Design and Analysis of Two Different Line-Start PM
Synchronous Motors
Tianhu Ruan Haipeng Pan Yongming Xia
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering & Automation
Zhejiang Sci-Tech University
Hangzhouˈ China
E-mail: yimi6666@126.com, pan@zstu.edu.cn, xiayongming@gmail.com
Abstract—This paper presents a comparison between two
architectures of line-start permanent magnet motors .It is
focused on the performances in synchronous operation as well as
the self-starting operations. Time stepping finite element analysis
has been used to predict the dynamic and transient performances
of the two prototype motors. It has been found that the motor
with series magnetic circuit structure has yielded an impressive
performance.
Keywords- cogging torque;back EMF; line-start motor; power
factor; efficiency.
I. INTRODUCTION
Induction motors have been widely used because of their
low price, their robustness, and minimum maintenance.
However, the induction motors suffer from poor operational
efficiency and power factor, which waste a lot of energy every
year. While the line-start permanent magnet synchronous
motors (LSPMSM) have both high operational efficiency and
starting capability. Now the performances of permanent
magnet (PM) materials have been highly improved and their
price is decreasing. Thus, permanent magnet synchronous
motors (PMSM) are gradually used in many industrial
applications for their high power factor, high power density,
and efficiency.
Nowadays a growing number of scholars and experts
devote themselves to this research due to the great capability of
the LSPMSM. Many scholars interested in the application of
permanent magnets into the rotor core of the IM to alleviate the
excitation penalty and hence improve the efficiency [1]–
[2].One design of line-start PM motors is given by Knight in
[3], which has an original idea of improving the efficiency and
power factor of PM motors, whereas it is still less than 0.9. The
synchronizing processes have been studied in [4]–[6], which
illustrated the synchronous process and indicated the effective
parameters to starting capability, such as inertia, load torque,
supply voltage. A high efficiency LSPMSM was design and
analysis [7], the transient and steady state performance of the
motor was analysis by using time stepping finite element
analysis method.
Different architectures of the rotor are studied in this paper.
Their performances in steady state and starting operation are
taken into consideration to achieve the required performance.
Two-dimensional (2-D) time-stepping finite element analysis
The Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, P. R. C (No.
Y1110686)
978-1-4577-0536-6/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE
3843
(FEA) models are used to analyze the transient and steady state
performance of the prototype motor. The FEA-predicted
performance of the machine shows that the LSPMSM
prototype has superior efficiency and power factor.
II. PROTOTYPE CONFIGURATION AND DESIGN
This paper studies two different magnetic structures of the
rotor, which can be assembled inside a unique stator.
Throughout this study, the effects of some geometrical and
physical properties on the performances of the line-start PM
motors are highlighted and discussed.
For the purpose to study the effects of the rotor design on
the motor performances, it is interesting to consider the same
stator lamination for the two rotors. It is well known that in
general the design of the stator must be arranged according to
the rotor design to get the best performances of the motor, but
for this application the considered stator lamination is the one
used for the induction motor as before. The used IM is Y100L-
4, which rated power is 2.2kw. The lamination has 36 slots,
155 outer mm diameter, and 98 mm inner diameter.
In order to adapt to different occasions, the rotor resistance
design needs a trade-off. On one hand choose the semi-closed
rotor slot to reduce magnetic flux leakage, On the other hand,
in order to have a good ability to pull the motor into the
synchronous, the design should minimize the rotor resistance
and rotor slots should not be too narrow or too shallow. So we
choose pyriform slots with flat bottom and the slots number are
28, which close to the stator slots number.
Different architectures of the synchronous rotor, mounted
inside a conventional stator of an induction motor, are studied
and compared in Fig. 1. The first motor (a) has parallel
magnetic circuit structure. Parallel magnetic structure has its
own advantages: simple structure, adjacent permanent magnet
provided the magnetic flux for one pole. And the second motor
(b) has a series magnetic circuit structure. This kind of
structure is simple and one permanent magnet provides the
magnetic flux for one pole. The detailed design data for the
proposed motor is presented in Table I.
 employed to compute the performance of the LSPMSMs. Since
Flux barrier the motor operates most of the time as a synchronous motor.
Squirrel cage bar The steady-state performances depend strongly on the back
electromotive force (EMF) and its harmonic contents. These
harmonics depend on the winding design and the geometry of
the rotor. The cogging torque is also an important aspect to be
considered in the design.

A. No-Load EMF Computation

Shaft The back EMF induced by the permanent magnets under
Permanent
magnet
unloaded condition is a key parameter of the LSPMSM in
meeting the simultaneous requirements of high efficiency and
power factor during steady-state operations, and good starting
capability during direct line-start conditions. A nonlinear
` magnetostatic finite-element analysis is performed for the
(a) computation of back EMF. In two-dimensional problems, the
magnetic vector potential formulation is adopted
∂ψ
e( t ) =pΩ (1)
∂θ
Squirrel Where p is the pole pair number, Ω is the synchronous speed,
cage bar and ψ is the phase flux which is computed by using the
Shaft average value of the magnetic vector potential over the stator
slots and the winding arrangement. For a given stator
lamination and winding arrangement, the no-load EMF and
Permanent their harmonic contents are computed for the two rotors. It can
magnet be seen that the motor (b) gives EMF waveform with a higher
amplitude and harmonic level compared with the motor (a) in
Fig. 2.

