Analysis of Unbalanced Magnetic Pull in Wound
Rotor Induction Machines using Finite Element
Analysis Transient, Motoring and Generating
Modes
David G. Dorrell
School of Engineering and Information Technology
University of Technology Sydney
Sydney, Australia
David.Dorrell@uts.edu.au
Abstractthere has been much literature on unbalanced
magnetic pull in various types of electrical machine. This can
lead to bearing wear and additional vibrations in the machine. In
this paper a wound rotor induction is studied. Finite element
analysis studies are conducted when the rotor has 10 % rotor
eccentricity. The operating conditions are varied so that
transient, motoring and doubly-fed induction generator modes
are studied. This allows greater understanding of the radial
forces involved. Wound rotor induction machines exhibit higher
unbalanced magnetic pull than cage induction machines so this is
an interesting aspect of their characteristic to address.
Keywordsindiction machines, unbalanced magnetic pull,
doubly fed induction generators, DFIGs
I. INTRODUCTION
Unbalanced magnetic pull (UMP) is a radial de-centering
force generated by the magnetic force between the stator and
rotor. This can be due to a variety of conditions but usually due
to the rotor not being centered [1] or asymmetric magnetic
patterns [2]. In this paper UMP due to rotor eccentricity will be
studied and generally this is either classified into static
eccentricity, where the rotor is not centered but still rotating on
its own axis, or dynamic eccentricity where the rotor is rotating
on the stator bore axis but not on its own axis. Eccentricity can
vary down the axial bore of the stator as studied in [1] although
most researchers assume that it is constant. Static eccentricity
could be due to bearing wear and assembly tolerance; dynamic
eccentricity could be due to a bent shaft or manufacturing
issues. In this paper the argument is restricted to static
eccentricity, and low level eccentricity (10 % of air-gap
length), is used. This represents wearing bearings. In [3] it is
stated that acceptable eccentricity in large induction motors is 5
% in the total indicated run-out (T.I.R).
In induction machines UMP can be quite a complicated
phenomenon to assess [1]. There can be a great difference in
the forces depending on the arrangement of the rotor either
cage or wound. Researchers have attempted to use damper
windings to reduce the UMP [4]-[6] and induction generators
Alexander Hermann and Bogi Bech Jensen
DTU Elecktro
Technical University of Denmark
Lyngby, Denmark
alexander.n.hermann@gmail.com and bbj@elektro.dtu.dk
have been addressed [7]. UMP obviously is not just an
induction motor issue; synchronous machine UMP has been
studied (e.g., [8][9]) as well as UMP in permanent magnet
machines (e.g., [10][11]). UMP is special machines also needs
to be assessed [2]. UMP is closely related to magnetic bearings
and bearingless machines [12].
In this paper UMP in a wound rotor induction machine is
assessed using finite element analysis (Cedrat Flux 2D and
Maxwell) combined with SPEED PC-IMD to carry out
analytical analysis of the machine; the steady-state analytical
model developed in [4] is also tested. Particular attention is
paid to the machine geometry because this machine will used
in a UMP testing rig currently under development. The actual
machine is a 10 HP wound rotor motor; however, simulations
will be carried out as a doubly-fed induction generator (DFIG)
as used in wind turbines. The power flow is examined using
voltage sources in the rotor circuit. DFIG requirements in terms
of power flow are simply and well explained in [13].
Fig. 1. Machine lamination half cross-section of 4 pole cylindrical wound-
rotor induction machine.
II. ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
A. Analytical Model
A SPEED Model was developed in PC-IMD (available
from CD-Adapco, formerly from The University of Glasgow)
to allow fast assessment of the machine parameters, especially
the winding layout. The machine was tested via locked rotor
and running light tests and the model adjusted until parameters
appeared to match. This was necessary because the exact
number of turns in the stator was unknown and could not be
counted (they could be counted in the rotor). For both the stator
and rotor the wire cross section was difficult to measure
accurately. A half cross section of the machine from PC-IMD
is shown in Fig. 1. PC-IMD gave a set of terminal currents that
could be used in an analytical model that was developed in [4].

