Permanent magnet servomotors versus induction motor systems

Motor selection: When deciding on the use of permanent magnet (PM) servomotors or induction motor systems, consider dynamic performance, torque density, inertia matching, and control schemes.


Kollmorgen Cartridge DDR servomotors combine the performance advantages of a frameless motor with the ease of installation of a full-frame motor. They feature an integrated, factory-aligned high-resolution feedback device and a unique bearingless design tLong considered a mainstay of induction motors, encroachment in the area of 50 hp and greater by permanent magnet (PM) servomotors has been seen recently for some applications. These applications usually have dynamic considerations that require position-time closed loop and high accelerations. When accelerating large loads, permanent magnet servomotors can work with very high load to inertia ratios and still maintain performance requirements. Having a lower inertia typically will allow for less energy wasted within the motor. Torque (τ) is the product of inertia (j) and rotary acceleration (α). If you require inertia matching, half the energy is wasted accelerating the motor. If the inertia ratio from motor to load is large, then control schemes must be dynamic enough to prevent the larger load from driving the motor as opposed to the motor controlling the load.

Trade-offs, negotiation

Permanent magnet servo and induction motors have long had performance areas that overlap but are not a replacement for one another. Advancements in drives and technology for the induction motors have given them dynamic performance that was once the mainstay of permanent magnet servo systems, but this doesn’t mean that the induction motor is a replacement for the servo; it just allows for more options.

Although two motors may appear to be able to do the job related to torque, speed, and thermal considerations, choosing one technology over the other should be approached with intrinsic knowledge of each. A permanent magnet servomotor is a synchronous motor with feedback for commutation, velocity, and position information. A vector-driven induction motor also will require the same feedback control to compete in this performance arena but is powered completely by electromagnetic, not permanent magnetic fields.

Cost may limit size

With the current state of rare earth magnets, it may appear impractical to have a permanent magnet servomotor in an application requiring greater than 20 hp or 30 hp. Should requirements like size and dynamic performance be outside the reach of induction motors, these must be addressed with a PM servomotor in most cases. In general, the constant flux source of a permanent magnet motor can result in a greater torque density than an equivalent induction system. If size matters, then perhaps a system should use one technology over another. Speaking of size, the inertia ratio can be an important figure of merit should dynamic needs arise. If there are high accelerations and decelerations, the size of the rotor will significantly increase inertia and decrease useable torque. In one example, a glass manufacturer combined these technologies and chose four permanent magnet servos rated at 72 hp due to the high dynamic loading and higher performance requirements for the new application.

The size of the equipment and the dynamic needs of this are challenging. A buried magnet rotor design offers a significantly lower inertia than induction motors of similar ratings. With a lower inertia, dynamic performance can exceed other motor technologies.

When considering the technology, the induction motor generates a magnetic field by the stator and armature windings and a laminated rotor structure. The stator is similar to the permanent magnet motor’s armature, which is stationary.

Similarities stop there. While there is a constant state of magnetic flux in a permanent magnet motor supplied by the rare earth magnets, the generated magnetic field will pull on the generated magnetic field of the rotor that has the current induced (hence the term “induction”) on a secondary winding wrapped around rotor armature laminations.

The importance of the word “pull” here has to be noted. There is an interesting but often overlooked phenomenon that you can’t push with an electromagnet. Repulsion forces do not work that way. The attractive force between the two currents will work, but when you generate two like poles, they cancel like a mutual inductor rather than repel when using synchronous control. This is part of the reason that a synchronous induction motor will slightly lag the field rotations. While this makes the control scheme different, it’s still useable. To make the magnetic field rotate around the armature and have the rotor synchronize, you have to change the magnetic fields or essentially collapse all of the energy stored quickly, and this is done by this cancelling current. It makes the controls a little more complicated but well within capabilities of microprocessors and field programmable gate array (FPGA) controllers available today.

Dynamic load advantages

Permanent magnet (PM) servomotors, such as the Kollmorgen Cartridge DDR, are reaching into applications requiring 50 hp and greater, long served by induction motor systems. Buried magnet rotor technology of Kollmorgen B-series motors offer significantly lWhen looking at the PM servomotor, advantages when working with highly dynamic loads are apparent. Rotor size is typically smaller than that of the similar power induction counterpart. That will affect the inertia component, lowering it due to the smaller diameter. Like the induction motor, the magnetic fields around the motor must change to create rotation. The motor will be exactly synchronous to the field since both push and pull of the constant flux from the magnet can be obtained. It will be less sensitive to the air gap of the rotor to armature as well. This is due to the magnets having a mµ equal to air, and as such is considered part of the air gap. This helps improve the motor’s torque density.

