1

Evaluation of Direct Current, Permanent Magnet

Synchronous, and Induction Machines: Comparative
Analysis for Automotive Propulsion.
C.E. Hazeu
c.e.hazeu@student.tue.nl, ID 1732315

Abstract—This paper concerns the differences and similari- TABLE I

ties among three electric machines: a direct current (DCM), PARAMETERS OF S IEMENS GG5104 DCM
a permanent magnet synchronous machine (PMSM), and an
induction machine (IM). Each machine is modeled in MATLAB Quantity Symbol Value Unit
and compared against empirical measurements from a laboratory Maximum Field Voltage Vf,max 310 V
setting. The results highlight the high efficiency of PMSMs Maximum Field Current If,max 0.8 A
and IMs relative to DCMs. Notably, the efficiency of the IM Maximum Armature Voltage Va,max 606 V
shows significant variance from the model, with a maximum Maximum Armature Current Ia,max 0.48 A
average discrepancy of 13.79%, contrasting with 2.56% for the Motor Constant Kϕp 0.9724 Vs/rad
DCM and 1.05% for the PMSM. Despite this, both the PMSM
and IM exhibit sufficient efficiency and robust torque across Rs
j ωLs
their operating ranges, making them suitable for automotive Ia
propulsion systems

I. I NTRODUCTION
global landscape is rapidly undergoing transformation
T HE
through the expansion of electrification, as society places,
driven by the growing emphasis on improving the efficiency
of various processes and systems for enhanced convenience.
A crucial facet of this evolution lies in the widespread
integration of electric motor-generator technology, particularly
in automobiles, which stand at the forefront of this transition.
Despite ongoing efforts across industries to optimize the
design and operation of motors and generators, achieving near
100% efficiency remains an elusive goal. This paper delves
into the characteristics and performance of these machines,
drawing insights from tests performed, alongside theoretical
analyses and equations.
The approach of this paper involves constructing models
for each machine and comparing them to real-world mea-
surements. This comprehensive analysis aims to shed light on
the efficiency and power factor of a direct-current (DCM),
permanent-magnet synchronous (PMSM) and induction (IM)
machine, providing valuable conclusions to broaden the under-
standing and performance of electric motor-generator systems.
With the findings, a recommendation can be given for what
type of motor suits for different automotive propulsion system,
as every vehicle type has its own set of needs.
To address the gap between experimental and simulation
results, an error analysis will be conducted. This analysis,
Lab 1: setup 1#, Koen Verhoof
Lab 2: setup 1#, Koen Verhoof
Lab 3: setup 3#, Koen Verhoof
V an Ef
Fig. 1. Circuit diagram of a direct current and permanent magnet synchronous
machine.
backed by equations, will be briefly introduced in subsequent
sections.
II. M ACHINE A NALYSIS AND E XPERIMENTAL S ETUP
Electric machines, depending on their type, have distinct
characteristics, each with its own set of advantages and disad-
vantages.
A. Direct current machine
For the analysis of the DC machine, the 5.15 kW Siemens
GG5104 separately excited DC machine is used to perform
measurements with. Before an analysis can be performed,
the parameters of the machine need to be determined first
(the machine constant Kϕp , armature resistance Ra and field
resistance Rf ). The parameters are given in table III. The DC
machine is connected to a PMSM by a shaft to let the machine
be able to operate in both motor and generator mode.
The electromotive force E needs to be determined to
calculate efficiency. In motor operation, this is done with the
following equation:
E = Vt − Ra Ia (1)
where Vt is the terminal voltage in volts, Ra is the armature
resistance in ohms, and Ia is the armature current in amperes.
2