B. Finite element Analysis

Two finite element models were developed in different
packages. These were Flux 2D and Magnet. This was simply
because the authors have different resources and this allowed
cross checking of the results by independent methods. Cross Fig. 3. Per-phase stator winding and rotor/stator slot openings zoom.
sections from Flux 2D and Magnet are shown in Fig. 2. To
carry out a simulation to assess UMP in finite element analysis TABLE I. MACHINE SPECIFICATION
then the whole machine has to be modeled and time-stepped Name plate details
analysis is required. This is quite time consuming. Power [HP] 10 (or 7.46 kW)
Speed [rpm] 1420
Frequency [50] 50
Stator voltage [V] 400/440 Delta
Stator rated current [A] 13
Rotor Voltage [V] 200
Rated rotor current [A] 22
Poles 4
Slip [p.u.] 0.0533
Measured geometry [mm]
Axial length rotor core 103.9
Axial length stator core 100.9
Stator outer diameter 353
Stator inner diameter 228.15
Rotor outer diameter 226.42
Shaft diameter 120
(a) Machine or geometry in Flux 2D Airgap length 0.5
Stator slots 48
Stator slot opening 3.9
Mean length of one turn 847
Turns per slot 34 in series
Stator wire diameter 1.725 by calculation from SPEED
Stator winding Single layer lap with 13 slot pitch
Coils per pole per phase 2
Stator slot depth 26.82
Stator tooth width 8.22
Stator tooth tip depth 1
Slot type Round bottom, parallel tooth
Rotor slot opening 3
Rotor slot depth 22.5
Rotor tooth tip depth 1
Slot type Parallel slot, flat bottom
(b) Wound rotor machine in Magnet Slot width 3.5
Rotor wire diameter 1.9 mm from SPEED
Fig. 2. Machine in Flux 2D and Magnet Turns per coil 6 in series
Coils per phase 12
Rotor connection Star through 3 slip rings
III. MACHINE SPECIFICATION AND OPERATION Rotor inertia 0.1734 kg/m2
The stator winding layout for one phase of the 4 pole Measured resistances
machine is shown in Fig. 3. There was one coil side per slot Rph stator (DC, cold) 1.82 ohm
Rph rotor (DC, cold) 0.23 ohm
and the winding was lap. Therefore the winding was
Equivalent Circuit Parameters from SPEED
overpitched by one slot to accommodate this. The rotor had R2 3.01 ohm
much thicker wire and only six turns per coil and one coil side X1 5.23 ohm
per slot so the slot was almost open as shown in Fig. 3. The X2 3.37 ohm
stator had 48 slots while the rotor had 72. By measurement and Xm (420 v line-line) 198 ohm
simulation the specification in Table I was obtained. Rc (using M19 29 gage) 10 k ohm
 2.5 60
Star connected 40

Phase current [A]

2 Delta - measured 20
Phase current [A]

Flux 2D - simulated
1.5 SPEED - simulated
0
-20 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
1 -40 Current - low -inertia
-60
0.5
-80
0
Time [s]
0 100 200 300 400 Fig. 6. Low inertia run-up phase current.
Line Voltage (delta) or phase voltage (star) [V]
60
Fig. 4. Running light test results
40
To ensure that the models were correct then a running light

Phase current [A]

test was conducted together with locked rotor open and short 20
circuit tests. Fig. 4 shows the results from the running light test 0
when the machine was both delta and star connected and the -20 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
simulation results. Good correlation was obtained with careful
model adjustment. -40
-60 Current - high inertia
IV. RESULTS -80
In this section a set of results are put forward. First a set of Time [s]
transient results. First when running light with only the inertia Fig. 7. Run-up phase current with high inertia.
of the rotor then with an external inertia of three time the rotor
inertia. Then some steady-state results are put forward. Finally 350
the DFIG model and the analytical model are investigated. Torque - high inertia
300
A. Transient Analysis Torque - low inertia
250
Torque [Nm]

The simulations were run from no load up to full load. Two

different inertias were used: 0.1734 Kg/m2 (which is the rotor 200
inertia) and four times this value. The machine was connected 150
in delta with a line voltage of 420 V. The run-up speeds are
shown in Fig. 5 with the current in one phase shown in Figs. 6 100
and 7. The transient torques are shown in fig. 8. The time step
was 1 ms. The rotor was moved by 0.05 mm in the vertical 50
direction which is 10 % eccentricity. The UMP in the
horizontal direction was found to negligible so only the UMP 0
in the vertical direction is studied and this is shown in Fig. 9. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
At low speed the UMP is about 675 N while at full load speed Time [s]
it converges to about 500 N. This can be compared to a rotor Fig. 8. Run-up torque with different inertias.
weight of 30.7 Kg.
1500
750
UMP [N]

1000
Speed [rpm]

500

500 250
UMP - high inertia
Speed - low inertia
Speed - high inertia
UMP - low inertia
0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Time [s] Time [s]
Fig. 5. Transient run-up speeds with different inertias. Fig. 9. Run-up UMP with different inertias.
B. Analytical Model 1
Here a cross check the analytical model developed in [4] is 0.8

