This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been

fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.

Analytical Modeling of Magnetic Field in Surface Mounted Permanent

Magnet Tubular Linear Machines
Y. Amara, Member, IEEE, and G. Barakat

GREAH, EA 3220, Université du Havre, 76063 Le Havre, France

The paper presents an exact 2D analytical model for predicting the magnetic field in idealized structures of surface mounted
permanent magnet tubular linear machines accounting for stator slotting effect. The open-circuit and armature reaction magnetic field
distributions are analytically derived and compared to finite elements analyses. On load magnetic field calculation is based on the
superposition of the component fields due to permanent magnets and armature field reaction. The developed analytical model can be
advantageously used for the analysis and design of a class of linear tubular machines.

Index Terms—Electromagnetic analysis, electromagnetic fields, magnetic fields, linear machines, permanent magnet machines.

Ackermann et al. [14] presented an exact analytical

I. INTRODUCTION description of magnetic field in idealized surface mounted

N OWADAYS, the market of linear drives covers a wide

range of industrial applications [1]. The need of fast and
accurate analysis and design tools becomes increasingly
pressing.
As for radial flux rotary machines, the use of permanent
magnets allows improving performance of PM linear
machines over other linear machine configurations. If well
designed, permanent magnet linear machines allow getting
high force density, high efficiency and excellent servo
characteristics.
Most software tools for electric machines design are based
on lumped equivalent circuits and/or finite element method.
Lumped equivalent circuits are often used as pre-optimization
design tool and finite element method is used for last stages of
refinement. However, both techniques suffer from some
drawbacks. Lumped equivalent magnetic circuits method is
not as generic as finite element method. Even for a given
structure geometry, lumped equivalent circuits method has to
be adapted if geometric parameters vary in a large scale. Finite
element method if used in optimization process from early
stages is time-consuming and does not provide as much
insight as analytical solutions into relationship between design
parameters and machine performance.
Analytical models derived from formal solution of Maxwell
equations allow a rapid exploration of the virtual prototypes
space solutions in an earlier stage of the design procedure
coming before the finite element refinement of the chosen
prototype.
Boules [2], [3], [4] presented a method suitable for the
design optimization of a class of rotary radial flux permanent
magnet machines. The machine model used in this method is
based on the resolution of Maxwell equations in low
permeability regions (slots, airgap and permanent magnets
regions). The proposed method helps overcome
aforementioned problems and it has been continually
improved since. A large variety of analytical models has been
developed [5] – [22]. Some of them concern rotary machines
[5] – [15] and others linear machines [14] – [21]. Most of
developed models do not take into account slotting in an
explicit manner [13] – [15].
permanent magnet structures which does take into account
stator slotting. Rotary radial flux machines and flat linear
machines are considered but not tubular linear machines.
Azzouzi et al. [13] presented an exact analytical description of
magnetic field in idealized rotary surface mounted permanent
magnet axial flux machines. Developed models in [13] and
[14] only concern field distribution due to permanent magnet
source; they have been used to calculate cogging torque.
Wang et al. [18] presented a general framework for the
analysis and design of slotless tubular linear permanent
magnet machines. Gysen et al. [15] presented a general
analytical model which does take into account stator slotting
for the study of magnetic field in several electric machines
structures. The study presented in [15] only focused on the
mathematical approach.
This paper attempts to provide analytical tools to facilitate
the analysis and design of a class of tubular linear machines
(Fig. 1) [23] [24]. The developed model, in this paper, gives
exact field distribution due to permanent magnet source and
armature currents with taking into account stator slotting
(straight slots). The tubular structures can be with an inner or
outer moving armature.
Fig. 2 shows the different permanent magnet distributions
taken into account in this study. The permanent magnet
armature can either be made of magnetic or non-magnetic
material. The slotted stator has a classical configuration with
straight teeth. The slots and teeth can be equally distributed or
not [13] [25]. The slots and teeth can be arranged to
accommodate any winding configuration.
(a) (b)
Fig. 1. Tubular linear machines structures: (a) inner moving armature and (b)
outer moving armature.

Copyright (c) 2010 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, Permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.

(a)

Fig. 3. Field regions of idealized linear machines (polar coordinates).

The partial differential equation for quasi-stationary

magnetic fields in a continuous and isotropic region can be
expressed in terms of the magnetic vector potential A, subject
(b)
to the Coulomb gauge, ∇ × A = 0 , by [28]

∇ 2 A = 0 , in the airgap and slots

 2 (1)
∇ A = − µ0 ∇ × M , in magnets region.

The vector magnetic potential A only has the component Aθ.

The field vectors B and H are coupled by [28]
(c)
Fig. 2. Typical linear permanent magnet machines topologies: (a) parallel µ H , in the airgap and slots
B= 0 (2)
µ0 ( H + M ),
magnetization, (b) quasi-Halbach magnetization and (c) Halbach
in magnets region
magnetization.
where M is the remanent magnetization and it is related to
II. FIELD DISTRIBUTION DUE TO PERMANENT MAGNET
remanence Brem by M = Brem / µ0 .
The model is formulated in two-dimensional polar Previous equations have to be defined for tubular linear
coordinates (Fg. 3). The analytical solution for the magnetic machines in polar coordinates (Fig. 3) [28]:
field distribution is set to cover only low permeability regions
(µr ≈ 1) (slots (region I), airgap (region II) and permanent  ∂ 2 Aθ ∂  1 ∂ (rAθ ) 
magnets (region III) regions) (Fg. 3) and is established based  +   = 0, in the airgap and slots
 ∂z 2 ∂ r r ∂r 
on following assumptions:  2
1) The stator and rotor cores are assumed to be infinitely  ∂ Aθ ∂  1 ∂ (rAθ ) 
 +   = − µ 0 ∇ × M , in magnets region
permeable. However, main magnetic saturation can be
 ∂z
2 ∂ r r ∂r 
accounted in an iterative way by adapting the geometrical
(3)
length of the airgap [2] [26].
2) Eddy current effects are neglected (no eddy current loss in −∂ Aθ 1 ∂ ( rAθ )
the magnets or armature windings). B = ∇×A = er + ez , (4)
∂z r ∂r
3) The permeability of permanent magnets is assumed to be
equal to that of air. M = (Bremr µ0 ) er + (Bremz µ0 ) e z , (5)
4) The axial length of the machines is infinite so that the end
Remanent magnetization components can be expressed as
effects are neglected. However, fringing effects associated
follows:
with the finite length can be taken into account [27].
 +∞
M r = ∑ (M r1n cos (nλz ) + M r 2n sin(nλz ) )
Fig. 3 shows the idealized linear machine geometry with
principal dimensions and the different field regions. For  n =1
machines with a non-magnetic permanent magnet armature a  +∞
(6)

M z = ∑ (M z1n cos (nλz ) + M z 2 n sin(nλz ) )
fourth region has to be considered. This region (region IV) is
located under permanent magnets and is limited in r direction  n =1
by r ∈ [0, R0]. τp, τs and τm represent respectively the pole
where λ = 2π / (Nspτs) with Nsp = Ns / gcd(Ns, p). Ns is the
pitch, the slot pitch and the axial length of radially magnetized
number of slots and p the number of pole pairs.
magnets. In order to simplify the understanding of the
Mathematical developments are done on an elementary cell.
mathematical approach only equally distributed slots
The length of this elementary cell corresponds to the axial
topologies are considered in this study. However unequally
length to which periodic boundary applies. For example, a
distributed slots topologies [13] [25] can also be modelised
machine with an integer number of slots per pole per phase,
using exactly the same mathematical approach [13]. la, e, w
the length of the elementary cell will be two poles pitches
and ls are respectively the magnets thickness, the airgap
thickness and the slots width and height. (2τp); in the case of a machine with 9 slots and 10 poles [29],
the length of the elementary cell will be the total length of the

Copyright (c) 2010 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, Permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.

machine. B. Region II
The general solution of these equations can be expressed for In addition to interface conditions (9), one boundary
a region ‘i’ by condition and two interface conditions between regions II and
III have to be defined [27]
 a (i ) 
 Aθp
(i )
(r, z ) + 0 
 r  B z( II ) = 0, for z ∈ [ z l + w-τ s , z l ] (11)
[ ]
 r = R2
 1 (i ) 

Aθ(i ) (r, z ) =   a1n BI1 (n λ r ) + a 2 n BK1 (n λ r ) cos(n λ z ),
(i )
+∞  n λ  Br( III ) = Br( II ) and H z( III ) = H z( II ) . (12)
+ ∑ + r = R1 r = R1 r = R1 r = R1

 n=1 



nλ
[ ]
a3 n BI1 (n λ r ) + a 4(in) BK1 (n λ r ) sin(n λ z ) 
1 (i )

The general expressions of the flux density components are
given by
(7) 
 +∞  1n
(
 a ( II ) BI (nλ r ) + a ( II ) BK (nλ r ) sin(nλz) 
1 2n 1

)
where i = I, II, III and eventually IV. BI1 and BK1 are modified  Br( II ) (r, z ) = ∑ − 

( )
Bessel functions of first and second kind of order 1
n =1 ( II ) 
 a3 n BI1 (nλ r ) + a 4 n BK1 (nλ r ) cos(nλz)
( II )
respectively. Aθp is the particular solution of equation (3), 
which only exists in region III. Field components expressions
will be derived for each region in the following subsections.


