Analytical Calculation of Magnetic Field Distribution
in Magnetic Gears with Consequent-Pole Rotors by
Subdomain Method
Hua-Yang Li, He Hao, Meng-Jia Jin, and Jian-Xin Shen*
Department of Electrical Engineering
Zhejiang University
Hangzhou, China
huayangli@zju.edu.cn, goodcrane@zju.edu.cn, M_J_Jin@zju.edu.cn, J_X_Shen@zju.edu.cn*
Abstract— This paper presents a novel coaxial magnetic gear
(MG), in which dual consequent-pole permanent magnet rotors
are adopted. The MG is attractive for torque conversion in the
advanced vehicle thanks to its high torque density. To achieve a
comprehensive understanding of the MG, a subdomain model is
established to analytically calculate the magnetic field in the MG
by solving the vector magnetic potential equations while
considering the corresponding boundary and continuity
conditions. Consequently, the air-gap field distribution and the
electromagnetic performance of the MG can be predicted. The
finite element analysis method is also used to validate the
accuracy of the proposed analytical method. In comparison with
the conventional MG, both methods verify that the proposed MG
can offer higher torque transmission density while consume less
volume of magnets.
Keywords—consequent-pole rotor; magnetic field; magnetic
gear; subdomain method
I. INTRODUCTION
Magnetic gears (MGs) are considered as promising
alternatives to the conventional mechanical gears in vehicle
applications, since they can offer distinct advantages of
contact-free, low vibration and noise, exempt lubrication, and
overload protection [1]-[4]. With the sustained research which
are mainly focused on the torque density improvement and the
combination of the MG and motor, nowadays, abundant MG
and corresponding motor topologies have been proposed, and
some of them have been verified well suitable for electric and
hybrid vehicles [5]-[7].
In order to obtain the optimum MG model, a number of
related literatures concerned the parametric optimization of the
conventional MG. Finite element method (FEM) is the most
commonly used method, due to its accuracy and visualization
[8]-[10]. However, there are many coupled parameters in the
MG, which make the optimal process by FEM rather
complicated and time-consuming. Consequently, analytical
methods are useful tools to quickly evaluate the MG
performance, and can be associated with some optimization
algorithms to obtain the precise optimum model [11]-[14].
This paper lays emphasis on a novel coaxial MG which
978-1-5090-3528-1/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
adopts consequent-pole permanent magnet (CPM) structure
for both outer and inner rotors (such MG is denoted as CPM-
MG). Compared with the conventional MG in which dual
surface-mounted permanent magnet (SPM) rotors are
employed (denoted as SPM-MG), the CPM-MG is expected to
provide a higher torque density by increasing the effective
magnetic flux and offering extra reluctance torque.
In order to obtain the accurate magnetic field distribution,
this paper proposes an analytical method by establishing the
subdomain model of the CPM-MG and solving the vector
magnetic potential for each subdomain. Taking a CPM-MG
with the pole-pairs number of the outer rotor and inner rotor
being 17 and 5, respectively, as an example, the air-gap flux
density and the torque-angle characteristic waveforms
calculated by both the proposed analytical method and FEM
are compared, revealing the validity of the analytical
calculation and the workability of the new CPM-MG.
II. CONFIGURATION AND SUBDOMAIN MODEL OF CPM-
MG
To date, the maximum torque capability of MG has
reached over 250kN·m/m3 by adopting high energy PMs and
improved topologies, which is quite competitive to the
mechanical gears [15]. However, the material cost comes to be
the main obstacle hindering the application of MGs, owing to
the high price of high-energy PMs [16]. With reference to the
consequent-pole structure adopted in electrical machines, this
paper analyze the MG with dual CPM rotors, aiming to reduce
the consumption of magnets.
A. Configuration of CPM-MG
The configuration of the CPM-MG is shown in Fig. 1, it
consists of two CPM rotors and one magnetic modulation ring.
In many cases, the magnetic modulation ring is stationary, the
rotor with fewer poles rotates at high speed, and the rotor with
more poles spins at low speed. Note, both inner and outer
rotors are of consequent pole structure, namely, all magnets of
each rotor are magnetized in the same radial direction. The
magnetization direction of the two rotors can be the same or
opposite, but, as revealed by the authors later, the same
 r
Permanent Subdomain Ⅴ Outer rotor μ→∞
magnets R6
k=po k=1 k=2 k=…
R5
Subdomain Ⅳ γ Magnetic
Subdomain Ⅲ modulation ring
R4
Inner rotor i=Z-2 i=Z-1 i=Z i=1 i=2 i=…
R3
β μ→∞
Subdomain Ⅱ α
R2
j=pi j=1 j=…
R1
Subdomain Ⅰ Inner rotor μ→∞