Radial air-gap flux density [T]

put forward. The currents were obtained from the SPEED 0.6
model and these were used to drive the simulation which was 0.4
written in MATLAB. The results are shown in Fig. 10. The 0.2
model is [4] was developed to assess the validity of using
0
damper windings in a wound file induction machine in order to
reduce UMP. Here the model is used simply to verify it against -0.2 0 90 180 270 360

the finite element analysis and further refine the model in the -0.4
absence of the damper windings. It can be seen that the results -0.6
between 750 rpm and 1500 rpm match reasonably well the No load -
-0.8
analytical
finite element analysis. -1
Angular position [mech deg]
The only modifications to the model are the inclusion of
rotor tooth saturation (it can be observed in Fig. 1 that rotor Fig. 11. No-load air-gap flux density (radial) with analytical method.
teeth are long) and the increase in rotor impedance by 5 % in 1.00
order to account for incomplete flux linkage between the rotor 0.80 No load - FEA

Radial air-gap flux density [T]

and stator.
0.60
The analytical model produces results that are low when the 0.40
speed is below 750 rpm. In [1] the effects of rotor differential 0.20
in a cage machine were discussed when the slip is high and 0.00
their contribution to the UMP can be high. Both rotor and
-0.20 0 90 180 270 360
stator winding harmonics need to be addressed and the model
here is adapted from a cage machine model so that further -0.40
work is needed to replace the rotor cage differential (which is -0.60
obviously not relevant here) with additional rotor winding -0.80
harmonics in the correct manner. That said, the results are still -1.00
very relevant to, say, a DFIG machine. The models are very Angular position [mech deg]
susceptible to parameter variation and even small changes in
Fig. 12. No-load air-gap flux density (radial) with FEA method.
the rotor impedance can bring large changes in the machine
simulations. This will be the focus of further work in addition 1.2
to the damper windings; these will be experimentally tested.
Radial air-gap flux density [T]

0.7
0 RPM - Analytical
750 0.2

0 90 180 270 360

-0.3
UMP [N]

500
-0.8

UMP - high inertia - FEA

250 -1.3
Analytical model Angular position [mech deg]

DFIG generating at 750 rpm - FEA Fig. 13. 0 RPM d air-gap flux density (radial) with analytical method.
0
0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 1.20
Radial air-gap flux density [T]

Time [s]
0.70
Fig. 10. Comparison of analytical model in [4] and FEA when motoring. 0 RPM - FEA

To compare the air-gap flux densities then these were 0.20

addressed at no-load and 0 rpm. These are shown in Figs. 11 to 0 90 180 270 360
14. They illustrate that the analytical is reasonable at no load -0.30
but diverges are 0 rpm. Further work will be conducted to
include full wound rotor harmonic effects and also slotting -0.80
effects. This should improve the results.
-1.30
Angular position [mech deg]

Fig. 14. 0 RPM air-gap flux density (radial) with FEA method.
C. Operation as DFIG has the turns transformation characteristic but also a frequency
In this section UMP is addressed when the machine is transformation. It is this frequency transformation that leads to
operating in DFIG mode. To understand how the induction the electro-mechanical energy conversion. Across the
machine can operate as a generator then [13] gives an excellent transformer, for the stator power in, rotor power out and
discussion and also power flow illustration. To understand sub- mechanical power in:
synchronous generation we can use the diagrams put forward
in Fig. 15. Ps = E1 I1 cos = E1/ I1/ cos

