Approximate Methods for Calculating Rotor Losses

in Permanent-Magnet Brushless Machines

T. J. E. Miller, M.I. McGilp K.W. Klontz
SPEED Laboratory Advanced MotorTech LLC
University of Glasgow 9117 Park Blvd
Glasgow G12 8LT, U.K. Largo, FL 33777-4133

Abstract — This paper describes approximate methods for calculating

the rotor losses due to induced currents in rotors of permanent-magnet
brushless machines, that is, in the magnets, the shaft, and in any retaining
can. Different methods are developed for surface-magnet and interior-
magnet machines. The methods include segmentation of the magnets and
the rotor can in both the axial and circumferential directions. They can
be extended via the frequency-response method to calculate the
subtransient reactance and time-constant needed for fault calculations.

I. INTRODUCTION

In an ideal synchronous machine the field rotates in

synchronism with the rotor, and the flux-density is time-invariant
throughout the rotor cross-section. There is no tendency for
eddy-currents to flow anywhere in the rotor. There are no losses
in the magnets, the rotor body, or the shaft. Such ideal conditions
would exist at constant speed in a machine with smooth
cylindrical surfaces (no slotting); with sine-distributed windings;
and with balanced polyphase sinusoidal currents.
Eddy-currents are induced in practice by imperfections or
departures from the ideal, some of which are described with code
letters as follows:
h1 Space-harmonics in the stator ampere-conductor distribution
and time-harmonics in the stator current waveform produce
asynchronous field components that rotate forwards or
backwards relative to the rotor. For example in motors with
squarewave drive, the stator ampere-conductor distribution
remains fixed in space for successive intervals, typically of
60E duration. As the rotor moves relative to the fixed
“armature reaction” field, EMFs and eddy-currents may be
induced in it. Again, commutation of the current from one
phase to another is, in effect, a voltage step at the stator
terminals, inducing a “transformer” EMF in closed paths in
the rotor. The resulting eddy-currents are transient, but
excited repetitively, resulting in a steady-state average loss.
h2 PWM-frequency components of the stator current produce
asynchronous fields.
h3 Even in motors with sinewave drive, imbalance between the
phase currents results in a negative-sequence component of
the armature-reaction field, which rotates backwards and
induces EMFs in the rotor at twice the fundamental frequency.
m1 The overall permeance of the magnetic circuit may be
modulated at the slot-passing frequency. The permeance
harmonics produce cogging torque, “slot ripple” in the EMF
waveform, and eddy-currents in the rotor.
Fig. 1 Structure of rotor loss calculation
m2 Stator slot-openings create “dips” in the airgap flux-
distribution which rotate backwards at synchronous speed
relative to the rotor. They produce pools of motion-induced
eddy-currents that remain stationary in space, roughly
opposite the slot openings.
All of the h-type losses can be analyzed by solving the
electromagnetic field excited by time-harmonics in the current
waveform acting together with the space-harmonics in the
winding distribution. If the induced currents are assumed not to
affect the stator current waveform, the field and circuit analyses
can be separated, simplifying matters greatly. This solution is
called “current-forced”.
For surface-magnet machines this solution for h-type losses
can be developed by solving the complex diffusion equation in a
multi-layer cylindrical structure, including the shaft and any
retaining sleeve [1]. A complete simulation of the machine and
drive is required to obtain the time-harmonics of the current
waveforms, and a harmonic analysis of the winding is required
to obtain the space harmonics of the ampere-conductor
distribution [2].
Approximate modifications are applied to the basic 2-
dimensional result, to deal with finite length and/or the

