Study of the Synchronization of Line-Start Permanent Magnet Synchronous

Motors
Juliette Soulard, Hans-Peter Nee
Electrical Machines and Power Electronics
Royal Institute of Technology
100 4 4 Stockholm SWEDEN
tel: +46 8 79077 36 -fax : + 4 6 8 205268
juliette@ekc.kth.se,hansi@ekc.kth.se

Abstract-The synchronization process of three-phase Line Start Per-
manent Magnet synchronous motors (LSPM) with buried magnets and
a squirrel-cage is studied in this paper. The goal is to define a pull-in
criterion by using a Lyapunov function. A model is first derived and a
Lyapunov function is defined using the Lagrange-Charpit method. Ex-
periments and simulations are then compared to check the validity of the
model. A criterion to define the capability of synchronization of LSPM
motors is then presented. This criterion is used to study the influence
of the electrical parameters on the synchronization capability of two four
pole LSPM motors. The first experiments proved that the prototypes have
greater synchronization capability than the criterion predicts.
I. INTRODUCTION
The decreasing price of permanent magnets and their im-
proved performances make PM motors even more interesting
in an industrial point of view as there is an increasing demand
for high efficiency motors. For applications where the motor is
to be connected directly to the mains, a squirrel-cage has to be
added to obtain a line-start permanent magnet (LSPM) motor.
A specific design has to be made as the permanent magnets
create a braking torque during the asynchronous start as well
as they help synchronizing the rotor with the mains. To find
a good compromise, both the asynchronous early start and the
synchronizationprocess have to be studied. The determination
of simple criterion to quantify the capability of LSPM motors
in the early start and synchronization process can then allow to
consider an optimization of the design.
The synchronization process of three-phase LSPM motors
with buried magnets and a squirrel-cage has been studied in
[ 1,2,3]. In [ l ] and [2], Miller focuses on the description of the
synchronization. The critical load torque or maximum load
torque that can be synchronized by a given motor, is derived
by simulation with a classic dq model [2]. In [3], the critical
load torque is calculated analytically. This analytical method
assumes that the relationship between the slip and the load an-
gle during the final synchronization process can be described
by a sinusoidal function. Due to this assumption, the contribu-
tion of the reluctance torque is not fully considered.
During the experiments, it came out that the synchroniza-
tion capability of the tested prototypes are dependent on many
parameters such as the temperature of the different parts of the
motor, the strength of the mains for example. Accurately pre-
dicting the transients seemed to be an unreachable goal. For
example, the transients are temperature depending. Adding
time-variant resistances to take into account the temperature
rise during the start process would lead to a too complicated
model for our purpose. An other approach was then consid-
ered.
In order to calculate the critical load torque in a rapid and
simple way, the chosen method considers a Lyapunov func-
tion of the system. A similar method was successfully used
by Senjyu and Uezato to predict the synchronization capabil-
ity of reluctance motors [4]. No consideration on the shape of
the trajectory (slip-load angle relationship) during the synchro-
nization has to be made to obtain the critical load torque. No
simulation of the starting transients is required either. As this
method is intended to be fast, a parametric study can then be
conducted to define the worst case of influence for each influ-
ent parameter.
A model is first derived so the Lyapunov function can be de-
fined by the Lagrange-Charpit method [ 6 ] . Experiments and
simulations are then compared to check the validity of the
model. The way to obtain an estimation of the critical load
torque of LSPM motors is introduced and simplified expres-
sions are derived. This criterion is then used to evaluate the
synchronization capability and to study the influence of the
electrical parameters of a four pole LSPM motor.
11. MODELOF THE LSPM MOTOR
To be able to find a similar Lyapunov function as in [4] for
LSPM motors, the form of the dynamical equation has to be :
8 6
J-
dt2
+ D-d6
dt
+ P(6) = Pioa,j.
J is the inertia of the shaft, D is the damping constant, Plead
is related to the load torque (constant) and P(6) is a linear
function of the synchronous torque and the reluctance torque.
6 is the load angle. The load angle is linked to the electric
speed w , the synchronous electric speed U,,and the slip s as
follow :
d6
-
dt = SW, = w, -W.
Four torques are to be considered here : the synchronous
torque T,,the load torque Tl,the braking torque from the
magnets Tb, and the asynchronous torque Tan. The last three
torques are to be submitted to linearization in order to fit in
the dynamical equation. This is done so that the linearized
model is a worse case for the synchronization than reality. The

