You are on page 1of 7

d-q Space Vector Analysis for Line-Starting Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motors

Akeshi Takahashi, Satoshi Kikuchi, Hiroyuki Mikami, Kazumasa Ide and Andreas Binder
Φ Abstract -- In order to boost up the calculation precision of d-q space vector analysis, new approach for estimating parameters of line-starting permanent magnet motors is developed. Introducing leakage-flux and magnetizing-flux variations dependant on not only stator excitation but also rotor one, transient characteristics and steady-state performance are calculated. Thorough the comparison with finite element analysis, the validity of the proposed method is verified. Especially, it is notable that it can provide at short times accurate quasi-steady-state average torque and precise critical load torque for self-starting.

Index Terms—line-starting, space vector analysis, leakage flux, magnetizing flux

I.

INTRODUCTION

URING the design stage of line-starting permanent magnet (PM) synchronous motors, it is indispensable to ensure the sufficient starting characteristics as well as the rated performance. From the viewpoint of both time consumption and cost for constructing the test machine, the analytical approach on a computer that can realize rapid characteristic estimation and least expense is of importance. Numerical analysis methods for transient-state characteristics can be divided into two main groups: one is to analyze the electromagnetic field with the finite element method (FEM), and the other is to solve the basic equations with direct- and quadrature-axis space vector. The former can provide the accurate results including harmonic components due to complicated motor geometry by combining the electrical-circuit model and kinetic system [1]. On the other hand, the latter can realize the short-time analysis in exchange for less accuracy, and thus boosting up its calculation precision has been an important challenge and is the main aim of this paper. It should be noted that there is also another noble method: reluctance network analysis, which has been widely studied and used due to its compatibility between accurate and short-time calculation [2], [3], although it is outside the scope of this paper. The d-q space vector analysis needs parameters, such as inductance and resistance, and hence numerous approaches for the estimation of these values have been investigated and reported. In the early 1980s, Honsinger accomplished the first work introducing the constant parameters that included saturation effect of iron core, although these parameters were not analyzed but measured with a test motor [4]. Afterwards, as the analysis approach with the FEM had been improved [5], [6], it became possible to calculate such constant parameters without any measurement, taking into account the space harmonics [7] and the magnetic saturation [8], [9]. However, parameters’
A. Takahashi, S. Kikuchi, H. Mikami, and K. Ide are with Hitachi Research Laboratory, Hitachi, Ltd., 7-1-1, Omika-cho, Hitachi-shi, Japan (e-mail: akeshi.takahashi.hc@hitachi.com). A. Binder is with the Institute for Electrical Energy Conversion, Darmstadt University of Technology, Landgraf-Georg-Strasse 4, D-64283, Darmstadt, Germany.

D

variations dependent on current changes had not been considered until it was measured and introduced into the dq space vector equations by Consoli [10]. His work was superior in terms of representing the flux-linkage variations as the function of both d-axis and q-axis stator current. In 1990s, with the development of computer performance, one became able to achieve the widely changing parameters dependent on the current variations by using the finite element analysis (FEA). Rahman’s paper first introduced not only the parameters’ variations on the direct and quadrature axes but also d-q cross-coupling effect, and finally predicted steady-state characteristics with high accuracy [11]. Afterwards, the availability of transient-state calculation was also studied and presented [12]-[14]. However, treating the transient state with the d-q space vector analysis, one must pay attention to the fact that stator-side and rotor-side excitation has more or less different flux paths. This means that the magnetizing flux, which would be inherently equivalent whether stator or rotor excitation, can be dependent on its flux source (see Figs. 2 and 3), and hence the interference of both excitation in the magnetizing and leakage flux must be considered. From this viewpoint, the former studies have deficit, only dealing with the magnetizing-flux excited by the stator current; in [12], magnetizing flux in air gap generated by the stator excitation was adopted and leakage flux was neglected; in [13] and [14], although the leakage reactance attributed to the rotor excitation was calculated only for each slip, neither leakage- nor magnetizing-flux maps related to the rotor current were treated. Therefore, more consideration about how far the flux variation can be affected by the excitation is kind of needed. It should be noted that combinations of stator-current and rotor-current input are so myriad that the perfect map for their whole variation is difficult to make. And also, such complicated works should be avoided from the viewpoint of the simple and short-time design of the d-q space vector analysis. In this paper, the leakage-flux and magnetizingflux behavior are investigated by the provisional FEA, and it is discussed how the magnetizing-flux linkage, which would be common between the stator and rotor sides, should be assumed. And then, the obtained parameters are used for the d-q space vector analysis. To verify the validity of the introduced method, the transient-state performances are calculated and compared with the FEA results. All analyses are performed for a two-pole prototype motor with PN = 5 kW, nN = 3000 min-1, VN = 200 V, Y-connection (see data in Table 1 and Fig. 1). Neither the skin effect nor the d-q cross-coupling effect is taken into account, which will be studied in a future report. II. BASIC THEORY OF CONVENTIONAL METHOD The transient-state equations for line-starting PM synchronous motors are expressed in per-unit values in the d-q-reference frame:

978-1-4673-0141-1/12/$26.00 ©2012 IEEE

134

In (5) to (8). Fig. respectively.20 T 1. xm and xσ are main and leakage inductance. while that in (b) occurs over ten teeth. respectively. one can redefine the magnetizing-flux linkages ψdm and ψqm as the function of the currents: x dm ⋅ id + x dm ⋅ i D + ψ pd = ψ dm (id + i D ) (10) (11) On the other hand. Fig. Reference values for the per-unit system are the peak values of the rated phase voltage 2 ⋅ UN.5 A. the ψdm which adopts the id input in the provisional FEA is expressed as ψ dm(id). ψD. the leakage flux in (a) occurs over eight teeth. and hence can be non-identical. for example. and τJ is starting time constant: τJ = ωN TJ . the symbol “prime” is omitted in the following notation. r is winding resistance. PM Rib Flux barrier x Dσ ⋅ i D = xrσb ⋅ i D + ψ Dσ (i D ) xQσ ⋅ iQ = xrσb ⋅ iQ + ψ Qσ iQ x sσ ⋅ iq = x sσb ⋅ iq + ψ qσ i q x sσ ⋅ id = x sσb ⋅ id + ψ dσ (id ) ( ) (12) (13) (14) (15) ( ) Cage bar Fig. the leakage flux paths in (a) are different from those in (b). where the overhang leakage flux xsσb id is neglected. τ is per-unit time: τ = ωN t. respectively.TABLE I DATA OF PROTOTYPE MOTOR Outer diameter of stator Inner diameter of stator Axial length of iron core Number of poles Number of slots per pole and phase Stator slot type Stator slot height Stator teeth width Winding connection Number of rotor slots PM material PM remanent flux density PM relative permeability Rotor cage material Output power Rated speed 160 mm 90 mm 90 mm 2 5 semi-closed 13. which would be inherently equivalent. while the latter can be determined directly from the provisional FEA. 3 illustrates the flux line chart of the ψ dm(id) and ψ dm(iD) generation. 2 shows physically what the ψd. with the following conditions: a) id = -14. Rotor cross section. Fig. 2 also depicts the difference in flux linkage due to the only stator excitation and the only rotor excitation. respectively.5 V and of the rated current 2 ⋅ IN = 2 ⋅ 14.6 pu. and the others are subject to the similar manner. The reason to separate the overhang leakage flux from the slot leakage flux is that the former comes from the conventional analytical formula. and ψdσ . me and mL are electromagnetic torque and load where xsσb and xrσb represent the overhang leakage flux of the stator and the rotor. at the center of pole. 1. b) iD = -14. the leakage flux is expressed as x qm ⋅ iq + xqm ⋅ iQ = ψ qm iq + iQ ( ) . ψqσ .04 aluminum 5 kW 3000 min-1 torque. while the ψ d with the id input is expressed as ψ d(id). where ωN = 2π fN and TJ = 319. i. and s represents stator. respectively. This leads to the difference in the magnetic resistance and hence in the total flux generated by the same magnetomotive force.8 ms. The flux curves used for the space vector analysis comprise fundamental space fluxes. 2 also implies that the slot leakage flux ψdσ might be dependent on not only id but also iD. Therefore. Fig. ψDσ and ψQσ represent the slot leakage flux.and quadrature-axis rotor cage quantities. the rated frequency fN = 50 Hz.ph = 2 ⋅ 115. However. respectively. ψp is PM flux linkage of the stator winding. And also.8 mm Y 22 Nd-Fe-B 1. The primed values signify rotor quantities related to the stator winding data via a transformer ratio. such * 135 . ωm is mechanical angular velocity. can flow more or less different flux paths. because the flux generated by the iD input causes the interference in the main flux path and hence the leakage flux path in the stator. ψ d = (x dm + x sσ ) ⋅ i d + x dm ⋅ i D ' + ψ pd ψ q = (x qm + x sσ ) ⋅ i q + x qm ⋅ iQ ψ Q ' = x qm ⋅ i q τJ ' dψ d − ω m ⋅ψ q dτ dψ q u q = rs ⋅ i q + + ω m ⋅ψ d dτ dψ D ' 0 = rD ' ⋅ i D ' + dτ dψ Q ' ' ' 0 = rQ ⋅ iQ + dτ u d = rs ⋅ i d + (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9a) (9b) ψ D ' = x dm ⋅ i d + x dm + x Dσ ' ⋅ i D ' + ψ pd qm ( + (x + xQσ ' ) )⋅ i Q ' dω m = me − m L dτ me (τ ) = iq (τ ) ⋅ψ d (τ ) − i d (τ ) ⋅ψ q (τ ) The subscripts d and q represent direct.and quadratureaxis stator quantities. ψdm . while D and Q represent direct. the ψdσ should be expressed as the function of id and iD. combinations of stator-current and rotorcurrent input are so myriad that the perfect map for their whole variation is difficult to make. u and ψ are current. ψdσ and ψDσ represent. The magnetizing flux ψ dm(id) and ψ dm(iD) shown in (a) and (b).6 pu.5 mm 3. Obviously. For simplicity. and the rotor-side parameters are basically represented only with the capital subscript. In what follows. voltage and flux linkage space vector components.