 ( II ) +∞  1n
(
 a ( II ) BI ( nλ r ) − a ( II ) BK (nλ r ) cos(nλz)
0 2n 0

)
 zB ( r, z ) = ∑  + 
( )
A. Region I
 n =1 ( II ) 
 a3 n BI 0 ( nλ r ) − a 4 n BK 0 (nλ r ) sin(nλz) 
( II )
Region I is in fact composed of Nsp regions which 
correspond to the number of slots for a period in the axial (13)
direction. These regions will be numbered l = 1, 2, …, Nsp.
The boundary and interface conditions for regions of type I are C. Region III
respectively given by [27] Before solving equation (7) in magnets region, the remanent
magnetization vector M has to be more precisely defined. In
Br( I ,l ) = 0, Br( I ,l ) = 0 and B z( I ,l ) = 0, (8) equation (6), magnetisation vector components are defined in
z = zl z = zl + w r = R3
the stator coordinate system which is used as the reference
 B ( II ) coordinate system. Coefficients Mr1n, Mr2n, Mz1n and Mz2n are
= Br( I,l )
 r r = R2 r = R2 then dependent on relative displacement zd of moving
 for z ∈ [ z l , z l + w] (9) armature. The following equations give general expressions of
 H z( II ) = H z( I,l ) vector M components in a coordinate system fixed to moving
 r = R2 r = R2
armature.
The general expressions of the flux density components  +∞
subject to boundary conditions of (8) are given by [27] M r = ∑ M 1 n sin(nλ z r )
 n =1
 ( I,l ) +∞   (14)
 mπ  +∞
 Br (r, z ) = ∑  Fm Gm (r )sin ( z − z l )  
( I, l )
 m =1   w  M z = ∑ M 2 n cos(nλ z r )
 , (10)  n =1
+∞ 
 ( I,l )  mπ 
 B z (r, z ) = ∑  Fm H m (r )cos w ( z − z l ) 
( I, l ) where zr is the axial position referred to the moving armature.
 m =1   It is related to absolute axial position z (referred to stator
coordinate system) by following equation
with z l = lτ s − w 2 , and
zr = z − zd (15)
   mπ   Coefficients Mr1n, Mr2n, Mz1n and Mz2n are calculated using
  BI1  r 
G (r ) =   w   equations (6), (14) and (15).
 m   Two cases have to be considered concerning boundary
  +  BI  mπ R  BK  mπ R   BK  mπ r  
  0 w 3  0 3  1
 w  
conditions to be satisfied and the form of general solution for
    w  flux density components in this region:

   mπ   1) permanent magnets magnetic armature;
 BI 0  r 
   w   2) permanent magnets non-magnetic armature.
 H m (r ) =  
 
 −  BI  mπ   mπ    mπ  1) Permanent magnet magnetic armature
 R  BK  R   BK  r 
   0 w 3  0
 w
3 

0
 w   For this case, in addition to interface conditions (12), one
 
boundary condition has to be satisfied [28]
BI0 and BK0 are modified Bessel functions of first and second
kind of order 0 respectively. B z( III ) =0 (16)
r = R0

Copyright (c) 2010 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, Permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.

The general expressions of flux density components defined

Br( IV ) = B z( IV ) = 0 , for external magnet topologies.
in a coordinate system fixed to moving armature, are then r = +∞ r = +∞
given by (20)

  1n
( )
 a ( III ) + F 1 n(r ) BI (n λ r ) 
1 
λ


The general expressions of the flux density components
subject to boundary condition (19), for internal magnet
( )
sin( n z )
  + a ( III ) + F 2 n( r ) BK (n λ r )  r  topologies, defined in a coordinate system fixed to moving
 +∞   
2n 1
 B ( III ) (r, z ) = armature, are then given by
− 
∑
[ ]

)
r
(
   ( IV ) +∞
 n =1
 a ( III ) BI1 (n λ r ) + a ( III ) BK1 (n λ r ) cos(n λ z r ) Br (r , z ) = ∑ BI1 ( nλ r ) a1 n sin(nλ z r ) − a3 n cos(nλ z r )
( IV ) ( IV )
  3n 4n 
    n =1





  a( ( III )
)
+ F 1 n(r ) BI 0 (n λ r )  


 ( IV )
 B z ( r , z ) =
+∞
∑ BI 0 (nλ r ) a1( IV [
n cos(nλ z r ) + a3 n sin(nλ z r )
) ( IV )
]
 1n   n =1
λ
)

(
cos( n z )
  − a ( III ) + F 2 n(r ) BK (n λ r )  r  (21)
+∞   
0
 2n
 B z( III ) (r, z ) = ∑ +  For external magnet topologies, general expressions of the
( )
  
n =1 flux density components subject to boundary conditions (21)
 a ( III )
BI 0 (n λ r ) − a 4 n BK 0 (n λ r ) sin(n λ z r )
( III )
  3 n  defined in a coordinate system fixed to moving armature, are
   then given by
  
(17)  ( IV ) +∞
[
 Br ( r , z ) = ∑ BK1 (nλ r ) a 2 n sin(nλ z r ) − a 4 n cos(nλ z r )
( IV ) ( IV )
]
 ( III ) ( III ) BI 0 ( nλ R0 ) µ0 M 2 n  n =1
a 2 n = a1 n BK (nλ R ) − BK (nλ R ) 

with, 
BI
0
( n λ R
0
)
0 0
and  ( IV )
 B z ( r , z ) = −
+∞
[
∑ BK 0 (nλ r ) a2( IVn ) cos(nλ z r ) + a4( IVn ) sin(nλ z r ) ]
a ( III ) = a ( III ) 0 0  n =1
 4 n 3n
BK 0 (nλ R0 ) (22)
 nλ r The mathematical approach leading to calculation of the
BK1 ( x) d x
 F 1 n( r ) = − µ 0 M 1 n ∫ different coefficients of magnetic field expressions given
 BI1 ( x) BK 0 ( x) + BK1 (x) BI 0 ( x)
nλ R 0 above is detailed in the following subsection.
 nλ r
.
 B I1 ( x) d x
 F 2 n(r ) = µ 0 M 1 n ∫ BI ( x) BK ( x) + BK (x) BI ( x)
E. PM’s region coefficients determination
 nλ R 0 1 0 1 0 The goal of the mathematical approach exposed below is to
obtain coefficients of general solution of flux density
In this case region IV does not exist; the relative components in region III (equation (17)). These coefficients
permeability of iron being assumed to be infinite. Expressions are obtained by solving a set of linear equations. The
of the flux density components in the three regions (10), (13) mathematical approach leading to these equations can be
and (17) subject to interface conditions (9) and (12) yield to a divided into two or three steps depending on the magnetic
set of linear equations, where unknowns are the coefficients properties of permanent magnet armature (two steps if the
a1n(III) and a3n(III). armature is made of magnetic material and three steps if the
2) Permanent magnet non-magnetic armature armature is made of non magnetic material). The steps
In the case of a non-magnetic moving armature, in addition correspond to the exploitation of interface conditions between
to interface conditions (12), two interface conditions between the different regions. In fact, the mathematical approach can
regions III and IV have to be defined [28] be divided into two main steps.
The first step which correspond to the exploitation of
Br( IV ) = Br( III ) and H z( IV ) = H z( III ) (18) interface conditions between regions I and II is common to
r = R0 r = R0 r = R0 r = R0
both cases (permanent magnets armature made of magnetic or
The general expressions of the flux density components
non-magnetic materials). This first step helps establish
defined in a coordinate system fixed to moving armature, are
relations between coefficients of region I with these of region
also given by equation (17). However, relations defined
II in a first glance and finally establish relations between the
previously between coefficients a1n(III) and a2n(III) on one side
different coefficients of region II. It is the main step of the
and a3n(III) and a4n(III) on the other side are not valid.
mathematical approach.
D. Region IV The second main step helps reduce the number of
This region is only considered in the case of a non-magnetic coefficients in region III and establish relations between
permanent magnets armature. In addition to interface coefficients of regions II and III. In the case of a permanent
conditions (18), one boundary condition has to be satisfied magnets magnetic armature the reduction of the number of
region III coefficients is obtained thanks to boundary
Br( IV ) = 0 , for internal magnet topologies (19) condition (16), while it is obtained thanks to interface
r =0 conditions (19) or (20) for the non magnetic armature case.

