You are on page 1of 20

# Finite element analysis of the induction motor

N. Bianchi L. Alberti∗ June 1, 2006

1

Introduction

This example shows the computation of a three–phase induction motor by means of ﬁnite element method. Two analyses are carried out: at ﬁrst the no–load test, then the locked–rotor test are simulated. At no–load, magneto–static simulations are carried out varying the magnetizing current. In the locked–rotor test, the frequency is changed so as to compute the dependence of the rotor parameters on the operating frequency. From these two tests, the parameters of the equivalent circuit of the induction motor are obtained, from which the motor performance can be predicted. Among the others, the power and the torque produced, the stator current and the power factor as a function of the rotor slip. Let us refer to the circuit sketched in Fig. 1, where Rs Lσs Rr Lσr Lm (Ω) (H) (Ω) (H) (H) stator inductance, stator leakage inductance, rotor resistance referred to the stator, rotor leakage inductance, magnetizing inductance.

The parameters Lσs and Rs have to be known from measurement or from analytical calculation.
Ls is E Rs im L m(im) L r (s) ir R r (s)

Figure 1: Equivalent circuit of the induction motor

Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Padova, bianchi@die.unipd.it

1

In this circuit, the magnetizing inductance Lm is considered to be a non– linear function of the magnetizing current Im and the rotor parameters L2 and R2 are considered to be a non–linear function of the rotor slip.

2

Deﬁnitions and pre–processing

The structure of the induction motor under analysis is shown in Fig. 2 which also highlights the materials of the various blocks. Particular care has to be given to the materials used in the simulations. In particular Copper The stator slot is ﬁlled by several wires. However, it is considered that the slot is completely ﬁlled by copper, considering an equivalent conductive bar. In this bar the total current of all the wires is assigned. In the magneto–dynamic computation, this yields a non– uniform distribution of the stator current within the slot, according to the operating frequency. In order to avoid this mistake, the conductivity of the copper can be equated to zero, yielding an inﬁnite penetration thickness. Iron The iron non–linear characteristic (the B–H curve) has to be used in the no–load simulation. However the higher values of the curve are not always available, and they are interpolated during the ﬁnite element analysis. It is convenient to assign the high values of ﬂux density B and magnetic ﬁeld H when they are not given, extending the curve with a slop close to the µ0 . An example of B–H curve is given in Table 1. At last, in the magneto–dynamic simulations of the locked–rotor tests a linear characteristic for the iron can be adopted, so as to limit the research to the eﬀect of the frequency on the rotor parameters. Aluminum The rotor bars are completely ﬁlled by Aluminum. Its main parameter is the conductivity, which determines the rotor resistance. It is convenient to set its value considering the operating temperature of the rotor, thus a reasonable value is σAl =15 MS/m (corresponding to 120 K temperature rise). The resistive eﬀect of the two external rings can be taken into account by means of a further reduction of the conductivity σAl as σAl,eq = σAl 1 + kring (1)

where the factor kring is deﬁned as kring = 2Qr Dring Sbar π (2p)2 Lstk Sring (2)

2

. as shown in Fig.25 148000 1000 1. so as to facilitate the post–processing of the solution.58 2000 1.50 215000 Figure 2: Materials in the simulation It is useful to group the various objects together. 4... Stator All the parts of the stator except for the slots are ﬁxed to belong to the group 1000.35 1. 4. 3 . . as shown in Fig. Slot2.68 4000 1.810 12000 1. 3.3 0. They are labelled Slot1..79 9000 2.50 Table 1: Example of B–H curve H B H B H (A/m) (T) (A/m) (T) (A/m) 0 1.78 8000 2.64 3000 1.00 87000 800 900 1.72 5000 1.B (T) 0 0.6 0. These labels allow to recognize each single slot for both the automatic assignment of the slot current and the computation of the corresponding ﬂux linkage once the solution has been carried out..20 1. and numbered 1001.90 1. The convention adopted by the authors is described hereafter: Rotor All the parts of the rotor are ﬁxed to belong to the group numbered 10. as also shown in Fig. Slots The stator slots are numbered in counterclockwise direction starting on the right-hand side.80 10000 200 1.76 7000 2.82 15000 1.805 11000 400 1.74 6000 1. 1002..815 14000 600 700 1.05 1. .