u. Although in reality the slot leakage flux ψdσ might be dependent on not only id but also iD.25 -15 -10 -5 0 5 i d (p. Normally. it is discussed how the magnetizing and leakage flux should be formulated.6 pu. (19) ( ) ( ) A. ψDσ on iD. ψQσ . 4(b). In other words.5 -2 -15 -10 ψΨd(id) d (i d ) ψΨdh(id) dm (i d ) ψd σ (id) Rotor ψD σ (iD) Rotor ψdm (id) ψdm (iD) (a) with id input (iD = 0) Fig. there is no means for justifying the ψdσ behavior in the case of the coupled inputs of id and iD. In the same way.u. However. and assigning (12) to (5). Fig. any saturation of iron core expropriates the linearity of main-flux and leakageflux variation. ψqσ .5 -1 -1. and ψQσ (iQ) are subject to the same manner: In the FEA.(p. ψ d(id) and ψ dm (id) curves can be achieved as shown in Fig.) (pu) 10 15 (a) ψ dm(id) Fig. ψDσ .u. leading to the nonlinearity of the leakage flux. 3. ψ ψ dm 1. PROPOSED METHOD In the proposed method. Calculating the difference of these two curves. 4.5 1 0.2 -0. This is because the saturation in the main flux path increases a total magnetic resistance. 4. 2. Leakage Flux It is first assumed that the leakage flux ψdσ is only dependent on id but not influenced by any other current input. (b) with iD input (id = 0) -5 0 5 i d (p.15 -0. For example. (b) ψ dm(iD) Flux line chart (a): id = -14. This postulate is derived from the original equations (5) to (8). the provisional FEA determines the parameters ψdσ .5 0 -0. one can obtain ψ dσ (i d ) = ψ d (i d ) − ψ D (i d ) = ψ d (i d ) − ψ dm (i d ) * (16) where the overhang leakage flux xsσb id is neglected because the provisional FEA is 2-D field solutions. (b) ψdσ (id) curve FE Analysis results of direct-axis flux linkage with id input. ψDσ (iD).05 -0. setting iD in (5) and (7) at zero. It should be noted that the minus value of ψdσ at id = 0 originates in the fact that the rotor flux linkage ψD (id) comprises whole flux generated by PMs while the stator flux linkage ψd (id) does not include the leakage flux in the rotor. In the next chapter. ψdm and ψ qm according to the two postulates described in the following terms A and B. ψdσ (id) is not linear function of id. ψqσ is only dependent on iq. varying the d-axis stator current id and keeping the rotor current iD set at 0 pu. ψ qσ (i q ) = ψ q (i q ) − ψ Q (i q ) = ψ q i q − ψ qm i q ψ Dσ (i D ) = ψ D (i D ) − ψ d (i D ) = ψ D (i D ) − ψ dm (i D ) ψ Qσ (iQ ) = ψ Q (iQ ) − ψ q (iQ ) = ψ Q iQ − ψ qm iQ ( ) ( ) (17) (18) . and ψQσ on iQ. and hence is proportional to the current input. b): iD = -14.u. and hence the total flux generated under the constant magnetomotive force is decreased.) (pu) yd. Schematic of flux linkage.) (pu) Flux ψ d σ 0 -0. As it is clear from Fig. ψdσ (id) can be obtained. but the saturated curve. one has to pay attention to the fact that a strict linear characteristic of the leakage flux is only based on the linear property of the magnetic steel sheet.) (pu) 10 15 (a) ψ d (id) and ψ dm (id) curves 0. 136 .6 pu).Stator Gap PM ψd (id) Stator Gap PM ψD (iD) 2 Flux linkageydhd . The other leakage flux ψqσ (iq).1 -0. the leakage flux is represented by constant inductance.05 Leakage ψ dσ (p. More detailed explanation with the magnetic circuit described in chapter 4 can help to understand this phenomenon. complicated works should be avoided from the viewpoint of the simple and short-time design of the d-q space vector analysis. III.

