A Comparison Between the Axial Flux and the Radial Flux

Structures for PM Synchronous Motors

A.Cavagnino, M.Lazzari, F.Profumo, A.Tenconi
Politecnico di Torino
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica Industriale
Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 - 10129 Torino, Italy

Abstract - The aim of the paper is the comparison of the Axial

Flux (AF) structures versus the conventional Radial Flux (RF)
structures for PM synchronous motors.
The comparison procedure is based on simple thermal
considerations. Two motor typologies are chosen and compared
in terms of delivered electromagnetic torque. The comparison is
developed for different motor dimensions and the pole number
influence is put into evidence.
The paper reports the complete comparison procedure and the
related results analysis. The obtained results show that, when
the axial length is very short and the pole number is high, the
axial flux motors can be an attractive alternative to the
conventional radial flux solutions.

I. INTRODUCTION
In the recent years the Axial Flux Motors (AFMs) have been
object of numerous research studies. Different motor
structures and geometries have been proposed, for different
applications, as an alternative to the conventional Radial Flux
Motors (RFMs).
Beside the technological and manufacturing differences, it
seems interesting to compare AFMs and RFMs to understand
when and where the AFMs show potential advantages.
A general comparison of AFMs versus RFMs is not possible,
due to the large number of possible technical solutions; thus
the comparison is focused on two specific types of surface
mounted PM synchronous motors:

the most common radial flux motors with one external

stator and one internal rotor;

the axial flux motors with two external stators and one
internal rotor.

Traditionally in the literature, the comparison between

electric motors is performed using the sizing equations [13], [6]. These equations link the motor electromagnetic
torque to the motor length and the diameter through
coefficients depending on the electric/magnetic material
exploitation. The coefficients and the electric and the
magnetic loading are chosen onto experience basis. However,
for novel motor prototypes, often, this experience is not
available.
In this paper, the presented comparison procedure is based on
a simple thermal considerations: fixed the losses/thermal
wasting surface ratio, different design motor solutions, with
the same steady-state temperature, are computed. To fairly

compare the two motors, the maximum overall motor

volume, the rotational speed and the airgap flux density are
kept constant.
Therefore, a computer program has been developed to
evaluate the electromagnetic torque for different axial lengths
and different poles number. To correctly evaluate the active
materials volume (copper, iron and PMs), the program takes
into account the end windings connections encumbrance and
the shaft diameter. It is important to remark that all the
obtained motor designs are thermally and magnetically
compatible with the common set of constraints. The
comparison does not investigate the manufacturing problems
(i.e. how to punch the slots, how to mount the end windings
connections at the inner diameter, etc.).
II. STRUCTURE DEFINITION OF THE MOTORS
The comparison is limited to RF and AF PM brushless
motors with sinusoidal back-EMF and isotropic rotor
structure (surface mounted rare earth magnet - NdFeB). The
considered motors have slotted stators.
A. Radial Flux PM Synchronous Motors
The considered RF structure is the common one with one
external cylindrical stator and one internal cylindrical rotor.
This RFM is widely used in the industrial applications, thus it
is considered the reference solution.
The motor geometry is sketched in Fig.1. The pointed out
dimensions are in Table I.
TABLE I
MAIN RFM DIMENSIONS
Axial motor length, [m]
Axial stator core length, [m]
Outer stator diameter, [m]
Slot bottom diameter, [m]
Inner stator diameter, [m]
Outer rotor diameter, [m]
Inner rotor diameter, [m]
Shaft diameter, [m]
Magnet radial length, [m]
Airgap radial thickness, [m]
Magnet width, [m]
Polar pitch occupation of the PM, [p.u.]

0-7803-7116-X/01/$10.00 (C) 2001 IEEE

1611

L
Lcore
De
Dfc
Di
Dr
Dri
Da
Lm
g
wm
m

TABLE II
MAIN AFM DIMENSIONS
Axial motor length, [m]
Outer motor diameter, [m]
Inner end winding connection diameter, [m]
Inner stator core diameter, [m]
Outer stator core diameter, [m]
Shaft diameter, [m]
Slot axial length, [m]
Stator yoke axial length, [m]
Stator axial length, [m]
Half magnet axial length, [m]
Airgap radial thickness, [m]
Polar pitch occupation of the magnets, constant
with the radius, [p.u.]