Mechanical power E1/ I1/

- motor or generate
Pr = cos (1)
j1 L1 R1 / js2 L2 R2 s
I1 I 1
E/ I /
Pmech = (1 s ) 1 1 cos
s
VL
(delta) E1 sE1/ VR where the power factor is maintained across the transformer.
X m and Rc We can transpose this circuit to eliminate the ideal transformer
ignored
and refer the rotor components to the stator. We do this in Fig.
Frequency and 15 (b). If we look at the circuit we can see that the resistive
turns transformation
Electrical power can component can be split up into the rotor resistance and the
flow either way electro-mechanical component in a similar fashion to the
(a) DFIG coupled stator and rotor circuit. standard induction machine analysis. This leads to power out
Stator Rotor Mech. Power out
when sub-synchronous (motoring) and power in when super-
Cu loss Cu loss s > 0 and in s < 0 synchronous (generating). Therefore the rotor voltage source
jX 1 R1 jX /
2
/
R
2 (1 s ) R2/ s has to be used to generate. If we carefully define the current
directions then we can see that the rotor voltage can be
I1 conveniently split up into an electrical source and a source that
Motoring convention
for rotor I 2/ = I1 is from the electro-mechanical conversion. The circuit can be
Generating followed through to the stator output power where:
VL convention E1 Rotor slip voltage can be divided up
for stator into electrical power (PRelec) and mech.
power (PEmech) sources PR elec = 3Re {VR I R/* }
VR (1 s )VR
= + VR (1 s ) (1 s ) 2
s s PR mech = 3 Re {VR I R/* } 3 I R/ R2/ (2)
s s
2
(b) DFIG circuit referred to stator. PS = 3 Re {VR I R/* } + PR mech 3 I R/ R2/
I 2/ = I1 VR (1 s )VR s = VR
s = 0.5 There are two modes of operation here: sub-synchronous and
super-synchronous.
j ( X 1 + X 2/ ) I 2/ When sub-synchronous the mechanical power flowing in
VL
from the rotor voltage source is a (1-s)/s scaling of the input
(R + R ) I / / (1 + s ) R2/ I 2/ electrical power. Therefore, for instance, when running at half
1 2 2 = R2/ I 2/
s s =o synchronous speed, the input powers from the electrical and
(c) Phasor diagram with reactive power flowing from mechanical rotor sources are equal. This power will then flow
stator and rotor supply at unity p.f.. left through the circuit. Some power will be given back to the
mechanical source in the electro-mechanical resistance
VR (1 s )VR s = VR component, and dissipated in the rotor and stator resistances,
s = 0.5
before leaving the stator terminals into the grid. When
operating at high slip the system will become very inefficient
I 2/ = I1 VL j ( X 1 + X 2/ ) I 2/ because a lot of power will be cycling into the rotor and back
out of the stator in order to obtain electro-mechanical energy
(R + R ) I
1
/
2 2
/
conversion and generation.
(1 + s ) R2/ I 2/ s = R2/ I 2/
s = 0.5 When super-synchronous the situation is much improved
(d) Phasor diagram with reactive power flowing from because the electro-mechanical energy flows from the rotor
rotor and stator supply at unity p.f.. voltage source is reversed with respect to the electrical rotor
Fig. 15. DFIG equivalent circuit arrangements with phasor diagrams.
source so that mechanical power can flow into the machine and
flow out of both the stator and rotor terminals. The electro-
In Fig. 15 (a) the coupled per-phase circuit is shown with mechanical rotor resistance power flow reverses too.
the additional rotor voltage source; the magnetizing
components are neglected for simplicity. These will be at slip Focusing on the sub-synchronous operation, the power will
frequency. The electro-mechanical energy conversion will be limited to half the rated power at half speed (maintaining the
occur across the ideal transformer component which not only same torque of about 50 Nm). Reactive power is needed to
support the magnetic field in the machine and this can come
from either the stator or rotor supplies. The rotor is inverter
controlled which can generator the reactive power. However,
the machine may be rotor critical and therefore it may be better
to operate this at unity power factor. Figs. 15 (c) and (d) show
the phasor diagrams with either the stator or rotor operating at
unity power factor. In Flux 2D additional voltage sources were
added to the circuit. The speed was set to 750 rpm and the
correct stator and rotor voltage phasing set. The rotor voltage
was first tested then the voltage reduced and phase advanced so
that the rotor current is almost in phase with the rotor voltage.
The rotor voltage was found to be 62.5 V rms with a phase
advance of 7.5 deg. elec. The UMP was 550 N with ripple of
40 N. This can be compared to Fig. 10. It can be seen that it is
less than the motoring run-up UMP. The torque about 47 Nm.
The voltages and currents for a stator and rotor phase are
shown in Fig. 16. The current conventions are as in Fig. 15 (b)
so that reactive power flows in from both the stator and rotor.
When motoring the machine will absorb 2.67 kVAr at no load
with 420 V line. In the finite element analysis the total
instantaneous reactive power for a balanced 3-phase set can be
assessed from
Q = (V1 ( I 3 I 2 ) + V2 ( I1 I 3 ) + V3 ( I 2 I1 ) ) 3 (3)
and it was found that the stator delivered 1.15 kVAr and the
rotor delivered 1.5 kVAr which illustrates that to maintain the
correct flux in the machine for a given supply voltage, the VAr
absorbed should be about the same. The resultant UMP is
similar to the no load value too.
600
400
200
Vph [V]
V. CONCLUSIONS
This paper has addressed UMP in wound rotor induction
motors and in a doubly-fed induction generator. UMP is
generated by air-gap flux waves with pole-pairs differing by
one [1] and rotor eccentricity generates this situation not only
for the fundamental pole-pair MMF wave but also for winding
and differential terms. This can be seen at 750 rpm under
transient motor run up (where the current and flux harmonics
are high) the UMP is higher when compared the steady-state
UMP under DFIG operation (where the currents are lower).
Further work will measure the UMP in a rig that is being
developed. The analytical model will also be addressed to
refine the winding harmonics and also the slotting.
REFERENCES
[1] D. G. Dorrell, Sources and Characteristics of Unbalanced Magnetic
Pull in 3-Phase Cage Induction Motors with Axial-Varying Rotor
Eccentricity, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 47, no. 1, 2011, pp 12 - 24.
[2] D. G. Dorrell, A. M. Knight, and R. E. Betz, Improvements in
Brushless Doubly-Fed Reluctance Generators Using High Flux Density
Steels and Selection of the Correct Pole Numbers, IEEE Trans. on
Magn., vol. 47, no. 10, 2011, pp 4092-4095.
[3] W. T. Thomson, D. Rankin and D. G. Dorrell, "On-line current
monitoring to diagnose airgap eccentricity in large three-phase induction
motors - industrial case histories verify the predictions", IEEE Trans. on
Energy Conv., Vol. 14, No. 4, Dec. 1999, pp1372-1378.
[4] D. G. Dorrell, J. Shek, M.-F. Hsieh and M. A. Mueller, Damper
Windings in Induction Machines for Reduction of Unbalanced Magnetic
Pull and Bearing Wear, IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and
Exposition, Phoenix, USA, 17-22 Sept. 2011.
[5] A. Sinervo, T. Jokela, and A. Arkkio, Controlling Rotor Vibrations of a
Two-Pole Induction Machine With Unipolar Actuator, IEEE Trans on
10 Magn., vol. 48, no. 7, July 2012, pp 2205 2210.
8 [6] A. Sinervo, A. Laiho and A. Arkkio, Low-frequency oscillation in rotor
6 vibration of a two-pole induction machine with extra four-pole stator
4 winding, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 22922302, 2011.
Iph [A]

