12 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 47, NO.
1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011
Sources and Characteristics of Unbalanced Magnetic
Pull in Three-Phase Cage Induction Motors With
Axial-Varying Rotor Eccentricity
David G. Dorrell, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—This paper puts forward a model for assessing un-
balanced magnetic pull (UMP) due to rotor eccentricity in cage
induction motors that takes into account the axial variation in the
eccentricity. It is tested using ten- and four-pole machines with
experimental results validating the model. This paper assesses
the effects of rotor differential flux, saturation, bar number, and
variable-frequency operation on the UMP and highlights the key
points for the generation of UMP in cage induction motors. Both
dynamic and static eccentricities are studied.
Index Terms—Induction motor, rotor eccentricity, unbalanced
magnetic pull (UMP).
I. I NTRODUCTION
T HERE HAVE been several papers that deal with unbal-
anced magnetic pull (UMP) in cage induction motors.
This is caused by the rotor not being centered within the
rotor bore (as discussed later), which is generally called rotor
eccentricity. This produces a concentration of flux in the area
of the narrowest air-gap length, which generates a radial force
on the rotor; this force will try to pull the rotor further off
the center. Studies of rotor eccentricity can be broken down
into three areas: detection via current condition monitoring
or other method, vibration generation, and UMP. Obviously,
many studies cover more than one of these areas. Parasitic
effects, such as increased losses, can be a by-product of rotor
eccentricity [1].
There are many papers that address condition monitoring
using a variety of mathematical algorithmic strategies for rotor
eccentricity detection. These are relevant to larger motors used
in high-revenue-earning applications such as mining and oil
pumping. Some recent examples are given in [2]–[5].
Rotor eccentricity is also linked with excess and characteris-
tic vibrations. The papers on this subject tend to put forward
simplified calculation models and focus on the issues with
Manuscript received February 2, 2010; revised May 13, 2010; accepted
May 14, 2010. Date of publication November 9, 2010; date of current version
January 19, 2011. Paper 2010-EMC-030.R1, presented at the 2009 IEEE
Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition, San Jose, CA, September 20–24,
and approved for publication in the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON I NDUSTRY
A PPLICATIONS by the Electric Machines Committee of the IEEE Industry
Applications Society.
The author is with the University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, N.S.W.
2007, Australia (e-mail: ddorrell@eng.uts.edu.au).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIA.2010.2090845
0093-9994/$26.00 © 2011 IEEE
resonant frequencies and the generation of vibrations around
the critical speeds. Some papers are given in [6]–[9], while
further papers are quoted later. This is an important issue and
can lead to unacceptable vibration and wear. Some of the
results later in this paper highlight the fact that, under certain
conditions, increased UMP occurs at set frequencies during
run-up, which are a function of the pole number. These affect
the resonant frequencies.
UMP is an important issue in any electrical machine, and
examples of UMP in other machines are given in [10]–[15].
However, because the induction machine has a secondary cir-
cuit, where the rotor current requires calculation, the UMP in
induction motors is more complicated to calculate compared
to other electrical machines. In addition, there are parallel
circuits in the cage rotor to incorporate into the calculation.
This parallel circuit damps the UMP, as illustrated later. Parallel
stator windings can also damp UMP (although not to the extent
of the cage), and this was illustrated by the author in [16] and
[17] and by others in [18] and [19]. The effects of slotting
were addressed in [20]. Usually, eccentricity models assume
the eccentricity to be uniform down the axial bore, and Li et al.
[21] have recently addressed the issue of axial variation of ec-
centricity; however, this investigated the detection and vibration
frequency issues. Previous studies to this are discussed later,
which put forward the UMP calculation techniques with axial
variation of eccentricity; this is investigated in this paper in
relation to radial bearing forces.
The calculation of UMP as a direct radial decentering force
has been the subject of investigation for some time, and two
early studies are [22] and [23], with the former even includ-
ing measurement of the radial force. UMP measurement is a
difficult task, and very few investigators attempt to do this.
UMP was measured in [17] by the author; this paper will use
some of the results from [17] plus additional results for model
verification. The reason for requiring the knowledge of the
UMP is in order to allow improved mechanical design and
rating of bearings, etc. Underestimates of UMP may not be
immediately apparent when the eccentricity is low; however,
it may result in increased levels of bearing wear and, hence,
increased maintenance levels or repair costs and reduced life
cycle.
Rotor eccentricity can be broken down into either dynamic
eccentricity (where the rotor rotates on the stator bore center but
not on its own axis, so that there is generally a rotating radial
force at machine speed) or (more commonly) static eccentricity
DORRELL: SOURCES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF UMP IN CAGE INDUCTION MOTORS WITH ROTOR ECCENTRICITY
Fig. 1. Different cases of UMP with respect to the axial variation.
(where the rotor rotates on its own axis but is not centered in
the stator bore). Burakov and Arkkio [24], [25] investigated
the UMP over a range of eccentricity rotations: “whirling
eccentricity” (static and dynamic are particular instances where
ωecc = 0 or ωr , respectively). This is possible when the UMP
forces interact with the mechanical system and the shaft is
flexible so that critical speeds excite further vibrations.
Modeling techniques include analytical [26] and finite-
element methods [27], [28]. These assume that the rotor eccen-
tricity is constant down the axial rotor length. The analytical
models usually use linear magnet circuits, but a nonlinear
model that included saturation was put forward in [29].
A combination of static and dynamic eccentricities was con-
sidered in [30] since it would be quite normal for both to exist
simultaneously due to tolerance variations and wear. Initially,
concentrating on axially invariant eccentricity, then [31] illus-
trated that, at speeds between no load and full load, dynamic
eccentricity tends to generate higher UMP than static eccen-
tricity. This was backed up by several papers by Arkkio et al.
([25] is an example) that address whirling eccentricity. These
consistently found a peak in the UMP when the rotor whirl
corresponded to the rotor speed, i.e., dynamic eccentricity. This
is due to the damping effect of the rotor cage. It acts as a
set of spatially distributed parallel windings that can damp the
additional rotating flux waves that are generated by the rotor
eccentricity.
Rotor eccentricity, which is not uniform down the axial
length, has been investigated. This will affect the rotor UMP
damping currents. Akiyama [32] first addressed this issue,
and Dorrell [31], [33], [34] developed analytical models for
the eccentricity cases in Fig. 1 (some theory is repeated and
further detailed in this paper for completeness). These cases
were further investigated using numerical solutions [35]–[37].
In this paper, an analytical model is put forward for calculating
13
Fig. 2. Air-gap flux waves for a 10-pole MMF (pm = 5) wave with addi-
tional 8- and 12-pole flux waves due to rotor eccentricity modulation and net
rotor surface radial force wave.
and assessing UMP with axial variation of the eccentricity.
Experimental results are put forward to validate the model for
both static and dynamic eccentricities. The variation of UMP
with rotor bar number and the effect of rotor differential leak-
ages will be investigated. Variable-frequency operation is also
addressed. These issues have not been previously addressed in
the literature. While [38] addressed the effect of skew on UMP,
it is unlikely to be an issue in larger machines with no skew and
fabricated rather than cast rotors. Interbar currents [39] would
probably help damp UMP by allowing further paths for UMP
damping currents.
The work in [29] clearly illustrates using graphical tech-
niques that the concentration of flux in the air gap can be
represented by two flux waves with pole-pair numbers differing
by one, while [26] gives a rigorous mathematical proof of
this. The relative rotational velocities of the flux waves with
respect to each other will dictate as to whether the UMP radial
force is steady in one direction or rotates. Static eccentricity
tends to produce a steady pull in one direction, while dynamic
eccentricity creates a UMP vector rotating in synchronism with
the rotor. In this paper, a ten-pole motor is mostly used as the
example machine. In Fig. 2, a graphical representation of a ten-
pole MMF and the associated 10-pole flux wave plus additional
8- and 12-pole flux waves at one point in time, when there is
rotor eccentricity, is shown. When these are summed, then the
net air-gap distribution generates a rotor surface radial force
wave that will pull the rotor off the center, and this is clearly
shown in Fig. 3. There will be a series of MMF waves to
consider, which correspond to the winding harmonics, and these
are discussed in the next section and are illustrated in Table I.
II. A NALYTICAL M ODEL —U NSATURATED
To develop an analytical tool that is sufficiently accurate to
give meaningful results, then the correct air-gap flux waves
have to be selected. UMP can be defined into two convenient
categories—run UMP and start UMP. The vast majorities of
studies address run UMP, i.e., the UMP during steady-state
operation that will cause bearing wear and vibration. Start UMP
14 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 47, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011
Fig. 3. Rotor surface radial force wave due to eccentricity, showing a net pull
to the right.
TABLE I
A IR -G AP F LUX WAVES ACCOUNTED FOR IN T HIS S TUDY, S HOWING
L INKAGES B ETWEEN S TATOR AND ROTOR MMF WAVES AND
A SSOCIATED A IR -G AP H ARMONIC WAVES ; FOR
T HREE -P HASE W INDING , n = 1, 5, 7, ETC .
has been investigated far less. This may cause the machine to
not start with immediate rotor pullover. The reason for this
differentiation is that the profile of the air-gap harmonics will
change with speed. At full-load speed, the air gap is dominated
by the main pole-number flux wave, whereas at start, it will
have a substantial differential flux wave component. This will
be illustrated in the results given hereinafter.
Most analytical studies only include the main flux waves in
the calculation of UMP, but here, the use of the rotor differential
flux waves as an important source of UMP will be introduced.
While finite-element analysis studies are all-inclusive in terms
of their air-gap flux wave consideration, no study has high-
lighted that the importance is the differential rotor flux in the
UMP calculation for the start UMP. This is a new avenue in
the reporting of the UMP in induction motors and leads to the
highlighting of the importance of rotor bar number.
For practical implementation of a UMP calculation algo-
rithm, various air-gap flux waves have to be identified as
major UMP-producing flux waves; otherwise, the algorithm
becomes unmanageable. Table I gives the range of flux waves
included in the algorithm (pm is the main pole number and n =
1, −5, 7, −11, 13, etc., i.e., for a balanced three-phase motor);
the following assumptions are made.
1) The air-gap permeance wave is attenuated after the first
harmonic, although the second harmonic is used to get
the correct linkages and flux waves for the rotor current
routine (illustrated in Table I: An npm + 1 rotor MMF
wave has to be modulated to produce an npm − 1 air-gap
wave).
2) Only the rotor differentials of the main pole number are
considered (this was found to be a valid approximation if
the stator winding has low harmonic content).
3) The winding is a balanced series-connected three-phase
winding ([17] illustrated the effects that parallel windings
can have with regard to vibration).
4) The UMP calculation algorithm is current fed.
5) The steel is first assumed ideal, and then, a tooth-
saturation algorithm is applied to attenuate the air-gap
flux. This method is derived from [29].
6) Slot permeance effects are neglected. The air-gap length
can be increased slightly using the Carter factors. Slotting
can cause vibration, but it is assumed not to generate
substantial UMP.
The unsaturated analytical model with be studied first, and it
is couched in terms of both dynamic and static eccentricities.
As discussed earlier, UMP is developed by a series of flux
density waves with pole-pair numbers differing by one, and the
waves are given in Table I. For each stator winding harmonic
npm (where pm is the fundamental motor pole pair and n =
1, −5, 7, etc., for a balanced three-phase winding), there will
be a resultant set of air-gap flux waves generated. Permeance
modulation due to eccentricity is used in this paper to generate
additional air-gap flux waves, as shown in column three of
Table I, where the additional flux waves npm ± 1 are generated.
These waves will induce electromotive forces (EMFs) into the
rotor cage and produce current which will oppose the additional
stator flux waves in column three through Lenz’s law. Hence,
the UMP is damped by the cage rotor. Stator and rotor MMF
waves and flux waves are linked as illustrated. The dashed
arrows indicate linkages that are neglected simply to attenuate
the number of terms considered in the analysis. In addition to
the rotor air-gap flux waves in the top half of Table I, there
will be additional rotor differential waves which have high pole
number. Again, to limit the number of waves, only the main
pole-number MMF is assumed to have differential flux waves
DORRELL: SOURCES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF UMP IN CAGE INDUCTION MOTORS WITH ROTOR ECCENTRICITY 15