L
De
Di
D1
D2
Da
Ls
Ly
Lc
Lm
g
m

In the AFMs, the active height useful for the torque

generation is (D2-D1)/2. Considering the end windings
encumbrance, this height depends on the De and Di
difference.
III. COMPARISON PROCEDURE
Fig.1: Main dimensions of the Radial Flux PM Synchronous Motor.

Forewords
The comparison between electric motors, is often performed
using the sizing equations, that link the motor
electromagnetic torque to the active motor length and to the
motor reference diameter. For the RFMs, the most frequently
encountered sizing equation is in the form:
Te = r D 2r L

(1)

where Dr [m] is the airgap diameter, L [m] is the active axial

length of the stator core. The coefficient r [Nm/m3] depends
on the airgap flux density and on the chosen electric loading
(airgap current linear density). A comparison between the
axial flux permanent magnet synchronous motors and the
radial flux ones, based on Eq.1, is reported in [1]. Eq.1 does
not take into account the actual flux and current densities,
that are present in the different motor parts; thus the electric
and the magnetic loads have to be chosen by the designer
onto experience basis. The problem remains unchanged also
using other forms of sizing equations ([2], [3], [6]), as, for
instance:
Te = e D 3e L

Fig.2: Main dimensions of the Axial Flux PM Synchronous Motor.

B. Axial Flux PM Synchronous Motors

Among the AF structures, several different geometries have
been proposed. In particular the sandwiched structures with
more than one stator and/or rotor seem to be the most
attractive. The motor considered in this paper is realized by
two external stators and one internal rotor. Such structure
does not require, in principle, any the rotor yoke, hence, the
overall axial length is rather short. Fig.2 shows the motor
view and the main dimensions reported in Table II.

1612

(2)

where De [m] is the external motor diameter and the

coefficient e [Nm/m4]depends on the flux density in the
stator yoke, in the stator tooth and on the current density in
the conductors. As alternative, in this paper, the comparison
procedure is based on simple thermal considerations.
Basic considerations
The two motor structures under analysis are compared in
terms of provided electromagnetic torque, at:

equal overall motor volume,

equal losses per wasting surface unit,

equal airgap, teeth and yokes flux density,

TABLE III
COMPARISON CONSTRAINS

equal rotational speed (the supply frequency and hence

the iron losses changes depend only on the pole number).
In order to compute the motors torque density, the developed
computer program procedure follows three steps:
Step A - starting data and motor design: the = L/De ratio is
fixed; since the overall motor volume is constant, the axial
length L and the outer diameter De are calculated; thus the
other motor dimensions (ends windings connections
included) are computed on the basis of a set of common
design data.
Step B - losses calculation: the total allowable motor losses
are computed as a function of the wasting surface; the iron
losses evaluation is based on the stator magnetic core
volume; the windings Joule losses are obtained as difference.
Step C - electromagnetic torque calculation: through the
Joule losses, the admissible motor current is calculated
together with the motor torque; thus the motor torque is
referred to the motor weight.
The procedure is repeated over a suitable range of values
and for different pole numbers. It is important to remark that
in this comparison procedure, the total motor losses are not
constant if the ratio is changed, because the wasting surface
is changed too. Both for RFMs and AFMs, the wasting
surface (SW [m2]) is defined as:
D

SW = De L + e
2

(3)

This takes into account the flanks and the framework lateral
surface as thermal dissipation ways. The thermal gradients
into external motor surfaces have been neglected. This
approximation introduce a minor error when the axial length
is very short for the AFMs and when the outer stator diameter
is very small for the RFMs.
A Starting data and motor design
In order to calculate the dimensions of each motor part, the
related electric and magnetic load and the delivered
electromagnetic torque, a suitable computer program has
been realized. A list of the design input quantities and of their
related values, that are adopted in the present comparison, is
reported in Tables III and IV. The same values are used for
AFMs and RFMs. The airgap induction value is not directly
reported in Table III, but it can be calculated through the
Eq.11.
The selected speed value, equal to 1,000 rpm, is relativity low
because the authors want to focus their study on direct drives
applications (i.e. gearless wind energy system, in-wheel
motor for electric vehicles, etc.). Hence the parameters and
the selected coefficients choices are typical for low speed PM
motor applications.