250
a
(b) 200 b
Figure. 1 Configuration of the rotor 150

100

50
EMF(V)

0
TABLE I. THE DESIGN DATE OF THE LSPMSM MOTORS
-50
Item 0RWRU˄D˅ 0RWRU˄E˅ -100
Stator outer diameter˄mm˅ 155 155
-150
Stator inner diameter˄mm˅  
-200
Axial length˄mm˅ 100 100
-250
Poles   0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Stator slot number Time( ms)

 
Rotor outer diameter˄mm˅  
Figure 2(a).Phase back EMF waveforms.
Rotor inner diameter˄mm˅  
Rotor slot number  
Magnet thickness˄mm˅  
Magnet width ˄mm˅˅  

III. FEA MODELING AND SIMULATION

Although analytical methods are employed widely for
performance prediction of LSPMSMs, they do not normally
yield results with a high level of accuracy. In this paper,
comprehensive 2-D time-stepped FEA models, developed by
the commercial software ANSOFT MAXWELL-2D, are

3844
 is supplied with balanced three-phase voltages at rated
1.2 frequency of 50 Hz and rated voltage of 220 V. Fig. 4 shows
a the predicted dynamic responses when the motor is started at
1.0 b different load conditions. From Fig. 4(a), it is noted that the
motor (a) and motor (b) can be pull into synchronism at around
Harmonics amplitude( pu)

0.8 at 0.15s on no-load conditions, and motor (b) with a smaller

overshoot than motor (a). We can see from Fig. 4(b) that the
0.6 motor (a) presents high oscillations in the starting period, due
to the interaction between the magnets and the stator winding
0.4 current. The two motors all can be pull into synchronism at
around 0.2s. Full loaded starting current waveforms ware
0.2 shown in Fig. (5), it indicted that the starting current of motor
(a) is lager than motor (b).
0.0
0 5 10 15 20
Harmonics

Figure 2 (b) Harmonic contents of back-EMF 600

b a
400

Cogging torque(mNm)
B. Cogging Torque Calculation 200

The cogging torque is an intrinsic drawback of PM motors that

too many researchers have studied and tried to eliminate [8] - 0

[9]. It is a caused by the interaction between the permanent

-200
magnet and the stator teeth. The reduction of the cogging
torque can be achieved thanks to the skewing of the stator -400
lamination with an angle corresponding to the main period of
the cogging torque. And we also can decrease the cogging -600
5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0
torque by changing the parameter of the rotor. For the two Time( ms)
studied rotors the cogging torque depends on one or two
among the three following parameters: the pole arc
Figure.3 Cogging torque waveforms of two motors
coefficients, the number of rotor bars, and the size of the
permanent magnet. These three parameters are optimized in
order to minimize the cogging torque of the motors. Fig. 3
illustrates a comparison of the cogging torque curves of two 2000

motors. We can see from the picture that the maximum Motor( a)

cogging torque of motor (a) is 0.4 Nm, 2.8% of the rated 1500

torque. For all of the motors the cogging torque amplitude is Motor( b)
Speed( rpm)

less than 4% of the rated torque, which is 14N.m.

1000

C. Transient and Steady-State Performances 500

The aim of this study is to highlight the effect of some

physical and geometrical parameters on the performances of 0
the motors. The study will be focused on the starting current 100 200 300 400

and torque in transient state and on the power factor and the Time(m s)

efficiency in steady state operation. In general, the required Figure.4 (a) Speed-time response under no load.
starting performances are a high torque and a low current. It is
evident that reducing the starting current reduces the starting
torque and leads to a bad synchronization of the motor at full
load. So a compromise must be adopted. On the other hand, the
steady-state performances mainly depend on the size of the
magnets. In general, increasing the amount of permanent
magnet the motor will has higher power factor and efficiency,
but this will increase the braking torque which generated by
permanent magnets, resulting in low starting torque motor, or
even can not pull into synchronized. So a compromise must be
adopted between the transient and steady-state performance.
2-D time-stepped finite element method was used to
analyze the transient performance of the prototype. The stator

3845
 2000
1.00
Motor( b)

1500 0.95
Efficiency
Speed( rpm)

1000 Motor( a) 0.90

0.85
500
Power Factor
0.80
0
100 200 300 400
Time( ms) 0.75

Figure.4 (b) Speed-time response under full load.