which are considered in the differential UMP analysis. These for a series m = 1, 2, 3, etc., and permeance coefficients δd,s
m
(x)
are shown in the bottom half of Table I. are defined as follows for the different axial eccentricity cases.
One point that needs to be raised is the issue of the npm − 1 The mean terms are defined by
wave when the machine is a two-pole machine. This is, in 
/
theory, a homopolar flux, which is a flux that crosses the air gs,d = g 1 − Ds,d 2 (6)
gap only once and returns via the shaft, bearings, and housing.
This is generally a poor high-reluctance magnetic path and where g is the air-gap length when the rotor is centered. Here,
was discussed in [26]. The analysis put forward hereinafter is Dd,s denotes the maximum values of per-unit rotor offsets
general, and for clarity, the additional terms that are needed to ds,d (x), and the maximum rotor radial deflections can be
cancel out the npm − 1 terms in Table I are neglected. These defined as
are required when npm = 1. If homopolar flux exists, then the
⎛  ⎞m
UMP is generally increased.
1 − 1 − Ds,d 2
In the following sections, different aspects of the mathemat- Δm s,d =
⎝ ⎠ . (7)
ical analysis are put forward in order to explain the production Ds,d
of the additional flux density wave terms. Initially, it is nec-
essary to discuss the representation of the air gap in terms of The different eccentricity cases can be defined in terms of
permeance waves and to account for the axial variation of air- the eccentricity down the axial length of the stator bore and
gap length (Section II-A). These are used to derive the stator air- represented in exponential form. Referring to Fig. 1 and (4) and
gap flux density waves (Section II-B) which induce rotor EMFs. (5), we have the following cases.
These generate rotor current and hence produce rotor flux Case 1) Constant eccentricity: The eccentricity does not
density waves (Section II-C). Once the set air-gap flux density change down the axial length of the machine (as
waves are derived, the UMP can be calculated. Section II-D standard in the majority of UMP studies)
shows how the UMP can be calculated and resolved into radial
forces on the bearings. m
δs,d (x) = Δm
s,d . (8)
The algorithms need to be implemented in the form of a prac-
tical algorithm, and this is discussed in Section II. A saturated-
Case 2) Eccentricity at one end of the rotor only: The eccen-
tooth model is developed; this is necessary for accurate UMP
tricity increases linearly down the axial length
prediction. The stator and possibly the rotor are slotted; thus,
the classical Carter factors can be used. This is illustrated for m
δs,d (x) = ((Lst + 2x)Δs,d /2Lst )m (9)
the case of an eccentric-rotor air-gap length.
where x is the axial length down the stator bore
A. Air-Gap Length and Permeance (Fig. 1) and x = 0 at the center. Therefore, the range
is −Lst /2 ≤ x ≤ Lst /2, and Lst is the stack length.
If the rotor exhibits eccentricity, the air-gap length can be
Case 3) Equal eccentricities but opposite at each end: The
expressed as varying in the circumferential (y) direction (shown
eccentricities are in opposite directions at each end
in Fig. 3) and axial (x) direction (shown in Fig. 2), where
but equal in magnitude
gs (x, y) = g (1 − ds (x) cos(ky)) (1)
m
δs,d (x) = (2xΔs,d /Lst )m . (10)
gd (x, y, t) = g (1 − dd (x) cos(ωr t − ky)) (2)