0-7803-6401-5/00/$10.000 2000 IEEE

424
synchronizationprocess is assumed to occur once the speed is where EOis the no-load voltage, R, the stator resistance, and
higher than wm the speed at which the asynchronous torque is Xd, and X,,the d and q synchronous reactances respectively.
maximum. Linearizing the braking torque between wm and w, yields (fig-
ure 1) :
A. Expressions of the different torques
The synchronous torque depends on the load angle 6. The
expression of this torque has two components due to the pres- Tb E Tb(ws)+ Tb(wm)sm
- Tb(ws)s = TbO + Tbls. (9)
ence of the reluctance torque as well as the magnet-current
torque : It should be noted that this linearization is valid only if wm
is higher than the speed at which the braking torque is maxi-
T, = T , l ~ i n ( d+) T82sin(26). (3) mum. This is usually the case but it was not true for one of our
(see appendix 8.2 for expressions of T,1, and Ts2). prototypes. The speed w s / 2 was used instead of wm for that
The classical expression for the asynchronous torque can be case. A first order linearization does not fulfill our require-
written as follows : ments of worse case than reality as the braking torque is then
underestimated.
T 3pv2x; &s
as - 2 w , a1 + bls + C I S ~ (4)

where V is the mains voltage, p the number of poles, X,

the magnetizing reactance and R, the rotor resistance. The
expressions of al, b l , and c1 are given in Appendix B.
The electric speed wm at which the asynchronous torque is
maximum is given by :

wm = smws =
/:;
-w,.

The synchronizationis more difficult if it starts from a speed

far from the synchronous speed. Then, the synchronous torque
must be stronger to give the energy required to synchronize [2].
Therefore, we assume that the asynchronous torque is linear
between wm and w,. The simplified expression is :

Tas(wm)- Tas(ws)
Tas - s = Tals.
~

(6)
sm Fig. 1. Braking torque of the magnets and approximations
Different load torques are usually considered to be constant, shown for wm = 0 . 6 ~ ~ .
linear with the speed or related to the square of the speed or
a combination of the three assumptions. A linearization is re-
quired if a term proportional to the square of the speed is to B. Dynamic equation
be taken into account in the study of the synchronization. The
The dynamic equation with the different torques can be writ-
linearized load torque, described as follows, is higher than the
ten as follows :
one given by the original model for a speed higher than wm :

Due to the fact that Cl =

P
and9 = sw, = ws - w and
with (7), (6),(9), (3), the following equation is obtained, which
Due to non-synchronous speed, the synchronous speed w8 is similar to (1) :
and the rotor speed w do not match during the start. Hence,
the ’synchronous’part of the motor sees a short-circuit instead
of the mains [ 5 ] . This creates a braking torque that can be
expressed as :
The damping factor of the drive is identified as

425
 Tbl is positive so it decreases the value of the damping fac-
tor : the braking torque of the magnets is to be reduced if the
synchronizationprocess needs to be improved. The term Tl1 is
negative if the load is linear or quadratic to the speed. There-
fore, the worst case is to synchronize a load which is constant
with the speed.
The terms P(6) and 6 are linked to the components of the
torques and the number of poles p by P(6) = $Ts and Pl =
5 (Tho + Go).
111. EXPERIMENTS
A N D SIMULATIONS
The start and synchronization of a 4 pole-LSPM motor were
recorded. A position sensor gave the position every 0.2 ps.
With adequate filtering, the speed is obtained and therefore
the slip. The load angle is also calculated by performing a
dq transformation of the voltages. The initial value of the load
angle is also taken from the measurements. The simulation
with the classic dq model starts at w = 0 whereas it starts at
w = sa,,ws (see equation 16) for the simplified model pre-
sented above (figure 2).
Depending on additional properties of the Lyapunov function
(its domain of definition is one of them), the stability can be
further qualified.
If B is a ball around the equilibrium point where a Lyapunov
function can be defined, any trajectory starting in B remains
in this area and converges to the equilibrium point. The ball
B is called a domain of attraction. For the synchronization
process, it means that if the slip at a given load angle is low
enough (within the ball), the synchronization will inevitably
take place. The idea is then to study the Lyapunov function and
define its largest domain of attraction. This domain should be
as close as possible to the true stable region of the system, and
rather smaller. A criterion of synchronization is obtained when
one can define a condition so that all the trajectories enters the
attraction domain. The critical load torque can then be defined
as the maximum load torque for which the criterion is fulfilled.
However, the first main difficulty is to construct the Lya-
punov function. In this study, the Lagrange-Charpit method is
used as Miyagi and Taniguchi did in 1981 [6] and Senjyu and
Uezato in 1998 (for the reluctance motor) [4].