assuming a value ranging from +1 to −1.1 Slot matrix An useful tool for processing the stator windings is the slot matrix. kaj = −1 the j th slot is completely ﬁlled by conductors of the a–phase. 4. referring to the a–phase and the j th slot. It refers to the 24–slot stator shown in Fig. The element of these vectors describes how the diﬀerent phases ﬁll the stator slots. it is kaj = +1 the j th slot is completely ﬁlled by conductors of the a–phase. It is formed by m matrix vectors (where m is the number of phases) whose length is equal to the number Qs of stator slots. but with negative polarity. For instance. and a single–layer full–pitch winding. An example of slot matrix is reported in Table 2.Figure 3: All otor parts belong to group 10 Figure 4: Stator (group 1000) and numbers assigned to the stator slots 2. kaj = 0 there are no conductors of the a–phase within the j th slot. 4 .

q. 0. 0. ka kb kc slot no. 0} kc= { 0. 0. Islot_re) .2 Automatic setting of slot currents The conventions assumed above above allows an easy automatic analysis of the machine. -1. 0. 0 9 0 0 –1 17 0 10 0 0 –1 18 0 11 0 0 –1 19 0 12 0 0 –1 20 0 13 0 1 0 21 0 14 0 1 0 22 0 15 0 1 0 23 0 16 0 1 0 24 ka –1 –1 –1 –1 0 0 0 0 kb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 kc 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2. 0. 0. 0. 1. Qs. 0.series conductors per slot nc = 82 -. The variable Isim means the rms value of the current ﬁxed for the simulation. modifycircprop("Islot" . -1. end + + 1 2 Ib_re*kb[q] + Ic_re*kc[q]) Ib_im*kb[q] + Ic_im*kc[q]) .phase Ia_re Ib_re Ic_re currents (real and imaginary part) = sqrt(2) * Isim = sqrt(2) * (-Isim/2) = sqrt(2) * (-Isim/2) Ia_im = 0 Ib_im = sqrt(2) * (-sqrt(3) * Isim/2) Ic_im = sqrt(2) * (sqrt(3) * Isim/2) for q = 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 0. -. 1.. -1. The slot currents are set as follows. -1. 0. 0. -1..slot number (simulated) Qs = 24 -. 1. The example refers to LUA code for FEMM tool. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. -1. -1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1} -. 0. 0. 0. 1 do Islot_re = nc * (Ia_re*ka[q] Islot_im = nc * (Ia_im*ka[q] modifycircprop("Islot" . 0. 1. 0. q. 0. 0. 0. 0. -1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ka 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 kb –1 –1 –1 –1 0 0 0 0 Table 2: Example of slot matrix kc slot no. -1. -1. 0} kb= {-1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. Islot_im) 5 . 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.slot matrix ka= { 0. -1. 0. 1. 0. 0.slot no.

The eﬀect of the saturation is evident. Fig.5 1 1. Figure 5: Map of ﬂux density under no–load test No−load test Flux linkage (Vs) Inductance (H) 1 0.2 0 0 Flux linkage (Vs) Magnetizing inductance (H) 0. Thus a magneto–static ﬁeld problem is solved.4 0. This corresponds to a rotor slip s equal to zero.8 0.5 3 Figure 6: Flux linkage versus stator current Fig. A series of simulations are carried out varying the stator current. assuming to work in the rotor reference frame.6 0.3 No–load test The simulations are carried out at zero frequency. The non–linear characteristic of the iron has to be used in the simulation. 6 . Stator currents are imposed and the non–linear behavior of the magnetizing inductance is computed. 6 shows the phase ﬂux linkage and the magnetizing inductance as a function of the stator current.5 2 Stator current (A) 2. 5 shows the ﬂux plot during the no–load test.

5 1 Stator current (A) 1.2 0.5 * int A.3 0.5 2 Stator current (A) 2.4 0.J 2 Magnetic energy (J) 1.7 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 3 Figure 8: Energy and coenergy versus stator current No−load test 1 0. the magnetizing inductance is computed as Λa Lm = (3) Ia 7 .5 0.5 0.9 Magnetizing inductance (H) 0.8 0.5 Wm = int H.6 0.5 2 Figure 7: Voltage versus stator current No−load test 2.5 1 1.5 mag from W 3 m Figure 9: Magnetizing inductance versus stator current Referring to the a–phase.1 0 0.dB 1 0.J L 2.5 2 Stator current (A) Lmag from Λ Lmag from A.No−load test 500 Phase−to−phase voltage (V) 400 300 200 100 0 0 0.