1613

Overall motor volume, [m3]

Rotational speed, [rpm]
Losses/wasting surface ratio, KLosses [W/m2]
Flux density in the tooth, [T]
Flux density in the yokes, [T]
Magnet thickness, [m] (1)
(1) For the axial flux PM synchronous motor, Lm is
the magnet axial length (see Fig.2)

0.01
1000
2500
1.8
1.44
0.004
the half of

TABLE IV
CONSTANT VALUE PARAMETERS
Airgap length, [m]
PMs polar pitch occupation, [p.u.]
Permanent magnet remanence, [T]
Magnet recoil permeability, [p.u.]
Carters factor, [p.u.]
Lamination specific losses, [W/kg]
Lamination stacking factor, [p.u.]
Slot fill factor, [p.u.]
Iron specific weight, [kg/m3]
Copper specific weight, [kg/m3]
Magnet specific weight, [kg/m3]
Copper resistivity @ 20 C, [m]

0.001
0.75
1.1
1.05
1.05
2.3
0.93
0.4
7800
8900
7500
1.72 10-8

TABLE V
MOTOR DESING OUTPUT DATA
Motor active weight, [kg]
Wasting surface, [m2]
Height of slots, [m]
Length of end winding connection, [m]

Maw
Sw
hs
Leq

Both RFMs and AFMs are calculated for different values of

the coefficients =L/De and D = Di/De till the condition that
gets the maximum torque is reached.
The outputs of this first computation step are the main motors
dimensions of Table I (RFM) or Table II (AFM), and the
parameters of Table V.
The computation of the end windings connections requires
some remarks. In fact the end windings connections have to
be taken into account in terms of Joule losses and in terms of
volume encumbrance.
To calculate their volume, the slots area is estimated through
the magnetic design of the stator core, whereas the length of
the end windings connection is evaluated on the basis of
geometrical considerations. For the RFMs, the equivalent
length of half end connections of a winding coil can be
evaluated as:
L eq =

2 Di + h s

2
2p

(4)

where: hs = (Dfc-Di)/2 is the height of the slot.

In the axial direction, the end winding encumbrance has been
assumed equal to 2Leq/. As a consequence, the axial length
of the stator core can be calculated.
In the AFMs, the D2 and D1 diameters are function of the De
and Di diameters (Fig.2 and Fig.3).

stator sector, the iron losses are evaluated through the Eq.10.
Instead, for the stator yoke design, it has been assumed that
the flux density in the yoke is uniform in the radial direction.
The windings Joule losses are evaluated as the difference
between the total motor losses and the iron losses. The skin
effect is not considered here. This means that some errors
may appear in the Joule losses calculation if the stator slots
are relatively deep. To take into account the skin effect,
further hypothesis onto the windings should be necessary (i.e.
the slots number, the number and the size of the conductors
in the slot, etc.). This would involve a major complexity of
the comparison procedure not useful to the aims of this paper.

A
B2

D1

D2

Fig.3: Sketch of AFM coil geometry for different number of poles.

De
D2 =
sin ( ) + cos( )
D1 =

(5)

Di
1
tan ( )
cos( )

(6)

In Eq.5 and Eq.6, =/(2p) is the half of the polar pitch

angle. The equivalent length of half end connections of a
winding coil at the outer and at the inner stator core diameter
can be evaluated as:
L eq

outer

D 2 sen ( )
4

(7)

D
= 1 tan ( )
L eq
inner 2
2

(8)

B Losses calculation
The total allowable motor losses depend on the wasting
surface and on the losses/wasting surface ratio (KLosses)
adopted in the comparison constrain:
PTot = K Losses S W

(9)

The stator iron losses calculations use the lamination specific

losses (Cp, [W/m3]), whereas it is reasonable to assume equal
to zero the losses onto the rotor. For RFMs, the iron losses
are evaluated through the following equation:

f
PFe = C P Fe K st Vys B2ys + Vdt B2dt
50

(10)

where: Fe [W/kg] is the lamination specific weigh;

Kst [p.u.] is the lamination stack factor;
Vys [m3] is the stator yoke volume;
Vdt [m3] is the stator teeth volume;
f [Hz] is the supply frequency.
For AFMs, the Eq.10 tends to overestimate the iron losses: in
fact, in order to verify the tooth flux density constraints, the
tooth results magnetically overloaded at the inner stator
diameter (D1). For this reason, the iron losses in the tooth of
the AFMs are calculated subdividing the slotted stator zone in
one hundred circular sectors, in the radial direction. In each