978-1-4244-4252-2/09/$25.00 ©2009 IEEE 1

segmentation of magnets in the circumferential and axial
directions. Several original methods are described. The method
is also extended to deal with m1-type losses by means of an
equivalent harmonic current sheet [3,8].
For interior-magnet machines the analytical solution of the
complex diffusion equation is too difficult and so a completely
different approach is used, based on the calculated frequency-
response of the complex synchronous inductance in the d-axis.
An important by-product of this analysis is the calculation of the
subtransient reactance and time-constant, which are needed for
calculating sudden short-circuit faults. The frequency-response
method is also developed for surface-magnet machines from the
complex diffusion equation.[4]
The calculation of slotting effects (m2-type losses) by the old
method of “flux-dip-sweeping” [7] is not included: it can be used
for thin screens but is inadequate for magnet losses.
The calculation structure is shown in Fig. 1,which also forms Fig. 2 Cross-section of surface-magnet machine
the structure of the paper. Iron losses are not covered in detail as
they have been reported earlier [5]. The solution contains two complex constants c for each region.
These are determined from the boundary conditions between
regions, [1]. The method is commonplace and not repeated here,
II. THEORY but it is noted that the current-sheet excitation at the surface of
the stator is introduced by the boundary condition on H2 at radius
A. Surface-magnet Machines rS. For zero-frequency conditions the solution degenerates to the
solution given in [6], providing a useful check.
The basic calculation is the solution of the complex diffusion The current-sheet excitation is an ampere-conductor
equation for vector potential A in Fig. 2, distribution given for a single harmonic in phase k by
d 2A p2 1
1 dA
jTµ F A ' 0. Akm(N,t) ' m I F cos (m N $km) cos (n Tet "kn) . (7)
(1) rS kn km
dr 2 r dr r2
where N is the azimuthal coordinate, m is the mechanical order
where the conductivity F is zero in non-conducting regions. The
of the space-harmonic of the normalized winding MMF F, n is
general solution is [1]
the order of the time-harmonic in the current waveform Ik, Te is
A ' c1 Ip ( j1/2 r/d ) c2 Kp ( j1/2 r/d ) . (2) the fundamental radian line frequency, and "kn and $km are phase
Ip and Kp are modified Bessel functions of the first and second reference angles which are set to zero for simplicity. The A-wave
is resolved into forward and backward components and then
kind; c1 and c2 are complex constants; and d = 1//TµF, which
transformed into a reference frame synchronous with the rotor,
is 1//2 times the conventional “skin depth”. In non-conducting
using 2 = N T0t where T0 = Te/P is the rotor angular velocity
regions
and 2P is the number of poles. The result is
A ' c3 r p c4 r p . (3)
1
where c1 and c2 are complex constants. Akf/b mn(N,t) ' m I F cos [ m 2 (m K n P) T0 t ] . (8)
2 rS kn km
In conducting regions the eddy-current density is Relative to the rotor, the angular velocities of the forward- and
J ' F E ' j T FA. (4) backward ampere-conductor distributions are
The power loss in conducting regions can be determined by S ' (m K n P) T0 / m rad/s . (9)
integrating J 2/F or EJ* over the region volume. For a continuous It is required to express the current-sheet in the form
conducting cylinder with radii r1 and r2, this can be shown to be A e j (m2 T t) (10)
r2
2B 2 and this is obtained by the substitution A = Ak f/b mn and
W ' T F AA(r dr W/mz (5)
2 T ' ( mN ± n ) Te rad/s ,
r1 (11)
Alternatively the radial component of Poynting's vector where mN = m/P is the electrical order of the space-harmonic.
E × H * can be used to give the difference between the average Tables I and II show the rotor frequencies normalized to Te for
power losses over the inner and outer surfaces of the cylinder, electrical space-harmonics mNand time harmonics n up to the 37th
1 ( r for one phase. For balanced 3-phase operation the number of
W ' Re j T AH2 2 W/m 2 . (6)
2 r1 harmonics decreases from 703 to 222, and if triplen harmonics
The sign of W indicates whether the power flow is radially are precluded, the total number reduces to 156, a saving of nearly
inwards or outwards. 80% in the number of field solutions required.

2
 TABLE I
ROTOR FREQUENCIES FOR FORWARD FIELD COMPONENT IN UNBALANCED MACHINE
mN 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37
1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
3 !2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
5 !4 !2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
7 !6 !4 !2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
9 !8 !6 !4 !2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
11 !1 !8 !6 !4 !2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
13 !1 !1 !8 !6 !4 !2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
15 !1 !1 !1 !8 !6 !4 !2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
17 !1 !1 !1 !1 !8 !6 !4 !2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
19 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !8 !6 !4 !2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
21 !2 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !8 !6 !4 !2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
23 !2 !2 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !8 !6 !4 !2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
25 !2 !2 !2 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !8 !6 !4 !2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
27 !2 !2 !2 !2 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !8 !6 !4 !2 0 2 4 6 8 10
29 !2 !2 !2 !2 !2 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !8 !6 !4 !2 0 2 4 6 8
31 !3 !2 !2 !2 !2 !2 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !8 !6 !4 !2 0 2 4 6
33 !3 !3 !2 !2 !2 !2 !2 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !8 !6 !4 !2 0 2 4
35 !3 !3 !3 !2 !2 !2 !2 !2 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !8 !6 !4 !2 0 2
37 !3 !3 !3 !3 !2 !2 !2 !2 !2 !1 !1 !1 !1 !1 !8 !6 !4 !2 0