The armature resistance Ra of the DC machine can be TABLE II

determined using the obtained motor constant. This involves PARAMETERS OF S IEMENS SEM HJ116J6-130S PMSM
measuring the terminal voltage during constant speed with a
Quantity Symbol Value Unit
constant current supplied to the armature winding.
Synchronous inductance Ls 4.75 mH
The DCM is now operating as a generator, the PMSM works Stator resistance Rs 0.85 Ω
as a motor that turns the shaft at a constant speed. With a Number of poles p 6 -
given constant electromotive force E and motor speed ωm in Maximum rms phase current Iph,max 7.8 A
Maximum rms phase voltage Vph−n,max 286 V
radians per second, the motor constant of the DC machine is
determined by:
E
Kϕp = (2)
ωm
Va Ia
When the machine constant is obtained, the developed ηgenerator = × 100% (10)
Ps + Pf
torque Td (Nm) can be calculated with:
Ps
Td = Kϕp Ia (3) ηmotor = × 100% (11)
Va Ia + Pf
The combined friction torque is calculated using the
Coulomb and viscous constants: When the DC machine is in generator operation, Pout
represents the electrical power, Pin the shaft power, and Pf
TFW,tot = p1 ωm + p2 (4) the power lost in the field windings. In motor operation,
the numerator and denominator of the equation are switched
The constants p1 , representing the Coulomb constant, and around, except for Pf , as the field-winding power is always
p2 , representing the viscous constant, are obtained via the accounted for as a loss.
MATLAB fit function.
The total friction torque (TFW,tot ) is the sum of all the friction
torques from the DC machine (TFW,DCM ) and the AC machine B. Permanent magnet synchronous machine
(TFW,ACM ): The Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machine, or PMSM
for short, used for measurements is the 3.0 kW SEM HJ116J6-
TFW,tot = TFW,DCM + TFW,ACM (5) 130S. When comparing the PMSM to the DCM, there are
This suggests that the contribution of the DC machine’s several differences. Starting with the input current, which must
friction to the overall friction is only partial. Under the be alternating for a PMSM, in contrast to the direct current
assumption that the DC machine’s friction torque contributes a DCM uses. The working principle of the PMSM is also
approximately 80% of the total friction torque, the equation fundamentally different from that of the DCM, as the PMSM
for TFW,DCM is given as: operates as a three-phase machine. The frequency of the stator
currents and voltages must be in phase with the speed of
TFW,DCM = 0.8(p1 ωm + p2 ) (6) the rotor; therefore, the PMSM is also called a synchronous
machine.
The shaft torque (Ts ) can then be determined by subtracting The performance of the PMSM is determined by the flux
the friction torque from the developed torque: linkage between the permanent magnet inside the rotor and
the stator coils.
Ts = Td − TFW,DCM (7) Ef
λm = cos(ωt) (12)
ω
Hereafter, the shaft power (Ps ) of the DC machine can
Ef is the electromotive force, or EMF, and ω represents the
easily be determined by:
electric frequency in Hz, obtained by:
Ps = Ts ωm (8) ω = 2πf (13)
Additionally, power is dissipated in the field windings due 2
to the separate excitation of the DC machine. This loss must ωm = ω (14)
p
also be considered:
Where, p represents the number of poles, and ωm the
mechanical speed of the rotor.
Pf = V f I f (9)
The developed torque can be derived from the developed
The DC machine is able to operate in two modes: as a motor power and the mechanical speed. Due to the three-phase
and as a generator, leading to different efficiency equations. system, the developed torque must be multiplied three times.
When both Td and Ts are negative, the machine operates as
3Pd 3Ef Ia cos(β)
a generator. Conversely, when both the shaft and developed 3Td = = (15)
torque are positive, the machine operates as a motor. For ωm ωm
other values, the efficiency is considered zero. The efficiency Where Pd represents the developed power, and β the angle
equations are as follows: between Ef and Ia .
 3

