IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 53, NO.

9, SEPTEMBER 2017 8107712

Analytical Model for Combined Study of Magnet

Demagnetization and Eccentricity Defects in
Axial Flux Permanent Magnet
Synchronous Machines
Jan De Bisschop, Peter Sergeant, Ahmed Hemeida, Hendrik Vansompel, and Luc Dupré
Department of Electrical Energy, Metals, Mechanical Constructions, and Systems, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.

A time-harmonic analytical model is presented for a combined study of demagnetization and rotor eccentricity in single-stator
double-rotor axial flux permanent magnet synchronous machines (AFPMSM). Demagnetization defects are modeled by scaling the
magnetization “square wave” by magnetization factors for each individual magnet on both rotors. Static, dynamic, and mixed rotor
eccentricities are modeled using a permeance function. The original contribution of the model is that asymmetrical defects in the two
air gaps of the machine can be described with acceptable accuracy and limited additional calculation time. The model is validated
with a finite element method and experiments in both healthy and defected operations. Because the model has a short computation
time, it is useful for real-time condition monitoring of any AFPMSM with double air gap and either concentrated or distributed
windings.
Index Terms— Analytical, axial flux permanent magnet synchronous machine (AFPMSM), condition monitoring, demagnetization
faults, eccentricity faults.

I. I NTRODUCTION

A XIAL flux permanent magnet synchronous

machines (AFPMSMs) of the yokeless and segmented
armature (YASA) type have been extensively used in different
applications thanks to their excellent performances [1]–[3].
The YASA machine has one stator and two rotors as shown
in Fig. 1. Just like other electrical machines, AFPMSMs
also suffer from typical machine defects like permanent
magnet demagnetization and rotor eccentricity [4]. In [5],
it is shown that bearing faults (75%) and stator winding
faults (9%) are the main occurring defects in small to medium
low-voltage machines (<150 kW). Bearing faults often lead
to eccentricity. According to this paper (partial), permanent
magnet demagnetization may occur (6%), with the same
causes as in radial flux machines. Condition monitoring
Fig. 1. Single-stator double-rotor YASA AFPMSM used for validation with
systems make an early detection of the possible defects and FEM and experiments.
prevent the fault from progressing and creating more damage
in a machine.
Demagnetization occurs in most cases because the magnets Static eccentricity (SE), dynamic eccentricity (DE), and
are exposed to high temperature. This can lead to partial and mixed eccentricity (ME) exist. SE occurs if the shaft is tilted
even complete demagnetization [6]. Loss of magnetization by a worn bearing so that the minimum air gap position is
leads to loss of performance and possible unbalance. fixed. DE occurs with a bended shaft. The minimum air gap
Eccentricity is mostly a result of bearing failures or shaft position will rotate with the rotor. A combination of both is
deformation. Eccentricity can produce acoustic noise, vibra- called ME.
tion, bearing wear, and torque pulsation. The latter can lead to This paper focuses on combined modeling of two defects:
degraded machine performance and fatigue, resulting in life- (partial) demagnetization of the permanent magnets and rotor
time reduction [7], [8]. If the eccentricity increases, it can eccentricity. The model is a fast and parameterized analytical
finally lead to scraping of the rotor on the stator. model that is useful for real-time condition monitoring.
It is proven that the frequency spectrum [9], the magnetic
Manuscript received January 20, 2017; revised April 1, 2017; accepted
May 14, 2017. Date of publication May 26, 2017; date of current ver- force imbalance [10], and the cogging torque are influenced
sion August 17, 2017. Corresponding author: J. De Bisschop (e-mail: by the defects. In an 8-pole 9-slot radial flux PMSM, 50 % air
jan.debisschop@ugent.be). gap variation by SE increases the peak cogging torque with
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. a factor of 2.4 [11]. In [12], it is shown that in induction
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TMAG.2017.2709267 machines, eccentricity can give rise to extra cage currents.
0018-9464 © 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on October 05,2020 at 12:29:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
8107712 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 53, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2017

II. A LTERNATIVE M ETHODS

Several methods exist in literature to detect eccentricity.
In [13] and [14], flux probes are implemented to detect eccen-
tricity. These probes are good for detecting any asymmetry in
the machine, but extra sensors introduce an extra construction
cost and reduce reliability. Measuring the zero sequence cur-
rent, voltage or impedance is used as well [15], [16]. For this,
an additional current sensor is required as well as a fourth
leg in the converter, again increasing the cost. Zero sequence
component measurements are also sensitive to power supply
unbalance.
Some approaches use a 2-D/3-D finite element
method (FEM) to analyze the current frequency spectrum:
stator current signature analysis [17]–[21]. Here, a frequency
component that reacts well to the defect is chosen as an
indicator for the machine health. Roux et al. [22] combines an
FEM model with a lookup table to identify eccentricity. The
dependence on time-consuming numerical models hinders the Fig. 2. Flowchart of the analytical model.
flexibility of these FEM-based techniques.
Pure analytical approaches have been made for radial flux
machines [8], [23]–[25], but axial flux machines have not been
studied intensively. Corne et al. [26] determines frequency
response functions linking rotor vibrations to stator current
variations to estimate the rotor vibrations and thus the rotor
defects. The analytical model in [7] calculates the cogging
torque and the axial force for an AFPMSM. Although the
Carter factor gives good results in [7], a more accurate
complex permeance function can be used based on conformal
mapping.

III. A NALYTICAL M ODEL

A. Properties and Assumptions of the Analytical Model
The literature lacks an accurate analytical model that makes
combined detection of eccentricity and possible demagnetiza-
tion, for machines with two air gaps. Therefore, a model is
developed with the following properties:
1) Single-stator double-rotor AFPMSM topology with two
air gaps that allows for asymmetrical defects.
2) Combined eccentricity and demagnetization defects.
3) Useful for sensorless fault detection, based on frequency
spectrum of computed back electromotive force (EMF)
and terminal voltages.
4) Short computation time of approximately 1 s.
5) The rotor back-irons are assumed to have an infinite
permeability. The stator permeability is that of real
silicon steel.
The novel proposed technique requires no extra sensors and
is fast enough to be used for real-time monitoring. As the
magnet flux reduction is linked to the magnet temperature,
the (partial) demagnetization detection technique can also be
seen as a virtual temperature sensor. This also allows to
use the machine completely. Detecting the defects enables
condition-based maintenance. In case of defected situations,
the voltage and current waveforms can be adapted to reduce
the consequences of the defect, e.g., torque ripple reduction.
This is called fault prevention. A flowchart of the analytical
model is shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 3. Magnetization pattern of the magnets of the right rotor with
8-pole-pairs in healthy state.
The model is validated on a 3-phase 8-pole pair 15-slot
YASA AFPMSM [2]. It is a fractional slot machine, but the
analytical model is useful for all dual air gap AFPMSMs with
either distributed or concentrated windings.
B. Magnetization of Permanent Magnets Including Defects
The magnetization M is a square wave as shown in Fig. 3.
In a healthy state, the magnetization contains p identical parts,
with p the number of pole pairs. This would suggest a period
of (2π/ p). But in faulty operations, the parts will not neces-
sarily be identical. Therefore, the complete circumference of
the machine is chosen as one period 2Th . Th is a half period.
ω is the pulsation. The space and time variables are x and t,
respectively. The mechanical circumference angle is
π
ϕ= x. (1)
Th
The magnetization of each separate magnet is given by
Brem
Ma = (−1)a Ka (2)
μ0 μr,m

Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on October 05,2020 at 12:29:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
DE BISSCHOP et al.: ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR COMBINED STUDY OF MAGNET DEMAGNETIZATION AND ECCENTRICITY DEFECTS 8107712

Fig. 5. Five-region model for permanent magnet flux density fields.

Fig. 4. Magnetization pattern with partial demagnetization of a number of

magnets in the right rotor with p = 8. The magnetization pattern is chosen
arbitrarily to illustrate the methodology of the magnetization factors.

where Brem is the remanent flux density of the permanent

magnets, μ0 is the permeability of vacuum, μr,m is the relative
permeability of the magnets, a is the magnet number, and K a
is the magnetization factor. Ma is thus the amplitude of the
ath square in the square wave M(ϕ).
The magnetization factor K a has a value between 0 and 1.
Fig. 6. (a) One slot pitch with half of the adjacent stator teeth of the real
Here, 0 represents total demagnetization and 1 represents a stator. (b)One slot pitch of the homogenized model with equal tangential
healthy magnet. With p-pole-pairs and the machine having two reluctance.
rotors, there are 4 p magnets and therefore 4 p magnetization
factors.
The model considers a reduced remanent flux density per occurs, i.e., d2 ∈ [L, R], where L and R refer to the left and
magnet being uniformly distributed in space in the magnet right rotors, respectively, and d3 is the magnetization factor
volume. Evidently, partial demagnetization occurs usually in K a , i.e., 0 ≤ d3 ≤ 1.
a nonuniform way, in a part of the magnet volume [27].
However, as the analytical model is intended for condition
monitoring, it is more important to assess the total flux
reduction than to know exactly which part of the magnets C. PM Flux Density Field
is affected. An example of a partially demagnetized rotor is
The machine is represented in a five-region model. The 2-D
shown in Fig. 4.
calculation plane corresponds with a cylindrical cross section
The above holds for both air gaps. The indexes ‘R’ and ‘L’
of the machine. The radius of the cylinder is large enough so
denote the right and left air gaps. The magnetization wave-
that curvature effects can be neglected. A Cartesian coordinate
forms of Figs. 3 or 4 are written in the following form in the
system is defined on the plane. The circumferential and axial
stator reference frame:
⎧   directions are denoted by x and y, respectively, as shown
⎪ 
+∞
j nπ x +ωnt in Fig. 5. Regions I and II are the magnets and the air gap
⎪ M R (x, t) =
⎨ M R,n e Th ∗
with M R,−n = M R,n
of the right rotor, respectively. Similarly, Regions IV and V
n=−∞  
⎪
⎪ 
+∞
j nπ x +ωnt are the air gap and the magnets of the left rotor, respectively.
⎩ M L (x, t) = M L ,n e Th with M L,−n = M L∗ ,n Region III represents a simplified version of the stator.
n=−∞
(3) Because the internal fluxes in the stator are not needed for
condition monitoring, it would be unnecessarily complicated
M R,n and M L ,n are the Fourier components for the to model the stator in full detail, such as in the subdomain
nth harmonic of the right and left rotors, respectively. This model including slots [29], [30]. In order to simulate the stator
magnetization is then used to simulate the magnetic fluxes properly, a homogenized domain (Region III) with a thickness
in the machine. By carefully choosing the definition of the of 2ε is introduced. The thickness ε is determined such that
magnetization as shown above with the magnetization factors the tangential reluctance of the modeled stator equals that of
as control parameters, demagnetization defects can be imposed the real stator, as shown in Fig. 6. This allows a tangential
in a flexible, fast, and accurate way. leakage flux similar to that of real fluxes. The tangential
A demagnetization defect is denoted by a set of three reluctance of the real stator is calculated using geometric
parameters D = [d1 , d2 , d3 ], where d1 is the magnet number, parameters defined in Fig. 6. This is done by calculating the
i.e., d1 ∈ [1, . . . , 2 p], d2 is the defect side on which the defect three simple reluctances in the slot [Fig. 6(a)] and combining

Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on October 05,2020 at 12:29:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
8107712 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 53, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2017

them in parallel Thus the magnetic flux density is

1 B = μ( M
 + H )
Rtang,real =
(4) (10)
b3
h1 h 2 ln h3
μ0 L ax b1 + b1
b3 −b1 + b3 where μ is the permeability of the material and M is the
magnetization (3). Because the magnets have only an axial
with L ax as the stack height. The tangential reluctance of the magnetization, the magnetization will have only an axial
homogenized domain (Region III) is calculated as (y-direction) component.
2πr There are six boundaries of the regions. The two boundaries
Rtang,model = (5) with the rotor back-irons y = L and y = −L have a condition
Q S μ S εL ax
that the magnetic field impinges the iron perpendicularly. The
with r as the radius, Q S is the number of stator slots, boundary conditions at y = δ, y = ε, y = −ε, and y = −δ
and μ S is the permeability of the real stator. By making enforce continuity of the normal flux density component and
Rtang,real = Rtang,model, using (4) and (5), ε is found the tangential magnetic field component. In total, this results

2πr μ0 h 1 h 2 ln bb31 h3 in ten boundary conditions for each considered harmonic