1614

C Electromagnetic torque calculation

For comparison scopes, the electromagnetic torque
computation can be simplified using only the fundamental
components of the airgap flux density and of the airgap
current linear density. In this way, it is not necessary to
describe in any detail the windings structure and, no
hypothesis related to the slots number is requested.
The maximum value of the fundamental airgap flux density
Bg1 [T] (Fig.4), can be calculated as:
4
sen( m 90) B g =

l m mr
4
= sen( m 90)
Br

l m m r + g'

B g1 =

(11)

where: g [m] is the airgap corrected by the Carters factor;

Br [T] is the permanent magnet remanence;
mr [p.u.] is the magnet relative recoil permeability.
For the considered AFM, the PMs occupation over the polar
pitch (m) is constant with the radius. Hence, the Bg1 value
can be considered constant with the radius too.
The fundamental components of the linear current density
KS1 [Arms/m] is:
K s1 =

A
3 k w1 2 N 1

I = k w1 Cu

D
D

(12)

where: Kw1 [p.u.] is the fundamental winding factor;

N1 [p.u.] is the number of turns in series for phase;
Acu [m2] is the total copper area in the slots;
D [m] is the airgap diameter;
I [Arms] is the phase current;
[Arms/m2] is the current density.

Bg

-90

-60

-30

30

60

90

m p
p

Fig. 4: Airgap flux density waveform over a polar pitch.

Bg1

dF(,t)

B()
Kz(,t)

asse

160

120

=
asse

80
40

Fig. 5: Coordinate reference frame system for RFMs structure.

0
1.84
1.64

KZ(R,,t)

1.44
1.24

d2F(R,)

1.04

B(-)

= L / De

dR
R

0.70
0.44

0.50
D = Di / De

0.24

Te = 2 R 2 L Bg1 K S1

0.04

(13)

Since in the AFM the fundamental components of the linear

current density is a function of the radius, the force
contribution in an airgap surface element must be integrated
both along the circumference and the radius (Fig.6). For the
considered two stator - one rotor AFM, the electromagnetic
torque can be calculated as:

2
Te =
k w1 A Cu D 22 D12 B g1
8

0.10

1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
1.84
1.64
1.44
1.24
1.04

(14)

= L / De

0.84

0.90
0.64

0.70
0.44

Finally, the specific torque ([Nm/kg]) of each designed motor

is determined by:
Te
Maw

0.30

Fig.7: Electromagnetic torque [Nm] versus geometrical dimension ratios for

a 12 poles RFMs.

It is well know that the torque is maximum when these two

airgap waveforms are in phase. In steady-state conditions, the
controller guarantees this condition. Thus for RFMs, the
electromagnetic torque can be evaluated as the integral of the
elementary force extended to the airgap circumference
(Fig.5):

TSpecific =

0.90
0.64

Fig. 6: Coordinate reference frame system for AFMs structure.

0.84

(15)
IV. RESULTS ANALYSIS

Before the comparison, some considerations have to be

addressed to the results obtained by the proposed procedure
applied to the RFMs and AFMs.
The calculation cover a wide range of values, from =
0.04 to = 2, and a wide range of pole numbers, from 4 to
20.
A. RF-PM Synchronous Motors
Fixed the overall volume, for each value of , D is varied to
find the maximum specific torque.

1615

0.50
D = Di / De

0.24

0.30
0.04

0.10

Fig.8: Iron weigh/active motor weigh ratio [p.u.] versus geometrical

dimension ratios for a 12 poles RFMs.

Changing both and D ratios, it is possible to evaluate the

electromagnetic torque generated by the RFMs. Fig.7 shows
an example of the results for a 12 poles motor. This torque
surface presents some discontinuities that are related to
cases where it is impossible to realizable the motor: i.e. it is
not possible to insert the shaft (in the proposed analysis the
shaft is realized with non-magnetic material), or it is
impossible to cut the stator slots (for very high D), or the
axial length of the stator core tend to zero (for very low ),
etc.
For high values of the ratio, the surface presents a light
hollow back (Fig.7). This hollow back appears where the iron
losses become preponderant compared to the Joule losses.

160
8 poles

140
Electromagnetic torque [Nm]

12 poles

120
4 poles

100
80

16 poles

60
40

20 poles

20
= L / De

0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Fig.9: RFMs electromagnetic torque versus for different poles number.