for static or dynamic eccentricity. Dynamic eccentricity is a These are a development from [31], [33], and [34] (where x
function of time t. The degree of eccentricity {ds (x) or dd (x)} was defined as zero at one end of the core) and are necessary to
is relative to the air-gap length g; the inverse of the mean air- obtain more accurate air-gap flux waves.
gap radius r is k(= 1/r), and the rotational velocity is ωr in
radians per second. This is governed by the per-unit slip s; if B. Stator MMF and Air-Gap Fields
the stator supply frequency in radians per second is ω, then
If the three-phase supply is balanced with series-connected
ωr = (1 − s/pm )ω. (3) stator windings, the MMF wave (which can be represented as a
surface current density jst (y, t)) is
Equations (1) and (2) have to be inverted to obtain the
∞

expressions for the air-gap permeance. The air-gap permeance n
series can be approximated to jst (y, t) = Re J st ej(ωt−npm ky) (11)
  n=−∞

Λs (x, y) = 1/gs 1 +
/
2δs (x) cos(ky)
m
(4) where, for a balanced three-phase current set with phase-1
m current phasor I s and using the identity a = exp(j2π/3), the
 
/
 MMF magnitude is
Λd (x, y, t) = 1/gd 1+ 2δdm (x) cos(ωr t − ky) (5)
n n
m J st = N st (1 + an−1 + a1−n )I s . (12)
16 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 47, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011

The series n is 1, −5, 7, etc. The stator winding coefficient C. Induced Rotor EMFs, Rotor MMFs, and Air-Gap Fields
of one phase winding is
The rotor cage can be modeled as a circular ladder network

Nw circulating current flow round two adjacent bars and intercon-
n k
N st = ks Cw ejnpm kyw (13) necting end rings. For each space-time harmonic MMF wave,
2π w=1 the number of loop currents will equal the number of bars,
and the magnitudes of these currents will be the same with
where Nw is the stator slot number, Cw is the number of series an appropriate phase shift with successive loops. The winding
winding turns in a slot (it will be zero; then, there are no turns p
distribution N r of two adjacent bars in an Nb bar network, for
in that slot), and yw is the spatial location of the slot. The slot the pth space harmonic, is
opening factor is defined by the slot opening bs (in meters), 
so that −jk pπ  p 
npr (y  ) = sin e−jpky = N r e−jpky . (20)
π Nb
2 sin(0.5npm kbs )
ks = . (14)
npm kbs The EMF induced into the loop can be calculated from

Ampere’s circuital law can be applied using the following Lst 2πr
equation, which leads to a distribution for the air-gap flux u(t) = Re −ep (x, y  , t)npr (y  ) dy  dx (21)
density due the stator MMF waves. Ampere’s law, when applied 0 0
here, is in an integral in the form

where the air-gap electric field is defined by
μ0 jst (y, t) dy + CHomopolar
bst (x, y, t) = dbp (x, y  , t) 
gs,d (x, y, t) ep (x, y  , t) = dy . (22)
dt

= Λs,d (x, y, t) μ0 jst (y, t) dy + CHomopolar Hence, the pth pole-pair stator magnetic field (where p =
npm − 1, npm , and npm + 1) induces a back EMF into a rotor
∞ 
loop defined by two adjacent bars and their connected end-ring

bst (x, y, t) = Re
npm
B st ej(ωt−npm ky) sections, which is given by combining (20)–(22) and working
n=−∞
through so that

npm −1 p ωp 2πLst ∗p p
+ B st (x)ej(ω1 t−k(npm −1)y) ur,st (t) = Re N r KD,p B st ejωp t (23)
pk 2
npm +1

+ B st (x)ej(ω2 t−k(npm +1)y) where
and p=npm ±1
(15) ωp = (1 − n + ns)ω|dynamic eccentrity:p=npm
static eccentrity:p=npm
(24)
where CHomopolar is the integration constant that controls the ωp = [1 − (npm ± 1)(1 − s/pm )] ω|static eccentrity:p=npm ±1 .
homopolar flux in a two-pole machine, as discussed earlier.
(25)
This will restrict the npm − 1 term when n = 1 and pm = 1.
The permeance expressions are obtained from (4) or (5) and the Equation (24) is valid for all dynamic eccentricity waves and for
eccentricity case. For the static eccentricity static eccentricity waves where p = npm ; (25) is valid for static
eccentricity where p = npm ± 1. This highlights the difference
ω1 = ω2 = ω (16)
in frequencies of the sideband MMF waves (npm ± 1) due to
the different types of eccentricity. When there is a dynamic
and for the dynamic eccentricity
eccentricity, the sideband MMF waves for the fundamental
ω1 = ω − ωr and ω2 = ω + ωr . (17) n = 1 wave have the same frequency as the main wave, so that
at zero slip, there are no sideband rotor currents (which damp
The field magnitude coefficients (which are phasors) are the UMP). However, for static eccentricity, there are sideband
damping currents. An equation similar to (22) is also used to
n n
npm jμ0 J st npm ±1 jμ0 J st calculate the back EMF induced into the rotor by other rotor
B st = B st (x) = δs,d (x).
/
knpm gs,d
/
knpm gs,d space harmonics. The damping factor KD,p case is dependent
(18) on both the field and the following eccentricity cases.
Case 1: KD,p = 1.
The flux waves have to be transformed into the rotor ref- Case 2: KD,p = 1 if p = npm , and KD,p = 0.5 if
erence frame in order to calculate the EMFs induced into the p = npm ± 1.
cage and hence obtain the rotor current and MMF. For a spatial Case 3: KD,p = 1 if p = npm , and KD,p = 0 if
circumferential position y  on the rotor p = npm ± 1.
The linking of stator and rotor windings and air-gap flux is
ky = ωr t + ky  . (19) reduced in Cases 2) and 3) by the damping factor. The voltage
DORRELL: SOURCES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF UMP IN CAGE INDUCTION MOTORS WITH ROTOR ECCENTRICITY 17