Table II
ROTOR FREQUENCIES FOR BACKWARD FIELD COMPONENT IN UNBALANCED MACHINE
mN 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37
1 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14 -16 -18 -20 -22 -24 -26 -28 -30 -32 -34 -36 -38
3 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14 -16 -18 -20 -22 -24 -26 -28 -30 -32 -34 -36 -38 -40
5 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14 -16 -18 -20 -22 -24 -26 -28 -30 -32 -34 -36 -38 -40 -42
7 -8 -10 -12 -14 -16 -18 -20 -22 -24 -26 -28 -30 -32 -34 -36 -38 -40 -42 -44
9 -10 -12 -14 -16 -18 -20 -22 -24 -26 -28 -30 -32 -34 -36 -38 -40 -42 -44 -46
11 -12 -14 -16 -18 -20 -22 -24 -26 -28 -30 -32 -34 -36 -38 -40 -42 -44 -46 -48
13 -14 -16 -18 -20 -22 -24 -26 -28 -30 -32 -34 -36 -38 -40 -42 -44 -46 -48 -50
15 -16 -18 -20 -22 -24 -26 -28 -30 -32 -34 -36 -38 -40 -42 -44 -46 -48 -50 -52
17 -18 -20 -22 -24 -26 -28 -30 -32 -34 -36 -38 -40 -42 -44 -46 -48 -50 -52 -54
19 -20 -22 -24 -26 -28 -30 -32 -34 -36 -38 -40 -42 -44 -46 -48 -50 -52 -54 -56
21 -22 -24 -26 -28 -30 -32 -34 -36 -38 -40 -42 -44 -46 -48 -50 -52 -54 -56 -58
23 -24 -26 -28 -30 -32 -34 -36 -38 -40 -42 -44 -46 -48 -50 -52 -54 -56 -58 -60
25 -26 -28 -30 -32 -34 -36 -38 -40 -42 -44 -46 -48 -50 -52 -54 -56 -58 -60 -62
27 -28 -30 -32 -34 -36 -38 -40 -42 -44 -46 -48 -50 -52 -54 -56 -58 -60 -62 -64
29 -30 -32 -34 -36 -38 -40 -42 -44 -46 -48 -50 -52 -54 -56 -58 -60 -62 -64 -66
31 -32 -34 -36 -38 -40 -42 -44 -46 -48 -50 -52 -54 -56 -58 -60 -62 -64 -66 -68
33 -34 -36 -38 -40 -42 -44 -46 -48 -50 -52 -54 -56 -58 -60 -62 -64 -66 -68 -70
35 -36 -38 -40 -42 -44 -46 -48 -50 -52 -54 -56 -58 -60 -62 -64 -66 -68 -70 -72
37 -38 -40 -42 -44 -46 -48 -50 -52 -54 -56 -58 -60 -62 -64 -66 -68 -70 -72 -74