Magnetic ϕk δj θi θ
Outer rotor modulation ring
Fig. 2. Subdomain model of CPM-MG.
Fig. 1. Configuration of the proposed CPM-MG.
According to the subdomain model, the Laplace’s equation
or Poisson’s equation of each domain can be established and
direction brings better performance. The magnets and the
solved after considering the boundary conditions. Note, in the
adjacent salient ferromagnetic iron pieces on each rotor
Subdomain I, the Poisson’s equation and boundary conditions
provide the magnetic flux path. As a consequence, the width
of the pi magnets are unified to a general expression. The same
of each magnet can be much larger than that of the salient iron
goes for the total po magnets in the Subdomain V and the Z air
piece, which is helpful to improve the working point of the
spaces in the Subdomain III.
magnets as well as to enhance the effective magnetic flux.
Furthermore, the additional reluctance torque produced by the The partial differential equations based on the magnetic
magnets on the inner rotor and the salient iron poles on the vector potential A(r,θ) are adopted in the polar coordinate. In
outer rotor can also be a boost to the torque density. the Subdomains I and V, the Poisson’s equation is
Considering the working principle of the MG, in order to
achieve the maximum transmission torque density, the CPM- ∂ 2 A 1 ∂A 1 ∂ 2 A μ0 ∂M r
∇ 2 A(r ,θ ) = + + = ( − Mθ ) (3)
MG configuration should match the following condition ∂r 2 r ∂r r 2 ∂θ 2 r ∂θ

pi + po = Z where M(r,θ) is the magnetization distribution of the magnets.

(1)
In the Subdomains II , III and IV, the Laplace’s equation is
where pi is pole-pair number of the inner CPM rotor, po is that
of the outer CPM rotor, and Z is the number of ferromagnetic ∂ 2 A 1 ∂A 1 ∂ 2 A
pole pieces on the magnetic modulation ring. ∇ 2 A(r ,θ ) = + + =0 (4)
∂r 2 r ∂r r 2 ∂θ 2
When the modulation ring is fixed at standstill, the When it comes to the boundary conditions, for the jth
transmission ratio of the MG, namely, the speed ratio between magnet in the Subdomain I, the corresponding conditions are
the inner and outer rotors, is
(∂AⅠ / ∂θ ) θ =δ = (∂AⅠ / ∂θ ) θ =δ =0
Gr = ( pi − Z ) / pi = − po / pi j +α (5)
(2)
j

(∂AⅠ / ∂r ) r = R = 0 (6)
where the minus sign means the opposite rotation directions of 1

the two rotors. (7)

AⅠ( R2 ,θ ) = AⅡ( R2 ,θ )
B. Subdomain model where δj is the initial positon of the jth magnet, α is the angular
As shown in Fig. 2, the proposed CPM-MG is divided into width of the inner rotor magnets, and AI and AII are the
five calculation subdomains, i.e., the permanent magnets (PM) magnetic vector potential of the inner PM region and the inner
on the inner and outer rotors (Subdomain I and Subdomain V), air-gap region, respectively.
the inner and outer air-gaps (Subdomain II and Subdomain IV),
and the air space between the ferromagnetic pole pieces of the Similarly, for the kth magnet in the Subdomain V, the
modulation ring (Subdomain III). To simplify the model, the corresponding boundary conditions are
following assumptions are adopted:
(∂AⅤ / ∂θ ) θ =ϕ = (∂AⅤ / ∂θ ) θ =ϕ =0 (8)
k +γ
• The permeability of ferromagnetic material is infinite; k