TABLE III The motor, or rotor speed, is dependent on the synchronous

3.0 K W SEW DRE100L2/FI/EV7C IM speed and the slip. This synchronous speed can be obtained
by:
Quantity Symbol Value Unit 2
Maximum Field Voltage Vf,max 310 V
ωs = ω (23)
p
Maximum Field Current If,max 0.8 A
Maximum Armature Voltage Va,max 606 V where p represents the number of poles. The IM is frequency
Maximum Armature Current Ia,max 0.48 A controlled, which implies that the supply voltage changes
Motor Constant Kϕp 0.9724 Vs/rad
Magnetizing Inductance Lm 0.407 H proportionally with the frequency f [Hz] of the supply voltage:
Stator Leakage Inductance Ll1 7.984 mH
Stator Resistance R1 1.985 Ω Van = af + b (24)
Rotor Leakage Inductance L′l2 11.976 mH
Rotor Resistance R2′ 1.5884 Ω
Here, a and b represent constants. The inclusion of an offset
Maximum RMS Phase Current Iph,max 5.5 A term b serves the purpose of compensating for the winding
Maximum RMS Phase Voltage Vph−n,max 230 V resistance at lower frequencies.
For the calculation of the developed torque of the IM,3Td ,
the currents I1 and I2′ are variables that need to be obtained
The friction torque for AC machines is assumed to be 20%, first. From table III, the total equivalent impedance of the
which leads to the following equation: circuit can be derived, from which I1 and I2′ can be derived.
TF W,ACM = 0.2(p1 ωm + p2 ) (16) jωLm (jωL2 + R2 /s)
Zeq = R1 + jωL1 + (25)
jωLm + (jωL2 + R2′ /s)
As result, the shaft torque can be represented by: Van
I1 = (26)
Ts = 3Td − TF W,ACM (17) Zeq
Now that I1 is known, Im and I2′ can be obtained. With the
With Ts , Ps can be calculated in the same manner as done
voltage at the node where I1 is split into Im and I2′ , which
with the DCM calculations.
can now be determined by:
The remaining parameters to be acquired include the phase
voltage and the power factor. Vnode = Van − I1 (R1 + jωL1 ) (27)
Van = Ef + Ia (Rs + jωLs ) (18) Vnode
I2 = (28)
jωL2 + R2′ /s
P F = cos(Ia ) (19)
With all the found parameters, the developed torque and
Where Rs represents the stator resistance and Ls the stator shaft torque of the IM can be derived. The friction TF W,IM
inductance in Henry. The power factor is obtained by using is obtained with the same equation as done with the PMSM
the angle of Ia . as shown in equation (16).
Like in the DCM, the operating modes are the same for both
Ts and Td positive yielding in a motor operation, and negative 3Td = 3(I2′ )2 R0′ ωs (29)
yielding in a generator operation. Hereby the efficiency of the Ts = 3Td − TFW,IM (30)
PMSM can be calculated by:
The efficiency of the IM can be found by:
3Van Ia P F 3Van I1 PF
ηgenerator = × 100% (20) ηgenerator = × 100% (31)
Ps Ps
Ps Ps
ηmotor = × 100% (21) ηmotor = × 100% (32)
3Van Ia P F 3Van I1 PF
Ps is again determined in the same manner as in equation (8).
C. Induction machine Although the equations for the efficiency are similar to those
of other machines, the conditions for this induction machine
The induction machine, or IM, used for measurements is
(IM) are different. For the IM to operate as a generator mode,
the 3.0 kW SEW DRE100L2/FI/EV7C induction machine, the
Td , Ts , Ps , and Pelectric need to be negative. The IM operates
important difference lies in its asynchronous nature, in contrast
as a motor when these parameters are positive.
to the PMSM. This asynchrony introduces a speed difference
between the rotor and stator, leading to a phenomenon known III. R ESULTS
as slip s (rad/s). Remarkably, it is this slip that becomes the
Based on the developed models for the three distinct
factor driving the torque generation in the machine as the two
electric machines, conclusions can be drawn, and a detailed
fields attempt to align which produces a torque on the rotor
comparison among them can be performed. The analysis of
structure known as the electromagnetic torque or developed
these models provides valuable insights into the behavior and
torque. [1]
ωs − ωm characteristics like efficiency, speed/torque, and speed/power
s= (22) factor relation.
ωs
4

80
Va,meas = 50 V Va,meas = 50 V
200 70
Va,model = 50 V Va,model = 50 V
Va,meas = 100 V 60 Va,meas = 100 V
Va,model = 100 V Va,model = 100 V
150 50
Va,meas = 150 V Va,meas = 150 V
Va,model = 150 V 40 Va,model = 150 V
100 Va,meas = 200 V Va,meas = 200 V
30
Va,model = 200 V Va,model = 200 V
20
50 10

0
-10 -5 0 5 10 -10 -5 0 5 10

Fig. 2. The relation between the shaft torque and speed for different input Fig. 3. The relation between shaft torque and efficiency for different input
voltage for the Direct Current machine (DCM). voltage for the Direct Current Machine (DCM).

100 100

Efficiency [%]

Efficiency [%]
A. Direct current machine
50 50
nm,meas = 10 Hz nm,meas = 10 Hz
nm,model = 10 Hz nm,model = 10 Hz
The results obtained from the measurements and model
0 0
are depicted in Figures 2 and 3. Fig. 2 clearly illustrates a -10 0 10 -10 0 10
linear relationship between the shaft torque (Ts ) and speed
(ω). This relationship is explained by equations (2) and (3), 100 100
where an increase in torque corresponds to a decrease in
Efficiency [%]