2 [7] D. G. Dorrell, J. Shek, M.-F. Hsieh, and M. A. Mueller, Unbalanced

0 0 magnetic pull in cage induction machines for fixed-speed renewable
150 160 170 180 190 200 -2 energy generators, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 47, no. 10, pp. 40964099,
-200 -4 2011.
-400 Vph - stator -6
-8 [8] D. Zarko, D. Ban, I. Vazdar and V. Jaric, Calculation of Unbalanced
Iph - stator Magnetic Pull in a Salient-Pole Synchronous Generator Using Finite-
-600 -10
Time [ms] Element Method and Measured Shaft Orbit, IEEE Trans. on Ind.
Electr, vol. 59, no. 6, pp 2536 - 2549.
100 40 [9] M. Wallin, J. Bladh nd U. Lundin, Damper winding influence on
80 30 unbalanced magnetic pull in synchronous machines with rotor
60 eccentricity, IEEE Trans. on Magn., Early Access, 2013, pp 1-8.
20
40
10 [10] D. G. Dorrell, M. Popescu and D. M. Ionel, "Unbalanced magnetic pull
Iph [A]
Vph [V]

20
due to asymmetry and low-level static rotor eccentricity in fractional-slot
0 0
brushless permanent-magnet motors with surfacemagnet and consequent
-20 150 160 170 180 190 200 -10
-pole rotors," IEEE Trans. Magn, vol. 46, 2010, pp. 2675-2685.
-40
-20 [11] Sun-Kwon Lee, Gyu-Hong Kang and Jin Hur, Analysis of Radial
-60 Vph -rotor
-80 -30 Forces in 100kW IPM Machines for Ship Considering Stator and Rotor
Iph - rotor
-100 -40 Eccentricity, 8th Int. Conf. on Power Electronics - ECCE Asia, May
Time [ms] 30-June 3, 2011, The Shilla Jeju, Korea, pp 2457-2461.
[12] Akira Chiba, Tadashi Fukao, Osamu Ichikawa, Masahide Oshima,
Fig. 16. Stator (top) and rotor (bottom) phase voltages and currents. Masatsugu Takemoto, and D. G Dorrell, Magnetic Bearings and
Bearingless Drives, Newnes Publishers, March 2005.
The mechanical power into the machine is about 3.6 KW [13] J. F. Fletcher and J. Yang, Introduction to Doubly-Fed Induction
(with some torque ripple). In terms of electrical power, the Generator for Wind Power Applications, Paths to Sustainable Energy,
stator has 6.5 kW coming out of the terminals while there is 3.5 Ed: Artie Ng, InTech, Nov 2010, pp 259-27.
kW going into the rotor. There are 180 W of stator copper loss
and 330 W of rotor copper loss. This balances the mechanical
input power to within about 100W which is due to numerical
error.