By the way. (b) ψDσ (iD) curve FE Analysis results of direct-axis flux linkage with iD input. The detailed behavior of the ψDσ can also be explained by the magnetic circuit as described in chapter 4. 8 shows the FEA results of the ψ dm calculated by (21) and the ψdm by (23).) dm (pu) Basically. 5.3 0.) 10 15 ψ dm (id + i D ) = ψ D ( id . 6. Fig.) 5 10 15 Leakage ψ Dσ (p. 137 . i D (p. ψDσ (iD) can be obtained. In this case ψDσ (iD) is approximately the linear function of iD.u. This postulate arises one question: how widely the ψ dm can cover the actual ψdm generated by myriad combinations of id and iD.2 -0. Calculating the difference of these two curves.2 Deviation Δψdm (pu) Δψ dm (p.1 0. ψdm(id) and ψdm(iD) should be identical and hence Δψdm should be constantly zero. it is assumed that the magnetizing flux ψqm is expressed by the only one function ψ qm i q + iQ dependent on the sum of iq and iQ: ψ qm ⎜ ⎜ ⎛ i q + iQ ⎞ ψ qm (i q ) + ψ qm (iQ ) ⎟= ⎟ 2 ⎝ 2 ⎠ (24) ( ) where iq = iQ. while a single iD input yields ψd (iD) = ψdm (iD). the ψqσ (iq) is not the linear function of iq but the saturated curve. Fig. In the same way. Although some deviations become bigger than that in Fig. the magnetizing flux defined in (21) is to be introduced in the proposed method. Fig. Aiming at the simple treatment of ψdm. 2 1.1 0 -0. Δψdm denotes the difference between ψdm(id) and ψdm(iD) : Δψ dm = ψ dm (i d ) − ψ dm (i D ) B. iD): -5 0 5 (pu) i d .5 -2 -15 -10 ψ D (iD ) ΨD(iD) Ψdh(iD) ψ dm (iD ) -5 0 (pu) i D (p.5 0 -0. Although some deviations are recognized. (b) Δψdm FE Analysis results of difference between ψ dm (id) and ψ dm (iD). 5.5 0 -0.(p. iD ) − ψ dσ (id ) (22) where the assumption defined in term A is still valid that ψdσ(id) is only dependent on id but not influenced by any other current input.) ψ dm (i d + i D ) = ψ d ( id .5 -1 -1. ψD (iD) and ψdm (iD) curves can be achieved as shown in Fig.u. 6 shows the FEA results of ψdm(id) and ψ dm(iD).1 -0.2 0.15 0.Varying the d-axis rotor current iD and keeping the stator current id set at 0 pu.05 0 -15 -10 -5 0 5 (pu) i d . (23) Fig. In the same way.5 -2 -15 -10 ψ dm (i d Ψdh(id)) ψ dm (i D Ψdh(iD)) ψ dm ⎜ ⎛ id + i D ⎞ ψ dm (id ) + ψ dm (i D ) ⎟= 2 ⎝ 2 ⎠ (21) where id = iD. (20) Flux linkage ψ(p. (7) and (10).) (pu) Flux ψ D σ Magnetizing Flux This term investigates magnetizing flux behavior. the magnetizing flux generated by the simultaneous inputs of id and iD can be separated from the total flux linkage ψd (id. (a) ψ D (iD) and ψ dm (iD) curves 0. it is possible to substitute the ψ dm for ψdm regardless of the combinations of id and iD. while the ψQσ (iQ) is approximately the linear function of iQ. 2 Flux linkage ψ D . According to (5). But it should be noted that the ψDσ variation is not strictly linear. i D (p. as is well known. 6. and introduces the second postulate for ψ dm and ψ qm.5 -1 -1. it is secondly assumed that the magnetizing flux ψdm is expressed by the only one function ψ dm (i d + i D ) dependent on the sum of id and iD: Fig.u.u. but actual curves of them are not exactly identical because of the difference in the local flux paths.4 0.) 10 15 . iD ) −ψ Dσ (iD ) .u. the magnetizing flux ψdm is expressed in another way: 0. 7 shows FEA results of the ψ dm calculated by (21) and the ψdm by (22).) (pu) ψ dm 1. the FE analysis with a single id input yields ψD (id) = ψdm (id).u.u.5 1 0.3 -15 -10 -5 0 5 (pu) i D (p.5 1 0. according to (7) and (10).u.) 10 15 (a) ψ dm (id) and ψ dm (iD) curves 0. According to (5) and (10).

