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. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TMAG.2016.2521873, IEEE
Transactions on Magnetics

> FX-11<

An Improved Method for Armature-Reaction Magnetic Field

Calculation of Interior Permanent Magnet Motors
Peixin Liang, Yulong Pei, Feng Chai, Yunlong Bi, and Shukang Cheng

Department of Electrical Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, 150001, China

This paper proposes an improved analytical method to calculate the armature-reaction magnet field (ARMF) of interior permanent
magnet (IPM) motors. Based on the winding function, the armature-reaction magnetic motive force (MMF) is divided into d-axis
component and q-axis component to facilitate the analysis. Taking the flux paths into account, the difference of rotor magnetic
potentials in d-axis and q-axis is illustrated, which improves the accuracy of the ARMF calculation. The validity of the analytical
technique is verified by 2 dimensional (2D) - finite element analysis (FEA).

Index Terms—Armature reaction magnetic field, interior permanent magnet motor, winding function, finite element analysis

I. INTRODUCTION II. IMPROVED METHOD

I n recent decades, IPM motors cover a wide range of

industrial applications, especially for the electric vehicle
where high efficiency, high torque/power density and wide
constant-power speed range are required [1]. As a significant
parameter, the ARMF is the foundation for the performance
indices of an IPM motor, i.e., inductances, iron loss, flux-
weakening capability, and torque ripple [2]. Furthermore, the
ARMF shifts and distorts the main flux，which may cause
instability and tracking error [3]. Hence, it is very crucial to
accurately evaluate the ARMF.
Although FEA can analyze the ARMF accounting for the
material nonlinearity and complex geometry, the analytical
method that helps to facilitate the motor design and provide a
physical insight to IPM motors is more useful for designers [4].
In [5], permeance models are applied to calculate the ARMF.
The calculation accuracy is greatly affected by the way that
how to build the analytical models.
The analytical method is another efficient method to
investigate armature reaction. In [6], a novel analytical method
considering harmonic expansion is proposed to predict the
ARMF of a coreless PM tubular linear machine. In [7], the
ARMF is predicted by a current sheet model. Actually, the
equations of the analytical method can be solved when the
A 72-slot/8-pole IPM motor is instanced to verify the
proposed method. The following assumptions are made:
(1) The magnetic fields of permanent magnets are neglected,
i.e. permanent magnets are not magnetized;
(2) The permeability of stator and rotor core is infinite;
Fig.1 shows the model of the motor with barriers, where θr
is the angular position in the stator reference frame measured
from the axis of phase a, r is the rotor outer radius.
Fig.1. Model of a 72-slot/8-pole IPM motor.
A. Improved MMF of Stator
The winding function of each phase can be expanded into a
Fourier series as:
 2 Nk wv
 N a   vp cos( r )
 

 2 Nk wv 2
boundary condition is simplified. This type of method has  Nb   cos ( r  ) (1)
only been applied to obtain the field distribution in a surface   vp 3
permanent magnet motor [8].  2 Nk wv 4
Nc   cos ( r  )
As magnets are embedded in rotors for IPM motors, the   vp 3
structures are complex as well as the boundary conditions. The where N is the amount of winding turns in series of stator
two aforesaid methods are inadaptable to accurately calculate phase, kwv is the winding factor, p is the number of pole-pairs.
the ARMF. The methods with the harmonic modeling Under load condition, three-phase symmetric currents are:
technique or the winding function are effective to calculate the

ARMF for IPM motors [9]-[10]. The calculation process of  I A  I cos(t   )
the winding function is more convenient. Based on the 
winding function, this paper presents an improved analytical  2
 I B  I cos(t    ) (2)
model. Taking the flux paths into account, the difference of  3
rotor magnetic potentials in d-axis and q-axis is illustrated.  4
The validity of the proposed method is verified by 2D-FEA.  I C  I cos(t    3 )

Manuscript received xxx x, xxxx (date on which paper was submitted for
where I is the magnitude of current per phase, φ is the current
review). Corresponding author: XXX Author (e-mail: xxxx@xxxx.xxx). phase measured from the d-axis, ω is the electrical angular
Digital Object Identifier inserted by IEEE