A. 1 Construction of the Lyapunov function

1.4

The dynamic equation (1) is rewritten in the following form

1.2 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

&El = 22
dt
= w*s
08- 9 = -IC22 - h(z1) (12)
::
06-
with 6 = 21+ 60, 3 = 22, IC = D / J , and h ( z l ) =
04-
(P(z1 + 60) - Pi) / J where 60 is the equilibrium point to be
qualified. The function constructed with the Lagrange-Charpit
02- method [6] is given by :

-02
0

8
5
simplifiedmodel

10
,
15
-v
m 25
V(Z1, 22) =
... +
f [ z 2 + a.K(z1)12+ ...
JOzl h(2)da:+ ...
load angle (fad)
... + +(l - a)[K(21)I2+ ... (13)
+2 So"' Ja(1 - a)kK(z)h(z)dz
Fig. 2. Simulations and test of the start of a 4-pole LSPM
motor. where K(z1) = k z l , 0 5 a 5 1 and a is an arbitrary
constant. The value of a is discussed later in the article. As this
The measurements and the simulations are in good agree- function fulfills the requirements to be a Lyapunov function
ment, the synchronization being harder with the developed [7], the equilibrium point 60 is stable. The asymptotic stability
model than in reality, as expected. The model has been val- can also be proved by choosing a function equal to the sum of
idated, and now the study of the synchronization criterion can V for a = 0 a n d a = 1.
be conducted.
A.2 Stable region and limit cycle
Iv. LYAPUNOV
FUNCTION A N D ONE CRITERION OF
SYNCHRONIZATION The evolutions of the slip versus the load angle or trajectory
in the phase plane is a good tool to study what happens dur-
A. Lyapunovfunction and stability ing the synchronization. Each trajectory is obtained by solving
Lyapunov's direct method can be used to estimate the sta- numerically the dynamic equation ( 1 ) using the Runge-Kutta
bility of linear or non-linear systems without solving the sys- method for a given set of initial values for the slip and the
tem's differential equation [7]. If a Lyapunov function can be load angle. Trajectories with different initial conditions are
defined around an equilibrium point, the stability of this equi- presented in the phase-plane in a case of successful synchro-
librium point can be asserted by the Lyapunov direct method. nization (figure 3).

426
 06-

04-

02-

L1
B 0-

-02 -

-04 -

-10
1 5 0 5 10 15
I I
10 12 I4 16 I8 20 22
x l (rad) load angle (rad)

Fig. 3. Phase plane in a case of successful synchronization. Fig. 4. A successful synchronization with the attraction do-
main for cy = l.
It can be seen that for certain initial conditions (for exam-
ple when the initial slip is higher than 0.35 in figure 3), the
synchronization occurs for 21 = 2n or even 4n but not at the 0 14 -
studied equilibrium point $1 = 0. This phenomenon makes the
study more complicated because the defined function V is not 012 -
a Lyapunov function for all the phase plane (it is not positive -
01
definite everywhere).
The limit of the attraction domain related to V is obtained 008 -
by calculating the critical energy level V, which is :
oca -
-
n
vc= V(ZC = 6, - 60,O) (14) II)

OM -
and solving :
OM -

0- A :
1 :c
6, is the other load angle corresponding to the equality of attractiondomain
8
; ;
,