infinite permeability of iron core.5 or R s = 0. However.2 1. TABLE II RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN K AND C = 2K/(1. Theoretical Leakage Flux Fig. subscripts s: stator. setting the stator-side magnetomotive force Fs at an arbitrary value except for zero and the rotor-side Fr at zero.9 Fs − 0. r: rotor. δ: air gap. i. Assuming R s = kR sσ .8 pu id = -4.1).30 … … 0.91Fs − 0.2k + 0. R represents magnetic resistance. The subscripts s is stator..8 pu id = 14. F: magnetomotive force.5 -1 -1. R p = 0. and that the leakage flux is dependent on the magnetic resistance R s or the iron core saturation. while −φ3 l represents ψ lD (id).54 … … 1. = 1 R sσ 2k ⎛ 0.5 -2 -15 -10 -5 0 i d + i D (pu) 5 id = -14. p is permanent magnet.6 pu id = -9. 7. R sσ (29) l l l ψ dσ (id ) = ψ d (id ) −ψ D (id ) = −φ1l + φ3l Applying the same conditions as the above. FE analysis results of direct-axis magnetizing-flux linkage ψ dm calculated by (21) and the ψdm calculated by (23).91F p ) (28) Comparison of (26) with (28) clarifies that the nonlinear case yields less leakage flux.9 pu id = 9.1 ⎝ ⎠ (27) where superscript nl means the nonlinear case. and φ represents flux. r is rotor. When k = 0.1R sσ . k = 0. As is clear from (30) and Table 2.01R sσ .6 pu Ψdm (ave.18 0. However. and applying the same conditions as the above linear case to the other magnetic resistance. the leakage flux will further decrease: for example. one can calculate φ. 9. δ is air gap.2k + 0.8 pu iD = -4. where k is nonlinear coefficient.2K + 0.9 pu iD = 9. 9 shows the simple magnetic circuit for the linestarting PM motor. the magnetic resistance R s and R r can be neglected. leads to the significant saturation of the leakage flux nl ψ dσ (id ) = 1 ⋅ (0.5 -2 -15 -10 -5 0 i d + i D (pu) 5 iD = -14.9 pu idid = 0 pu id = 4. Since all the magnetic resistance and Fp in (25) are constant.5 1. σ : leakage).8 pu iD = 14.2 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⋅ Fs + ⋅ Fp ⎟ 1. ψ ldσ (id) can be calculated as (30) Table 2 represents the relationship between k and the coefficient C = 2k/(1. in reality. and setting the Fs at zero and the Fr at an arbitrary value except for zero. ψDσ (iD) in the nonlinear case can be expressed as ψ Dσ (iD ) = ψ D (iD ) −ψ d (iD ) = −φ3 + φ1 = 1 2k ⋅ ⋅ ( Fr + Fp ) R sσ 1. 2 1.e.5 0 -0. Assuming the linear case.3 1.9 pu iD = 0 pu iD iD = 4.5R sσ .5 0 -0. Simple magnetic circuit for the line-starting PM motor (R: magnetic resistance.1 0.6 pu ψ dm Ψdm (ave. R sσ (26) Fig.) ψ dm 10 15 Fig.6 pu iD = -9.1 1.1R sσ and R rσ = R sσ to (25). k C 0.29 Fs − 1.2 1. which can be caused by huge magnetomotive force Fs.43 … … 1.0 1. THEORETICAL PROOF OF PROPOSED MODEL This chapter theoretically proves the nonlinear property of the leakage flux and the inconsistent property of the magnetizing flux described in chapter 3.5 -1 -1. F represents magnetomotive force. and hence ψ ldσ (id) is expressed as ⎛ Rp 1 =⎜ + ⎜ R R + R R +R R R sσ δ rσ δ p p rσ ⎝ ⎞ Rδ ⎟ ⋅ Fs − ⋅ Fp ⎟ R rσ R δ + R δ R p + R pR rσ ⎠ 1 R sσ ⋅ (0.43Fp ) . ψ nldσ (id) is nl ψ dσ (id ) = A. the ψDσ is nonlinear function of Fr.09 F p ) . Applying rough approximation of R δ = 0. 8. Applying the Kirchhoff’s second law for the whole closed loops and solving the equations. the magnetic saturation of the iron core makes nonnegligible the magnetic resistance such as R s. And more.2k + 0.5 Ψ dm (i d + i D ) (pu) 1 0. FE analysis results of direct-axis magnetizing-flux linkage ψ dm calculated by (21) and the ψdm calculated by (22).2k + 0. φ: flux.58 l ψ dσ (id ) = 1 ⋅ (1. and σ is leakage.5 1.91 0. one 138 .1).1 or R s = 0. ψ ldσ (id) is the linear function of magnetomotive force Fs or current.5 + i D ) (pu) 1 0. one can obtain nl nl nl ψ d σ (id ) = ψ d (id ) −ψ D (id ) = −φ1nl + φ3nl IV. If the R s increases due to more saturation. −φ1 l represents ψ ld (id).) 10 15 Stator Air gap Rotor Rδ Rs R rσ Fr Fp Ψ dm (i φ1 Fs R sσ φ2 φ3 d Rp Rr Fig. p: permanent magnet.1 =C (25) where superscript l means the linear case.

