent magnet machine.

[10]

[11]

[12]

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors gratefully acknowledge the European Commission for financial support and P-MOB project partners for permission of the publication of this paper. REFERENCES
[1] [13]

[2]

[3]

C. C. Chan, An overview of electric vehicle technology, in Proc. IEEE, vol.81, no.9, pp.12021213, Sep. 1993. H. Neudorfer, N. Wicker, and A. Binder, Comparison of Three Different Electric Powertrains for the Use in Hybrid Electric Vehicles, IET conference on Power Electronics, Machines and Drives, 2008, pp. 510-514 Z. Q. Zhu, and D. Howe, Electrical Machines and Drives for Electric, Hybrid, and Fuel Cell Vehicles,

[14]

Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 95, No. 4, April 2007, pp. 746-765. K. T. Chau, C. C. Chan, C. Liu, Overview of permanent-magnet brushless drives for electric and hybrid electric vehicles, IEEE Trans. Industrial Electronics, vol.55, no.6, pp.2246-2257, Jun. 2008. Z. Q. Zhu, C.C. Chan, Electrical machine topologies and technologies for electric, hybrid, and fuel cell vehicles in Proc. IEEE VPPC Conf., pp.1-6, Sept. 2008. S. Kreuawan, F. Gillon, and P. Brochet, Comparative study of design approach for electric machine in traction application, International Review of Electrical Engineering, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 455465, June 2008. E. Sulaiman, T. Kosaka, and N. Matsui, Design and Performance of 6-slot 5-pole PMFSM with Hybrid Excitation for Hybrid Electric Vehicle Applications, International Power Electronics Conference, 2010, pp. 1962-1968. P. Morrison, A. Binder, B. Funieru, Drive train design for medium-sized zero emission electric vehicles, in Proc. EPE09 Conf., pp. 1-10, Sept. 2009. V. Wynen, F.-S. Boureima, J. Matheys, P. Van den Bossche, and J. Van Mierlo, Developing applicable driving cycle for retrofitted Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs): environmental impact assessment, World Electric Vehicle Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 1-12, 2009. H. Helms, M. Pehnt, U. Lambrecht and A. Liebich, Electric vehicle and plug-in hybrid energy efficiency and life cycle emissions, Proc. of 18th International Symposium Transport and Air Pollution, pp. 113-124, 2010. W. Rui and S. M. Lukic, Review of driving conditions prediction and driving style recognition based control algorithms for hybrid electric vehicles, Proc. of IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference (VPPC), 2011. A. M. EL-Refaie and T. M. Jahns, Scalability of Surface PM Machines With Concentrated Windings Designed to Achieve Wide Speed Ranges of ConstantPower Operation, IEEE Trans. On Energy Conversion, vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 362-368, 2006. E. Hoang, M. Lecrivain, S. Hiioui and M. Gabsi, Hybrid excitation synchronous permanent magnets synchronous machines optimally designed for hybrid and full electrical vehicle, in Proc. 2011 IEEE 8th Int. Conf. on Power Electronics and ECCE Asia (ICPE & ECCE), pp. 153-160 J. Wang and D. Howe, Design optimisation of radially magnetised, iron-cored, tubular permanent magnet machines and drive systems, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 40, No. 5, September 2004, pp. 3262-3277