-
the load torque and the synchronous torque, 60 being the sta-
002 t% r I
1
ble solution and 6, the unstable solution (the derivative of the
synchronous torque to the load angle is negative for 6,).
O M cI
10 15 20 25
1 I
load angle (rad)
Figure 4 presents an example of trajectory when the syn-
chronization succeeds with the Lyapunov domain of attraction Fig. 5. One non synchronization trajectory (limit cycle) and
calculated for cy = 1. attraction domain for a = 0 .
In figure 5 , an example of trajectory when the synchroniza-
tion fails with the Lyapunov domain of attraction calculated for
cy = 0 are shown. The slip doesn’t reach a value low enough to ‘A.3 Synchronization capability
enter the domain of attraction and converge to the equilibrium The idea is to compare the average slip of the limit cycle sa,
point 60. It should be noted that the stable region depends on with a slip related to the domain of attraction defined with the
the load and the motor parameters. Lyapunov function. In [4], the authors use the slip SO, given by
If the motor doesn’t synchronize, the speed pulsation is a the equation V, = V(0,sows) so that :
cyclic function of the load angle 6 with the period 2n. Integrat-
ing the dynamic equation (1) from an arbitrary point (&, sa) to
+
(6, 2n,s a ) by 6 gives the average slip of what can be called
so =
a
-.
Ws
a limit cycle. This average slip is denoted sa, and is equal to :
Therefore, the point (&,so) is the frontier of the attraction
domain. Using the criterion sa, < SO for different values of cy
was considered. However, these solutions were rejected as for

427
high values of inertia, this criterion proved to give an overesti-
mated value of the critical load torque compared to the results < 7 0

obtained with the simulation of the transients with the simpli-

fied model. Instead, it was chosen to use the mean value of
the slip corresponding to the positive part of the attraction do-
main (part with A, B and C figure 5 ) , denoted S d o m and called
domain slip in the following.
In order to have only one value for each load angle (and have
an easier way to calculate S d o m ) , a = 0 has to be chosen. It
can be seen that the attraction domain calculated with a = 1
doesn’t fulfill the requirement as for some load angle two pos-
itive slips can be found on the frontier of the attraction domain
(figure 4). The choice of a = 0 corresponds to the minimum
of the function S d o m ( ( Y ) so it guarantees that the defined attrac-
tion domain is smaller than the stable region. It also simplifies
the expression of the Lyapunov function as follows : 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
load torque (Nm)

Fig. 6 . Domain slip, average slip and critical load torque.

1
vo = + f(z1). (18)
The expression of f(z1)is given in the appendix B. The
Lyapunov function for a = 0 is proportional to the total me-
chanical energy of the rotor, the first term corresponding to the
kinetic energy. The critical energy level VCois then defined by

KO= f ( z c ) = f(6m - 60). (19)

The value of S d o m can be calculated as :

with 61 the load angle corresponding to point A in figure 5 .

The criterion S d o m < sa,, gives a maximum load torque that
can be synchronized (figure 6).
Varying the mains voltage of the motor, the critical load
torque is calculated with the presented criterion and with nu-
merically solving the dynamical equation (1) and checking the
steady state (figure 7).
The defined criterion gives a critical load torque that is un-
derestimated compared to the value given by the simulation of
the dynamic equation (1). The critical load torque obtained
with the criterion is about 60% of the one calculated by sim-
ulating the transients with the simplified differential equation
(1). This is due to the fact that the attraction domain is smaller
than the real stable region.
Synchronization problems were encountered when tests
were conducted on a four-pole three phase 7.5kW motor
loaded by a DC generator. The axis of the drive had an inertia
that was 17 times higher than the one of the motor itself. It
was measured that with a mains phase-to-phase voltage of 426
V, the drive was at the limit of synchronization. Our criterion
Fig. 7. Influence of the mains voltage on the critical load
torque.
says that the voltage should be 26% higher than the measured
one to reach the limit. With the transient simulation of (l), the
critical voltage is 24% higher with the measured value. Both
methods gives an underestimation of the critical synchroniza-
tion conditions as expected. The transient simulation give a
better answer but it requires 60 times more computing time
than the criterion.
Simulations with the dq model says that the limit of syn-
chronization happens for the nominal voltage of 400 V. To ob-
tain that value, 3000 times more time is required than with the
criterion and the results lead to an overestimated value. It is
thought that this is due to the fact that the temperature of the
rotor varies during the transients, phenomena that is not taking
into account. One could probably obtain an underestimated
value with the dq model by choosing the worst case for each