7
6

Torque density [Nm/kg]

This means that the slots currents decrease and thus the
electromagnetic torque. This effect results more evident with
high pole numbers.
For very low values of the ratio, there are solution with
minimum iron (Fig.8). This fact brings to very small Di
diameters and yokes, the stator slots are deep and tooth are
very thin. These design solutions are thermally and
magnetically feasible with the adopted constrains, but they
are not practically realizable. It is important to remember that
is the ratio between the motor overall axial length and the
motor external diameter and it is very different by the
classical stator core length/rotor diameter ratio.
In general, it is possible to find out a better design dedicated
for each modifying some of the starting data, such as, for
example, the flux density in the stator core; but, as a
consequence, the proposed comparison approach would loss
its generality.
On the basis of the simulations results, the authors opinion is
that the RFMs designs are effectively realizable when 0.5
for motors with few poles and when 0.75 for motor with
several poles. For this reason, the curves in Fig.9 and in
Fig.10 are dashed for 0.5.
For each values of the ratio and for each different pole
number, the design solution that provides the maximum
torque is determined and the results, in absolute value, are
summarized in Fig. 9.
Fig.10 shows the RFMs torque density versus the ratio.
These curves have been obtained dividing the maximum
torque design solutions, shown in Fig.9, for their
correspondent active weights. The motor active weight
includes the stator and the rotor iron, the copper and the
permanent magnets weight. The torque density values result
in the range of 1.64 Nm/kg, according to the motor poles
number.
For each motor polarity, the outer stator diameter/inner stator
diameter (Di/De) ratio assumes different values according to
the motor axial length (Table VI).

16 poles

12 poles

4
3
8 poles

20 poles
1

4 poles

= L / De

0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Fig.10: RFMs torque density versus for different poles number.

200

B. AF-PM Synchronous Motors

For different values of and D, the electromagnetic torque
delivered by the AFMs is calculated. The results for a 12
poles motor is depicted in Fig.11. For the AFMs, the shaft
diameter must be compatible with the D1 diameter (minimum
diameter of the inner end winding connections).

150
100
50
0
1.84
1.64
1.44

TABLE VI

1.24

RFM GEOMETRICAL RATIO

(Values relate to the curves in Fig.9)
Pole
Number
4
8
12
16
20

1.04
= L / De

Di/De
=1
0.42
0.55
0.67
0.82
0.90

=2
0.52
0.55
0.70
0.85
0.90

0.84

0.90
0.64

0.70
0.44

0.50
D = Di / De

0.24

0.30
0.04

0.10

Fig.11: Electromagnetic torque [Nm] versus geometrical dimension ratios for

a 12 poles AFMs.

1616

The Fig.11 shows that the AFMs are theoretically realizable

also for very high axial length. In reality, when the ratio is
high, the slots become very deep and the tooth result very
thin. In these conditions, the stator core and the winding
assembly can not probably carried out.
On the basis of the performed simulations, it is reasonable to
assume that the proposed AFM designs are feasible when
0.5 for motors with many poles and when 0.75 for
motors with a few poles. For these reasons, the curves in
Fig.12 and in Fig.13 are dashed for 0.75.
For different poles number, the design solutions that provide
the maximum electromagnetic torque versus the ratio are
reported in Fig.12. The correspondent torque density values
are reported in Fig.13. The main dimension ratios for the
maximum torque design point of the curves shown in Fig.12
are reported in Table VII.

these conditions, the AF-PM motors can be provide both

an higher electromagnetic torque and an higher torque
density than the RFMs. In fact, AFMs benefit of the two
stators-one rotor structure that does not require any rotor
yoke.

Finally, it is important to remark that the obtained results

are valid for the considered overall machine volume.
Since the wasting surfaces and the machine volumes are
not proportional, for different motor volumes the design
solutions that provide the maximum torque and/or the
maximum torque densities can be obtained for different
values of the coefficients and D.
180
12 poles

160

8 poles

Observing the Fig.9, Fig.10, Fig.12 and Fig.13, it is possible

to developed some considerations:
Fig. 9 shows that it is convenient to use the RFMs when
the motor have a long shaft (>1). Initially, as the poles
number increases, the torque capability improves. This is
due to the fact that a minor space for the ends windings
connections and a minor height of the stator and the rotor
yokes are requested. If the poles number is furthermore
increased, the torque capability tends to decrease,
because of the iron losses increase.