equation for each space-time harmonic for one rotor loop where
(formed two adjacent bars—there are then Nb rotor loops) is (p+μNb ) p
(p+μNb ) jμ0 Nb N r Ir
B r,(p+μNb ),diff = (30)
0 = upr,st (t)
+ up,p±1
r,r (t) k(p +
/
μNb )gs,d
+ Re [(jωp (Lself + Ldiff + 2(Lb + Ler ))
p  (p+μNb ) p
+ 2(Rb + Rer )) I r ejωp t (26) (p+μNb ±1)
B r,(p+μNb ),diff (x) =
jμ0 Nb N r Ir
δs,d (x). (31)
/
k(p + μNb )gs,d
where Lself and Ldiff are the self-inductance and differential
inductance, respectively, as given by
 p 2
2πLst μo Nb N r  D. UMP Calculation
Lself = /
k 2 gs,d p2 The UMP can be calculated from the knowledge of the air-
  
 (p+nb μ) 2  gap flux waves. The net UMP can be derived by vectorizing
∞ 2πLst μo Nb N r   the stress and integrating round the air gap. The stress can
Ldiff = 
/
k 2 gs,d (p + Nb μ)2  be multiplied by the core length to obtain the net UMP if the
μ=−∞ 
μ=0 eccentricity is uniform; however, if there is axial (x) variation,
then rotational moments have to be taken about the bearings. If
where Lb and Ler are the bar and linking end-ring section leak- the eccentricity is in the vertical direction (at that point in time
age inductances, and Rb and Rer are the bar and linking end- for dynamic eccentricity and y = 0), the radial force due to the
ring resistances, which can be can be calculated with standard UMP acting on the bearings can be obtained from
formulas. Solution of (26) for each space-time harmonic of
the rotor current is possible with the knowledge of the phase Lst 2πr 
1 (b(x, y, t))2 Lst
currents at a particular load point. To obtain a solution for the Fbearing(1)(t) = + x cos(ky) dydx
Lst 2μ0 2
rotor currents, the permeance harmonic has to be used in order 0 0
to link the npm ± 1 spatial MMF waves and produce correct
(32)
solutions for (26) (i.e., the terms up,p±1
r,r (t) are required). Once
the rotor space-time current components have been obtained, Lst2πr 
1 (b(x, y, t))2 Lst
the rotor field components can be found Fbearing(2)(t) = − x cos(ky) dydx.
Lst 2μ0 2
∞ 
 0 0
p
br (x, y, t) = Re B r(p,p±1) (x)ej(ωt−pky) (33)
n=−∞
p−1
+ B r(p,p±1) (x)ej(ω1 t−(p−1)ky) The horizontal force can be calculated using the same equa-
p+1
 tions, replacing the cosine with sine. The time-varying terms in
+ B r(p,p±1) (x)ej(ω2 t−(p+1)ky) (27) (32) and (33) should now be studied. To simplify the situation,
assume that Case 1) is being studied so that the net force on the
where ω1 and ω2 are defined by (16) and (17). Each of the field rotor can be obtained. From [40], where it is fully derived, the
magnitudes is sourced from several different rotor MMF waves. net force can be represented in the notation used
For the pth rotor MMF wave
p p p p Fhorizontal(y=0)
p jμ0 Nb N r I r p±1 jμ0 Nb N r I r
B r(p) = B r(p) (x) = δs,d (x).  
/
kpgs,d
/
kpgs,d πrLst i j 
= Re B B ej(ωi +ωj )t 
(28) 4μ0 i+j=1

i j 
It should be borne in mind that there are stator MMF waves + B B ej(ωi +ωj )t 
i+j=−1
at p = npm only whereas, for the rotor MMF, there are MMF 
waves at p = npm and p = npm ± 1 (and npm ± 2, which are i j∗ 
+ B B ej(ωi −ωj )t 
neglected, as illustrated in Table I). In addition to these fields, i−j=1
 
the differential terms need to be accounted for. Therefore, if it i j∗ 
is assumed that there is a fundamental MMF wave only in (27), + B B ej(ωi −ωj )t  . (34)
−i+j=1
then the differential flux density terms are
If the equations for the stator and rotor flux waves are
r (x, y, t)
bdiff inspected, it can be observed that all the interactive waves
∞ 
(p+μNb ) being considered rotate in the same direction, i.e., only the
= Re B r,((p,p±1)+μNb ),diff (x)ej(ωt−(p+μNb )ky) third and fourth terms of (34) are considered. For all the wave
μ=−∞
combinations considered in (16) and (17), it is found that, for
(p+μNb −1)
+ B r,((p,p±1)+μNb ),diff (x)ej(ω1 t−(p+μNb −1)ky) static eccentricity, |ωa − ωb | = 1 (i.e., a constant radial force
 in that direction) and, for dynamic eccentricity, |ωa − ωb | =
(p+μNb +1) 
+ B r,((p,p±1)+μNb ),diff(x) ej(ω2 t−(p+μNb +1)ky)  ωr (i.e., there is a rotational frequency radial vibration which
n=1
(29) corresponds to a rotating force vector). These frequencies are
18 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 47, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011