At low currents it is observed that Wm = Wm = 1 2 WAJ .where Ia is the current and Λa is the ﬂux linkage. 7 shows the phase–to–phase no–load voltage that can be computed from the no–load test. Fig. On the contrary. The computation of the whole magnetic energy B Wm = H · dBdvol vol 0 (4) can not be used. the apparent energy WAJ = A · Jdvol vol (5) can be used to estimate the apparent magnetizing inductance of the machine. 9 shows the magnetizing inductance computed using three diﬀerent ways. It can be also observed that WAJ = Wm + Wm where Wm is the magnetic coenergy H (6) Wm = B · dHdvol vol 0 (7) A numerical comparison is given in Table 3. 8 . the inductance obtained does not make sense. Its value becomes lower and lower with the saturation and can not more used for the computation of the magnetizing inductance. The higher diﬀerence is found in the saturation region. It is worth noticing that diﬀerent computation yield diﬀerent results in the saturation region. As conﬁrmation of this remark. Fig. 8 shows the magnetic energy versus the stator current. Using the ﬂux–linkage or the energy (5) yield a correct value of its apparent inductance: Lm = 2 WAJ ˆ2 3 I 0 (8) On the contrary. In the same ﬁgure the measured voltage is shown using circles. It is attributed to the diﬀerence in the magnetic characteristic that is used in actual motor and in simulation. An appreciable agreement between simulated and measured voltage is observed. Fig. using the magnetic energy (4). while this is not hold at higher currents.

46 0.20 0.082 1. respectively.202 0. 1 is ﬁxed to its linear value.605 0. The corresponding magnetizing inductance of the equivalent circuit of Fig.64 1.436 0.Table 3: Magnetic Im Wm (A) (J) 0.1 0.209 3.920 1.127 4.621 3. 11 show the ﬂux plots during the locked– rotor test at two diﬀerent frequency: at 10 Hz and at 50 Hz.843 1.112 0.848 1.82 1. From each ﬁnite element analysis the following quantities are computed: f Is Λa Λb Λc T Pjr Wm Wm WAJ (Hz) (A) (Vs) (Vs) (Vs) (Nm) (W) (J) (J) (J) Frequency Current a–phase ﬂux linkage (real and imaginary part) b–phase ﬂux linkage (real and imaginary part) c–phase ﬂux linkage (real and imaginary part) Torque computed from Maxwell stress tensor Rotor Joule losses Magnetic energy Magnetic coenery Integral of A · J As an example.344 1.056 0. A series of simulations is carried out at various frequencies so as to weigh up the dependence of the rotor parameters on the operating frequency.411 0.38 0.00 1.92 0.405 0.222 2.738 1.100 2.449 1. This assumption does not aﬀect the computation since the main purpose of this test is to compute the rotor parameters.056 0. 10 and Fig.044 1.826 2.293 2.56 0.743 1. Fig.201 0.438 comparison WAJ (J) 0.593 4 Locked–rotor tests These tests are carried out assuming a locked–rotor and imposing a ﬁxed current within the stator slots.026 3.154 energy Wm (J) 0. In these simulations the iron is assumed to be linear. so as to allow the superposition of the eﬀect to be applied. 9 .752 3.28 0.74 0.666 4.830 2. It is worth noticing the higher shielding eﬀect of the rotor current at the higher frequency.986 1.

In this case. the motor works in linear conditions. The torque is also proportional to the power transferred from the stator to the rotor. and then it has not to be confused with the torque obtained at ﬁxed voltage to plot the mechanical characteristic of the machine. The Maxwell stress tensor is computed along a line within the air–gap of the motor.Figure 10: Map of ﬂux density under locked rotor test (10 Hz) Figure 11: Map of ﬂux density under locked rotor test (50 Hz) Fig. ﬁxed in all the simulation. It is worth noticing that the torque computed here refers to a constant current source. 13 shows the computed torque as a function of the working frequency. 12 shows the magnetic energy computed in diﬀerent ways. Fig. so that the computation yield the same result. It is equal to the ratio between the rotor Joule losses 10 .