ε= + + . (6)
Q S μ S b1 b3 − b1 b3
This technique accounts for the presence of stator slots in
the real stator, which are a part of the tangential reluctance,
while simply using an isotropic cylinder with a width of 2ε
in the model.
If assumed that the flux entering the stator at the border
of Region II exits the stator at the border of Region IV
unchanged, then ε = 0, which results in inaccurate calculation
of asymmetrical faults. Therefore, this assumption cannot be
made and ε > 0 is required.
Note that it is not possible to simplify the model by
exploiting symmetry, i.e., by simulating only one rotor, due
to asymmetrical defects. Note also that the model does not
include induced currents in conducting parts such as the
magnets.
Although the effect of the slot leakage flux is accounted for
inside the stator (Region III), the slotting effect is missing in
the air gap flux density patterns. This is corrected later by the
use of a permeance function in Section III-E.
To find the magnetic fields in the regions, the scalar mag-
netic potential  is used. This magnetic potential is obtained
by solving the following differential equation in all regions:
∂ 2 ∂ 2
+ = 0.
∂x2 ∂y 2
Based on [28], the solution of this differential equation for
every region can be written as
⎧ D. Armature Reaction Flux Density Field
⎪  
+∞ nπ y
HxI(x, y)| y=L = 0
HxV(x, y)| y=−L = 0
B yI (x, y)| y=δ = B yII (x, y)| y=δ
HxI(x, y)| y=δ = HxII(x, y)| y=δ
B yII (x, y)| y=ε = B yIII (x, y)| y=ε
HxII(x, y)| y=ε = HxIII (x, y)| y=ε
B yIII (x, y)| y=−ε = B yIV (x, y)| y=−ε
HxIII(x, y)| y=−ε = HxIV(x, y)| y=−ε
B yIV(x, y)| y=−δ = B yV (x, y)| y=−δ
(11)
HxIV(x, y)| y=−δ = HxV(x, y)| y=−δ .
The resulting BPM in the stator reference frame, by tak-
ing (1) into account, is given as
+∞

BPM (ϕ, y, t) = BPM,n e j (nϕ+nωt ) (12)
n=−∞
with the BPM,n as the harmonic components of this magnetic
field derived in Appendix A. n is the harmonic number for
both space and time. This is valid for each region and for
x and y components, i.e., for each equation in (32). Notice
(7) that because of the chosen base period of one rotation, there
is no factor p in the equation.
− nπ y  j nπ x
⎪
⎪ I :  = C e Th
+ C e Th
e Th
⎪
⎪
1 1,n 2,n For the modeling of the armature magnetic field, the method
⎪
⎪ n=−∞
⎪
⎪
⎪  
+∞ nπ y
− nπ y
 j nπ x in [31] is used. Only one air gap is modeled because of
⎪
⎪ II : 2 = C3,n e Th + C4,n e Th e Th machine symmetry in situations with both healthy and demag-
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨
n=−∞
   j nπ x
+∞ nπ y
netized magnets. There is no influence of demagnetization
− nπ y
III : 3 = C5,n e Th + C6,n e Th e Th (8) defects on the armature reaction flux density field, if saturation
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
n=−∞
  is neglected. In Section III-F, the influence of asymmetrical
⎪
⎪ 
+∞ nπ y
− nπ y j nπ x
⎪
⎪IV : 4 = C7,n e Th + C8,n e Th e Th eccentricity defects on the armature flux density field is
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
n=−∞ discussed. A current sheet is placed in the air gap and divides
⎪
⎪
⎪  
+∞ nπ y
− nπ y
 j nπ x
the air gap in Regions I and II, as shown in Fig. 7.
⎩ V : 5 = C9,n e Th + C10,n e Th e Th
n=−∞ The resulting BAR is given as
where C1,n –C10,n are the unknown coefficients of the solution. +∞
 +∞

From this, the magnetic fields can be deduced BAR (ϕ, y, t) = BAR,k,n e j (kϕ+nωt ) (13)
∂ ∂ n=−∞ k=−∞
Hx = − Hy = − . (9)
∂x ∂y with the BAR,k,n derived in Appendix B.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on October 05,2020 at 12:29:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
DE BISSCHOP et al.: ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR COMBINED STUDY OF MAGNET DEMAGNETIZATION AND ECCENTRICITY DEFECTS 8107712

Fig. 7. Two-region model for calculation of armature reaction [31].

Fig. 9. Representation of one stator tooth with adjacent left and right rotors.

Fig. 10. (a) Electrical equivalent circuits of the magnetic situation of Fig. 9,
and (b) simplified circuit of (a).

approximated by
Bair gap,y,L + Bair gap,y,R
B y,av = . (16)
2
This approximation is acceptable because Region III
in Fig. 5 is able to model tangential fluxes in case of demagne-
tization defects. Section IV shows the validation of the model
and proves the acceptability of the approach.
Based on (16), the back EMF of the coils E t can be
calculated.

F. Eccentricity
Fig. 8. Permeance function [32]. (a) Real part λreal . (b) Imaginary part λimag The influence of eccentricity is implemented by correcting
B y,av by means of a permeance function λecc .
1) Simple Flux Density Field Solution: Eccentricity is mod-
E. Magnetic Field Linked With the Stator Coils eled for a simple case in order to find a correct permeance
function. One stator tooth with the adjacent air gap, magnets,
Based on Sections III-C and III-D, the total air gap magnetic
and rotor back-iron is shown in Fig. 9.
flux density becomes
The magnetic circuit can be visualized as an electric equiv-
Bair gap = BPM + BAR (14) alent circuit shown in Fig. 10(a). This circuit can easily be
converted to the circuit in Fig. 10(b) with
where BPM is the flux density of the permanent mag- Fm = φ K RPM (17)
nets and BAR is the flux density of the armature reaction.
In Sections III-C and III-D the stator slotting effect in the air where
gap is not taken into account. φ K = Brem APM . (18)
This is corrected by the use of a permeance function
λ̄(ϕ, y) = λreal (ϕ, y) + j λimag(ϕ, y) [32] as APM is the area of the magnet, RPM is the reluctance of the
magnets, Rg,L and Rg,R are the reluctance of the left and
⎧ the right air gap, respectively, φ K is the remanent flux of the
⎪
⎪ Bair gap,y = BPM,y λreal − BPM,ϕ λimag
⎪
⎨ magnets, Fm,c is the MMF of the stator coils for the fraction
+ BAR,y λreal − BAR,ϕ λimag
(15) of the flux that crosses the air gap, and Fm is the equivalent
⎪
⎪ B = BPM,ϕ λreal + BPM,y λimag
⎪
⎩
air gap,ϕ MMF of the magnets. The influence of eccentricity on the
+ BAR,ϕ λreal + BAR,y λimag slot leakage and end-winding leakage is neglected. The flux
density B of the circuit in Fig. 10(b) can be found by
λreal and λimag are shown in Fig. 8. The above is valid
for both air gaps. Because the stator is constructed symmet- 2Fm + Fm,c
B = μ0 μr . (19)
rically, the average flux density over the stator length can be (μr g L + h m ) + (μr g R + h m )

Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on October 05,2020 at 12:29:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
8107712 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 53, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2017

with λg,L and λg,R as the air gap permeance function of the
left and right air gap, respectively. This gives
Becc = Bhealthyλecc (27)
with
2
λecc = (28)
(λg,L + λg,R )
λecc can also be written as a Fourier series
+∞
 +∞

λecc = λecc,a,v e j (aϕ+vωt ) (29)
Fig. 11. General definitions for rotor eccentricity. θC is the angle to the a=−∞ v=−∞
smallest air gap width gmin for both SE (θCS ) and DE (θCD ).
with a and v as the space and time harmonic number,
respectively. The eccentricity in the machine can be controlled
Here μr is the relative permeance of the magnets. In a by the two eccentricity coefficients (SE and DE) for both air
healthy state, the air gaps g L and g R are the healthy air gaps gaps and their corresponding angles
g0,L = g0,R = g0 of the machine ⎧
⎪
⎪ [ρ S,R ; θCS,R ]
μ0 μr 2Fm + Fm,c ⎪
⎨[ρ
Bhealthy = · . (20) D,R ; θCD,R ]
2 h m + μr g0 (30)
⎪
⎪ [ρ ; θ ]
⎪
⎩
S,L CS,L
2) Air Gap Width Variation Due to Eccentricity: The three [ρ D,L ; θCD,L ].
types of eccentricity SE, DE, and ME can be tackled by the
following formula: An eccentricity defect can be denoted by a set of four
parameters E = [e1 , e2 , e3 , e4 ], where e1 is the defect side,
g = g0 − g,S − g,D (21) i.e., e1 ∈ [L, R] with L and R equal to the left and
where g,S and g,D are the difference in air gap caused by right air gap, respectively, e2 is the type of eccentricity,
SE and DE, respectively, and g is either g L or g R . i.e., e2 ∈ [SE, DE] with SE and DE corresponding with
Fig. 11 shows a machine with an eccentric rotor. Following static and DE, respectively, e3 is the eccentricity coefficient,
equation shows the evolution of the air gap over the circum- i.e., 0 ≤ e3 ≤ 1, and e4 is the angle to the minimum air gap
ferential direction for SE (g,S ) and DE (g,D ): width, i.e., e4 ∈ [0°, 360°].
From the resulting flux density, the flux in the stator
g,S = ρ S g0 rmax
r
· cos(ϕ + θCS ) teeth can be derived. The teeth back EMF, the three phase
(22)
g,D = ρ D g0 rmax
r
· cos(ϕ + θm + ωt + θCD ) back EMF, and the three phase terminal voltages are derived
in Appendix C.
with θCS and θCD as the angle of the position of minimum air
To detect defects, current and voltage waveforms are mea-
gap for SE and DE, respectively, and θm as the mechanical
sured in experiments. An inverse problem minimizes the
angle. The eccentricity coefficient in (22) can be defined as
difference between the measured voltage waveforms and the
gS,max gD,max
ρS = ; ρD = (23) simulated voltage waveforms with the defect information as
g0 g0 unknown parameter. The defect information consists of the
with gS,max and gD,max as g,max for SE and DE, magnetization factors K a and the eccentricity coefficients with
respectively. corresponding angle of (30).
3) Eccentricity Permeance Function: The air gap equations Once the stopping criteria are met, the defect information
are substituted into the simple flux density field solution. shows the magnetization of each magnet, eccentricities type,
From (21) and (22) it can be seen that and degrees on both rotors. The degree of demagnetization
is 1 − K a .
μr g + h m = (μr g0 + h m )λg (24)
with IV. VALIDATION

μr g0 r For validation purposes, an FEM model is made of a
λg = 1−ρ S · cos (ϕ + θCS )
μr g0 + h m rmax 16-pole, 15-slot AFPMSM. The characteristics are shown
μr g0 r in Table I. More information about the machine can be found
− ρD
μr g0 + h m rmax in [2]. The FEM model solves the vector potential differential

equation in a 2-D calculation plane corresponding to cylindri-
· cos (ϕ + θm + ωt + θCD ) (25)
cal cross section of the machine. Because the described defects
are not symmetrical, the FEM includes the complete geometry.
as the permeance function for the air gap. Combining this
The 3-D information is retrieved by combining cutting planes
in (19) with (20) results in
at different radii [31]. One total simulation takes about 24 h
2 of calculation time. In comparison, on the same computer,
Becc = Bhealthy (26)
(λg,L + λg,R ) the analytical model takes less than 1 s.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on October 05,2020 at 12:29:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
DE BISSCHOP et al.: ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR COMBINED STUDY OF MAGNET DEMAGNETIZATION AND ECCENTRICITY DEFECTS 8107712

TABLE I
C HARACTERISTICS AND PARAMETERS OF THE AFPMSM

Fig. 13. Analytical and FEM 3-phase terminal voltages for an 8-pole-pair
15-stator-teeth topology at no-load for a speed of 746 rpm.

Fig. 14. Analytical and experimental single-phase terminal voltage for a

healthy 8-pole-pair 15-stator-teeth topology at no-load for a speed of 746 rpm.

Fig. 12. Analytical and FEM flux density field for a healthy 8-pole-pair
15-stator-teeth topology at full-load as a function of the mechanical
position ϕ.

A. Healthy Operations
Fig. 12 shows the right air gap flux density at full-load for
the healthy machine. At full-load, the rated sinusoidal current
is injected. It shows the flux density field calculated by the pro-
posed analytical model and the FEM model described above. Fig. 15. Analytical and FEM three-phase terminal voltages for a healthy
It can be seen that there is good correspondence between 35-pole-pair 60-stator-slots topology at full-load and the rated speed
of 60 rpm.
the analytical and the numerical flux density field. The
p-th and 3 p-th harmonics have a difference of 1.3% and 3.0%,
respectively.
The analytical and numerical data have a good correspondence
In Figs. 13 and 14, the terminal voltages are validated with
with each other.
FEM and experimentally at no-load situation. The analytical,
numerical, and experimental data give a good agreement.
The model is validated for a different topology as well. B. Demagnetization
This can be seen in Fig. 15. Here the terminal voltages of a In the demagnetized state, the flux density patterns in the
machine with 35-pole-pairs and 60-slots are shown at full-load. air gaps are different. This can be seen in Fig. 16. The caption

Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on October 05,2020 at 12:29:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
8107712
Fig. 16. Analytical and FEM right air gap flux density field at full-load
with demagnetization defects D[3, R, 0.1], D[8, R, 0.2], D[8, L , 0.7], and
D[14, L , 0.4], as a function of the mechanical position ϕ.
Fig. 17. Analytical and FEM three-phase terminal voltages at no-load for a
speed of 746 rpm with a demagnetization defect D[2, R, 0].
gives the details of the demagnetization of the magnets. For
example, D[8, R, 0.2] means that magnet number 8 of the right
rotor has a magnetization of 0.2 times the rated magnetization.
The magnet number has only a relative meaning because
the starting point for counting on a circle can be chosen,
but evidently, D[8, L, 0.7] represents a magnet on the left
rotor that faces magnet number 8 on the right rotor. Here,
the analytical and numerical data show clearly the change
in flux density field by demagnetization and they agree with
each other. The p-th and 3 p-th harmonics have a difference
of 4.8% and 18.1%, respectively.
In Figs. 17 and 18, the terminal voltages are shown at
no-load. The analytical and numerical data are also validated
with experiments. A good correspondence is found as well.
Fig. 17 shows that only one phase at a time is influenced by
the demagnetization. This is because the demagnetized magnet
is passing that one phase in the electrical periods displayed
in Fig. 17. The same influence is visible in different phases
if 8 electrical periods (1 mechanical period) are plotted. The
machine used for the experiments is shown in Fig. 19. It shows
that one magnet is removed from the right rotor to implement
the demagnetization defect D[2, R, 0].
Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on October 05,2020 at 12:29:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 53, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2017
Fig. 18. Analytical and experimental single-phase terminal voltage at no-load
for a speed of 746 rpm with a demagnetization defect D[2, R, 0].
Fig. 19. Experimental setup of the AFPMSM. The red circle shows that one
permanent magnet at the right rotor is missing to apply the demagnetization
defect D[2, R, 0], with measurement results shown in Fig. 18. The figure also
shows eccentricity on the left air gap for visualization purposes, indicated by
the green arrows.
C. Eccentricity
The second possible defect is eccentricity. As explained in
Section III-F, the permeance function is applied to the average
flux density field.
In the experimental setup, DE can be implemented by
changing the position of the rotor discs. This is done through
axial bolts that can be seen on the picture in Fig. 19. To imple-
ment SE, we have to make a small mechanical part (place-
holder) that contains the bearing. This part is inserted inside
the stator. By making this part eccentric, the bearing will be
positioned out of the axial symmetry axis, causing SE. It is
also possible to make two such parts, for each of the two
bearings.
Fig. 20 shows the average flux density field with an
eccentricity defect at full-load. There is a good agreement
between the analytical and numerical data. The p-th and
3 p-th harmonics have a difference of 1.1% and 3.1%,
respectively.
The flux density spikes of 1.6, −1.3, and −1.6 T in the
FEM data are not found in the analytical data because of the
limited number of frequencies used in the analytical model.
Fig. 21 shows the terminal voltages for an eccentricity defect
DE BISSCHOP et al.: ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR COMBINED STUDY OF MAGNET DEMAGNETIZATION AND ECCENTRICITY DEFECTS 8107712

Fig. 23. Analytical frequency data of the first terminal voltage at full-load for
Fig. 20. Analytical and FEM average flux density field at full- the healthy state and the combined demagnetization and eccentricity defect
load with an eccentricity defect of E[R, S E, 0.3, 0°], E[R, D E, 0.5, 90°], of D[3, R, 0.1], D[8, R, 0.2], D[8, L , 0.7], D[14, L , 0.4], E[R, SE, 0.3, 0°],
E[L , S E, 0.6, 45°], and E[L , D E, 0.2, 0°]. E[R, DE, 0.5, 90°], E[L , SE, 0.6, 45°], and E[L , DE, 0.2, 0°].

of the limited number of frequencies used in the analytical

model. Fig. 23 shows a comparison in the frequency domain
of one of the terminal voltages at healthy and defected state.
It shows that the defect introduced subharmonics that can be
monitored in real-time condition monitoring.

V. C ONCLUSION
The purpose of this paper was to propose a fast and accurate
analytical model of AFPMSMs for combined demagnetization
and eccentricity detection, including asymmetry with respect
to the two rotors. The model is validated with FEM and exper-
imental data for healthy machines in no-load and full-load.
As it is parameterized, it is useful for all dual air gap axial flux
Fig. 21. Analytical and Experimental three-phase terminal voltages at no-load machines, with either distributed or concentrated windings,
for a speed of 500 rpm with an eccentricity defect E[R, DE, 0.33, 180°].
as different topologies also give a good correspondence. It is
shown with examples that the model is accurate with demag-
netization and eccentricity defects. The accuracy reaches 1.0%
for the p-th harmonic, which is the most dominant harmonic
in a machine with p-pole-pairs. Because of its low CPU
time of approximately 1 s, its applicability to any AFPMSM
without any additional sensor inputs; it can be used for online
condition monitoring of AFPMSMs on existing machines.
Only the geometrical and electromagnetic parameters have
to be adjusted to correspond with the considered machine.
To detect defects, an inverse problem minimizes the difference
between the measured voltage waveforms and the simulated
Fig. 22. Analytical and FEM average flux density field at full- voltage waveforms, with the defect information as unknown
load with a combined demagnetization and eccentricity defect of parameter using the proposed accurate analytical model. This
D[3, R, 0.1], D[8, R, 0.2], D[8, L , 0.7], D[14, L , 0.4], E[R, SE, 0.3, 0°],
E[R, DE, 0.5, 90°], E[L , SE, 0.6, 45°], and E[L , DE, 0.2, 0°]. actual detection is the subject of further research.
A PPENDIX A
of E[R, DE, 0.33, 180°]. There is a good correspondence Using (8), (9), and (10) in (11), the following system of
between the analytical and the experimental data. equations is found for the nth harmonic:
⎧
⎨C e nπThL + C e− nπThL = 0
D. Combined Eccentricity and Demagnetization 1,n 2,n
⎩C e− nπThL + C nπ L
10,n e h = 0
T
Fig. 22 shows a combination of a demagnetization defect 9,n
⎧ nπ δ
and an eccentricity defect. Again the average flux density field ⎪ − nπ δ nπ δ
⎪
⎪ C1,n μmThnπ e Th − C2,n μmThnπ e Th − C3,n μmThnπ e Th
at full-load is shown. The p-th and 3 p-th harmonics have ⎪
⎪
⎨ − nπ δ
a difference of 1.0% and 3.8%, respectively. Even in mixed +C4,n μ0Tnπ e Th
= μm M R,n
ε h ε nπ ε
defects, the analytical and numerical data agree with each ⎪C μ e nπ
⎪ − μ
− nπ
− μ
⎪
⎪ 3,n 0
Th
C 4,n 0 e Th
C 5,n S e Th
other. The flux density spikes of 1.6, −1.3, and −1.6 T in the ⎪
⎩ − nπ ε