428
parameter. However, the dq model would still require a huge
computing time compared to the criterion.
Therefore, the presented criterion is considered to fulfill the
current requirements. Having this criterion, it is possible to
compare designs even though the absolute value of the critical
load torque is not so accurate. An improved criterion may be
required if the optimization procedure produces designs that
present limited synchronization capability. This has not been
the case yet when the motors were tested in the normal applica-
tion conditions. In any case, it is intended to check the starting
transients of the optimized designs with a dq model and finite
element time-stepping analysis before considering a prototype
@I.
v. INFXUENCE OF PARAMETERS
A criterion that enables to calculate the critical load torque
without running simulation of the starting transients is a suit-
able tool to make a parametric study. The influence of the
different parameters can be studied and different motors can
be compared. Two four pole 7.5 kW three phase LSPM mo-
tors are considered. They have the same external dimensions,
but motor 2 has an increased amount of magnets to improve
its steady-state performances. The nominal effiencies are re-
spectively 86.2% and 91.2% respectively for motor 1 and mo-
tor 2 . The nominal power factor is also better for motor 2
(cos9 = 0.99) than for motor 1 coscp = 0.88. The rotor resis-
tance of motor 2 was increased compared to motor 1 in order
to improve the early start as the braking torque of the magnets
was increased. No consideration were made about the synchro-
nization performances during the design.
The influence of the no-load voltage and the rotor resistance
are presented on figure 7 and 8 respectively.
A higher voltage leads to a higher critical load torque. The
asynchronous torque being higher with the voltage, the syn-
chronization occurs at a lower slip and a lower energy is re-
quired to perform the synchronization. That is something that
should really be taken into account as in most applications it is
specified that the drive should keep certain performances even
if the mains voltage is lower than its nominal value.
In figure 8, it is shown that the influence of the no-load volt-
age on the critical load torque is reverse for the two considered
drives. It is believed that this is a very special and interest-
ing result. That the synchronization capability of a motor in-
creases with the amount of magnets as for motor 1 is easy to
understand : more magnets means more synchronous torque
and more energy for synchronization. However, that is not true
for every value of the no-load voltage for motor 2. The rotor
resistance of motor 2 is very high compared to a conventional
value. This means that the slope of the asynchronous torque
near the synchronous speed Talis exceptionally low. Due to
the presence of the magnet braking torque, which is propor-
tional to the square of the no-load voltage, the effective slope
or the damping constant D has a value that is much dependent
on the no-load voltage. As the synchronous torque increases
429
100
1
, I
m
O E4 103 I50
no-load voltage (V)
250 3w
Fig. 8. Influence of no-load voltage on the critical load torque.
only proportionally to the no-load voltage, it happens in this
case that the increase of the synchronizing energy is more than
compensated by the lower speed at which the synchronization
occurs. Therefore, an increase of the no-load voltage can lead
to a reduced critical load torque for motor 2 whereas it does not
for motor 1. An optimum can be found for the no-load voltage
of motor 2 to maximize the critical load torque.
It should be noticed, however, that increasing the no-load
voltage implies to have more magnets. It has the effect to de-
crease the d-inductance as well. This was not taken into ac-
count here as only one parameter is varied at a time, except for
the influence of the temperature.
Table 1 gathers the relative sensibilities of the critical load
torque related to the different parameters for motor 1 and motor
2 respectively. The mains voltage is the most influent param-
eter on the critical load for both motors. Therefore, an index
of 100 is given to the sensibility related to the mains voltage
for each motor. The sensibility of the critical load torque to the
mains voltage are 0.48N.mlV for motor 1 and 0.43N.mlV
for motor 2. A positive value, as for the mains voltage, means
that a higher value of the parameter helps the synchronization.
After the mains voltage V , several parameters have great
influence on the synchronization capability. For motor 2, the
rotor resistance R, has almost the same influence as the mains
voltage but is reverse. As increasing the rotor resistance has a
benifitial effect on the early start, one has to find a compromise
for the design between the early start and synchronization per-
formances when choosing R,. Increasing the rotor resistance
increases the slip at which the synchronization occurs. There-
fore more energy is needed to synchronize and a lower value
of the critical load torque is obtained.
As well as the no-load voltage, the influence of the d-
reactance depends on the considered motor. As it was pre-
viously written, a change of EO affects the value of X d s . In-
creasing the amount of magnets increases the no-load voltage
 TABLE I Eo no-load voltage at synchronous speed
INDEXES OF SENSIBILITY OF THE CRITICAL LOAD TORQUE J inertia
(CRITERION). R, stator resistance
R, rotor resistance
sensibility motor 1 sensibility motor2 T torque
100 100 V mains voltage
+33 -26 Xds direct reactance at synchronous frequency
10 1 X , magnetizing reactance
2 6 X,, quadrature reactance at synchronous frequency
-3 -3 X , rotor reactance at synchronous frequency
-4 -7 p number of poles
-8 - 16 s slip
-8 -30 6 load angle
-16 - 84 w pulsation
-36 +24 AO, temperature rise of the stator
AO,l, temperature rise of the rotor compared to the stator
and decreases the d-reactance. Therefore, the two effects add. Formulas
For motor 1, increasing the volume of magnet gives a better Synchronous torque :
synchronization capability, it is the contrary for motor 2. T - 3.P .&.V
To obtain an underestimated value of the critical load torque, - 2.W. X d .
T 3.p .v2.(Xds-Xqa)
one should then consider : the lowest mains voltage, the high- s2 - 4.W. xd..xqs