speed. Fig. 3 demonstrates a clear correlation between the
torque and the efficiency of the DCM. The machine presents
a higher efficiency at higher voltages and becomes more
efficient with increasing shaft torques, both positive and
negative increases. Logically, for low torques, the machine
must first overcome friction, and thus, all developed torque is
required to overcome friction, as described by equation (7).
Despite the ease of use of a DCM, for automotive propulsion
systems the DCM does not hit the standard of efficiency,
which is one of the most import aspects for manufactures
when choosing a electric machine as propulsion system for
their vehicle. It may be used for cheap and simple use cases
where ease of use and simplicity are key.
The model closely aligns with the measurements, although
a noticeable discrepancy exists due to additional factors
not accounted for in the model. The torque-to-efficiency
relationship, as illustrated in Figure 3, exhibits discrepancies
between the model and measurements of 2.56%, 1.46%,
0.76%, and 0.17% for the measurements at 50V, 100V, 150V,
and 200V, respectively. For the torque/speed measurements of
Fig. 2, the discrepancies can be summarized by: 0.12%, 0.46%,
0.83% and 1.28%, for the measurements at 50V, 100V, 150V,
and 200V, respectively. This indicates that measurements
performed at higher voltages have a greater precision when it
comes to efficiency. Conversely, measurements taken at lower
voltages correspond to more precise measurements for torque.
Efficiency [%]
50 50
nm,meas = 10 Hz nm,meas = 10 Hz
nm,model = 10 Hz nm,model = 10 Hz
0 0
-10 0 10 -10 0 10
Fig. 4. Efficiency relation to Shaft Torque Measurement and Model compar-
ison for the Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machine (PMSM).
B. Permanent magnet synchronous machine
The behavior of the permanent magnet synchronous ma-
chine is depicted in Figs. 4, 5, and 6. Fig. 5 illustrates a linear
relationship between the rms voltage Vrms and shaft torque
Ts , where an increase in current results in a corresponding
increase in torque. This relationship is supported by equation
(15).
Fig. 4 indicates a high efficiency for higher torques.
Comparable to the DCM, the PMSM must first overcome
friction before it can operate efficiently. This figure also
provides insight into the more efficient operation of the
PMSM compared to the DCM. The PMSM achieves efficient
operation earlier for lower torque values and has a higher
overall peak efficiency within the measured torque range.
The measurements closely align with the model, as seen
in the depicted figures. However, when comparing both
results for the power factor, for negative torque values, the
 5

160 1
n m,meas = 10 Hz
0.9
140 n m,model = 10 Hz
0.8
n m,meas = 20 Hz
120 0.7
n m,model = 20 Hz
n m,meas = 30 Hz 0.6
100
n m,meas = 10 Hz
n m,model = 30 Hz 0.5
n m,model = 10 Hz
80 n m,meas = 40 Hz 0.4 n m,meas = 20 Hz
n m,model = 20 Hz
60 n m,model = 40 Hz 0.3
n m,meas = 30 Hz
0.2 n m,model = 30 Hz
40 n m,meas = 40 Hz
0.1
n m,model = 40 Hz
20 0
-10 -5 0 5 10 50 100 150 200 250

Fig. 5. RMS Voltage relation to Shaft Torque Measurement and Model Fig. 7. Power Factor Measurement and Model Comparison for the Induction
comparison for the Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machine (PMSM). Machine(IM).

1.01 1.01 100

nm,meas = 10 Hz
1 1 nm,model = 10 Hz
0.99 0.99 80 nm,meas = 20 Hz
nm,meas nm,meas
0.98 0.98 nm,model = 20 Hz
nm,model nm,model
nm,meas = 30 Hz
0.97 0.97
Efficiency [%]

-10 0 10 -10 0 10 60
nm,model = 30 Hz
nm,meas = 40 Hz
1.01 1.01 40 nm,model = 40 Hz
1 1
0.99 0.99
nm,meas nm,meas 20
0.98 0.98
nm,model nm,model
0.97 0.97
-10 0 10 -10 0 10 0
50 100 150 200 250 300

Fig. 6. Power Factor Measurement and Model Comparison for the Permanent Fig. 8. Efficiency Measurement and Model Comparison for the Induction
Magnet Synchronous Machine (PMSM). The operational speeds are presented Machine (IM).
in a sequence of (10, 20, 30, 40) Hz, corresponding to the subfigures from
top left to bottom right, respectively.