Copyright (c) 2010 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, Permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.

The mathematical approach is detailed in what follows in a ( II ) BI (k λ R ) − a ( II ) BK ( k λ R )

0 2 0 2
the case of internal magnet topologies, but it can be easily  1n 2n

adapted to other topologies.  +∞

 = ∑ ( f (n, k ) − g (n, k ))( a1k BI1 (k λ R2 ) + a 2 k BK1 (k λ R2 ))
(II) ( II )
1) Exploitation of interface conditions between regions I  k =1
and II  ( II )
a3 n BI 0 (k λ R2 ) − a 4 n BK 0 ( k λ R2 )
( II )
Combination of interface conditions (9) with boundary 
+∞

 = − ∑ ( g ( n, k ) + f (n, k ))(a3 k BI1 ( k λ R2 ) + a 4 k BK1 (k λ R2 ))
conditions (11) along with general expressions of flux density ( II ) ( II )
components in regions I (equation (10)) and II (equation (13))  k =1
yields to (27)

a1(nII ) BI 0 (n λ R2 ) − a 2( IIn ) BK 0 (n λ R2 ) This first step is common to all topologies (internal and
external magnet structures). The second step will help
 ( I, l ) l 
Nsp + ∞  Fm U m H m ( R 2 )  (23) establish relations between coefficients of regions II and III.
-1
=
Nspτ s
∑ ∑  ×  1
−
1 

2) Exploitation of interface conditions between regions II
l =1 m=1 
  (n λ + mπ w) (n λ − mπ w) 
and III
Exploitation of interface conditions between regions II and
a3( IIn ) BI 0 (n λ R2 ) − a 4( IIn ) BK 0 (n λ R2 ) III help establish general relations between coefficients of
 ( I, l ) l  these regions, which are given by equation (28). Expressions
Nsp + ∞  Fm V m H m ( R2 )  (24)
1 of Qn, Rn, On and Pn are given in Appendix A.
=
Nspτ s
∑ ∑  ×  1
−
1 
 3) Linear equations systems giving coefficients of PM’s
l =1 m=1 
  (n λ + mπ w) (n λ − mπ w)  region
and (25) and (26) shown at the bottom of the page. For structures with a permanent magnets magnetic
Combining equations (23), (24), (25) and (26) yields to armature, equations (28) are obtained by combining interface
equation (27), where f (n,k) and g (n,k) are defined in conditions (12) along with general expressions of flux density
Appendix A. components in regions II and III (equations (13) and (17)).

    mπ   mπ  
  1  + kλ  + 1  − kλ   

 +∞ a5 k    w
( II )
  w  
 ∑ G ( R )      

 k ≠0 m 2  πw πw 
 ×  cos (k − n) Nspτ  − (−1) cos (k + n) Nspτ   
m
(k − n ) = αNsp
   s   s 
[ ]
Nsp 
w 
∑
Nsp l =1
Fm( I, l )Vml = + (25)

    mπ   mπ  
 1  + kλ  + 1  − kλ   
 
+∞ a5 k    w
( II )
  w  

 k ≠0
∑ 
G m ( R2 )    πw   πw   

(k + n ) = αNsp ×  cos ( k + n )  − ( −1) m
cos ( k − n ) 
   Nspτ s   Nspτ s   
    
   mπ   mπ  
  1  + kλ  + 1  − kλ   
+ ∞ ( II )   
 a6 k   w   w 
 ∑ G ( R )    πw   πw   

 k ≠0 m 2 
× cos (k − n)  − (−1) cos ( k + n)
m 
(k − n ) = αNsp   Nspτ s   Nspτ s   
   
[ ]
Nsp 
w 
∑ m m 
Nsp l =1
F ( I, l ) l
U = − (26)

   mπ   mπ  
 1
  + kλ  + 1  − kλ   
 +∞ a6 k  
( II )
 w   w  

 k ≠0
∑ G (R )  
  πw   πw 

m 2
(k + n ) = αNsp  ×  cos (k + n)  − (−1) cos (k − n)
m 
 

  Nspτ s  
 Nspτ s   

U m
l
= sin (nλ (lτ s − w 2 )) − (−1) m sin(nλ (lτ s + w 2 )) a ( II ) = − a ( II ) BI (nλ R ) − a ( II ) BK (nλ R )
 5n 3n 1 2 4n 1 2
where,  and 
Vm = cos(nλ (lτ s − w 2 )) − ( −1) cos(nλ (lτ s + w 2 ))
l m
a6 n = a1 n BI1 (nλ R2 ) + a 2 n BK1 (nλ R2 )
( II ) ( II ) ( II )

Copyright (c) 2010 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, Permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.

a ( II ) BI (nλ R ) − a ( II ) BK (nλ R )
0 2 0 2
 1n 2n
 = On cos(nλ z d ) + (a1n cos(nλ z d ) − a3( III
( III ) )
 n sin(nλ z d )) Qn
a ( II ) BI (nλ R ) − a ( II ) BK (nλ R )
 3n 0 2 4n 0 2

 = On sin(nλ z d ) + (a1n sin(nλ z d ) + a3( III
( III ) )
n cos(nλ z d )) Qn
 ( II ) ( II )
a3 n BI1 (nλ R2 ) + a 4n BK1 (nλ R2 )
 a) Case 1 b) Case 2
 = Pn sin(nλ z d ) + (a1(nIII ) sin(nλ z d ) + a3( III )
n cos(nλ z d )) Rn

a ( II ) BI1 (nλ R2 ) + a ( II ) BK1 (nλ R2 )
 1n 2n
 = Pn cos(nλ z d ) + (a1(nIII ) cos(nλ z d ) − a3( III )
 n sin(nλ z d )) Rn
(28)
For a permanent magnets non-magnetic armature these
equations are obtained by combining interface conditions (12)
c) Case 3
and (18) along with general expressions of flux density
Fig. 4. Different phase distributions in a slot.
components in regions II (equation (13)), III (equation (17))
and IV (equation (21)). The partial derivative equations can be rewritten in polar
Finally combining equations (27) and (28) leads to a set of coordinates as:
linear equations where the unknowns are coefficients a1n(III)
and a3n(III) of region III. Coefficients in other regions are  ∂ 2 Aθ ∂  1 ∂ (rAθ ) 
 +   = −µ 0 J θ , in slots region
obtained using interface conditions (Appendix B).  ∂z 2 ∂r r ∂r 
The mathematical approach leads to exactly same set of  2 (30)
 ∂ Aθ ∂  1 ∂ (rAθ ) 
linear equations, with same unknowns, for internal or external
 +   = 0, in other regions
magnet topologies in the case of a permanent magnets  ∂z
2 ∂r r ∂r 
magnetic armature. In the case of external moving armature
The general solution of these equations can be expressed for
topologies with a permanent magnets non-magnetic armature,
a region ‘i’ by
the set of linear equations is slightly different with different
unknowns (a2n(III) and a4n(III)). General relations between  (i ) 
coefficients of regions II and III can be obtained by replacing  A(i ) (r, z ) + b0 
 θp r 
a1n(III) by a2n(III) and a3n(III) by a4n(III). However expressions of  
Qn, Rn, On and Pn are different in this case (Appendix A).
After having established magnetic field distribution due to
(i )   1 (i )
Aθ (r, z ) =  +∞  nλ 1n [
b BI 1 ( nλ r ) + b (i )
2n BK1 ( nλ r ) ]
cos( nλ z )


  
permanent magnet, the armature reaction magnetic field + ∑ + 
solution should be determined, prior to establish on load
magnetic field distribution.
 n =1  1 (i )


[ (i )
 b3 n BI1 (nλλ) + b4 n BK1 (nλλ) sin(nλ z )  
 nλ
] 

(31)
III. ARMATURE REACTION FIELD
For calculation of armature reaction field only two regions where i = I, II’. Aθp is the particular solution of equation (30),
are considered (slots (I) and "airgap (II), permanent magnets which only exists in region I (slots). Field components
(III) (which are replaced by air) and eventually region under expressions will be derived for each region in the following
magnets (IV)" which are considered as a single region II’ subsections.
(II’ = II ∪ III or II’ = II ∪ III ∪ IV)). Permanent magnets are A. Region I
replaced by air. Previous assumptions prevail here for The boundary conditions for regions of type I has already
armature reaction field solution. The governing field been defined by equation (8). The general expressions for the
equations, in terms of the Coulomb gauge, ∇ × A = 0 , are: flux density components subject to these boundary conditions
∇ 2 A = − µ0 J , in a given slot ‘l’ is given by
in regions I
 2 (29)
∇ A = 0 , in region II '  ( )
( I, l )
∂ Aθp +∞
 ( I, l )  mπ
E m Gm (r )sin 

The vector magnetic potential A and current density vector J
 B ( I , l ) (r , z ) = −
 r
∂z ∑
+ 
 w
( z − zl ) 

 m=1 

( )
only have the component Aθ and Jθ respectively. The current  ( I, l ) +∞
density applied in a given slot is considered to be  (I ,l) 1 ∂ r Aθp  ( I, l )  mπ 
homogenously distributed over entire section of a given phase.  B z (r , z ) = ∑+  E m H m (r )cos ( z − z l ) 
 ∂r  
m=1 
r w
Figure 4 shows the different phase distributions, in a slot,
covering all windings distribution configurations. (32)

Copyright (c) 2010 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, Permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.