Fig.12 and Fig.13 demonstrate that the AFMs are

capable to deliver high torque, if the axial length is very
short (<0.3). For high poles number motors, the torque
density values result in the range 36.5 Nm/kg,
according to the motor poles number. The four poles
AFMs represent an exception. In fact, they provide a
poor torque capability. This is due to the relativity long
ends windings connections, both at the inner and outer
stator diameter (Fig.3). This involves that for these
motors a low value of the Di/De ratio with an high D1/D2
ratio are necessary (Table VII).
As shown in Table VII, when the optimization criterion
is the maximum torque and the maximum torque density,
the optimum D and D1/D2 ratios depend by the number
of the poles. In general, the optimal value of D1/D2 is
different depending upon the optimization goal, the
considered AFMs structure, the electrical loading and
flux densities and the pole pairs ([2], [5]).
Fig.13 shows that if the poles number increases, the
torque density continues to increase even at high poles
number. This means that, for high poles number, the
motor active weight tends to decrease more than the
electromagnetic torque.
Compared to RFMs, the AFMs are attractive for flat
geometries (= L/De < 0.3) with high poles number. In

1617

120
16 poles

20 poles

100
80
60

4 poles

40
20

= L / De
0
0.0

0.3

0.5

0.8

1.0

Fig.12: AFMs electromagnetic torque versus for different poles number.

7.0
20 poles
6.0
16 poles
Torque density [Nm/kg]

V. REMARKS AND COMPARISON

Electromagnetic torque [Nm]

140

5.0

12 poles
8 poles

4.0
3.0

4 poles

2.0
1.0
= L / De
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Fig.13: AFMs torque density versus for different poles numbers.

TABLE VII
AFM GEOMETRICAL RATIO
(Values relate to maximum point of the curves in Fig.12 and in Fig.13)
Pole Number
4
8
12
16
20

D = Di/De
0.15
0.22
0.30
0.47
0.60

D1/D2
0.51
0.44
0.48
0.68
0.80

VI. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper a method is provided to compare the two rather
different PM synchronous motors structures: the two-stators
one-rotor AFMs and the conventional RFMs.
The proposed procedure is based on simple thermal
considerations. The two motors structures are compared in
terms of provided electromagnetic torque and torque density,
when the overall motor volume, the losses per wasting
surface and the airgap flux density are kept constant. The
poles number influence and the ends windings encumbrances
are take into account.
The results are shown as function of the two main
dimensional ratios: (axial motor length/external motor
diameter) and D (internal motor diameter/ external motor
diameter).
The aim of the paper is to put in evidence when to use the
AFMs instead of RFMs. Low-speed, direct-drive motors (i.e.
gearless wind energy system, in-wheel motor for electric
vehicles, etc) are the reference applications. For high speed
motors, it could be necessary to choose a coefficient sets
different by those shown in Table III and Table IV (i.e. to
decrease the airgap flux density and to use a better lamination
material).

1618

The presented comparison bring to the conclusion that the

considered AFMs are an attractive solution if the number of
poles is high (10) and the axial length is short (<0.3).
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]

[3]

[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]

Z.Zhang, F.Profumo, A.Tenconi, Axial Flux Versus Radial Flux PM

Machines, Electromotion, Vol.3, No.3, 1996, pp.23-29.
S.Huang, J.Luo, F.Leonardi, T.A.Lipo, A Comparison of Power
Density for Axial Flux Machines Based on General Purpose Sizing
Equations, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol.14, n.5,
June 1999, pp.185-192.
N.B.Simsir, H.B.Ertan, A Comparison of Torque Capabilities of Axial
Flux and Radial Flux Type Brushless DC (BLDC) Drives for Wide
Speed Range Applications, Conf. Rec. IEEE-PEDS99, 1999, Vol.2,
pp.719-724.
K.Sitapati, R.Krishnan, Performance Comparisons of Radial and
Axial Field, Permanent Magnet, Brushless Machines, Conf. Rec.
IEEE-IAS00, 2000, Rome, Vol.1, pp.228-234.
A.Di Napoli, F.Caricchi, F.Crescimbini, G.Noia, Design Criteria of a
Low-Speed Axial-Flux PM Synchronous Machine, Conf. Rec.
ICEM92, Manchester (UK), 1992, Vol.3, pp.1119-1123.
V.B. Honsinger, Sizing Equations for Electrical Machinery, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. EC-2, n.1, March 1987,
pp116-121.
H. W. Beaty, J. L. Kirtley, Electric Motor Handbook, Book, Mc
Graw Hill.