In the proposed method.2 d-q space vector analysis FEA ( ) 0.6 (a) Torque versus time 1. On the other hand.6 0. Table 3 represents the detailed (c) U-phase current versus time Fig. 10 shows the results of the d-q space vector analysis during start up.7 times. 11(a). For comparison. fs = 1. It is 1. the peak values around slip = 1 do not agree with the FEA results. and results in the 50Hz-pulsating starting torque. comparing k = 1. During the start-up. VI.4 0. the 50Hz starting current and the DC component occur in the stator winding. In order to verify the advantages of the proposed method. with the following conditions. mL = 0 pu). The calculation accuracy of the average torque in the quasi-steady state results in the precision of critical load torque for the self-starting. The deviation is 22%. The reason of the errors is that the d-q cross-coupling and harmonic effects contribute to pulsating-torque generation. u = 1. the FEA time-stepping results are also represented.00 pu. 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 0 0.B. −φ3 is equal to ψD (id) or ψdm (id): R σ ⋅R rσ ⋅ Fs + (R sσ + R s ) ⋅ (R sσ + R δ + R rσ ) − R s2σ ⋅ Fp = s det R ψ dm (id ) = −φ3 Torque (pu) has to pay attention to the fact that the increasing rate of C is much more moderate than that of k. 10. There are some errors between the d-q space-vectoranalysis results and the FEA results. which comes from the calculation errors shown in Table 3. Computation of FEA and d-q space vector analysis results at no-load starting (u = 1. the critical load torque is 1. the leakage-flux and magnetizingflux behavior were investigated and the obtained parameters were used for analysis program. the proposed method exhibits better agreement with the FEA results.0 with k = 0. Fig. Even in the proposed method. data of the quasi-steady state characteristics. the k increases 10 times while the C increases only 1. leading to the big deviations as shown in Fig.2 0 0.2 Time (s) 0. 11 shows the quasi-steady state characteristics.00 pu. −φ1 is equal to ψd (iD) or ψdm (iD): ψ dm (iD ) = −φ1 = R sσ ⋅R rσ ⋅ Fr + R sσ ⋅R rσ ⋅ F p det R U. it was found 139 . τJ = 100. which is mainly because the d-q space vector analysis takes into account neither the d-q cross-coupling effect nor the influence of the current displacement.00 pu.00 pu.6 d-q space vector analysis FEA Comparison of (31) with (33) clarifies that ψ dm (id) and ψ dm (iD) are generated by the different flux paths. the transient-state performances are calculated and compared with the FEA results.48 pu. In order to verify the validity of the proposed method.2 1 Rotation (pu) 0. all results exhibit a good agreement. First through the provisional investigation.phase current (pu) (33) (b) Rotation versus time 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 0 0. These results indicate that the proposed method enables one to estimate accurate slip-versus-torque curves and starting capability at short times.4 0.52 pu in the proposed method. while the leakage flux is neglected.6 d-q space vector analysis FEA (31) where detR = (R sσ + R s ) ⋅ (R sσ + R δ + R rσ ) ⋅ (R rσ + R p + R r ) − (R sσ + R s ) ⋅ R r2σ − (R rσ + R p + R r ) ⋅ R s2σ (32) Inversely. for example. CONCLUSION In order to boost up the calculation accuracy of the d-q space vector analysis. while the proposed method offers less error within 10 %. setting the Fr at an arbitrary value except for zero and the Fs at zero. which exhibits a good agreement with the FEA. Theoretical Magnetizing Flux Setting the Fs at an arbitrary value except for zero and the Fr at zero.2 0 -0. Also. it may be another reason that the provisional FEA determines the parameters according to the two postulates described in chapter 3. the results calculated with the conventional method are also presented. as shown in Fig. V.4 0.4 Time (s) 0. The deviation between the conventional method and the FEA becomes more than 20 %. VALIDITY OF PROPOSED METHOD The obtained parameters in chapter 3 are used for the d-q space vector analysis.1. The conventional method only considers the magnetizing flux in the air gap generated by the stator excitation.8 0.31 pu. Fig. 11(b). which results in the apparent linear characteristic of ψDσ .25 pu in the FEA (starting-success up to this value) whereas 1.2 Time (s) 0. fs = 1. mL = 0 pu. Due to the switching on of the stator voltage.