valid for the differential waves too. If there is some imbalance where the impedance for the loop is
(parallel stator paths and supply imbalance can cause this),   jR/
counterrotating flux waves with pole pairs varying by one can /
Z r,p = L/r,p + Ldiff,p −
r,p
be generated. These appear in terms one and two in (30), and the ωp
implementation of (16) and (17) produces 2ω (twice the supply p
frequency) vibration for static eccentricity and 2ω ± ωr (twice and the coefficient K r is given as follows. For the p ± 1
the supply frequency ± rotational-speed sideband) vibrations harmonics
for dynamic eccentricity.  
p+1 p p
0 = KD,p+1 ksk B s − B r,p
In the next section, the practical implementation of the
algorithm is discussed. The tooth-saturation method used here-  
Z r,p+1 p+1 p−1
inafter adjusts the air-gap flux density in a pointwise fashion so + 1 + p+1 B r,p+1 − KD,p+1 2
B r,p−1 (36)
that the air-gap flux density wave is represented by a set of point Kr
values around the air-gap circumference. The UMP bearing  
p−1 p p
forces in (32) and (33) therefore have to be implemented in a 0 = KD,p−1 ksk B s − B r,p
point-by-point summation of the double integrals in the x and  
y directions. This is a relatively straightforward calculation. p+1 Z r,p−1 p−1
− KD,p−1
2
B r,p+1 + 1 + p−1 B r,p−1 . (37)
Kr
III. P RACTICAL I MPLEMENTATION p,p±1
ksk denotes the standard skew factors; the skew is couched in
In this section, the practical implementation of the UMP terms of the number if stator slots Nw that the bars are skewed,
calculation algorithm is described. In the previous section, the so that
calculation of the rotor harmonic currents was derived in (26).  
 sin ({p, p ± 1}πSsk /Nw ) 
It is not necessary to follow this through since the primary p,p±1
ksk =   (38)
aim is to obtain the rotor harmonic flux density waves in {p, p ± 1}πSsk /Nw 
order to calculate the UMP. Section III-A gives the equations where the skew Ssk is given in terms of per-unit stator slot
for obtaining the unsaturated rotor air-gap flux density waves p,p±1
pitches. The coefficients K r are derived from the rotor
directly from the driving stator flux density waves. A set of
winding functions in (23)
equations for the flux density waves is derived for each spatial
stator MMF harmonic (i.e., the winding harmonic), which can p,p±1 ωp 2πLst ∗p,p±1
Kr = Nr
be solved. These can then be stepped round point-by-point and pk 2
adjusted to incorporate the tooth-saturation method described (p+μNb ) p
in Section III-B. The model is current fed from a set of (p+μNb ) pN r B r,p
B r,(p+μNb ),dif f = p . (39)
stator line currents. The UMP calculation method is discussed (p + μNb )N r
in Section III-C, as already mentioned in Section II-D. For
completeness, the Carter factor air-gap length adjustment is Gaussian elimination can be used to solve (35)–(37). This
described in Section III-D. means that the air-gap flux waves are obtained by direct calcu-
lation from the stator currents without the necessity of calcu-
lating the rotor currents. The algorithm implicitly calculates the
A. Derivation of Air-Gap Flux Waves damping effect of the rotor parallel paths. The magnitudes for
The algorithm can be computed and a set of equations the flux density waves can be obtained and then used to generate
derived to get the flux wave magnitudes from (26). Using the the distribution around the air gap, so that we have (40), shown
damping factors KD calculated for each case, as described in at the bottom of the next page, where the skew angle
Section II-C, a set of equations for the flux waves for each 2πSsk
harmonic p can be obtained tan ϑsk = . (41)
  kNw Lst
p p p p p+1 p p−1
0 = jωp ksk K r B s,p − KD,p K r B r,p+1 − KD,p K r B r,p−1 While it is possible to derive analytical expressions for the
  p   p UMP forces, it is necessary to include saturation effects to pro-
/
+ jωp K r + L/r,p + Ldiff,p + Rr,p /
Br vide an effective UMP calculation tool. The method hereinafter
p
 p+1 p−1
 leads to the set of flux density points around the air gap from
p
0 = ksk B s − KD,p B r,p+1 + B r,P +1 which a numerical UMP calculation can be implemented.
⎛   ⎞
/ / /
ωp Lr,p + Ldiff,p − jRr,p
+ ⎝1 + p
⎠ B pr,p B. Inclusion of Saturation
ωp K r
This is critical for the accurate calculation of UMP. Here,
   it is implemented using the tooth flux saturation method in
p p Z r,p p p+1 p−1
0 = ksk Bs + 1 + p B r,p − KD,p B r,p+1 − B r,p−1 [29]. Assuming that the stator and rotor MMF distribution is
Kr unchanged by the tooth saturation (which is not strictly true
(35) but is used to give an approximate MMF distribution), then the
DORRELL: SOURCES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF UMP IN CAGE INDUCTION MOTORS WITH ROTOR ECCENTRICITY 19

Fig. 4. Air-gap/tooth representation.

air-gap flux density can be used to calculate with infinite iron

permeability, to obtain the MMF at a particular point
bgap (x, y, t)g(x, y, t)
F (x, y, t) = h(x, y, t)g(x, y, t) = .
μo
(42)

If an MMF drop down the stator tooth is assumed (and a

rotor tooth is necessary) and that the tooth and slot pitches have
a ratio X (Fig. 4), then
bgap (x, y, t)g(x, y, t) Xbgap (x, y, t)Ltooth
F (x, y, t) = + . Fig. 5. Flowchart of UMP calculation routine.
μo μr μo
(43)
straightforward, although many calculation iterations are
The relative permeability can be obtained using a linear in-
required.
terpolation of the B/H curve for the steel, so that (43) can be
balanced and a value for the air-gap flux density obtained with
tooth saturation can be included. D. Air-Gap Length Correction
Induction motors are either single (with closed rotor slots)
C. Calculation of UMP or double slotted. The Carter factors can be used to adjust the
The UMP can be calculated using a pointwise integration of effective air-gap length, so that
(32) and (33). In addition to the finite-point integration round
g = KCarter gactual Ds,d = Ds,d (actual)/KCarter .
the air-gap circumference, the bore can be split into a number
(44)
of axial sections. Here, ten sections are used. The sections then
assume constant axial flux, and there is a shift in rotor flux phase The Carter factor can be approximated by [41]
for each successive section in order to account for the skew. To
Ltooth−pitch
calculate the UMP, a set of currents are fed into the model. The KCarter = (45)
harmonic number n is taken up to the first one after the stator Ltooth−pitch − γgactual
slot number (there are often UMP effects from the winding
harmonics around the slot number) and the two differential flux where γ ≈ (x2opening /5 + xopening ) and xopening = (slot
MMF waves are also included (μ = 1 and 2). opening/gactual ) > 1. Then, for a double-slotted machine,
To summarize the UMP calculation method, a flowchart the factors are multiplied together, where
is given in Fig. 5. This illustrates the stepwise methodology
required to obtain the UMP. The principle equations are quite
total
KCarter = KCarter
stator
× KCarter
rotor
. (46)


∞
  p
 p p p
 
bgap (x, y, t) = Re B st + B r(p) + B r(p−1) (x) + B r(p+1) (x) ejpx tan ϑsk ej(ωt−pky)
p=−∞
 p−1  p−1 p−1 p−1
 
+ B r(p−1) + B st (x) + B r(p) (x) + δs,d (x)B r(p+1) (x) ejpx tan ϑsk ej(ω1 t−(p−1)ky)
p+1
  p+1 p+1 p+1
 
+ B r(p+1) + + B st (x) + B r(p) (x) + δs,d (x)B r(p−1) (x) ejpx tan ϑsk ej(ω2 t−(p+1)ky)

+ similar terms for the rotor differential waves (40)
20 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 47, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011

TABLE II
M ACHINE PARAMETERS

Fig. 7. Case 1), ten-pole machine: Variation of static UMP simulation (40%
eccentricity) and measurement with phase voltage at no load and with slip =
0.1 and a locked rotor. No-load simulation for dynamic eccentricity is also
included.