est temperature for the rotor and for the stator and the unsat- Asynchronous torque :
urated value of the d-reactance for motor 1 and the saturated +
a1 = RZ. (R: ( X , X,)2) +
value for motor 2. bl = 2.&.R8.X$
However, these conclusions should be taken with care as al- c1= (X,.X, + +
x,.x, x,.x,)~ R:. (x, xT12 + +
ready with two considered motors, it was found out that the * Part of the Lyapunov function for Q = 0 :
f(z1)= &.[T,l. + +
influence of parameters are not the same for every design. The
rapidity of use of the criterion enables to run a parametric study
easily. Checking the influence of the no-load voltage could be
... + +. (cos (bo) - cos ( 2 1 bo)) ...
+
(cos (2.60) - cos (2(21 do)))] - 9.21
introduced in the optimization procedure as problems of con- Parameters of the 7.5 kW four pole LSPM prototypes
vergence may be encountered if a condition on the critical load
torque is introduced. I Darameters I motor2 I motor 1 I

VI. CONCLUSIONS
A simple method to define the maximum load torque that
can be synchronized by LSPM motors has been presented. The
influence of the electrical parameters on the synchronization
could then be studied with the introduced criterion. The ap-
plied voltage and the rotor resistance are the main parameters J (kg.m2) 0.035 0.035
to be considered. A worst case for the synchronization can sm 1.12 0.15
now be considered to calculate the critical load torque doing a
preliminary parametric study with the criterion. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
It was shown that the tested motor has greater synchroniza-
tion capability than the criterion predicts. It is known from the This investigation is a part of the Permanent Magnet Drives
chosen assumptions that the critical load torque can be quite program within the Center of Excellence in Electric Power En-
underestimated compared to the results from transient simu- gineering, in cooperation with ITT Flygt.
lations. An improved criterion may then be required in the REFERENCES
future if the optimized designs present limitations in their syn-
chronization capability. [ 13 T. Miller, ”Synchronization of line-start permanent-magnet
AC motor,” ZEEE Trans., vol. PAS-103, July 1984, pp 1822-
APPENDIX 1828.
[2] T. Miller, ”Transient performance of permanent magnet AC
Notations machines,” ZEEE ZAS Annual Meeting 1981, Philadelphia, pp
D damping constant 500-503.

430
[3] M. Rahman, A. Osheiba, T. Radwan, ”Synchronization
process of line-start permanent magnet synchronous motor,”
Electric Machines and Power Systems, vol. 25, 1997, pp 577-
592.
[4] T. Senjyu, K. Uezato, ”Pull-in criterion for reluctance mo-
tors determined by Lyapunov method,” Electric Machines und
Power Systems, vol. 26, April 1998, pp 331-345.
[5] U. Herslof, ”Design, analysis and verification of a line
start permanent magnet synchronous motor,” Licentiate thesis,
Royal Institute of Technology of Stockholm, 1996.
[6] H. Miyagi, T. Taniguchi, ”Lagrange-Charpit method and
stability problem of power systems,” Proc. IEE, vol. 128, Mars
1981, pp 117.
[7] J. Slotine, W. Li, Applied Non-Linear Control, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
[ 81 L. Lefevre, J. Soulard, ”Finite element time-transient start
of a line-start permanent magnet synchronous motor,” Con$
Rec. ICEM, 2000.

43 1