Magnetic field changes in the armature can allow for a higher pole count only at the same speed and reduced torque ripple. The rotor isn’t constrained with the buildup of magnetic polarity charge time. These advantages correlate to a smaller physical size when operating less than a few horsepower.

Most servo systems can also handle large loads that are not dynamic providing that the design fits the performance. Directly coupled loads in the packaging and printing industries are typically very large. In many cases, there is a mix of induction and permanent magnet technologies.

There are large direct drive rotary motors that encroach on the domain of induction motors. Applications are numerous. For timing and multiple axis coordination, these permanent magnet motors more precisely control the position-time closed loop requirements than do comparable induction motors and related mechanics.

Rare earth prices

Rare earth availability and price are often brought up when discussing these two motor-control technologies. Rare earth materials and processing have caused uproar in the markets in recent months. The current state of the market indicates that this will not be a permanent issue. Some motors can be modified in design to obtain the same torque using different magnet materials. This hedge of one material’s availability over another allows some more control over the volatility issues that can affect delivery and availability over long periods.

Performance, torque, inertia

When deciding on the use of PM servomotors or induction motor systems, dynamic performance, torque density, inertia matching, and control schemes must be taken in consideration. If you need to maintain a constant velocity with a large load and very high power (>50 hp), the induction motor would likely be a better choice. Should the mass of the motor, dynamic performance, or torque density be important decision factors, then the choice favors the PM servo. Understanding the gray areas helps in discerning one technology over the other. You may have to think beyond the conventional wisdom that permanent magnet servomotors are only for applications below a few horsepower.

- Lee Stephens is senior motion control engineer, Kollmorgen, Radford, Va. Edited by Mark T. Hoske, content manager, CFE Media, Control Engineering and Plant Engineering, mhoske(at)

No comments
The Top Plant program honors outstanding manufacturing facilities in North America. View the 2013 Top Plant.
The Product of the Year program recognizes products newly released in the manufacturing industries.
The Leaders Under 40 program features outstanding young people who are making a difference in manufacturing. View the 2013 Leaders here.
The new control room: It's got all the bells and whistles - and alarms, too; Remote maintenance; Specifying VFDs
2014 forecast issue: To serve and to manufacture - Veterans will bring skill and discipline to the plant floor if we can find a way to get them there.
2013 Top Plant: Lincoln Electric Company, Cleveland, Ohio
Case Study Database

Case Study Database

Get more exposure for your case study by uploading it to the Plant Engineering case study database, where end-users can identify relevant solutions and explore what the experts are doing to effectively implement a variety of technology and productivity related projects.

These case studies provide examples of how knowledgeable solution providers have used technology, processes and people to create effective and successful implementations in real-world situations. Case studies can be completed by filling out a simple online form where you can outline the project title, abstract, and full story in 1500 words or less; upload photos, videos and a logo.

Click here to visit the Case Study Database and upload your case study.

Bring focus to PLC programming: 5 things to avoid in putting your system together; Managing the DCS upgrade; PLM upgrade: a step-by-step approach
Balancing the bagging triangle; PID tuning improves process efficiency; Standardizing control room HMIs
Commissioning electrical systems in mission critical facilities; Anticipating the Smart Grid; Mitigating arc flash hazards in medium-voltage switchgear; Comparing generator sizing software

Annual Salary Survey

Participate in the 2013 Salary Survey

In a year when manufacturing continued to lead the economic rebound, it makes sense that plant manager bonuses rebounded. Plant Engineering’s annual Salary Survey shows both wages and bonuses rose in 2012 after a retreat the year before.

Average salary across all job titles for plant floor management rose 3.5% to $95,446, and bonus compensation jumped to $15,162, a 4.2% increase from the 2010 level and double the 2011 total, which showed a sharp drop in bonus.

2012 Salary Survey Analysis

2012 Salary Survey Results

Maintenance and reliability tips and best practices from the maintenance and reliability coaches at Allied Reliability Group.
The One Voice for Manufacturing blog reports on federal public policy issues impacting the manufacturing sector. One Voice is a joint effort by the National Tooling and Machining...
The Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals an organization devoted...
Join this ongoing discussion of machine guarding topics, including solutions assessments, regulatory compliance, gap analysis...
IMS Research, recently acquired by IHS Inc., is a leading independent supplier of market research and consultancy to the global electronics industry.
Maintenance is not optional in manufacturing. It’s a profit center, driving productivity and uptime while reducing overall repair costs.
The Lachance on CMMS blog is about current maintenance topics. Blogger Paul Lachance is president and chief technology officer for Smartware Group.