Fig. 6. Current sets (from measurements) used for the ten-pole UMP
simulations.

IV. S IMULATIONS AND V ERIFICATION

A. Motor Models
An opportunity is taken to validate the simulations using past
experimental studies carried out by the author using Case 1)
(axially constant) and Case 3) (tumbling) eccentricities. UMP
measurements were carried out in the ten- and four-pole ma-
chines specified in Table II. The ten-pole machine had static
UMP put into it, and the force was measured directly under the
Case 1) conditions [16], [17]. This machine model is used to
investigate the effects of bar number. The author has recently Fig. 8. Case 1), ten-pole machine: Variation of static UMP with a locked
studied a machine that had issues with starting due to excessive rotor and slip = 0.4 and 0.1 at Vph = 120 V, showing good measurement
correlation. At 60% eccentricity, there is rotor pullover which increases the
UMP. The solution lay with increasing the bar number and air- UMP slightly.
gap length. This is tested here by reducing the bar number for
the ten-pole machine to 43 bars. slip = 0.4 rather than no load. This is in-line with the results
in [42], i.e., the UMP over the steady-state operating range is
B. Ten-Pole Machine—Validation With Case 1) higher for the dynamic eccentricity. Fig. 8 shows the increase
in static UMP with eccentricity. It is linear up to about 40%
Fig. 6 shows the current measurements that were used in and then increases more rapidly, illustrating how complete the
the simulations. Fig. 7 shows the variation of static UMP with rotor pullover is likely when the eccentricity increases beyond
voltage (total rotor UMP). The UMP is attenuated by the tooth a certain point.
saturation as the voltage increases (compare “saturated” with
“unsaturated”). Good agreement is shown with the measure-
C. Ten-Pole Machine—Simulations of Cases 2) and 3)
ments. The UMP results for static eccentricity are shown to
be maximum at locked rotor and minimum at no load. No- Reference [17] showed that there is little variation in current
load dynamic UMP simulations are also included, which are with eccentricity (less than 5%); therefore, it is valid to use
much higher than static UMP—the minimum UMP is at about the same current sets for different eccentricities. Fig. 9 shows
DORRELL: SOURCES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF UMP IN CAGE INDUCTION MOTORS WITH ROTOR ECCENTRICITY
Fig. 9. Case 2), ten-pole machine: Simulation of static eccentricity bearing
UMP with voltage. UMP is higher for the misplaced bearing (40% eccentricity)
with a locked rotor and slip = 0.1 but there is still a substantial force on the
centered bearing and an opposite force at no load.
Fig. 10. Case 3), ten-pole machine: Simulation of static eccentricity bearing
UMP with voltage when rotor is tumbling (40% eccentricity maximum). The
forces are almost equal and opposite.
the results for Case 2) (one misplaced bearing). The eccentric
bearing has more radial force on it, although at no load, there is
a negative force on the centered bearing, which is almost equal
to the eccentric bearing force. Fig. 10 shows the results for
the Case 3) simulations. The bearings are 40% eccentricity in
opposite directions. The forces are almost equal and opposite,
apart from the slip = 0.1 forces. This imbalance is due to
the skew. At no load, the saturated and unsaturated UMP
predictions are almost identical, i.e., no flux attenuation since
the simulations are at low voltage.
D. Ten-Pole Machine—Reduced Rotor Cage Bar Number
An exercise was carried out to reduce the bar number from 80
to 43 bars. The locked-rotor UMP results are shown in Fig. 11.
21
Fig. 11. Case 1), ten-pole machine: Reduced rotor bar simulation with
a locked rotor—variation UMP with line current at different eccentricities;
saturated results.
Fig. 12. Case 1), ten-pole machine: Variation of saturated air-gap flux at the
center of the machine with 260 V. (Top) 90-bar machine. (Bottom) 43-bar rotor.
The simulation decreased the rotor cage resistance and leakage
inductance by 43 and 90, respectively, so that the effective
impedance would remain almost constant and the performance
is maintained. It can be seen that there is an increase in UMP
with a decrease in bar number. With decreasing bar number,
then there is a change in air-gap flux harmonic content, as
shown in Fig. 12. If this is combined with an increase in air-
gap length, then the UMP can be reduced even further since the
UMP is a function of the per-unit eccentricity rather than the
actual displacement.
E. Four-Pole Machine—Case 3) Validation of
Dynamic Eccentricity
The UMP for this machine was validated using the mon-
itoring of the rotational-speed vibration at points along the
top of the stator casing. The rotor was mounted on separate
22 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 47, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011
Fig. 13. Case 3), Four-pole machine: UMP and vibration comparisons
(with vibration acceleration scaled to UMP)—45% eccentricity at each end in
opposite directions. Dynamic eccentricity: Quite crude UMP assessment using
vibration measurement.
Fig. 14. Case 1), four-pole machine: UMP simulations (saturated) with fixed-
and variable-frequency supplies. The variable-frequency supply has a fixed
current of 16.7 A (full load). The fixed-frequency supply has a starting current
of 105 A down to the full-load current—the voltage is 400 V line.
pedestals. Case 1) was validated in [42] and [29] at reduced
voltage. Case 3) “tumbling” will be addressed at no load and
s = 0.067 (Fig. 13). This was done in [29]; here, improved
(with differential flux waves) and corrected ([29] was out
by two) results are put forward. This is quite a crude UMP
assessment, particularly for the tumbling rotor with vibrations
assessed at the ends and center of the casing (on the top),
but the vibration trends do follow the UMP characteristics
up to about 350 V. Obviously, a direct force measurement is
the correct method, but it is difficult to do accurately. The
UMP force is assumed to be approximately proportional to the
vibration acceleration from Newton’s second law of motion.
This assumes that the deflection is very small. The change in
speed across the measurements is very small, from no load to
slip = 0.067; thus, the speed variation should have little effect
on the vibration variation.
F. Variation With Frequency
Many drives use inverters to lift the motor from rest to full
load to obtain a “soft” start. Therefore, the UMP is worth
assessing over a full-speed range with the same motor (Fig. 14).
For the variable-frequency operation, the current is maintained
at 16.7 A, and the difference between the synchronous speed
and the actual speed is constant at 60 r/min (s = 0.04 at 50 Hz).
There is a reduction in UMP, although the static eccentricity
gives a peak when ωp in (25) is zero, i.e., s = 1/3 for n = 1.
Under these conditions, there is no damping of a sideband flux
wave by the rotor. For a fixed-frequency operation, this is at
1000 r/min, while for a variable-frequency operation, this is
at 120 r/min. With dynamic eccentricity, the UMP is almost