The particular solutions of equation (30) for a slot ‘l’ for the 1) Permanent magnet magnetic armature
different type of winding indicated in Fig. 4, are given below. For this case, the new region II’ is composed of regions II
For one phase fitted in a slot (Fig. 4.a), the particular and III. In addition to interface conditions (9) two boundary
solution is: conditions, given by equations (11) and (16), have to be
satisfied.
(l )  R3 r r 
2
Aθ(pI, l ) (r , z) = µ 0 J θα − (33) The general expressions of the flux density components are
 2 3 
 then given by
For two phases fitted in a slot as in Fig. 4.b:   ( II ' ) ( II ' )  
  b1n BI1 (nλ r ) + b2n BK1 (nλ r )  sin(nλ z ) 
 (l )  R3 r r 2   ( II ' ) +∞  
 µ0 J θα − ∀ r ∈ [ R21, R3 ]  Br ( r , z ) = ∑  − 
  2 3  
 n =1 
   ' '
 b3n BI1 (nλ r ) + b4 n BK1 (nλ r )  cos(nλ z )
( II ) ( II ) 
  (l )  R21r r 2      
  J θβ  −  
  
(I ,l)    2 3    ( II ) ' '
 
Aθp (r, z ) =    b1 n BI 0 (nλ r ) − b2 n BK 0 (nλ r )  cos(nλ z )
(34) ( II )
 
  (l ) (R3 − R21 )r   ( II ' ) +∞  
+ ∀ r ∈ [ R2 , R21 ]
 B z ( r , z ) = ∑ +
µ
 0  θα J 
2 
    n =1 
( )  b3( IIn ) BI 0 (nλ r ) − b4( IIn ) BK 0 (nλ r )  sin(nλ z ) 
' '
  (l )
3
(l ) R21  
 + J θα − J θβ    
  6r 
  (36)
and for two phases fitted in a slot as in Fig. 4.c: b ( II ' ) = b ( II ' ) (BI (nλ R ) BK (nλ R ) )
 2n 1n 0 0 0 0
  2   with,  ' .
 µ J (l )  R3 r − r   b ( II ) = b ( II ) (BI 0 (nλ R0 ) BK 0 (nλ R0 ) )
'

 0 0  2 3    4n 3n
  

 
(
 1 − (−1) n J (l ) )
1

 Expressions of the flux density components in the two
  w  regions (I and II’) (32) and (36) subject to interface conditions
(I ,l)
Aθp (r, z ) =     
 +∞   F 3n(r ) BI  nπ 
r   (9) yield to a set of linear equations, where unknowns are the
+ ∑  
 n=1  
1
 w  
  nπ

 
coefficients b1n(II’) and b3n(II’).
  ×+   w s
sin (lτ − z )  
 
2) Permanent magnet non-magnetic armature
    nπ   In the case of a permanent magnets non-magnetic armature,
   F 4 n ( r ) BK  r   
 1
 w   in addition to interface conditions (9), two boundary
    
conditions have to be satisfied. These boundary conditions are
(35)
given by equations (11) and (20), in the case of internal

where J 0(l ) =
(J (l )
θα
(l )
+ J θβ ) and J (l )
( (l )
= J θα )
(l )
− J θβ , with
magnet topologies, or by equations (11) and (21) in the case of
external magnet topologies.
1
2 The general expressions of the flux density components
  nπ 
 r
subject to boundary condition (21), for internal magnet
 2  w topologies are then given by
 F 3n(r ) = − w  µ0 BK1 ( x)dx
  
  nπ
nπ BI ∫
( x ) BK 0 ( x ) + BK1 ( x ) BI 0 ( x )
 ( II ) +∞
 ( II ' ) ( II ' ) 
 Br (r , z ) = ∑ BI1 (nλ r ) b1 n sin(nλ z ) − b3 n cos(nλ z )
 1
 
  R3  
  w  n =1
 .  +∞
  nπ   ( II )  ( II ' ) ( II ' ) 
 B z (r , z ) = ∑ BI 0 (nλ r ) b1 n cos(nλ z ) + b3 n sin(nλ z ) 
 r
 2  w
 F 4n(r ) =  w  µ0 BI1 ( x)dx  n =1
  nπ  nπ ∫
BI1 ( x) BK 0 ( x) + BK1 ( x) BI 0 ( x) (37)
  
  R3
  w For external magnet topologies, general solution for the flux
density components subject to boundary conditions (21) are
B. Region II’ then given by
Armature reaction field calculation is done by replacing  ( II ) +∞
 ( II ' ) ( II ' ) 
permanent magnets by air. Depending on the magnetic  Br (r , z ) = ∑ BK1 (nλ r ) b2 n sin( nλ z ) − b4 n cos( nλ z )
 n =1  
properties of the material used for the permanent magnets  +∞
supporting armature, two cases have to be considered  ( II )  ( II ' ) ( II ' ) 
concerning boundary conditions to be satisfied and the form of  B z (r , z ) = − ∑ BK 0 (nλ r ) b2 n cos(nλ z ) + b4 n sin( nλ z )
 n =1
general solution for flux density components in this region. (38)

Copyright (c) 2010 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, Permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.

C. Region II’ coefficients determination For the numerical implementation of these equations, the
The problem should resume, at the end, in the determination number of harmonics should be chosen as high as possible.
of coefficients of general expressions of flux density Coefficients in region I are obtained using interface conditions
components in the region II’. These coefficients are obtained (Appendix C). For a winding distribution as shown in figure
by solving a set of linear equations. The mathematical 4.b, the set of linear equations become
approach consists on the exploitation of interface conditions  ( II ' ) +∞
∑
'

between region I and the new region II’. b1n Qn − ( f ( n , k ) − g (n , k )) b1(kII ) Rk

 k =1
The mathematical approach is detailed in what follows in 

∑[ ]
 Nsp
the case of internal magnet topologies with classical winding 2µ 0 ls  w 
distribution (each slot contain only one phase (fig. 4.a)), but it  = sin  nλ  J 2(l ) cos(nλlτ s )
 π n  2 
can be easily adapted to other topologies. Particularities l =1 (44)
 + ∞
related to the application of this approach to other topologies  ( II ' )
(external magnets topologies) and for other windings b3n Qn +

∑ ( II ' )
( g (n , k ) + f (n , k )) b3k Rk
distributions (Figs. 4.b and 4.c) will be however presented. k =1

∑[ ]
Nsp
Combination of interface conditions (9) with boundary  2µ 0 ls  w 
 = sin  n λ  J 2(l ) sin(nλlτ s )
conditions (11) along with general solutions of flux density πn  2
components in regions I (equation (32)) and region II’  l =1

(equation (37)) yields to  ( R − R ) J (l ) + ( R − R ) J ( l ) 

 3 21 θα 21 2 θβ 
with, J 2(l ) =  .
( R3 − R2 )
'
b1(nII ) Qn  
 
 Em ( I, l ) l
U m H m ( R2 )  For a winding distribution as shown in figure 4.c, the set of
   linear equations become
 Nsp +∞   
    ( II ' ) +∞
 -1
 Nspτ s ∑∑  1
−
1   (39) b1n Qn − ∑  ( f (n , k ) − g ( n , k )) b ( II ' ) R 
 k
 l =1 m =1      1k 
=  mπ   mπ  k =1
   nλ +   − nλ    

∑[ ]
   w   w      2µ ls  w  Nsp 
    0 sin  nλ  J 0(l ) cos(nλlτ s ) 
∑[ ]
Nsp
 µ 0 ls  w  (l )    πn  2
l =1

 + 2 sin  n λ  J θα cos( n λ l τ s )    
nλ
∑[ ]
  2
l =1     4nλ Nsp 
 w 
   cos nλ  J 1 sin(nλlτ s ) 
( l )
'
b3( IIn )  =   Nspτ s w  2
=

Qn   
l 1

 +    s +1   
 Em  
( 
) 
( I, l ) l

V m H m ( R2 )   + ∞  (−1)   1 − ( −1)  
2 s 
  
 Nsp +∞    


 
∑× 
 (
∆s
)
(nλ) 2 − (πs w)2  

  
 1
 Nspτ s ∑∑  1
−
1   (40) 

 
 
 s =1


 
 
l =1 m =1 
=  mπ   mπ    
   nλ +   − nλ     ( II ' )
+∞
(45)


  w   w   

b3n Qn + ∑  ( g ( n , k ) + f (n , k )) b ( II ' ) R 

 3k k


∑[ ]
Nsp  k =1
 µ 0 ls  w  (l )  
+ λ λ τ
∑[ ]
 2 sin  n  J θα sin( n l )   Nsp 
nλ  2  l =1
s  2µ ls  w 
    0 sin  nλ  J 0(l ) sin(nλlτ s ) 
  πn  2
l =1

and (41) and (42) shown at the bottom of next page.   