“Performance analysis of permanent magnet synchronous motors part:II operation from variable source and transient characteristics. Vienna. V. Since 2004. Sapporo. degree from Tohoku University. pp. where he is engaged in rotating machine research and development. Binder was the recipient of the Power Engineering Society (ETG) Literature Award in 1997.. PAS-99. in 1981 and 1988. A.” IEEE Trans. 24. He has been with Hitachi Ltd. 11. Sep. 1986. V. I. where he is involved in electric power conversion system. Consoli and A. 2175-81.” IEEE Trans. 27. “A d-q model for the selfcomtated synchronous machine considering the effects of magnetic saturation. 30.-Ing. pp. Zhou. Power App. Since October 1997. Kurihara and M. “Field-based analysis for permanent magnet motors. “Determination of saturated parameters of PM motors using loading magnetic fields. 1991. July 1994.1. vol. no. he has been the Head of the Institute of Electrical Energy Conversion.tcpdf. “The fields and parameters of interior type of ac permanent magnet machines.73 100 0. Syst. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] A. Ostovic./Oct. B. M. Rahman and A. Rahman and P. no. pp./Apr. July 1980. K. Satoshi Kikuchi graduated Miyagiken Technical High School. Currently. pp. no. 1980. Syst. 5. Zhou. in 1990. Magn. respectively. Sept. From 1983 to 1989.5 Ave. 1988.4 Slip (pu) 0. 1986. After this.the quasi-steady state characteristics and the critical load torque for self-starting exhibited the good agreement with the FEA results. 836-841. Appl. vol. “A simplified approach to the magnetic equivalent circuit modeling of electric machines. It was found that .) degree from Darmstadt University of Technology. vol. he is a Manager with Hitachi Research Laboratory.2 0 TABLE III DETAILED DATA OF QUASI STEADY-STATE CHARACTERISTICS.87 120 0.” IEEE Trans. Abdel-Kader. 30.8 Minimum torque 0. Rahman and P.. where he worked on the design of synchronous generators..76 105 FEA Conventional Proposed [7] [8] [9] (a) Conventional method 12 Maximum torque 8 Average torque 4 [10] [11] 0 -4 1 0. in 1988 and 1994. “Asynchronous performance prediction of ac permanent magnet motor. Energy Conv. EC-1. Japan. A.” IEEE Trans. degrees from Tohoku University.. 1306–1315. Germany. Hitachi Ltd. pp. “Development of a high speed 2-pole permanent magnet synchronous motor. vol. he joined Siemens AG. Mar. BIOGRAPHIES Akeshi Takahashi (M’08) received the M. A. VII.12 Electromagnetic torque (pu) Maximum torque 8 Average torque 4 0 -4 1 0. Sendai. and Ph. 768–776. pp. He has been with Hitachi Ltd. no. simulation results were compared with the FEA results. Energy Conv.. vol.. 7. Vienna. Currently. S. A. then in Erlangen. torque Deviation (pu) (%) 2. 3664–3667.” IEEE Trans. pp. Japan. which indicted that the method enables one to estimate accurate starting characteristics at short times. . vol.6 0. Ind. torque Deviation (pu) (%) 2. 5.) degrees in electrical engineering from the University of Technology. degree from Hokkaido University. pp. From 1981 to 1983. s =1 Ave. no. He was a Visiting Researcher in Darmstadt University of Technology from 2007 to 2008. Appl. P. REFERENCES [6] K. in 1988. (diploma) and Dr. no. vol. M. 1350–1359. 