0018-9464 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
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. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TMAG.2016.2521873, IEEE
Transactions on Magnetics

> FX-11<

frequency. q-axis d-axis

The synthetic MMF of stator produced by the currents is
Urd1
obtained by： a pole
Urd2 pitch
Fs ( r , t )  N a I a  N b I b  N c I c
(3)

 F cos( v  k t  k  )
v
r v v   p
2 2
where
Fig.4. Magnetic potential distributions in d-axis.
 Nk wv
 F  3 vp I
 For d-axis flux paths, the flux lines pass through both the
 kv  1, for v  6( m  1)  1 (4) constant region and the variable region, as shown in Fig.3.
 k  1, for v  6m  1 According to the magnetic potential distribution, each pole
 v
 m  1, 2, 3... pitch can be separated into five parts (shown in Fig.4), which
is the main difference between the conventional methods.
Compared with the conventional methods, the proposed Where Urd1 and Urd2 are the magnitudes of magnetic potentials.
method divides the crucial parameter Fs into d-axis component The magnetic potential of rotor in half electrical period can be
and q-axis component to facilitate the analysis: formulated as:
Fs ( r , t )  Fsd ( r , t )  Fsq ( r , t )
  
0,    r  t  
  F cos( kvt  v r ) cos( ) (5) 2 2

 Bd (     t ) r ,      t    p
v

 kv  F sin(  kvt  v r ) sin( ) u r r

2 2 2
v
 0
  
B. Rotor Magnetic Potential Frd ( r , t )  U rd 1 ,  p   r  t  p (6)
 2 2
For the model with barriers, both the under surface and
upper surface of magnets are surrounded by the rotor core. As  Bd   
 (   r  t ) r , p   r  t 
the permeability of rotor core is infinite, the magnetic u
 0 2 2 2
potentials of magnets can be considered to be constant when   
the flux lines pass through the magnet area. Nevertheless, the 0,   r  t 
 2 2
magnetic potential is variable with the flux path in the barrier
where μ0 is the permeability of air, Bd is the average flux
area. Hence, the rotor is segmented into two pieces: the
density of barriers in d-axis, and can be expressed as:
constant region and the variable region (shown in Fig.2).
Where αp is the magnet pole-arc to pole-pitch ratio, β is the 2u0U rd 2
Bd  (7)
barrier arc to pole-pitch ratio, α is the barrier angle. (    p ) r
The constant
region As the permanent magnets are not magnetized, the armature
reaction MMF is the only source. Moreover, the infinite
 permeability of core makes the magnetic voltage drop crossing
the stator and rotor neglected.
  p
2 2
For the continuity of magnetic flux, the magnetic fluxes in
the rotor can be calculated by:
  p   t 0   ll
  2p ( Fsd ( r , t )  Frd ( r , t )) rld r  U rd 1 0 r m
 2  t pg e hm
Fig.2. Analysis model for magnetic potential distribution.   (8)
 2 t ( F ( , t )  F ( , t )) 0 rld  B (    p ) rl
  p t sd r rd r
pg e
r d
2p
 2
where μr is the relative permeability of the magnets, l is the
axial length, lm and hm are the width and height of the magnets,
and ge is equivalent airgap length which is obtained by:
Flux line
 g e  gkc
 
k 
 c (9)
 2b  b g  b 
  0 arctan( 0 )  ln 1  ( 0 )2  
Fig.3. Flux paths in d-axis.    2 g b0  2g 
where g is the airgap length, b0 is the slot opening width.
Substituting (5), (6), (7) into (8), the magnetic potentials
can be obtained as：

0018-9464 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
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. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TMAG.2016.2521873, IEEE
Transactions on Magnetics

> FX-11<

v p   
2 F sin( )  cos( ) P1 0,    r  t  
Ud1   2 cos(( kv  v )t ) (10) 2 2

v v ( P2  P3 )  U ,   
   r  t   p
v (    p )  rq 2 2
2 F sin( ) cos( ) P1 
Ud 2   4   p  p
v ( P4  P5 ) (11) Frq ( r , t )  0,    r  t  (14)
v
 2 2
v (    p )  
 cos((  kv )t  )  
4 U rq ,
p
  r  t 
 2 2
where
0,  
 0 rl    r  t 
 P1  pg  2 2
 e
The magnetic potential Urq can be deduced from:
 0 rl p 
 P2   t 0
 pg e  
2
p
 t
( Fsq ( r , t )  Frq ( r , t ))
pg e
rld r  U rq Pb (15)
 0 r llm
2