FEM data are again not found in the analytical data because +C6,n μ S e Th = 0

Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on October 05,2020 at 12:29:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
8107712 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 53, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2017

⎧
⎪ − nπ ε nπ ε
− nπ ε
⎪
⎪ C5,n μ S e Th − C6,n μ S e Th − C7,n μ0 e Th This gives the magnetic flux density in the machine induced
⎪
⎪ nπ ε
⎨ +C8,n μ0 e Th = 0 by the permanent magnets only. So this is the no-load field
− nπ δ
− nπ δ nπ δ without slots and without eccentricities. The latter will be
⎪
⎪
⎪ −C7,n μ0Tnπ e Th + C8,n μ0Tnπ e Th + C9,n μmThnπ e Th included in Section III-F. The solutions can be written as
⎪
⎪
h
δ
h
⎩ nπ
+C10,n μmThnπ e Th = μm M L ,n a Fourier series with one mechanical rotation as the base
nπ δ period again. This period is chosen because in defected state,
− nπ δ nπ δ
− nπ δ
C1,n e Th + C2,n e Th − C3,n e Th − C4,n e Th = 0 the machine’s magnetic field in the p-pole-pairs will not be
nπ ε ε nπ ε ε
− nπ − nπ identical.
C3,n e Th
+ C4,n e Th − C5,n e Th
− C6,n e Th =0
− nπ ε nπ ε
− nπ ε nπ ε
C5,n e Th
+ C6,n e Th
− C7,n e Th
− C8,n e Th
=0 A PPENDIX B
δ nπ δ δ nπ δ
− nπ − nπ The current sheet is written as
C7,n e T h + C8,n e Th
− C9,n e T h − C10,n e
= 0. Th
+∞  +∞
(31) 
K A (ϕ, t)= K A,k,n e j (kϕ+nωt ) . (33)
Here μ S and μm are the permeability of the stator and the n=−∞ k=−∞
magnets, respectively. By solving this system of ten equations Here K A,k,n is a set of harmonic components in both space
and ten unknowns, the unknown parameters C1,n –C10,n and and time and k and n are the harmonic number in space and
therefore the solution of the scalar potential  in every time, respectively. The base period for space and time is again
region are found. With (9) and (10), the magnetic flux density one mechanical revolution of the machine.
BPM (x, y) can be found in every region With this current sheet, the vector potential A is calculated
⎧
⎪  
+∞ ⎧
 +∞
+∞ 
k 
 
⎪
⎪ BPM,yI (x, y) = μm M R,n − μmThnπ ⎪
⎪ (ϕ, = −μ r cosh r (y2 −y1 )
cosh kr y
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ A I y, t) 0k
⎪
⎪
n=−∞
  j nπ x ⎪
⎪ n=−∞ k=−∞
k
sinh r y2
⎪
⎨
nπ y
− nπ y ⎪
⎨
× C1,n e Th −C2,n e Th e Th × K A,k,n e j (kϕ+nωt ) k 
⎪ 
+∞  y ⎪  +∞
+∞   
⎪B
⎪ (x, = − j μm nπ
nπ y
+C
− nπ ⎪
⎪ A (ϕ, y, t) = −μ r cosh  r y1
cosh kr (y2 − y)
⎪
⎪ PM,xI y) C 1,n e Th
2,n e Th
⎪
⎪ II 0k
⎪ Th
⎪
k
sinh r y2
⎪
⎪
n=−∞ ⎪
⎩
n=−∞ k=−∞
⎩ j nπ x
× K A,k,n e j (kϕ+nωt ) .
× e Th
⎧  y
(34)
⎪ 
+∞
μ0 nπ
nπ y
− nπ
⎪
⎪ B (x, y) = − C e Th
−C e Th
Here, r is the radius. The magnetic field becomes
⎪
⎪
PM,yII Th 3,n 4,n
⎪
⎪ n=−∞
⎪
⎨ j nπ x 1 ∂A 1 ∂A
× e Th Hϕ = ; Hz = − (35)
 nπ y 
μ0 ∂y r μ0 ∂ϕ
⎪ BPM,xII (x, y) =  − j μ0 nπ C3,n e Th +C4,n e− Th
⎪ +∞ nπ y
⎪
⎪ and the magnetic flux density is then
⎪
⎪
Th
⎪
⎪
n=−∞
⎩ B = μ H .
j nπ x
× e Th (36)
⎧  y
The magnetic flux density for the armature reaction derived
⎪ 
+∞
μs nπ
nπ y
− nπ
⎪
⎪ B (x, y) = − C e Th
−C e Th from this is
⎪
⎪
PM,yIII T h
5,n 6,n
⎧  
⎪
⎪ n=−∞  +∞
+∞  k 
⎪
⎨ j nπ x ⎪
⎪ = μ
cosh kr (y2 −y1 )
 
× e Th ⎪
⎪ B AR,yI j 0 cosh ry
 ⎪
⎪
k
sinh r y2
nπ y 
n=−∞ k=−∞
⎪
⎪ B[PM],xIII (x, y) =  − j μs nπ C5,n e Th +C6,n e− Th
⎪ +∞ nπ y ⎨
⎪ × K A,k,n e j (kϕ+nωt )  
⎪
⎪ T
⎪
⎪ n=−∞
h
⎪  +∞
+∞  cosh kr (y2 −y1 )  
⎪
⎩ j nπ x ⎪
⎪ BAR,ϕI = −μ0   sinh kr y
× e Th ⎪
⎪
⎪
k
sinh y
⎪
⎩
n=−∞ k=−∞ r 2
⎧  y × K A,k,n e j (kϕ+nωt )
⎪ 
+∞ nπ y
− nπ
⎪
⎪ BPM,yIV (x, y) =
⎪ − μ0Tnπ C e Th
−C e Th ⎧  
 