Fig. 9 depicts the relations between the input frequency or

measurements for the power factor begin to differ more
dramatically with a maximum difference of 3.38% compared
to the average discrepancy of the PF of 0.87%
The observed variation in power factor for negative torque in
our measurements, as opposed to the consistent model predic-
tions, may be due to the complex interactions between the back
EMF and the inverter during negative torque, which are not
fully captured by the symmetrical operating assumptions of the
model. Measurement inaccuracies and the non-ideal behavior
of the inverter could further contribute to this discrepancy.
C. Induction machine
The results of the performed tests, which indicate the
characteristics of the induction machine for 10, 20, 30
and 40 Hz, are depicted in figures 7, 8 and 9 respectively.
synchronous speed and the torque nicely. This relation is
supported by equation (29), where a higher synchronous speed
relates to a higher level of torque. The higher synchronous
speed also relates to an increase in efficiency over the totality
of the torque range, as depicted in Fig. 7.
Discrepancies: Efficiency: 13.79%, 7.40%, 6.17%, 4.63%
corresponding to 10, 20, 30, and 40 Hz, varying significantly
more than the averages for the shaft torque, which is 0.3072%
and 0.3072% for the power factor.
An explanation for the discrepancies could be the
approximation of equation (6). The potential for inaccuracies
in the chosen approximation comes from the complexity of
core loss behavior, influenced by varying operating conditions
and material properties. The losses are approximated by
a model, which we cannot exclude as the case for the
discrepancies. [2]
6

this configuration comes with additional rotor losses and a

0 potential reduction in overall efficiency [4].
0
-50
IV. C ONCLUSION
-50
-100 nm,meas nm,meas This study provides a comprehensive analysis of Direct
nm,model nm,model Current Machines (DCMs), Permanent Magnet Synchronous
-150 -100
40 60 80 100 100 150 200 Machines (PMSMs), and Induction Machines (IMs) in the
context of automotive propulsion. Our findings reveal that
20 20
while PMSMs exhibit the highest peak efficiency, particularly
0 under higher loads, IMs demonstrate a robust torque per-
0
-20
formance, crucial for acceleration and overloading scenarios.
-20 The unique advantage of PMSMs in offering controllable
-40 nm,meas nm,meas
nm,model
-40
nm,model fields for enhanced operational flexibility and the significant
-60
cost and supply chain benefits from eliminating rare earth
100 150 200 250 200 300 400
magnets position them as a viable solution despite potential
efficiency trade-offs due to rotor losses. In conclusion, the
Fig. 9. Shaft Torque Measurement and Model Comparison for the Permanent
selection of an electric machine for automotive propulsion
Magnet Synchronous Motor (PMSM). The operational speeds are presented applications should be guided by a balanced consideration
in a sequence of (10, 20, 30, 40) Hz, corresponding to the subfigures from of efficiency, torque performance, operational flexibility, and
top left to bottom right, respectively.
cost-effectiveness, tailored to the specific demands of the
vehicle’s use case.

Fig. 10. Circuit diagram of a Induction Machine.
As the DCM was used for torque control for the IM
measurements, human errors are also a valid explanation
to account for the differences, as kΦ is calculated done by
reading live values from the measurements during measuring.
V. R EFERENCES
R EFERENCES
[1] J. J. Cathey, ELECTRIC MACHINES: ANALYSIS AND DESIGN AP-
PLYLNG MATLAB@. 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
10020: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2001.
[2] A. Sayed, D. Aliprantis, H. Ge, and K. Laskaris, “Coupled finite element
and extended-qd circuit induction machine model, part i: Formulation,”
IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 2556–2564,
2021.
[3] T. Gundogdu, Z.-Q. Zhu, and C. C. Chan, “Comparative study of
permanent magnet, conventional, and advanced induction machines for
traction applications,” World Electric Vehicle Journal, vol. 13, no. 8, p.
137, 2022.
[4] D. G. Dorrell, “Are wound-rotor synchronous motors suitable for use
in high efficiency torque-dense automotive drives?” in IECON 2012 -
38th Annual Conference on IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, 2012,
pp. 4880–4885.

Under rated conditions, the measurements for the IM in-

dicate an efficiency of 88.8%, which is significantly higher
than that of the direct current machine (DCM) at 75.26%
and closely rivals the permanent magnet synchronous machine
(PMSM), with a peak efficieny of 95.38%. While the PMSM
may be more efficient under higher loads. The IM delivers
higher torque during acceleration or overloading modes com-
pared to the PMSM due to the demagnetization of the magnets
in the PMSM. This can be seen in real automotive applications,
as most vehicles use PMSM’s (Volkswagen ID4, BMW i3 and
BYD) and tesla using a combination of both PMSM and IM
for their dual motor setup gaining extra performance (Tesla
Model 3/S Dual Motor). [3]
An other advantage of the PMSM, which makes it par-
ticularly suitable for this application, is that they offer a
controllable field, which enhances flexibility in managing
reactive power, back-EMF, iron losses, and field weakening,
especially at high speeds. Additionally, they eliminate the need
for rare earth magnets, resulting in significant cost savings
and addressing supply chain concerns. On the downside,