 P3  (12) where Pb is the permeance of the barrier, which can be

 hm obtained by the following equations:
 0 rl (    p ) The total permeance of the airgap and barrier in the range
 P4  (0.5αpπ, 0.5βπ) can be calculated by the integral:
 4 pg e

 0 l 0lrd r
 P5  Pgb   2p
 p
 p 2 p ( g  r ( 
e r ) )
2 (16)
As a continuous function of magnetic potential is more
useful to calculate the ARMF, the magnetic potential of rotor  l  r (    p ) 
 0 ln 1  
is expressed in a Fourier series as：   ge 2p 
 p In the range (0.5αpπ, 0.5βπ), the airgap permeance can be
sin( j )
4 expressed as:
Frd ( r , t )  U rd 1


j  2 n 1 j
2 cos( j  ( r  t ))
 rl (    p )
Pg  0 (17)
 p  2 pg e
cos( j )  cos( j )
8 The barrier permeance can be obtained by:
U rd 2 ( 2
 (   p )

j  2 n 1
2
j 2
2 (13)
1
Pb  (18)
 p 1 / Pg  b  1 / Pg
sin( j )
4 The solution of equation (15) is:


 j
j  2 n 1
2
)  cos( j  ( r  t ))
v (    p )
2kv F sin( ) sin( ) P1
Similarly, as the flux lines pass through the barriers in q- U rq   4
axis, the magnetic potential of rotor can be simplified to a v v ( Pg  Pb ) (19)
constant [10]. For the symmetry of the q-axis armature v (    p )
reaction MMF, the magnetic potential distributions is  sin((  kv )t 
)
symmetric with respect to q-axis, as shown in Fig.5, where Urq 4
is the magnitude of magnetic potentials. In q-axis, the Fourier series of rotor magnetic potential can
q-axis d-axis be expressed as：
 p 
Urq a pole cos( j )  cos( j )
4
 pitch Frq ( r , t )  U rq


j  2 n 1
2
j
2
(20)
2
 sin( j  ( r  t ))
 p
C. Armature-Reaction Airgap Magnetic Field
2
The armature reaction airgap magnetic fields in d-axis and
Fig.5. Magnetic potential distributions in q-axis. q-axis can be calculated by:
 0
In q-axis, the magnetic potential of rotor in half electrical  Bd  g  Fsd ( , t )  Frd ( , t ) 
period can be formulated as:  e
 (21)

 B  0  F ( , t )  F ( , t ) 
 q g e  sq rq 

0018-9464 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
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. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TMAG.2016.2521873, IEEE
Transactions on Magnetics

> FX-11<

Therefore, the airgap flux density can be synthesized by the Fig.6 shows the airgap flux density obtained by the
d-axis component and q-axis component, which is calculated proposed method, previous method (in [10]) and FEA with
based on the following equations: different φ, respectively. Compared with the previous method,
B  Bd  Bq (22) the proposed method agrees better with the FEA, especially
for the d-axis flux density, which illustrates that the proposed
method is more accurate for the prediction of the ARM and
III. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS the related parameters, e.g. inductance and demagnetization.
To verify the analytical method, a FEA model of the 72-
slot/8-pole IPM motor is built. The main parameters are listed IV. CONCLUSION
in Table I. This paper mainly investigates the method based on the
TABLE I
MAIN PARAMETERS
winding function to accurately predict the ARMF. According
Parameter Quantity Unit to the magnet field distribution, the proposed method divides
Rotor outer radius 128.5 mm the armature-reaction MMF into d-axis component and q-axis
Axial length 100 mm component, which simplifies the calculation. Taking the
Magnet width 92 mm influence of barriers on rotor magnetic potential into
Magnet height 10 mm
Airgap length 1.5 mm consideration, the ARMF can be expressed as a continuous
Barrier angle 90 Degree function, which facilitates the motor design. The comparison
Magnet pole-arc to pole-pitch ratio 0.76 of the airgap density flux obtained by the proposed method
Barrier arc to pole-pitch ratio 0.9 and FEA illustrates that the proposed method can accurately
0.15
predict the ARMF.
Proposed method The proposed method is quite useful for evaluating various
Airgap Flux Density(T)