⎪
⎪
h
7,n 8,n
⎪  +∞
+∞  cosh kr y1
⎪
⎪
n=−∞ ⎪
⎪ B = j μ   cosh kr (y2 − y)
⎨ j nπ x ⎪
⎪
AR,yII 0 k
× e Th ⎪
⎪ n=−∞ k=−∞ sinh r y2
 y
⎨ × K A,k,n e j (kϕ+nωt )
⎪
⎪ 
+∞
j μ0 nπ
nπ y
− nπ  
⎪
⎪ B PM,xIV (x, y) = − C 7,n e Th
+C 8,n e Th
⎪  
+∞ +∞ cosh kr y1  
⎪
⎪
Th ⎪
⎪ BAR,ϕII = μ0   sinh kr (y2 − y)
⎪
⎪
n=−∞
⎪
⎪
⎩ j nπ x
⎪
⎪ n=−∞ k=−∞ sinh k
y
r 2
× e Th ⎩
⎧ × K A,k,n e j (kϕ+nωt ) .
⎪  
+∞
⎪
⎪ PM,yV
B (x, y) = μm M L ,n − μmThnπ (37)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
n=−∞
  j nπ x
⎪
⎨
nπ y
− nπ y
× C9,n e Th −C10,n e Th e Th A PPENDIX C
⎪ 
+∞  y From the average flux density field, the flux in every stator
⎪
nπ y
j μm nπ − nπ
⎪
⎪ B (x, y) = − C e Th
+C e Th
tooth ϕc with tooth number c may be written as
⎪
⎪
PM,xV T h
9,n 10,n
⎪
⎪
n=−∞
  γc+1
⎩ j nπ x
sn
× e Th . ϕc (t) = B y,av d S = tcprs B y,av,s dϕ (38)
(32) S s=0 γc

Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on October 05,2020 at 12:29:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
DE BISSCHOP et al.: ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR COMBINED STUDY OF MAGNET DEMAGNETIZATION AND ECCENTRICITY DEFECTS 8107712