• Axial end effect of the magnetic fields is negligible; (∂AⅤ / ∂r ) r = R = 0 (9)

6

• The relative recoil permeability of magnets is 1.

 AⅤ ( R5 ,θ ) = AⅣ ( R5 ,θ ) (10)
∞
 P (r , R1 )  nπ
th AⅠ(r , θ ) =   AⅠn nπ /α + X n (r )  cos( (θ − δ j )) (20)
where φk is the initial positon of the k magnet and γ is the n =1  Pnπ / α ( R2 , R1 )  α
angular width of the outer rotor magnets, and AIV and AV are
the magnetic vector potential of the outer air-gap region and ∞  Pnπ / γ (r , R6 )  nπ
the outer rotor PM region, respectively. AⅤ (r ,θ ) =   AⅤ + Yn (r )  cos( (θ − ϕk )) (21)

n =1 
n
P ( R , R )  γ
The boundary conditions of the i th
air space in the
nπ / γ 5 6 
Subdomain III are where n is the order of magnetic vector potential Fourier series,
and AⅠn 、 AⅤn are two unknown coefficient arrays while Xn(r)
(∂AⅢ / ∂θ ) θ =θ = (∂AⅢ / ∂θ ) θ =θ + β = 0 (11) and Yn(r) are determined by the magnetization distribution of
i i

the inner rotor PM and outer rotor PM, respectively. When the
AⅢ ( R3 ,θ ) = AⅡ( R3 ,θ ) (12) magnets are radially magnetized and the remanence is Br, the
Xn(r) is expressed as
AⅢ ( R4 ,θ ) = AⅣ ( R4 ,θ ) (13)

where θi is the initial positon of the ith air space and β is the  R1 4Br 4Br r 
Xn (r) =  r nπ /α −
angular width of this space, and AIII is the magnetic vector
2 nπ /α
 nπ ((nπ / α) −1)R1 α ((nπ / α) −1) 
2

potential of the air space between the ferromagnetic (22)

modulation ring pole pieces. P (r, R1)  R1 4Br 4Br R2 
− nπ /α  Rnπ /α −
nπ /α 2 
Then for the Subdomain II, the boundary conditions are Pnπ /α (R2 , R1)  nπ ((nπ / α ) −1)R1
2
α((nπ / α ) −1) 
2

The Yn(r) is expressed as

(∂AⅠ / ∂r ) , ∀θ ∈ δ j , δ j + α 
(∂AⅡ / ∂r ) r = R = r = R2
(14)
2
0, elsewhere  R6 4Br 4Br r 
Yn (r) =  nπ /γ
r nπ /γ − 
 nπ ((nπ / γ ) −1)R6 γ ((nπ / γ ) −1) 
2 2

(∂AⅢ / ∂r ) r = R3 , ∀θ ∈ [θi , θi + β ] (15) (23)