06 0.02 0.dB int B.01 0 0 Energy (J) and coenergy (J) int H.06 0.03 0.01 0 0 from Maxwell tensor from rotor losses Torque (Nm) 10 20 30 Rotor frequency (Hz) 40 50 Figure 13: Torque versus frequency Rotor parameters 120 Resistance (Ω) Reactance (Ω) 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.2 0.Locked rotor test 0.8 1 Figure 14: Rotor parameters obtained from locked rotor test Pjr and the synchronous speed.02 0.J 10 20 30 Rotor frequency (Hz) 40 50 Figure 12: Energy versus frequency Locked rotor test 0.dH int A. given by T = Pjr 2πf /p 11 (9) .4 slip 0.05 0.6 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.

Fig. referred to the stator. Then 2πf /p is the synchronous speed of each simulation. from the equivalence of the two circuits. The equivalent parameters are computed as Req = Leq Pjr 3I 2 (10) 2 Wm = 3 I2 where I is the rms current used in the simulation. of the two–dimensional model. The meaning of Lr is the total leakage inductance. 12 . 14 shows the rotor parameters that are obtained from the locked–rotor simulations corresponding to each operating frequency f . 15. Finally.where f is the frequency adopted in the simulation and p is the pole pair. L 2 (s) L eq (s) R 2 (s) Lm R eq (s) Figure 15: Equivalent circuits corresponding to the locked–rotor simulation Referring to Fig. let us remark that the leakage inductance of the stator and the rotor can not be separated. it results Lr = Lm Leq (Lm − Leq ) − (Req /ω )2 (Lm − Leq )2 + (Req /ω )2 (11) Lm + Lr Rr = Req Lm − Leq At last.

the computation of the motor performance is carried out. The equivalent circuited is completed adding the elements that are not considered in the ﬁnite element analysis: the stator winding resistance and the end winding leakage inductance.4 slip 0. 9) and the rotor parameters (see Fig. the parameters of the equivalent circuit of the induction motor are obtained.5 Induction motor performance From the no–load tests and the locked–rotor tests.2 0. In particular the magnetizing inductance (see Fig. ﬁxing a value of the phase voltage.6 0.2 0. A good agreement between the simulated power (solid line) and the measured power (triangles) is evident. From equivalent circuit 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 Mech and electric power (W) 0. 14). for instance V =230 V. Then.8 1 Figure 16: From equivalent circuit: input and output power versus slip From equivalent circuit 6 5 Torque (Nm) Current (A) 4 3 2 1 0 0 Torque (Nm) Current (A) 0.4 slip 0.6 0. 16 shows the electrical power (input power) and the mechanical power (output power) of the motor versus the rotor slip.8 1 Figure 17: From equivalent circuit: torque versus slip Fig. even though the iron losses and the mechanical losses are not 13 .

3 0.2 0.4 slip 0.2 0 0.4 0. 18 shows the power factor (cos φ) versus the rotor slip.9 0.6 0.5 Efficiency 0.6 0.8 1 Figure 18: From equivalent circuit: power factor versus slip From equivalent circuit 0. Finally.8 0. 14 . the agreement between simulated values (solid line) and measurements (triangles and circles) is evident.8 0.3 0. this justiﬁes the lower values of the predicted mechanical power and of the predicted torque. 17 shows the torque produced by the motor and the stator current as a function of the rotor slip.From equivalent circuit 1 0.4 0.6 0.7 cos φ 0.2 0. The measured values are reported using triangles.7 0.1 0 0 0. 19 shows the motor eﬃciency (without considering iron and mechanical losses) versus the rotor slip.5 0.6 0. Once again.2 0. Fig. Fig. As a consequence.8 1 Figure 19: From equivalent circuit: eﬃciency versus slip considered in the computation. Fig.4 slip 0.

1 No–load test The simulations of no–load test are carried out at zero frequency. Fig. 15 . we take advantage of the symmetry of the machine and only a half of motor is studied. In the same ﬁgure the measured voltage is shown using circles. adopting the same procedures illustrated above. energy (5) and the magnetic energy (4).7–kW 2–pole induction motor. As above the last computation does not make sense. 22 shows the phase ﬂux linkage and the magnetizing inductance as a function of the stator current. Figure 20: Anti–periodicity along the two boundaries 6. 23 shows the phase–to–phase no– load voltage. Fig. At last. 21 shows the corresponding ﬂux plot. 20.6 A second example: a 3. 25 shows the magnetizing inductance computed from ﬂux–linkage. 24 shows the magnetic energy versus the stator current. However. This is possible by imposing an odd periodicity (or an anti– periodicity) along the two boundaries of the machine as illustrated in Fig.7–kW 2–pole induction motor This section reports the simulation of a 3. Figure 21: Map of ﬂux density under no–load test Fig. Fig. in this case. Fig.