constant for the variable-frequency operation across the speed
range. These results illustrate that the variable-frequency op-
eration leads to UMP reduction but not necessarily substantial
reduction.
V. C ONCLUSION
This paper has described a method for calculating UMP in
cage inductions motors and has included a method for account-
ing the saturation and axial variation of eccentricity with either
static or dynamic eccentricity. Good correlation was found with
experimental results when direct forces were measured. The
study has also investigated the effects of bar number on the
UMP and also variable-frequency operation.
UMP is somewhat more complicated to calculate than for
other machines because of the rotor circuit. The cage currents
will damp UMP, and they represent a parallel-connected net-
work. Hence, this paper has developed a complex algorithm that
is necessary for correct calculation. In addition, saturation is
a key issue in UMP calculation, and the model also accounts
for this. The effect of saturation is clearly illustrated in the
simulation results.
This algorithm represents a practical solution to UMP calcu-
lation and is therefore very applicable to design-office use. It
will give rapid answers to difficult and complex calculations,
and it is very flexible. For some machines, e.g., submersible
motors with hydrodynamic bearings, eccentricity will be inher-
ent. Other machines may have single bearing and be susceptible
to misalignment or have a flexible shaft; thus, a UMP calcula-
tion tool is a useful design-office tool.
The comparison between fixed- and variable-frequency
operations across a full-speed range gives an interesting
comparison.
The inclusion of rotor differential waves and the assessment
of their influence is an original work which the author has not
seen reported before (obviously, finite-element studies will in-
clude these as part of the complete field solution, but they have
not been separated out for investigation). In addition, a compar-
ison of UMP with variable- and fixed-frequency supplies has
not been conducted before, and this gives interesting results,
which makes a considerable contribution to the literature. It
would be interesting to see further work carried out on other
pole-number machines, particularly in a two-pole machine,
which is a special case, where homopolar fluxes may exist.
Axial variation of eccentricity has been investigated by few
researchers; however, this represents a more realistic scenario
and therefore needs more detailed study.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This paper is the fruit of various studies that the author has
conducted at a number of institutions, as well as a further work
DORRELL: SOURCES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF UMP IN CAGE INDUCTION MOTORS WITH ROTOR ECCENTRICITY
at his current institution. The author would like to thank the
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K., the University of
Reading, Reading, U.K., the University of Glasgow, Glasgow,
U.K., and The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, U.K., in
addition to the University of Technology Sydney, Sydney,
Australia, for the facilities.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Belahcen and A. Arkkio, “Computation of additional losses due to
rotor eccentricity in electrical machines,” IET Elect. Power Appl., vol. 4,
no. 4, pp. 259–266, Apr. 2010.
[2] J. Faiz and M. Ojaghi, “Unified winding function approach for dynamic
simulation of different kinds of eccentricity faults in cage induction ma-
chines,” IET Elect. Power Appl., vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 461–470, Sep. 2009.
[3] M. Blödt, J. Regnier, and J. Faucher, “Distinguishing load torque oscil-
lations and eccentricity faults in induction motors using stator current
Wigner distributions,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 1991–
2000, Nov./Dec. 2009.
[4] J. Faiz, B. M. Ebrahimi, and H. A. Toliyat, “Effect of magnetic saturation
on static and mixed eccentricity fault diagnosis in induction motor,” IEEE
Trans. Magn., vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 3137–3144, Aug. 2009.
[5] L. Wu, X. Huang, T. G. Habetler, and R. G. Harley, “Eliminating load
oscillation effects for rotor eccentricity detection in closed-loop drive-
connected induction motors,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 22, no. 7,
pp. 1543–1551, Jul. 2007.
[6] K. P. Kovacs, “Two-pole induction-motor vibrations caused by homopolar
alternating fluxes,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-96, no. 4,
pp. 1105–1108, Jul. 1977.
[7] R. Belmans, W. Heylen, A. Vandenput, and W. Geysen, “Influence of
rotor-bar stiffness on the critical speed of an induction motor with an
aluminium squirrel cage,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng. B, vol. 131, no. 5,
pp. 203–208, Sep. 1984.
[8] R. Belmans, A. Vandenput, and W. Geysen, “Influence of unbalanced
magnetic pull on the radial stability of flexible-shaft induction machines,”
Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng. B, vol. 134, no. 2, pp. 101–109, Mar. 1987.
[9] M.-J. Kim, B.-K. Kim, J.-W. Moon, Y.-H. Cho, D.-H. Hwang, and
D.-S. Kang, “Analysis of inverter-fed squirrel-cage induction motor dur-
ing eccentric rotor motion using FEM,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 44, no. 6,
pp. 1538–1541, Jun. 2008.
[10] R. Perers, U. Lundin, and M. Leijon, “Saturation effects on unbalanced
magnetic pull in a hydroelectric generator with an eccentric rotor,” IEEE
Trans. Magn., vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 3884–3890, Oct. 2007.
[11] L. Wang, R. W. Cheung, Z. Ma, J. Ruan, and Y. Peng, “Finite-element
analysis of unbalanced magnetic pull in a large hydro-generator under
practical operations,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 1558–1561,
Jun. 2008.
[12] K. P. P. Pillai, A. S. Nair, and G. R. Bindu, “Unbalanced magnetic pull in
train-lighting brushless alternators with static eccentricity,” IEEE Trans.
Veh. Technol., vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 120–126, Jan. 2008.
[13] Z. Q. Zhu, D. Ishak, D. Howe, and J. Chen, “Unbalanced magnetic forces
in permanent-magnet brushless machines with diametrically asymmetric
phase windings,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1544–1554,
Nov./Dec. 2007.
[14] J. T. Li, Z. J. Liu, and L. H. A. Nay, “Effect of radial magnetic forces in
permanent magnet motors with rotor eccentricity,” IEEE Trans. Magn.,
vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 2525–2527, Jun. 2007.
[15] I. Husain, A. Radun, and J. Nair, “Unbalanced force calculation in
switched-reluctance machines,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 36, no. 1,
pp. 330–338, Jan. 2000.
[16] D. G. Dorrell and A. C. Smith, “Calculation of U.M.P. in induction
motors with series or parallel winding connections,” IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 304–310, Jun. 1994.
[17] D. G. Dorrell and A. C. Smith, “The calculation and measurement of
unbalanced magnetic pull in cage induction motors with eccentric rotors.