(∂AⅡ / ∂r ) r = R =  P (r, R6 )  R6 4Br 4Br R5 
0, elsewhere − nπ /γ Rnπ /γ −
3

 nπ /γ 5
Pnπ /γ (R5 , R6 )  nπ ((nπ / γ ) −1)R6
2
γ ((nπ / γ ) −1) 
2

Turns to the Subdomain IV, the boundary conditions are

The general solutions of the magnetic vector potential in
(∂AⅢ / ∂r ) r = R , ∀θ ∈ [θi ,θ i + β ] the Subdomains II and IV are
(∂AⅣ / ∂r ) r = R = 4
(16)
0, elsewhere
4
∞
R2 Pm (r, R3 ) R3 Pm (r, R2 )
0 +  ( Am
AⅡ(r ,θ ) = AⅡ )cos(mθ )
Ⅱ
+ BⅡ
m
m =1 m Em ( R2 , R3 ) m Em ( R3 , R2 )
(∂AⅤ / ∂r ) , ∀θ ∈ ϕ j , ϕ j + γ  ∞
Pm (r , R3 ) R3 Pm (r , R2 ) (24)
(17) Ⅱ R2
+  (Cm
r = R5
(∂AⅣ / ∂r ) r = R =  + DⅡ
m )sin(mθ )
2
0, elsewhere m =1 m Em ( R2 , R3 ) m Em ( R3 , R2 )
∞
III. ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS R4 Pm (r, R5 ) R P (r, R4 )
AⅣ (r,θ ) = A0Ⅳ +  ( AmⅣ + BmⅣ 5 m )cos(mθ )
m =1 m Em ( R4 , R5 ) m Em ( R5 , R4 ) (25)
To solve the partial differential equations, the method of ∞
R P (r, R5 ) R P (r, R4 )
separated variables is adopted and the general solutions can be +  (CmⅣ 4 m + DmⅣ 5 m )sin(mθ )
m E ( R , R ) m Em ( R5 , R4 )
expressed as Fourier series. For simplicity, some notations are m =1 m 4 5

defined below [13], which will appear in the solutions

where m is the order of Fourier series, AⅡ Ⅱ Ⅱ Ⅱ
m 、 Bm 、 C m 、 Dm 、
afterwards.
AmⅣ 、 BmⅣ 、 C mⅣ and DmⅣ are eight unknown coefficient arrays.
Pw (u , v) = ( u / v ) + ( v / u )
w w The general solutions of the magnetic vector potential in
(18) the Subdomains III is
Ew (u, v) = ( u / v ) − ( v / u )
w w (19)
AⅢ (r,θ ) = A0Ⅲ + B0Ⅲ ln r
Note, the solving process is omitted and only results are ∞ Eqπ / β (r, R4 ) Eqπ / β (r, R3 ) qπ (26)
given in this paper. The general solutions of the magnetic + ( AqⅢ − BqⅢ )cos( (θ − θi ))
Eqπ / β ( R3 , R4 ) Eqπ / β (R3 , R4 ) β
vector potential in the Subdomains I and V are q =1
 TABLE I PARAMETERS OF MG MODELS

CPM-MG SPM-MG
Pole-pairs number of outer rotor (po) 17
Number of ferromagnetic pole pieces (Z) 22
Pole-pairs number of inner rotor (pi) 5
Stack axial length (L) 60mm
Outer radius of outer rotor PM (R6) 76.6mm
Inner radius of outer rotor PM (R5) 70.9mm
Inner radius of outer air-gap (R4) 70.4mm
Outer radius of inner air-gap (R3) 66.4mm
Outer radius of inner rotor PM (R2) 65.9mm
Inner radius of inner rotor PM (R1) 50.2mm
PM properties (Br /Hc) 0.44T / -335kA·m-1
PM magnetization direction Parallelly outwards
Width of outer rotor PM/pole pitch 0.5 0.75
Width of inner rotor PM/pole pitch 0.5 0.8
Fig. 3. Flux distribution of the proposed CPM-MG.
Fourier series order of AI、AV (n) 150 \
Fourier series order of AII、AIV (m) 150 \
Fourier series order of AIII (q) 150 \ 90
SPM-MG CPM-MG
60 CPM-MG(opp)