0.70
12 14 16 18
Magnet width(mm)
60
Motor( a)
40
Motor( b) Figure 6(a). Motor˄a˅power factor, efficiency versus magnet width
20
Phase current( A)

1.00
0

-20
0.95 Efficiency
-40

-60 0.90

-80
0 100 200 0.85
Time( m s)
Power Factor

0.80
Figure.5 Phase current waveforms under full load

Steady-state performance assessments normally consist of 0.75

the armature phase current, efficiency and power factor. In

general, increasing the amount of permanent magnet the will 0.70
2 4 6 8
improve the power factor and efficiency, but this will increase Magnet Thickness(mm)
the braking torque which generated by permanent magnets, Figure 6(b) .Motor˄a˅power factor, efficiency versus magnet thickness
resulting in low starting torque motor, or even can not pull into
synchronized. The FEA models were used to optimize the
magnet size. 1.00
Power Factor
The effects of magnet height and thickness on the motors’
steady-state performance are illustrated in Fig. 6.and Fig.7
respectively .It can be seen from picture that the power factor
improved significantly with the magnet width and thickness. 0.95
Efficiency
The width and thickness of the permanent magnet have little
influence on efficiency, but increases the size of the permanent
magnet will increase the efficiency slightly. Since increase the
volume of permanent magnet motor will increase the back 0.90

EMF, when the back EMF nearly equal to the input voltage, it
can improve the power factor, decreases the current, which
may decrease the motor losses. The increase of width and
thickness of permanent magnets will weaken the motors' 0.85

starting performance, since the braking torque raise with the 24 26 28 30 32

Magnet WIdth(mm)
permanent magnet width and thickness.
Figure 7(a). Motor˄b˅power factor, efficiency versus magnet width

3846
 1.00

Power Factor
CONCLUSION
Two line-start PM motors topologies are studied and the
0.95 effects of some geometrical and physical parameters on their
performances are highlighted and discussed. 2-D time-stepping
FEA models have been employed to predict the steady-state
and transient performances of the motors. The comparisons
0.90 between the two motors demonstrated that motor (b) has a
Efficiency higher power factor and efficiency with minimum cost. At last,
the prototype motor will be built to verify the predictive
parameters obtained from the time stepped finite-element
0.85
computations.
2 3 4 5 6
Magnet Thickness(mm)
REFERENCES
Figure 7(a). Motor˄b˅power factor, efficiency versus magnet thickness
[1] M. A. Rahman and A. M. Osheba, “Performance of large line-start
permanent magnet synchronous motors”IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers.,vol. 5, no. 1, Mar. 1990, pp. 211–217.
[2] Q. F. Lu and Y. Y. Ye, “Design and analysis of large capacity line-start
permanent-magnet motor,” IEEE Trans. Magn.vol. 44, no. 11, Nov.
IV. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TWO MOTORS 2008,pp. 4417–4430.
The comparisons of the performance between the two [3] A. M. Knight and C. I. McClay, ‘‘The design of high-efficiency line-
motors are shown in Table II. It can be seen that the motor (b) start motors,’’ IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat., vol. 36, no. 6, Nov./Dec. 2000,
pp. 1555---1562.
has higher efficiency and power factor than motor (a). The
[4] J. Soulard and H. P. Nee, ‘‘Study of the synchronization of line-start
efficiency of motor (b) is about 1.27% higher than that of permanent magnet synchronous motors,’’ in Proc. IEEE Ind. Applicat.
motor (a), and the power factor is about 0.103 higher than Soc. Annu. Meeting, Roma, Italy, 2000, pp. 424---431.
motor (a). At the same time the motor (b) cost about 0.248 kg [5] V. B. Honsinger, “Permanent magnet machines: Asynchronous
permanent magnet which is less than motor (a). Considering operation,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. 99, no. 7, Jul. 1980.
manufacture costs and performance the motor (b) is more pp.1503–1509.
interesting to analyze and optimize. [6] ]E. Peralta-Sanchez and A. C. Smitch, “Line-start permanent-magnet
machines using a canned rotor,” in Proc. IEEE Trans., Electr. Mach.
Drives Conf., May 2007, vol. 2, pp. 1084–1089.
[7] K.Kurihara and M. Azizur Rahman, “High-efficiency line-start interior
permanet-magnet synchronous motors,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat.,vol.
TABLE II. COMPARISON OF THE TWO MOTORS 40, no. 3, May/Jun. 2004, pp. 789–796.
[8] P. Zhu, S. Ruangsinnchaiwanich, D. Isahak, and D. Howe, “Analysis of
cogging torque in brushless machines having no uniformly distributed
Performance (unit) Motor(a) Motor(b)
stator slots and stepped rotor magnets,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 41,no.
Efficiency 90.93% 92.2% 10, Oct. 2005pp. 3910–3912.
Power factor 0.882 0.985
TS/TR 3.7 3.5 [9] N. Bianchi and S. Bologniani, “Design techniques for reducing cogging
IS/IR 6.16 5.33 torque in surface mountedPM motors,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat.,
Magnet Wight( Kg) 0.293 0.248 vol.38,no.5,Oct.2002.pp.1259–1265.

3847