Part 2: Experimental investigation,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng.—Elect. Power
Appl., vol. 143, no. 3, pp. 202–210, May 1996.
[18] A. Burakov and A. Arkkio, “Comparison of the unbalanced magnetic pull
mitigation by the parallel paths in the stator and rotor windings,” IEEE
Trans. Magn., vol. 43, no. 12, pp. 4083–4088, Jan. 2007.
[19] M. J. DeBortoli, S. J. Salon, and C. J. Slavik, “Effects of rotor eccentricity
and parallel windings on induction machine behavior: A study using finite
element analysis,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 1676–1682,
Mar. 1993.
23
[20] P. Frauman, A. Burakov, and A. Arkkio, “Effects of the slot harmonics
on the unbalanced magnetic pull in an induction motor with an eccentric
rotor,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 3441–3444, Aug. 2007.
[21] X. Li, Q. Wu, and S. Nandi, “Performance analysis of a three-phase
induction machine with inclined static eccentricity,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Appl., vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 531–541, Mar./Apr. 2007.
[22] M. Bradford, “Unbalanced magnetic pull in a 6-pole induction motor,”
Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., vol. 115, no. 11, pp. 1619–1627, Nov. 1968.
[23] K. J. Binns and M. Dye, “Identification of principal factors causing un-
balanced magnetic pull in cage induction motors,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng.,
vol. 120, no. 3, pp. 349–354, Mar. 1973.
[24] A. Burakov and A. Arkkio, “Low-order parametric force model for
eccentric-rotor electrical machine with parallel connections in stator
winding,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng.—Elect. Power Appl., vol. 153, no. 4,
pp. 592–600, Jul. 2006.
[25] A. Burakov and A. Arkkio, “Low-order parametric force model for
eccentric-rotor electrical machine equipped with parallel stator windings
and rotor cage,” IET Elect. Power Appl., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 532–542,
Jul. 2007.
[26] A. C. Smith and D. G. Dorrell, “The calculation and measurement of
unbalanced magnetic pull in cage induction motors with eccentric rotors.
Part 1: Analytical model,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng.—Elect. Power Appl.,
vol. 143, no. 3, pp. 193–201, May 1996.
[27] M. J. DeBortoli, S. J. Salon, D. W. Burow, and C. J. Slavik, “Effects of
rotor eccentricity and parallel windings on induction machine behaviour:
A study using finite element analysis,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 29, no. 2,
pp. 1676–1682, Mar. 1993.
[28] A. Arkkio, M. Antila, K. Pokki, A. Simon, and E. Lantto, “Electromag-
netic force on a whirling cage rotor,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng.—Elect. Power
Appl., vol. 147, no. 5, pp. 353–360, Sep. 2000.
[29] D. G. Dorrell, “Experimental behaviour of unbalanced magnetic pull in
3-phase induction motors with eccentric rotors and the relationship with
tooth saturation,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 304–
309, Sep. 1999.
[30] D. G. Dorrell, W. T. Thomson, and S. Roach, “Analysis of airgap flux,
current and vibration signals as a function of the combination of static and
dynamic airgap eccentricity in 3-phase induction motors,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 24–34, Jan./Feb. 1997.
[31] D. G. Dorrell, “Modelling non-uniform rotor eccentricity and the calcu-
lation of unbalanced magnetic pull in cage induction machines,” in Proc.
ICEM, Helsinki, Finland, Aug. 2000.
[32] Y. Akiyama, “Unbalanced heating phenomena of induction motor with
eccentricity,” in Conf. Rec. IEEE IAS Annu. Meeting, Oct. 4–9, 1992,
pp. 107–114.
[33] D. G. Dorrell, “Modelling rotor eccentricity in cage induction motors with
axial variation of eccentricity,” in Proc. 30th Universities Power Eng.
Conf., Sep. 5–7, 1995, vol. 1, pp. 1–4.
[34] D. G. Dorrell, “Assessment of the unbalanced magnetic pull due to axial
variation of rotor eccentricity in cage induction motors,” in Proc. 32nd
Int. Symp. Elect. Mach., Cracow, Poland, Jun. 26–29, 1996, pp. 123–128.
[35] A. Tenhunen, “Finite-element calculation of unbalanced magnetic pull
and circulating current between parallel windings in induction motor
with non-uniform eccentric rotor,” in Proc. Electromotion, Bologna, Italy,
Jun. 19–20, 2001, pp. 19–24.
[36] A. Tenhunen, T. Benedetti, T. P. Holopainen, and A. Arkkio, “Electro-
magnetic forces in cage induction motors with rotor eccentricity,” in Proc.
IEEE IEMDC, Jun. 1–4, 2003, vol. 3, pp. 1616–1622.
[37] A. Tenhunen, T. Benedetti, T. P. Holopainen, and A. Arkkio, “Electro-
magnetic forces of the cage rotor in conical whirling motion,” Proc.
Inst. Elect. Eng.—Elect. Power Appl., vol. 150, no. 5, pp. 563–568,
Sep. 2003.
[38] D. G. Dorrell, “Calculation of unbalanced magnetic pull in small cage
induction motors with skewed rotors and dynamic rotor eccentricity,”
IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 483–488, Sep. 1996.
[39] D. G. Dorrell, P. J. Holik, P. Lombard, H.-J. Thougaard, and F. Jensen,
“A multisliced finite-element model for induction machines incorporating
interbar current,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 131–141,
Jan./Feb. 2009.
[40] D. G. Dorrell, M. Popescu, D. Ionel, and C. Cossar, “Unbalanced mag-
netic pull in fractional-slot brushless PM motors,” in Conf. Rec. IEEE IAS
Annu. Meeting, Edmonton, AB, Canada, Sep. 2008, pp. 1–8.
[41] B. Heller and V. Hamata, Harmonic Field Effects in Induction Machines.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, 1977.
[42] D. G. Dorrell, “The sources and characteristics of unbalanced magnetic
pull in cage induction motors with either static or dynamic eccentric-
ity,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Elect. Power Eng., Stockholm, Sweden,
Jun. 18–22, 1995, pp. 229–234.
24 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 47, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011

David G. Dorrell (M’95–SM’08) is a native of

St Helens, U.K. He received the B.Eng.(Hons.) de-
gree in electrical and electronic engineering from the
University of Leeds, Leeds, U.K., in 1988, the M.Sc.
degree in power electronics engineering from the
University of Bradford, Bradford, U.K., in 1989, and
the Ph.D. degree in engineering from the University
of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K., in 1993.
He has held lecturing positions at The Robert
Gordon University, Aberdeen, U.K., and the Uni-
versity of Reading, Reading, U.K. He was a Senior
Lecturer at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, U.K., for several years. In
2008, he became a Senior Lecturer at the University of Technology Sydney,
Sydney, Australia, where he has been an Associate Professor since 2009. He
is also an Adjunct Associate Professor at National Cheng Kung University,
Tainan, Taiwan. His research interests cover the design and analysis of various
electrical machines and also renewable energy systems, and he has over
100 technical publications to his name.
Dr. Dorrell is a Chartered Engineer in the U.K. and a Fellow of the Institution
of Engineering and Technology.