where q is the order of Fourier series, and AqⅢ 、 BqⅢ are two
unknown coefficient arrays.
In total, there are twelve unknown coefficient arrays.
According to the boundary conditions of each subdomain,
there are twelve groups of coefficient equations as well. By
using commercial mathematics software, the matrix equations
of Fourier coefficients can be solved and the magnetic vector
potential of each subdomain can be expressed in Fourier series
with all coefficient solved.
IV. PERFORMANCE OF THE CPM-MG
A. Parameters of the studied MGs
To validate the analytical solutions deduced above, both
analytical method and FEM are implemented to analyze the
CPM-MG, parameters of which are listed in Table I. In order
to investigate the influence resulting from the CPM rotors, the
SPM-MG counterpart is also analyzed by FEM. Ferrite
magnets are used in both MGs for the low cost. Note that, the
only difference between the two MG models is the pole-arc
coefficient of the PM. The pole arc coefficient is the ratio of
the width of each magnet to the pole pitch of the
corresponding rotor. In the SPM-MG, the pole arc coefficient
of both inner and outer PM are 0.5, therefore, the N-pole and
S-pole magnets fully occupy the SPM space. However, in the
CPM-MG, the pole arc coefficient of inner and outer PMs are
0.8 and 0.75 only, therefore, the PM volume is reduced,
compared with that of the SPM-MG, to 75% on the outer rotor
and to 80% on the inner rotor, respectively.
B. Flux Distribution
Fig. 3 shows the flux distribution of the proposed CPM-
MG when the outer rotor and inner rotor are aligned with each
other. As it can be seen, the salient ferromagnetic iron pieces
of the rotor together with the adjacent N magnets provide flux
a path, that is, the iron pieces replace the S magnets in the
conventional SPM-MG. Due to the much wider magnet, the
flux tends to concentrate in the salient ferromagnetic iron
pieces and the saturation in these areas becomes an issue when
adopting analytical methods.
Torque (N·m)
Outer rotor
30
0
-30
Inner rotor
-60
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
Inner Rotor Position (elec. deg.)
Fig. 4. Torque capability of different MGs.
C. Torque Capability
By holding the outer rotor and the magnetic modulation
ring still, the torque-angle characteristics of different MGs can
be calculated by incrementally rotating the inner rotor, as
illustrated in Fig. 4. In comparison with the conventional
SPM-MG, the pull-out torque of the CPM-MG can be
effectively improved by 36% (e.g. the pull-out torque on outer
rotor are 43.5 and 31.9N·m respectively) mainly due to the
additional reluctance torque. This can be further demonstrated
by introducing another CPM-MG, in which the magnetization
direction of inner and outer magnets are opposite, and it is
denoted as CPM-MG (opp). From Fig.4, the torque capability
of the CPM-MG (opp) is inferior to both SPM-MG and CPM-
MG. Since the reluctance torque of CPM-MG (opp) is
identical with CPM-MG while the basic torque generated by
inner and outer magnets has a totally opposite phase. The
torque difference between these two CPM-MGs verifies the
function of the reluctance torque, that is, it would be a boost to
the toque capability only if both magnets have the same
magnetization direction.
V. VALIDATION OF THE ANALYTICAL METHOD
A. Air-gap field distribution
The premise of evaluating the MG performance is to
obtain the accurate magnetic field distribution in the air-gaps.
 2 90
Analytical FEM CPM-MG (Analytical)
Radial Flux Density (T)

1 CPM-MG (FEM without saturation)

60 CPM-MG (FEM with saturation)

Torque (N·m)
0 Outer rotor
30
-1 Inner rotor
0 20
-2
-30
-3 0
180 240 300 360
-4 -60
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 0 60 120 180 240 300 360
Position (mech. deg.) Inner Rotor Position (elec. deg.)
(a) Fig. 6. Torque-angle characteristics.

1.5
methods have high degree of coincidence except for the
Tangential Flux Density (T)

Analytical FEM
1 deviation in the spikes of the waveforms. For the analytical
method, the small discrepancy with the FEM mainly results
0.5 from two reasons. One is the non-sufficient Fourier series
order in the solving program, especially for the MG with large
0 pole-pairs number. The other reason is the neglect of the
-0.5 ferromagnetic material saturation, since the salient iron pieces
of the CPM rotors are always under light saturation so as to
-1 improve the torque density.