0.10 Previous method

0.05
FEA performances of IPM motors in an accurate and time-effective
0.00 manner, such as inductance, demagnetization, stator core
-0.05 losses, and magnet eddy current losses.
-0.10

-0.15 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
Electrical Angle(Deg)
This study was carried out as a part of the industrial
(a) application technology in electric vehicles and supported by
0.3 Proposed method National Natural Science Foundation of China (51477032 and
Airgap Flux Density(T)

Previous method
0.2
FEA 51307029).
0.1
0.0
-0.1 REFERENCES
-0.2 [1] Q. Li, T. Fan, X. Wen, and P. Ning, “An Analytical Approach to Magnet
-0.3 Eddy-Current Losses for Interior Permanent-Magnet Synchronous
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 Machines During Flux Weakening,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 51, no. 8,
Electrical Angle(Deg) Aug. 2015, Art. ID 8107109.
(b) [2] A. Rahideh, and T. Korakianitis, “Analytical Armature Reaction Field
0.15 Proposed method
Distribution of Slotless Brushless Machines With Inset Permanent
Magnets,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 48, no. 7, pp. 2178-2191, Jul. 2012.
Airgap Flux Density(T)

0.10 Previous method

FEA [3] L. Yan, L. Zhang, Z. Jiao, and H. Hu, “Armature Reaction Field and
0.05
Inductance of Coreless Moving-Coil Tubular Linear Machine,” IEEE
0.00
Trans. Ind. Electron, vol. 61, no. 12, pp. 6956-6965, Dec. 2014.
-0.05 [4] A. Rahideh,and T. Korakianitis, “Analytical magnetic field distribution
-0.10 of slotless brushless permanent magnet motors–Part I. Armature reaction
-0.15 field, inductance and rotor eddy current loss calculations,” IET, vol. 6,
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 no. 9, pp. 628-638, Nov. 2012.
Electrical Angle(Deg) [5] J. Asama, Y. Hamasaki, T. Oiwa, and A. Chiba, “Proposal and Analysis
(c) of a Novel Single-Drive Bearingless Motor,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
0.3
Proposed method
vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 129-138, Jan. 2013.
[6] R. Praveen, M. Ravichandran, et al, “A novel slotless Halbach-Array
Airgap Flux Density(T)

0.2 Previous method

0.1
FEA permanent-magnet brushless dc motor for spacecraft applications,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 3553–3560, Sep. 2012.
0.0
[7] Z. Q. Zhu and D. Howe, “Instantaneous magnetic field distribution in
-0.1 permanent magnet brushless dc motors. IV. magnetic field on load,”
-0.2 IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 152–158, Jan. 1993.
-0.3
[8] L. Qi, F. Tao, and W. Xuhui, “Armature-reaction magnetic field analysis
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 for interior permanent magnet motor based on winding function theory,”
Electrical Angle(Deg)
IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 1193–1201, Mar. 2013.
(d) [9] R. L. J. Sprangers, “Semianalytical framework for synchronous relucta-
Fig. 6. Comparison of airgap flux density at t=0. (a) φ=0, where Fs is in d-axis. nce motor analysis including finite soft-magnetic material permeability,”
(b) φ=90, where Fs is in q-axis. (c) φ=20, a random angular position. (d) φ= IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 51, no. 11, Nov. 2015, Art. ID 8110504.
-45, a random angular position. [10] H. Chen, D. Li, R. Qu, Z. Zhu, “An Improved Analytical Model for
Inductance Calculation of Interior Permanent Magnet Machines,” IEEE
Trans. Magn., vol. 50, no. 6, Jun. 2014, Art. ID 7027108.

0018-9464 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.