∑[ ]
Combining equations (39), (40), (41) and (42) yields to    4nλ  w
Nsp 
  cos nλ  (l )
J 1 cos(nλlτ s )  
  Nspτ s w 
 =  
 ( II ' ) +∞ 2
l =1 
∑ 
'
b1n Qn − ( f ( n , k ) − g (n , k )) b1(kII ) Rk     s +1   
 −


k =1 
 
 

∑
+∞ 
∆ s (−1) (
 2 

) s  
1 − (−1)  

∑[ ] ( )
 2µ 0 ls  w 
Nsp
 × 
(l )    ( nλ ) − (πs w)2  
2
 = sin  n λ  J θα cos(nλlτ s )   s =1
 π n  2  l =1      
(43)      
 +∞
 ( II ' ) where, ∆s = F 3s ( R2 ) X s − F 4 s ( R2 )Ys with
∑
'
b
 3n Q n + ( g (n , k ) + f (n , k )) b3( nII ) Rk
 k =1   sπ  H (R )  sπ 
  X s = BI 0  R2  − s 2 BI1  R2 
∑[ ]
Nsp
 2µ 0 ls  w  (l )   w  G (
s 2R )  w 
 = sin  n λ  J θα sin(nλlτ s ) 
πn  2  l =1 Y = BK   s π  H ( R )  s π 
 R2  + s 2 BK1  R2 
 s 0
 w  G s ( R2 )  w 

Copyright (c) 2010 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, Permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.

The mathematical approach leads to exactly same set of
linear equations, with same unknowns, for internal or external
magnet topologies in the case of a magnetic supporting
armature. In the case of external magnet topologies with non-
magnetic supporting armature, the set of linear equations is
slightly different with different unknowns (b2n(III) and b4n(III)).
The general expression of the set of linear equations is given
by equation 46 shown at the bottom of next page.
IV. MAGNETIC FIELD ON LOAD
Since the stator and moving cores (if made of magnetic
material) are assumed to be infinitely permeable the analysis is
reduced to a linear problem, and the magnetic field
distribution under any specified load conditions is obtained by
superposition of open-circuit and armature reaction field
components.

   
   
  1 1  
   mπ +  
 +∞   m π 
'
   + kλ   − kλ   

 k ≠0
∑ 3k k   w
b ( II )
R
  w  
(k − n ) = αNsp  
    πw   πw 
 
 ×  cos ( k − n) Nspτ  − (−1) cos (k + n) Nspτ
m
 
   s   
∑ [Em( I, l )Vml ]
s
- 1 
Nsp
w
= + (41)
Nsp l =1 Gm ( R2 ) 
   
  
  1 1  
    mπ +  
 + ∞   m π 
'
   + kλ   − kλ   
 ∑ 3k k   w
b ( II )
R
  w  
 k ≠0  
 ( k + n ) = αNsp   πw   
  πw 
 ×  cos ( k + n) Nspτ  − (−1) cos (k − n) Nspτ  
m
 
    s   s 
   
   
  1 1  
   mπ +  
 +∞   m π 
( II ' )    + λ   − λ   

 k ≠0
∑ b1 k Rk    w k
  w
k



(k − n ) = αNsp  
    π w   π w 
 
 ×  cos (k − n) Nspτ  − (−1) cos (k + n) Nspτ   
m
  s   s 
 
∑ [Em( I, l ) U ml ]
w
Nsp
1 
= − (42)
Nsp l =1 Gm ( R2 ) 
   
  
  1 1  
    mπ +  
 + ∞   mπ 
(II ' )    + kλ   − kλ   
 ∑ 1k k    w
b R
  w  
 k ≠0  
(k + n ) = αNsp    πw   πw   
 ×  cos  ( k + n )  − ( −1) m
cos ( k − n ) 
   Nspτ s   Nspτ s   
    
where,

  BI 0 ( nλR0 ) 
Qn =  BI 0 ( nλR2 ) − BK 0 ( nλR2 )  for magnetic permanent magnets armature
  BK 0 ( nλR0 )  ,

Q
 n = BI 0 ( n λ R2 ) for non magnetic permanent magnets armature

  BI 0 ( nλR0 ) 
 Rn =  BI1( nλR2 ) + BK1( nλR2 )  for magnetic supporting armature
  BK 0 ( n λ R0 )  .

R
 n = BI 1 ( n λ R2 ) for non magnetic supporting armature

Copyright (c) 2010 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, Permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.

10

V. CALCULATION OF GLOBAL QUANTITIES
Calculation of global quantities (EMF, self and mutual
inductances, cogging and thrust forces) allows evaluating
machines performance. Furthermore, global quantities can be
used for the coupling of developed model with electric circuit
equations. It can then be used to study behaviour of linear
tubular machines when connected to power converters and so
for sizing and optimisation purposes.
A. Electromotive force calculation
Two different techniques are used for calculation of EMF
and inductances; one is based on the winding function theory
[30] and the other one is based on Stokes theorem and uses
vector potential in slots. The first technique is always used for
analytical models which do not take into account stator
slotting in an explicit manner [18] [29]. The second technique
is specific to analytical models which do take into account
stator slotting in an explicit manner. Since developed model
takes into account stator slotting, method using magnetic
vector potential is described in what follows.
Based on Stokes theorem and using vector potential in a slot
‘l’, flux passing through the coil located in the slot, if the slot
is filled with one phase (fig. 4.a), is given by
R3 zl + w
2πN t
Φl = ∫ ∫ Aθ( I , l ) rdrdz
w( R3 − R2 )
R2 zl
Aθ(I, l) is the open circuit vector potential in slot ‘l’. Margins of
the integrals have to be adapted in the case where the slot is
filled with two coils belonging to two different phases (figures
4.b and 4.c).
In the case of a slot filled with conductors of one phase, the
flux passing through this coil is given by equation (48).
Φ l = N t 2π a0( I , l ) (48)
(I, l)
Calculation of coefficients a0 is detailed in Appendix D.
A phase total flux linkage is obtained by adding fluxes of
all coils belonging to this phase. It should be taken account, in
the summation of fluxes, how coils are connected. The
induced EMF per phase, for a linear speed v, is obtained as
dΦ dΦ
E=− = −v (49)
dt dz
B. Inductance calculation
As for EMF calculation, estimation of self and mutual
inductances can be done using the two previously defined
techniques. However, analytical models which do not take into
account stator slotting in an explicit manner can not be used to
estimate the total self or mutual inductances since slot-leakage
inductances can not be evaluated. These models can only be
used to estimate airgap self (magnetising) or mutual
inductances. The slot leakage-inductance can only be
estimated using a separate model [29].
When using slots vector potential, it is not necessary to
divide self and mutual inductances calculation in two steps.
Estimation of both inductances is done straightaway. The
airgap self (magnetising) and mutual inductances are deduced
from the stator phase flux linkage, which can be calculated
using same formula as equation (48). Aθ(I, l) is in this case slot
(47)
vector potential due to armature reaction field (current flowing
in only one phase).
In the case of a slot ‘l’ filled with conductors of one phase,
the flux passing through this coil (coil ‘l’) is given by
 µ 0πJ θ(l ) 
Φ l = N t  2π b0( I, l ) + (2 R34 − 2 R3 R23 + R24 )  (50)
 6( R3 − R2 ) 
 

+∞ +∞
∑ ( f (n , k ) − g (n, k )) b2( IIk ) Rk ∑ ( g (n, k ) + f (n, k )) b4( IIk ) Rk
' ' ' '
b2( II )
n Qn − b4( II )
n Qn +
k =1 k =1

∑[ ] ∑[ ]
 2µ ls Nsp   2µ ls Nsp 
 0 sin (nλ w 2 ) J 3(l ) cos(nλlτ s )   0 sin (nλ w 2 ) J 3(l ) sin(nλlτ s ) 
 πn l =1
  πn l =1

   

∑[ ] ∑[ ]
  4nλ Nsp  , and   4nλ Nsp  (46)
  cos(nλ w 2 ) J 4 sin(nλlτ s ) 
( l )
  cos(nλ w 2 ) J 4 cos(nλlτ s ) 
( l )
   
=   Nspτ s w l =1  =   Nspτ s w l =1 
 
+    s +1    −    s +1   
 
 
+∞ 
∆ s (−1)
∑

 2

(
 1 − (−1) s  
  )  
 
+∞ 
∑∆ s (−1)

 2

(
 1 − (−1) s  
  )
 
 
×
s =1


(
(nλ) 2 − (πs w)2  
 
)  
 
×
s =1


(
( nλ) 2 − (πs w)2   )
 
         
 zl + w R3 
 (l ) 
 ∫ ∫ J θ drdz   zl + w 2 R3 zl + w R3 
Qn = − BK 0 (nλR2 )  
=  and (l ) [w( R3 − R2 )] ,
zl R2
where,  , J 3(l ) J 4 = 2 ∫ ∫ J θ(l ) drdz − ∫ ∫ J θ(l ) drdz  with
R
 n = BK 1 ( n λ R 2 ) [w( R3 − R2 )]  z R zl + w 2 R2

 l 2 
l = 1, 2, …, Nsp.