-1.5 B. Torque-angle characteristcs

0 60 120 180 240 300 360
The pull-out torque represents the torque transmission
Position (mech. deg.) capability of the MG, hence, is of primary concern to evaluate
(b) the MG performance. After having determined the field
Fig. 5. Field distribution in inner air-gap. (a) Radial component. (b) distribution in the air-gaps, the torques on both outer and inner
Tangential component.
rotors can be calculated by using the Maxwell stress tensor, as
For the proposed analytical method, the air-gap magnetic field 2π
can be expressed with Fourier series after the general solutions T = Lr 2 / μ0  Br Bθ dθ (29)
of the magnetic vector potential in the Subdomains II and IV 0
are derived.
where r is the radius of the integration path.
Take the field distribution in the inner air-gap for instance,
the radial and tangential components can be expressed as By using both analytical and FEA methods, the torque-
angle characteristic of the proposed CPM-MG is calculated
and shown in Fig. 6. The FEM results with and without
Br = ( ∂AⅡ / ∂θ ) / r
considering the iron saturation are both drawn in the figure. In
∞ comparison with the torque-angle characteristic of the
R2 Pm (r, R3 ) R3 Pm (r, R2 )
= − ( AⅡ
m + BⅡ
m )sin(mθ ) conventional SPM-MG shown in Fig. 4, the pull-out torque
m=1 r Em ( R2 , R3 ) r Em ( R3 , R2 ) (27) from both analytical and FEA methods, are much higher in the
∞
R2 Pm (r, R3 ) R3 Pm (r, R2 ) CPM-MG, although the SPM-MG employs larger volume of
+  (CⅡ
m + DⅡ
m )cos(mθ ) magnets. Again, this verifies the superior torque capability of
m=1 r Em ( R2 , R3 ) r Em ( R3 , R2 )
the CPM-MG. When neglecting the saturation in FEM, the
result matches well with that from the analytical method since
Bθ = − ( ∂AⅡ / ∂r )
the MG is assumed no saturation when deducing the analytical
∞ field distribution expressions. In the case when the saturation
R2 Em (r, R3 ) R3 Em (r , R2 )
= − ( AⅡ
m + BⅡ
m )cos(mθ ) (28) is taken into account, the analytical and FEA methods are
m=1 r Em ( R2 , R3 ) r Em ( R3 , R2 ) consistent in general, but the pull-out torque of the analytical
∞
R2 Em (r, R3 ) R3 Em (r , R2 ) method is slightly higher, and the waveform has a small phase
−  (CⅡm + DⅡm )sin(mθ ) deviation, especially for torque on the outer rotor. This
m =1 r Em ( R2 , R3 ) r Em ( R3 , R2 )
discrepancy results from the saturation of the ferromagnetic
Fig. 5 shows the field distribution (both radial and material especially in the areas of the rotor salient
tangential components) in the inner air-gap. Note, the iron ferromagnetic iron pieces as mentioned above. In general, the
saturation is considered in FEM. It can be seen that the two good consistence of FEM and analytical methods verifies the
effectiveness of the proposed analytical method and its
accuracy can be further improved after considering iron
saturation using iteration.
VI. CONSLUSION
This paper is mainly focused on the analytical calculation
of the magnetic field distribution of the CPM-MG, in which
dual CPM rotors are adopted. The subdomain model of the
CPM-MG is precisely established, and general solutions of the
vector magnetic potential for each subdomain is deduced. A
CPM-MG and its SPM-MG counterpart are taken as example.
The air-gap field distribution and the electromagnetic
performance of both example MGs are predicted accordingly.
The good coherence with finite element analysis method
validates the accuracy of the proposed analytical method. Both
methods verified that the CPM-MG can offer higher torque