5 * int A.No−load test 1.dB 0 0 5 10 15 Stator current (A) 20 25 Figure 24: Energy and coenergy versus stator current 16 .6 0.4 Flux linkage (Vs) Inductance (H) 1.2 1 0.4 0.J Magnetic energy (J) 15 10 5 Wm = int H.8 0.2 0 0 Flux linkage (Vs) Magnetizing inductance (H) 5 10 15 Stator current (A) 20 25 Figure 22: Flux linkage versus stator current No−load test 500 Phase−to−phase voltage (V) 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 Stator current (A) 15 20 Figure 23: Voltage versus stator current No−load test 20 0.

25 0.1 0.dH int A. The lamination iron is assumed to be linear.7 0.J Lmag from Wm 25 Figure 25: Magnetizing inductance versus stator current 6.35 0. Fig.3 0.1 0 0 int H.J 10 20 30 Rotor frequency (Hz) 40 50 Figure 27: Energy versus frequency 17 .2 0.45 0.dB int B. but varying the operating frequency. 26 shows the ﬂux plots during the locked–rotor test at 50 Hz.15 0.4 Magnetizing inductance (H) 0.2 0.No−load test 0.05 0 0 5 10 15 Stator current (A) 20 Lmag from Λ Lmag from A.5 0.3 0.6 Energy (J) and coenergy (J) 0.2 Locked–rotor tests As above these tests are carried out assuming a locked–rotor and imposing a ﬁxed current within the stator slots.4 0. Figure 26: Map of ﬂux density under locked rotor test (50 Hz) Locked rotor test 0.

29 shows the rotor parameters that are obtained from the locked–rotor simulations corresponding to each operating frequency f.8 1 Figure 29: Rotor parameters obtained from locked rotor test Fig. 18 .05 0 0 from Maxwell tensor from rotor losses 10 20 30 Rotor frequency (Hz) 40 50 Figure 28: Torque versus frequency Rotor parameters 60 Resistance (Ω) Reactance (Ω) 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0.6 0.1 0.4 slip 0.3 0. 28 shows the torque computed by means of the Maxwell stress tensor and the rotor Joule losses as a function of the working frequency. using a constant stator current.35 0.25 Torque (Nm) 0.15 0.Locked rotor test 0. Fig. Fig. 27 shows the magnetic energy computed in diﬀerent ways. Finally.2 0.2 0.

8 1 Figure 30: From equivalent circuit: input and output power versus slip From equivalent circuit 50 Torque (Nm) Current (A) 40 30 20 10 Torque (Nm) Current (A) 0. highlighting a good prediction. Fig. the computation of the motor performance is carried out for any given stator voltage.6 0. 32 shows the power factor (cos φ) versus the rotor slip. Fig.8 1 0 0 Figure 31: From equivalent circuit: torque versus slip Fig. Fig. The measured power is reported by means of triangles.4 slip 0. This equivalent circuited is completed adding the stator winding resistance and the end winding leakage inductance. the parameters of the equivalent circuit of the induction motor are obtained.2 0.3 Induction motor performance From the no–load tests and the locked–rotor tests. V =230 V. The measured values are reported using triangles.6 0.2 0. i. 33 shows the motor 19 . From equivalent circuit 18000 16000 Mech and electric power (W) 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 0. 30 shows the electrical power (input power) and the mechanical power (output power) of the motor versus the rotor slip.e. 31 shows the torque produced by the motor and the stator current as a function of the rotor slip. Then. The measured currents are reported by means of circles while the measured torque by means of triangles. .4 slip 0.6. Finally.

4 slip 0.9 0.8 1 Figure 33: From equivalent circuit: eﬃciency versus slip eﬃciency (without considering iron and mechanical losses) versus the rotor slip.4 slip 0.6 0.2 0 0 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.8 Efficiency 0.4 0.2 0.From equivalent circuit 1 0.6 0.3 0 cos φ 0.7 0.6 0.8 1 Figure 32: From equivalent circuit: power factor versus slip From equivalent circuit 1 0. 20 .5 0.6 0.