5. vol. in 2010. M. Tech.89 100 4.leakage-flux curve of stator excitation is saturated due to the magnetic resistance in the stator core. 3. Mar. Germany.” IEEE Trans. A. Energy Conv. “Performance of large line-start permanent magnet synchronous motors. Tanabe.” IEEE Trans..00 134 2. no.” IEEE Trans. [13] [14] that .1 Ave. PAS-99. he has been with Hitachi Research Laboratory. Sep. Darmstadt University of Technology. (Ph. Miyashita. Hiroyuki Mikami (M’95) received the M. 308-316. M.. Power App. M. Honsinger. and Ph. 140 Powered by TCPDF (www. Japan. Kazumasa Ide (M’94) received the M. Dr. Electromagnetic torque (pu) VIII. pp 32-41. 101-108. vol. pp. 211–217. “Field circuit analysis of permanent magnet synchronous motors. Austria. M. Zhou. Dec. 4. 1991. Japan.. V. “Permanent magnet machine: asynchronous operation. Yamashita. Tapplrit. vol. while that of rotor excitation is nearly proportional to current input.” IEEE Trans. since 1990. “Computation of saturated permanent magnet ac motor performance by means of magnetic circuits.” IEEE Trans.4 Slip (pu) 0. dotted line: FEA). Iglesias.the magnetizing flux. vol. degree from Ibaraki University. pp. 1992. Osheba and F. “Transient performance of permanent magnet AC motor drives. Yamamoto. L. he is a Manager with Hitachi Research Laboratory.05 105 s = 0. His main tasks included the development of dc and inverter-fed ac drives. IA-23. no. Ind. Eng.org) . torque Deviation (pu) (%) 0. PAS-101..D. A. (Ph. IA-22. in 2004.” IEEE Trans. which would be inherently equivalent whether stator or rotor excitation. in 2008. Mar. 1990. Germany. Germany. Shimozu and H. Sendai. respectively. Currently. 5. since 1988. Magn. pp. Appl. he was with the Department of Electrical Machines and Drives.. 1987. Sep. Japan. Rahman. since 1988. Jabber. A. 4.6 0. S. Osheiba. Andreas Binder (M’97–SM’04) received the Dipl. May 1994. Hitachi. pp. Rahman and M. Vienna. and Dr. 1994. Sento. Ishizaki and Y. where he is involved in rotating machine research and development.D. in order to verify the validity of the proposed method. Technical University. Abela.2 0 [12] (b) Proposed method Fig. he was with ELIN-Union AG. where he is also a Full Professor. Ind.” IEEE Trans. is not always identical but dependent on its flux source. B. M.11 142 3. Eng. Darmstadt. Quasi steady-state characteristics (solid lines: d-q space vector analysis. 6. Power App. no. 4. Energy Conv. Ostovic.. where he is involved in rotating machine research and development as a Senior Researcher. Sendai. Magn. He has been with Hitachi Ltd. D...” IEEE Trans. V.44 109 s = 0. “Steady-state performance analysis of permanent magnet synchronous motors including space harmonics.24 100 3. Magn.-Ing. 83–89. Honsinger. 2. 1. vol.. 1982. first in Bad Neustadt. Eng. 1503– 1509. 30. Garcia and J. no. Second. Syst. T. he is with Hitachi Research Laboratory. Darmstadt. Apr. 3947–3950.” IEEE Trans. pp. 867-876. vol.8 Minimum torque 0. vol. S. D.