transmission density while consume less volume of permanent
magnets. The precise of the analytical solution can be further
promoted by improving computing algorithm or hardware
configuration, and is expected to obtain the precise optimum
model of the CPM-MG easily and quickly.
REFERENCES
[1] K. Atallah, D. Howe, “A novel high-performance magnetic gear,” IEEE
Trans. Magn., vol.37, no.4, pp.2844-2846, Jul. 2001.
[2] K. T. Chau, D. Zhang, J. Z. Jiang, C. H. Liu, and Y. J. Zhang, “Design
of a magnetic-geared outer-rotor permanent-magnet brushless motor for
electric vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 43, no.6, pp. 2504-2506,
June 2007.
[3] P. O. Rasmussen, T. O. Andersen, F. T. Jorgensen, and O. Nielsen,
“Development of a high-performance magnetic gear,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Appl., vol. 41, no.3, pp. 764-770, May-June 2005.
[4] E. Gouda, S. Mezani, L. Baghli, and A. Rezzoug, “Comparative study
between mechanical and magnetic planetary gears,” IEEE Trans. Magn.,
vol.47, no.2, pp.439-450, Feb. 2011.
[5] J. B. Wang, K. Atallah, and S. D. Carvley, “A magnetic continuously
variable transmission device,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 47, no.10, pp.
2815-2818, Oct. 2011.
[6] K. Atallah, J. B. Wang, S. D. Carvley, and S. Duggan, “Design and
operation of a magnetic continuously variable transmission,” in Electric
Machines and Drives (IEMDC 2011), IEEE International Conference
on, May 2011, pp.312-317.
[7] K. Atallah, J. Rens, S. Mezani, and D. Howe, “A novel “Pseudo” direct-
drive brushless permanent magnet machine,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol.
44, no.11, pp. 4349-4352, Nov. 2008.
[8] D. J. Evans, Z. Q. Zhu, “Optimal torque matching of a magnetic gear
within a permanent magnet machine,” in Electric Machines and Drives
(IEMDC 2011), IEEE International Conference on, May 2011, pp.995-
1000.
[9] L. L. Wang, J. X. Shen, P. C. K. Luk, and W. Z. Fei, “Development of a
magnetic-geared permanent-magnet brushless motor,” IEEE Trans.
Magn., vol. 45, no.10, pp. 4578-4581, Oct. 2009.
[10] D. J. Evans, Z. Q. Zhu, “Influence of design parameters on magnetic
gear's torque capability,” in Electric Machines and Drives (IEMDC
2011), IEEE International Conference on, May 2011, pp.1403-1408.
[11] L. Jian, and K. Chau, “Analytical calculation of magnetic field
distribution in coaxial magnetic gears,” Progress In Electromagnetics
Research, vol. 92, pp. 1-16, 2009.
[12] T. Lubin, S. Mezani, and A. Rezzoug, “Exact Analytical Method for
Magnetic Field Computation in the Air Gap of Cylindrical Electrical
Machines Considering Slotting Effects,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 46,
no.4, pp. 1092-1099, Apr. 2010.
[13] T. Lubin, S. Mezani, and A. Rezzoug, “Analytical computation of the
magnetic field distribution in a magnetic gear,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol.
46, no.7, pp. 2611-2621, Jul. 2010.
[14] X. X. Zhang, X. Liu. C. Wang, and Z. Chen, “Analysis and Design
Optimization of a Coaxial Surface-Mounted Permanent-Magnet
Magnetic Gear,” Energies, vol. 7, no.12, pp. 8535-8553, Dec. 2014.
[15] X. Yin, P. Pfister and Y. Fang, “A novel magnetic gear: toward a higher
torque density,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 51, no.11, Nov. 2015, Art. ID
8002804.
[16] M. Chen, K. T. Chau, W. Li, and C. Liu, “Cost-effectiveness
comparison of coaxial magnetic gears with different magnet materials,”
IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 50, no.2, Feb. 2014, Art. ID 7020304.