where S is the area of the stator tooth at the air gap, s is the If the armature electrical circuit and the slot and
index of the calculation plane through the stator tooth, sn is the end-winding flux leakage based on [33] and [34] are taken
total number of calculation planes, tcp is the radial thickness into account as leakage inductance (L σ ), the terminal voltages
of a calculation plane, γc and γc+1 are the angles of the two for each Fourier component become
slots around this tooth, and B y,av is the average flux density
field for one calculation plane as described in (16). If in this Vterm,ph,l = E phase,ph,l − (Ra + jlωL σ )Iph,l (43)
equation, the components are inserted in Fourier form, this where Ra is the armature resistance, Iph,l is the l t h harmonic
leads to component of the injected phase current, and ph is the phase
+∞
 +∞
 +∞
 +∞
 number.
B y,av (ϕ, y, t) =
n=−∞ q=−∞ a=−∞ v=−∞
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
× (BPM,y,av,n λreal,q − BPM,x,av,n λ Pimag,q )
The authors are also member of UGent EEDT - Research
× λecc,a,v e j ((n+q+a)ϕ+(n+v)ωt ) Cluster Energy Efficient Drive Trains, and Flanders Make,
+∞ 
 +∞ +∞
 +∞
 +∞
the strategic research center for the manufacturing industry.
+ This work was supported by the Special Research Fund
k=−∞ q=−∞ n=−∞ a=−∞ v=−∞
“Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds” of Ghent University.
× (BAR,y,av,k,n λreal,q − BAR,x,av,k,n λimag,q )
× λecc,a,v e j ((k+q+a)ϕ+(n+v)ωt ). (39) R EFERENCES
Here q is the harmonic number of the slot permeance [1] F. Giulii Capponi, G. De Donato, and F. Caricchi, “Recent
function in space. The back EMF of every tooth can be advances in axial-flux permanent-magnet machine technology,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 2190–2205,
found by Nov./Dec. 2012.
+∞ +∞ [2] H. Vansompel, P. Sergeant, L. Dupré, and A. van den Bossche, “Axial-
  flux PM machines with variable air gap,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
E tooth,c (t) = −N j (n + v)ωϕc,n,v e j (n+v)ωt . (40) vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 730–737, Feb. 2014.
n=−∞ v=−∞ [3] T. J. Woolmer and M. D. McCulloch, “Analysis of the yokeless
and segmented armature machine,” in Proc. Int. Electr. Mach. Drives
Here N is the number of turns. By inserting (39) in (38) Conf. (IEMDC), vol. 1. May 2007, pp. 704–708.
and calculating (40), the back EMF in a tooth results in [4] S. M. Mirimani, A. Vahedi, and F. Marignetti, “Effect of inclined
static eccentricity fault in single stator-single rotor axial flux permanent
+∞
 +∞
 magnet machines,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 143–149,
E tooth,c (t) = −tcp ωN(n + v) Jan. 2012.
[5] P. J. Tavner, “Review of condition monitoring of rotating electrical
n=−∞ v=−∞
⎡ machines,” IET Electr. Power Appl., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 215–247, Jul. 2008.
 +∞
sn  +∞
 [6] R. Fratila, A. Benabou, A. Tounzi, and J. C. Mipo, “Nonlinear modeling
·⎣ (BPM,y,av,n,s λreal,q,s of magnetization loss in permanent magnets,” IEEE Trans. Magn.,
vol. 48, no. 11, pp. 2957–2960, Nov. 2012.
s=0 q=−∞ a=−∞ [7] F. Marignetti, A. Vahedi, and S. M. Mirimani, “An analytical approach
− BPM,x,av,n,s λimag,q,s ) to eccentricity in axial flux permanent magnet synchronous generators
rs for wind turbines,” Electr. Power Compon. Syst., vol. 43, nos. 8–10,
· λecc,a,v,s pp. 1039–1050, 2015.
n+q+a [8] A. Rahideh and T. Korakianitis, “Analytical open-circuit magnetic field
× (e j (n+q+a)γc+1 − e j (n+q+a)γc ) distribution of slotless brushless permanent-magnet machines with rotor
eccentricity,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 4791–4808,
sn  +∞  +∞ +∞
 Dec. 2011.
+ (BAR,y,av,k,n,s λreal,q,s [9] J.-C. Urresty, J.-R. Riba, M. Delgado, and L. Romeral, “Detection of
s=0 k=−∞ q=−∞ a=−∞
demagnetization faults in surface-mounted permanent magnet synchro-
nous motors by means of the zero-sequence voltage component,” IEEE
− BAR,x,av,k,n,s λimag,q,s ) Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 42–51, Mar. 2012.
rs [10] S. Li, Y. Li, and B. Sarlioglu, “Rotor unbalanced magnetic force in
· λecc,a,v,s flux-switching permanent magnet machines due to static and dynamic
k+q +a
 eccentricity,” Electr. Power Compon. Syst., vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 336–342,
Feb. 2016.
× (e j (k+q+a)γc+1 − e j (k+q+a)γc ) e j (n+v)ωt . [11] U. Kim and D. K. Lieu, “Effects of magnetically induced vibration force
in brushless permanent-magnet motors,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 41,
no. 6, pp. 2164–2172, Jun. 2005.
(41) [12] C. Bruzzese, “Diagnosis of eccentric rotor in synchronous machines
by analysis of split-phase currents—Part I: Theoretical analysis,” IEEE
The time indexes n and v and their corresponding Fourier Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 61, no. 8, pp. 4193–4205, Aug. 2014.
components can easily be converted to one time index l by [13] M. Sasic, G. C. Stone, J. Stein, and C. Stinson, “Detecting turn shorts
adding the Fourier components together with l = n + v in rotor windings: A new test using magnetic flux monitoring,” IEEE
Ind. Appl. Mag., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 63–69, Mar. 2013.
+∞
 [14] S. M. Mirimani, A. Vahedi, F. Marignetti, and R. Di Stefano, “An online
method for static eccentricity fault detection in axial flux machines,”
E tooth,c = E tooth,c,l e j lωt . (42) IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 1931–1942, Mar. 2015.
l=−∞ [15] Y. Da, X. Shi, and M. Krishnamurthy, “A new approach to fault
diagnostics for permanent magnet synchronous machines using elec-
The back EMF of the phases can be derived from the back tromagnetic signature analysis,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 28,
EMF of the stator coils by the Star of Slot technique [35]. no. 8, pp. 4104–4112, Aug. 2013.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on October 05,2020 at 12:29:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
8107712
[16] J.-C. Urresty, J.-R. Riba, and L. Romeral, “A back-EMF based method
to detect magnet failures in PMSMs,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 49, no. 1,
pp. 591–598, Jan. 2013.
[17] T. Goktas, M. Zafarani, and B. Akin, “Discernment of broken magnet
and static eccentricity faults in permanent magnet synchronous motors,”
IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 578–587, Jun. 2016.
[18] J.-K. Park and J. Hur, “Detection of inter-turn and dynamic eccentricity
faults using stator current frequency pattern in IPM-type BLDC motors,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 1771–1780, Mar. 2016.
[19] S. M. Mirimani, A. Vahedi, F. Marignetti, and E. De Santis, “Sta-
tic eccentricity fault detection in single-stator–single-rotor axial-flux
permanent-magnet machines,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 48, no. 6,
pp. 1838–1845, Nov./Dec. 2012.
[20] M. Zafarani, T. Goktas, and B. Akin, “A comprehensive analysis of
magnet defect faults in permanent magnet synchronous motors,” in Proc.
Appl. Power Electron. Conf. Expo. (APEC), Mar. 2015, pp. 2779–2783.
[21] J. Zhang, J. Hang, and M. Cheng, “Diagnosis of mechanical unbalance
fault in permanent magnet synchronous machine drives,” Electr. Power
Compon. Syst., vol. 44, no. 12, pp. 1408–1417, 2016.
[22] W. Le Roux, R. G. Harley, and T. G. Habetler, “Detecting rotor faults
in low power permanent magnet synchronous machines,” IEEE Trans.
Power Electron., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 322–328, Jan. 2007.
[23] U. Kim and D. K. Lieu, “Magnetic field calculation in permanent magnet
motors with rotor eccentricity: Without slotting effect,” IEEE Trans.
Magn., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 2243–2252, Jul. 1998.
[24] U. Kim and D. K. Lieu, “Magnetic field calculation in permanent magnet
motors with rotor eccentricity: With slotting effect considered,” IEEE
Trans. Magn., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 2253–2266, Jul. 1998.
[25] H. Mahmoud and N. Bianchi, “Eccentricity in synchronous reluctance
motors—Part I: Analytical and finite-element models,” IEEE Trans.
Energy Convers., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 745–753, Jun. 2015.
[26] B. Corne, C. Debruyne, P. De Baets, and J. Desmet, “Stator current
measurements as a condition monitoring technology—The-state-of-the-
art,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Elect. Mach. (ICEM), Sep. 2014, pp. 1659–1665.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Consortium - Algeria (CERIST). Downloaded on October 05,2020 at 12:29:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 53, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2017
[27] X. Tang and X. Wang, “Calculation of magnets’ average operating
point during the starting process of line-start permanent magnet syn-
chronous motor,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Elect. Mach. Syst. (ICEMS), 2014,
pp. 2147–2150.
[28] T. F. Chan, L. L. Lai, and S. Xie, “Field computation for an axial
flux permanent-magnet synchronous generator,” IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 1–11, Mar. 2009.
[29] B. Hannon, P. Sergeant, and L. Dupré, “2-D analytical subdomain model
of a slotted PMSM with shielding cylinder,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 50,
no. 7, pp. 1–10, Jul. 2014.
[30] Y. Yang, B. Yan, N. Wang, and X. Wang, “Analytical prediction of
electromagnetic performance of vernier machine with rotor eccentric-
ity,” Electr. Power Compon. Syst., vol. 44, no. 15, pp. 1693–1706,
2016.
[31] H. Vansompel, P. Sergeant, and L. Dupré, “A multilayer 2-D–2-D
coupled model for eddy current calculation in the rotor of an axial-flux
PM machine,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 784–791,
Sep. 2012.
[32] D. Žarko, D. Ban, and T. A. Lipo, “Analytical calculation of magnetic
field distribution in the slotted air gap of a surface permanent-magnet
motor using complex relative air-gap permeance,” IEEE Trans. Magn.,
vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 1828–1837, Jul. 2006.
[33] J. Pyrhonen, T. Jokinen, and V. Hrabovcova, Design of Rotating Elec-
trical Machines. West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley, 2008.
[34] H. Jussila, “Concentrated winding multiphase permanent magnet
machine design and electromagnetic properties-case axial flux machine,”
Lappeenranta Univ. Technol., Lappeenranta, Finland, 2009.
[35] N. Bianchi and M. Dai Pré, “Use of the star of slots in design-
ing fractional-slot single-layer synchronous motors,” IEE Proc.-Electr.
Power Appl., vol. 153, no. 3, pp. 459–466, May 2006.
[36] A. Di Gerlando, G. M. Foglia, M. F. Iacchetti, and R. Perini, “Evaluation
of manufacturing dissymmetry effects in axial flux permanent-magnet
machines: Analysis method based on field functions,” IEEE Trans.
Magn., vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 1995–2008, Jun. 2012.