Copyright (c) 2010 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, Permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.

11

Calculation of coefficients b0(I, l) is detailed in Appendix E.

If the applied current density corresponds to 1 At, the coil self
inductance will be directly given by flux passing through it.
Total self inductance is then obtained by adding inductance of
all coils belonging to this phase. It should be taken account, in
the summation of fluxes, how coils are connected. Mutual
inductance can be easily estimated using the same approach.
Flux passing through a phase other than the one where the
current is flowing is should be calculated.
C. Forces calculation Fig. 5. Longitudinal view of an elementary cell of the tubular linear machine.
Forces calculation is done using Maxwell stress tensor The derived analytical expressions of the field distribution
method. This method is applied on the surface of permanent have been validated by finite-element calculations of the radial
magnets at the interface between regions II and III. By and axial magnetic field components in various regions of the
applying Maxwell stress tensor method, force applied on the machine. Figure 6 compares analytically predicted and finite-
moving armature can be expressed as follows [28] element-calculated open-circuit distributions of the axial and
Lt radial magnetic field components for a given position. It can
2π R1 be seen that the analytical prediction agrees well with the
F= ∫ Br
( II )
( R1 , z ) B z( II ) ( R1 , z )dz (51)
µ0 finite-element solution.
0

where Bz(II) and Br(II) are respectively the tangential and radial
magnetic field components in region II. For calculation of
cogging force open circuit field components are used and for
thrust force on load magnetic field are used.
Using magnetic field components expression in region II
calculated previously, force can be expressed in a closed form
as follows

+∞   ( II ) ( II )  
Nsτ s πR1   BK1 (nλR1 ) BI 0 (nλR1 )  c 2 n c3n  
F=
µ0 ∑  
  + BK (nλR ) BI (nλR )  ( II ) ( II )  
1  − c 
n =1   0 1 1
 1n c 4n   (a) Region I (r = (R2+R3) / 2)
(52)
a ( II ) , for calculation of cogging force
 in
where, ci(nII ) =  '
,
ai(nII ) + bi(nII ) , for calculation of thrust force
with i =1, 2, 3 and 4.

VI. COMPARISON WITH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSES

Design parameters of the machine to which both methods:
finite element and analytic model have been applied are given
in Table I. The utility and accuracy of developed model are
demonstrated via comparison to the finite element results. (b) Region II (r = (R1+R2) / 2)
Finite element method has been applied to the model shown in
Fig. 5 by applying a periodic boundary condition at the axial
boundaries and imposing the natural Dirichlet boundary
condition at the other bounding surfaces. FE analyses have
been done considering a relative permeability of 1e6 for
ferromagnetic cores.

TABLE I – MACHINES PARAMETERS

Poles number 6
Slot number 18
Magnets distribution Parallel
Residual induction (T) 1 (c) Region III (r = (R0+R1) / 2)
w, τs, τp and τm (mm) 8, 16, 48 and 36
Fig. 6. Comparison of open circuit magnetic field components in the various
R0, R1, R2 and R3 (mm) 20, 28, 30 and 54
region of the machine.

Copyright (c) 2010 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, Permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.

12

In order to illustrate the gain in term of accuracy of

developed model, open circuit airgap magnetic field
components obtained by the developed model (AM
(Analytical Model) with slotting) and an analytical model
which neglects stator slotting (AM without slotting) are
compared in Fig. 7 with the finite element calculations.
Figure 8 compares the analytically predicted and finite-
element-calculated flux and EMF waveform per turn. Flux
linkage is calculated using vector potential in slots. EMF is
calculated for a constant armature velocity of 1 (m/s). As seen,
fairly good agreement is again achieved.
Table II compares analytically phase self and mutual
inductances with FE predicted. Again, good agreement
between the analytic and FE predictions is observed. (a) Flux linkage per turn
Figure 9 shows the on load flux distribution. On load
calculation are done under sinusoidal excitation with zero
phase shifting between current and EMF in each phase. Figure
10 compares analytically predicted and finite-element-
calculated on load distributions of the axial and radial
magnetic field components for a given position. As for open
circuit field distribution, satisfactory agreement is again
achieved. Comparison of cogging and thrust forces (Fig. 10)
also shows good agreement. Cogging and thrust forces shown
in Fig. 11 do not include the cogging force component due to
finite armature length as a periodic condition is applied in both
analytical and FE models.

(b) EMF per turn at v = 1 m/s

Fig. 8. Comparison of flux linkage and EMF per turn.

Fig. 9. On load flux distribution.

(a) Radial component comparison
TABLE II – PERMEANCE CALCULATION RESULTS
Analytical model Finite element

Self permeance (µH) 10.5930 10.5951

Mutual permeance (µH) -0.44760 -0.44720

VII. CONCLUSION
A general analytical model for the analysis and design of a
class of tubular, linear permanent magnet machines has been
developed. The developed analytical model is based on a 2D
exact analytical solution of the magnetic field distribution in
the machine using separation of variables method. This model
(b) Axial component comparison
is developed inside the slots as well as in the airgap and the
PM regions and has been established for different machines
Fig. 7. Comparison of airgap magnetic field components.

Copyright (c) 2010 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, Permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.

13

(a) Radial component in region I (r = (R2+R3) / 2)

(a) Cogging force

(b) Axial component in region I (r = (R2+R3) / 2)

(b) Thrust force

Fig. 11. Cogging and thrust forces comparison.

modeling of a variety of tubular linear permanent magnet

(c) Region II (r = (R1+R2) / 2)
machines.
The presented analytical model helps, in a first step, to
explore rapidly the search space of potentially optimal
prototypes. Obviously, the chosen potentially optimal
prototypes issued from this first step have to be refined using a
finite element based optimization procedure which acts near
the global optimum and then save a large amount of time.

APPENDIX A
Definition of f (n,k) and g (n,k) is given at the bottom of the
next page.
In the case of internal moving armature topologies and
external moving magnetic armature, expressions of Qn and Rn
are given by
(d) Region III (r = (R0+R1) / 2)
Fig. 10. Comparison of on load magnetic field components in the various  BI 0 (nλ R2 ) for magnetic armature

region of the machine.
 BI ( nλ R2 ) 
Qn =  0 
configurations inner or outer moving parts and magnetic or 
 − BI ( nλ R )  for non magnetic armature
0 0
BK 0 (nλ R2 ) 
non magnetic permanent magnet armatures.  BK 0 (nλ R0 ) 
Analytical expressions of the open-circuit and armature 
reaction fields have been established for the different (A.3)
topologies, and expressions of global quantities, the force, BI1 (nλ R2 ) for magnetic armature
EMF, and self and mutual winding inductances have been 
 BI (nλ R2 ) 
derived. The utility and accuracy of developed model are Rn =  1 
demonstrated via comparison to finite element analyses. The  + BI 0 (nλ R0 ) BK (nλ R )  for non magnetic armature
analytical model should, therefore, be a useful tool for  BK 0 (nλ R0 ) 1 2 


comparative studies, design optimization, and dynamic (A.4)

Copyright (c) 2010 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, Permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.

14

For same cases, definition of On and Pn are given at the APPENDIX B

bottom of next page. Calculation of coefficients of magnetic field components in
In the case of external moving armature topologies with a region I can be done using interface conditions between
permanent magnets non-magnetic armature, expressions of Qn, regions I and II (equations (12) and (13)).
and Rn are given by
Let
Qn = − BK 0 ( nλR2 )

 Rn = BK1( nλR2 )
(A.7) a ( II )
 5n
(
= − a3( IIn ) BI1 (n λ R2 ) + a 4( IIn ) BK1 (n λ R2 ) )
a ( II )
 6n (
= a1(nII ) BI1 (n λ R2 ) + a 2( IIn ) BK1 (n λ R2 ) )
= (a )
For same case (external moving armature topologies with a  ( II ) (A.9)
1n BI 0 ( n λ R2 ) − a 2 n BK 0 ( n λ R2 )
( II ) ( II )
permanent magnets non-magnetic armature), definitions of On a7 n
= (a )
and Pn are given at the bottom of the page (equation (A.8) 
3 n BI 0 (n λ R2 ) − a 4 n BK 0 (n λ R2 )
a8( IIn ) ( II ) ( II )
given at yhe bottom of next page).

  H m ( R2 )   mπ   mπ    mπ   mπ 
  1  + nλ  − 1  − nλ  1  + kλ  + 1  − kλ   
 1 + ∞  G m ( R2 )   w   w    w   w 
 ∑ 
f (n, k ) =  wτ s m≠0    πw   πw  


if (k + n) = αNsp
(A.1)

 ×  cos ( k + n) Nspτ  − (−1) cos (k − n) Nspτ  
m
 
    s   s  
0 otherwise


  H m ( R2 )   mπ   mπ    mπ   mπ 
  1  + nλ  − 1  − nλ  1  + kλ  + 1  − kλ   
 1 + ∞  G m ( R2 )   w   w    w   w 
 ∑ 
g (n, k ) =  wτ s m≠0    πw   πw 


if ( k − n) = αNsp
(A.2)
 
 ×  cos ( k − n) Nspτ  − (−1) cos (k + n) Nspτ  
m
 
    s   s  
0 otherwise

where α is a non null relative integer.
In the case of internal moving armature topologies and external moving magnetic armature, expressions of On and Pn are given
by
 F 1 n( R1 ) BI 0 (nλ R2 ) − F 2 n( R1 ) BK 0 (nλ R2 ) 
 
 + µ M  BK 0 (nλ R2 ) − [BK1 ( nλ R1 ) BI 0 ( nλ R2 ) + BI1 ( nλ R1 ) BK 0 (nλ R2 )]   for magnetic armature


0 2n 
 BK 0 ( nλ R 0 ) [BI 1 ( nλ R1 ) BK 0 ( nλ R1 ) + BI 0 ( nλ R1 ) BK 1 ( nλ R ) ]
1 

On =  (A.5)
 ( III )
 F 1 n( R1 ) BI 0 (nλ R2 ) − (a 2 n + F 2 n( R1 )) BK 0 (nλ R2 ) 


 − µ 0 M 2 n
[BK1 (nλ R1 ) BI 0 (nλ R2 ) + BI1 (nλ R1 ) BK 0 (nλ R2 )]  for non magnetic armature

 [BI1 (nλ R1 ) BK 0 (nλ R1 ) + BI 0 (nλ R1 ) BK1 (nλ R1 )] 
 F 1 n( R1 ) BI1 (nλ R2 ) + F 2 n( nλ R1 ) BK1 (nλ R2 ) 
 
 − µ M  BK1 (nλ R2 ) + [BK1 ( nλ R1 ) BI 1 (nλ R2 ) − BI1 ( nλ R1 ) BK1 (nλ R2 )]   for magnetic armature
 0 2 n  BK 0 (nλ R0 ) [BI 1 ( nλ R1 ) BK 0 (nλ R1 ) + BI 0 (nλ R1 ) BK1 (nλ R1 )]  
 
Pn =  (A.6)
 ( III )
 F 1 n( R1 ) BI1 (nλ R2 ) + (a 2 n + F 2 n( R1 )) BK1 ( nλ R2 ) 


 − µ 0 M 2 n
[ BK1 (nλ R1 ) BI1 (nλ R2 ) − BI1 (nλ R1 ) BK1 ( nλ R2 )]  for non magnetic armature

 [BI1 (nλ R1 ) BK 0 (nλ R1 ) + BI 0 (nλ R1 ) BK1 (nλ R1 )] 
 ( III ) − µ0 M 2 n BI1 (nλ R0 )
a 2 n = BK (nλ R ) BI (nλ R ) + BK ( nλ R ) BI (nλ R )
with for permanent magnets non magnetic armature,  1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 .
a ( III ) = 0
 4n

Copyright (c) 2010 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, Permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.

15

Using interface condition (12), coefficients Fm(I, l)

of and,
magnetic field in region I are given by   a ( III ) 
  1n 
  cos(n λ z l )    ( IV )  ( III ) BK1 (n λ R0 )  for internal moving part
    a1n =  + a 2 n 
 ( II )  − (−1) cos(n λ ( z l + w) )  
m
  BI1 (n λ R0 ) 
a5 n  m π 
   m π   
 − n λ  + nλ   0 for external moving part
 2 m π  +∞    w  w    
=   0
 w 2 G (R )  ∑ 
Fm( I, l )   for external moving part
 sin(n λ z l )    ( III )
 m 2 n =1  
   a ( IV ) =  a 2 n 
 ( II )  − (−1) m sin(n λ ( z l + w))    
2 n  λ  for external moving part
+ a 6 n    BI (n R )
  ( III )
 mπ  m π 
 + a 1 0 
  − n λ  + n λ    
1 n
BK1(n λ R0 ) 
   w  w   
  (A.13)
(A.10)
Using interface condition (13), coefficients Fm(I, l) of magnetic APPENDIX C
field in region I are given by Calculation of coefficients of magnetic field components in
region I can be done using interface conditions between
  (−1) m sin( n λ ( z l + w))  
    regions I and II (equations (12) and (13)). Using interface
 ( II )  − sin( n λ z l )   condition (12), coefficients Em(I, l) of magnetic field in region I
n λ a 7 n  
  mπ  mπ  are given by
n λ −  + nλ 
 2  +∞    w  w       sin(nλz l )   
Fm( I, l ) =   ∑     ( II ' )   
 wH m (R2 ) n=1   (−1) m cos(n λ ( z l + w))   

 b1n  − ( −1) sin(nλ ( zl + w))   
m
    nλ  mπ 
   mπ   
 ( II )  − cos( n λ zl )     − λ   + λ  
− n λ a8 n   n n 
     

+∞   w  w
 mπ  mπ   2mπ 
 n λ −  + n λ    2 R ∑  

  w Gm (R2 )  n =1 
   w  w     n
  cos(nλzl )  
  ( II )   
(I ,l)   b3 n  − ( −1) m cos( nλ( z l + w))   
'

(A.11) Em = − 
 
For a given position coefficients a1n(II), a2n(II), a3n(II) and a4n(II)   nλ   mπ − nλ  mπ + nλ    
  
are calculated using equation (28). Coefficients a5n(II), a6n(II),    w  w    
 
a7n(II) and a8n(II) can then be calculated.  
 m+1   mπ   
In the case of a non magnetic permanent magnet supporting  F 3 m ( R ) BI  R  
 (1 − (−1) m )(−1) 2 J (l )  2 1
 w
2
  
armature, coefficients of region IV have also to be defined. + 4
wG m (R2 )  
They are given by   + F 4m( R2 ) BK1  mπ R2   
   
   w  
 a ( III ) for internal moving part
a3( IV
n
)
=  3n (A.14)
 0 for external moving part
 (A.12)
 ( IV ) 0 for external moving part
a 4 n =  ( III )
 a 4 n for external moving part

In the case of external moving armature topologies with a permanent magnets non-magnetic armature, expressions of On and
Pn are given by
  (a ( III ) + F1n( R )) BI (nλR ) − F 2n( R ) BK (nλR ) 
  1n 1 0 2 1 0 2 
On = 
 − µ 0 M 2 n
[BK1 ( nλR1 ) BI 0 (nλR2 ) + BI 1 ( nλR1 ) BK 0 ( nλR2 )] 


  [BI1 (nλR1 ) BK 0 (nλR1 ) + BI 0 (nλR1 ) BK1 (nλR1 )] 
 (A.8)
  (a ( III ) + F1n( R )) BI (nλR ) + F 2n( R ) BK (nλR ) 
  1n 1 1 2 1 1 2 
 Pn = 
 − µ 0 M 2 n
[BK 1 ( nλ R1 ) BI 1 ( nλ R 2 ) − BI 1 ( nλ R 1 ) BK 1 ( n λ R )
2 ] 

  [BI1 (nλR1 ) BK 0 (nλR1 ) + BI 0 (nλR1 ) BK1 (nλR1 )] 
µ 0 M 2 n BK1 (nλ R0 )
with, a1(nIII ) = and a3( III )
n = 0.
BK1 (nλ R0 ) BI 0 ( nλ R0 ) + BK 0 (nλ R0 ) BI1 (nλ R0 )

Copyright (c) 2010 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, Permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.

16

Using interface condition (13), coefficients Em(I, l) of magnetic REFERENCES

field in region I are given by [1] A. Cassat, N. Corsi, R. Moser and N. Wavre, “Direct linear drives:
Market and performance status,” Proceedings of LDIA 2003, p. 1-12,
   (−1) m sin(nλ( z l + w))    Birmingham, UK, 2003.
 
     [2] N. Boules, “Two-dimensional field analysis of cylindrical machines with
 ( II ' )  − sin(nλzl )    permanent magnet excitation,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Applications, vol. 20,
 b1n Qn  

no. 5, pp. 1267-1277, September/October 1984.
   mπ  mπ 
   nλ −  + nλ     [3] N. Boules, “Prediction of no-load flux density distribution in permanent
+∞    w  w    magnet machines,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Applications, vol. 21, no. 4,
     
∑
2 
  wH (R )  
pp. 633-643, May/June 1985.

 m 2  n=1  (−1) cos(nλ( zl + w))   
m [4] N. Boules, “Design optimization of permanent magnet dc motors,” IEEE
    Trans. Ind. Applications, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 786-792, July/August 1990.

Em( I , l ) =  ( II ' )  − cos(nλzl )   [5] Z. Q. Zhu, D. Howe, E. Bolte and B. Ackermann, “Instantaneous
−
 3nb Q n   magnetic field distribution in brushless permanent magnet dc motors,
   m π  m π 
   nλ −  + nλ     part I: open-circuit field,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 124-
   w  w     135, January 1993.
  
  [6] Z. Q. Zhu and D. Howe, “Instantaneous magnetic field distribution in
 m +1   mπ   brushless permanent magnet dc motors, part II: armature-reaction field,”
 F 3 m ( R ) BI  R  
 (1 − (−1) m )(−1) 2 J  ( l ) 2 0
 w
2
 
IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 136-142, January 1993.
+ 4

[7] Z. Q. Zhu and D. Howe, “Instantaneous magnetic field distribution in
wH m (R2 ) 
  − F 4m( R2 ) BK 0  mπ R2   
brushless permanent magnet dc motors, part III: effect of stator slotting,”
   IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 143-151, January 1993.
   w  [8] Z. Q. Zhu and D. Howe, “Instantaneous magnetic field distribution in
(A.15) brushless permanent magnet dc motors, part IV: magnetic field on load,”
IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 152-158, January 1993.
[9] A. B. Proca, A. Keyhani, A. EL-Antably, W. Lu and M. Dai, “Analytical
APPENDIX D model for permanent magnet motors with surface mounted magnets,”
IEEE Trans. On Energy Convers., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 386–391,
It can be easily shown, using the continuity of magnetic Sept. 2003.
vector potential property, that [10] P. Kumar and P. Bauer, “Improved analytical model of a permanent-
magnet brushless dc motor,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 44, no. 10,
a0( II ) = a 0( III ) (A.16) pp. 2299-2309, October 2008.
[11] L. Jian, K. T. Chau, Y. Gong, C. Yu and W. Li, “Analytical calculation
In case of a non magnetic permanent magnet supporting of magnetic field in surface-inset permanent magnet motors,” IEEE
armature, using the same property, it can be shown that Trans. Magn., vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 4688-4691, October 2009.
[12] A. Bellara, Y. Amara, G. Barakat and B. Dakyo, “Two-dimensional
a0( II ) = a0( III ) = a0( IV ) (A.17) exact analytical solution of armature reaction field in slotted surface-
mounted PM radial flux synchronous machines,” IEEE Trans. Magn.,
vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 4534-4538, October 2009.
Coefficients a0(II), a0(III) and a0(IV) are arbitrary constants [13] J. Azzouzi, G. Barakat and B. Dakyo, “Quasi-3-D analytical modeling of
which in order to simplify the problem can be set to zero. the magnetic field of an axial flux permanent-magnet synchronous
Using continuity of magnetic vector potential property machine,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 746–752,
December 2005.
between regions I and II, coefficient a0(Il) in a given slot ‘l’ is [14] B. Ackermann and R. Sottek, “Analytical modeling of the cogging
then given by by equation (A.18) shown at the bottom of this torque in permanent magnet motors,” Electr. Eng., vol. 78, no. 2, pp.
page. 117–125, Mar. 1995.
[15] B. L. J. Gysen, K. J. Meessen, J. J. H. Paulides and E. A. Lomonova,
“General formulation of the electromagnetic field distribution in
APPENDIX E machines and devices using Fourier analysis,” IEEE Trans. Magn.,
vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 39-52, January 2010.
Using continuity of magnetic vector potential property [16] G. Xiong and S. A. Nasar, “Analysis of field and forces in a permanent
between regions I and II’, and setting arbitrary constant b0(II’) magnet linear synchronous machine based on the concept of magnetic
to zero, coefficient b0(I, l) in a given slot ‘l’ is then given by charge,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 2713-2719, May 1989.
[17] D. L. Trumper, W. J. Kim and M. E. Williams, “Design and analysis
equation (A.19) shown at the bottom of this page. framework for linear permanent-magnet machines,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Applications, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 371-379, March/April 1996.

+∞  1n
( 1 2 2n 1 2 )
 a ( II ) BI (nλR ) + a ( II ) BK (nλR ) cos(nλ (z + w 2 ))
l

sin (nλ w 2 )+
R
∑
2
a 0( I , l ) = 2  (A.18)
λ
( )
2
w ( n )  
 a3n BI1 (nλR2 ) + a 4n BK1 (nλR2 ) sin (nλ(z l + w 2 )) 
n =1 ( II ) ( II )

 (II' ) (II' )  
 b1 n BI 1 (nλn 2 ) + b2 n BK 1 (nλn 2 )  cos(nλ(z l + w 2 ))
  
R R  R +∞ 2
b0(I, l) = − µ0 J 3(l) R22  3 − 2  + 2 ∑ sin(nλ w 2 )+  (A.19)
 2 3  w n=1 nλ  
 (II' ) (II' )  
 b3 n BI 1 (nλn 2 ) + b4 n BK 1 (nλn 2 )  sin(nλ( z l + w 2 )) 
  

Copyright (c) 2010 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, Permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
[18] J. Wang, G. Jewell and D. Howe, “A general framework for the
analysis and design of tubular linear permanent magnet machines,”
IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 1986-2000, May 1999.
[19] N. Bianchi, “Analytical field computation of tubular permanent-
magnet linear motor,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 3798-
3801, September 2000.
[20] J. Wang, W. Wang, K. Atallah and D. Howe, “Demagnetization
assessment for three-phase tubular brushless permanent-magnet
machines,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 2195-2203,
September 2008.
[21] B. L. J. Gysen, E. A. Lomonova, J. J. H. Paulides and A. J. A.
Vandenput, “Analytical and numerical techniques for solving
Laplace and Poisson equations in a tubular permanent-magnet
actuator: Part I. Semi-analytical framework,” IEEE Trans. Magn.,
vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 1751-1759, July 2008.
[22] S. T. Boroujeni, J. Milimonfared and M. Ashabani, “Design,
prototyping and analysis of a novel tubular permanent-magnet linear
machine,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 45, no. 12, pp. 5405-5413,
December 2009.
[23] K. Baoquan, L. Liyi and Z. Chengming, “Analysis of thrust
characteristics of tubular linear electromagnetic launcher for space-
use,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 250-255, January 2009.
[24] B. L. J. Gysen, J. L. G. Jansen, J. J. H. Paulides and E. A. Lomonova,
“Design aspects of an active electromagnetic suspension system for
automotive applications,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 45, no. 5, pp.
1589-1597, September/October 2009.
Copyright (c) 2010 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, Permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
17
[25] D. Ishak, Z. Q. Zhu and D. Howe, “Permanent-magnet brushless
machines with unequal tooth widths and similar slot and pole
numbers,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Applications, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 584-590,
March/April 2005.
[26] J. Wang and D. Howe, “Design optimization of radially magnetized,
iron-cored, tubular permanent-magnet machines and drives systems,”
IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 3262-3277, September 2004.
[27] J. Wang, D. Howe and G. Jewell, “Fringing in tubular permanent-
magnet machines: Part I. Magnetic field distribution, flux linkage,
and thrust force,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 3507-3516,
November 2003.
[28] J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 3th edition, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc, 1999.
[29] J. Wang, D. Howe and Y. Amara, “Armature reaction field and
inductances of tubular modular permanent magnet machines,”
Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 97, no. 10, pp. 10Q504-1-10Q504-3,
2005.
[30] N. Abdel Karim, J. Azzouzi and G. Barakat, “Winding functions
theory and Maxwell’s equations coupled analytical modeling of an
axial flux PM synchronous machine,” International Revue of
Electrical Engineering (IREE), vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 27-35, Jan./Feb.
2006.