3
Circumferential segmentation; residual suppression—Fig. 3
shows a magnet of width $ in the circumferential direction, with
a segment J1 of the current-density wave that would be induced
by a harmonic field rotating relative to the magnet, if the magnet
was a complete ring. J1 is obtained from the earlier field
solution. Fig . 3 is drawn for one instant in time. The position of
the magnet relative to the J-wave is defined as the phase > of the
centre-line of the magnet relative to the J-wave: thus > = (21 +
22)/2 and $ = (22 21); or 21 = > $/2 and 22 = > + $/2. The
angles 21, 22, > and $ are all measured in electrical radians
relative to the harmonic wave length 8. Thus if $m is the magnet
width in actual mechanical radians, $ = $m × 2B/8.
If the J-wave is represented as J1 sin 2, the integral
22
J1 sin 2 d 2
21
represents the net current that would flow in a section of a
complete ring of magnet between the angles 21 and 22. This
integral is not in general zero. However, the net current in a
magnet block of finite width $ must be zero, because there is no
connection by which it can find a return path in another magnet.
The net current must therefore return through the magnet block
itself. The distribution of return current-density across the cross-
section of the magnet block is not known a priori; but it can be
supposed to be uniform on the grounds that any non-uniformity
would imply that there were loops in the return current path
containing induced EMFs, when the induced EMFs have in fact
already been completely accounted for by the solution of the field
equations leading to the J-wave. (In finite-element programs the
imposition of zero net current is achieved by a related process —
often without proof — in which the end-faces of the conducting
regions are shorted together. Thus with a uniformly-distributed
return current density J0 we have
22
( J0 J1 sin 2 ) d 2 ' 0 ,
21
from which
cos 22 cos 21 sin ($ / 2)
J0 ' J1 ' J1 sin >
22 21 $/2
The loss in the magnet block is proportional to (J0 + J1 sin 2)2
integrated over $ : thus if q = J0/J1 we can write a loss function
22
7 ' J12 ( q sin 2 )2 d2
21
1 $ 1
2
' J1 ( q 2
)$ 4 q sin sin > cos 2 > sin $ .
2 2 2
When $ ' 360kE (for integer k), the magnet width is an integral
multiple of the wavelength 8 of the harmonic field component,
and (13) is automatically satisfied, with J0 = 0, regardless of the
phase or position of the J-wave relative to the magnet. The
harmonic loss in a magnet whose width is equal to an integral
multiple of the harmonic wavelength is therefore unaffected by
segmentation. The integral 7 in (15) then degenerates to 70 '
J12$/2, so we can characterize the effect of circumferential
segmentation of the magnets by the loss reduction factor
(12)
Fig. 3 Residual current suppression
7 2 1 $ 1
' (q 2 )$ 4 q sin sin > cos 2 > sin $ (16)
70 $ 2 2 2
In Fig. 3 the magnet width is $ = 90E relative to the harmonic
wavelength, and its phase position is > = 80E. Thus 21 = 80
90/2 = 35E and 22 = 80 + 90/2 = 125E. Equation (14) gives q =
J0/J1 = 0@88664, and with $ = B/2 radians (16) gives the loss
reduction factor 7/70 = 0@0207. While this seems a very
substantial reduction, it needs further comment.
First, this value applies only at one instant corresponding to the
phase angle > = 80E. As the cycle progresses and the harmonic
wave moves relative to the magnet, 7/70 varies and there are
instants when it is equal to 1. Therefore we can expect the
average loss reduction factor to be greater than 0@0207.
Secondly, a magnet width of $ = 90Eis one-quarter of the
harmonic wavelength. Consider the 5th space-harmonic of the
(13) stator winding, whose wavelength at fundamental frequency is
1/5th of a pole-pitch. $ = 90E for this harmonic implies that the
magnet is segmented into 20 blocks per pole — rather a large
number. A magnet with 180E arc not segmented would have $ =
. (14)
5 × 90 ' 450E, and it can be verified from (16) that the loss
reduction factor does not fall much below 1. A magnet with 80%
pole-arc (144E) would have $ = 360E relative to the 5th space-
harmonic, and in this case the loss reduction factor would be 1.
Of course the magnet “region” is only 80% filled with magnet, so
there is a reduction of 0@8 relative to a full-ring magnet; but there
(15)
is no reduction due to the “residual current suppression” effect.
The upper graph J1 in Fig. 3 is the “original” current
distribution and the lower graph J is the net current distribution
with “residual suppression”. Also shown are the squares of
these two graphs. At this phase position the reduction in squared
current-density is noticeable.
The arrows in Fig. 3 show the direction and magnitude of the
current density in the magnet block, “seen from above”. At the
instant > = 80E it is asymmetrical. When $ is an integral multiple
of the harmonic wavelength, the distribution is symmetrical, and
as > advances the arrows at one end leave the block and re-appear
at the other end, while J0 remains zero at all times.
4
 The loss reduction factor (16) is specific to one field harmonic.
This means that simplified methods of allowing for segmentation
(such as equivalent resistivity) are hardly likely to be successful.
For similar reasons, (16) cannot be used to introduce the effect of
segmentation into the results of a 2-dimensional finite-element
calculation.
The loss reduction factor u = 7/7o in (16) must be integrated
over one harmonic cycle to get the average value: thus
sin $ 2 $
u ' 1 $a 2 4 a sin sin $ sin2 > . (17)
$ $ 2
where a = (2/$) sin($/2) Then the average value of u = 7/7o is
2B 2
1 sin($ / 2)
U ' u (>) d> ' 1 . (18)
2B 0 $/2
Fig. 4 Estimation of finite-length effect
..a remarkably simple function. For the example considered
earlier with $ ' 90E or B/2, we get U = 0@18943. When $ ' 2B
E my my m 2y
or a multiple thereof, U = 1 as expected. ' 1 ' 1 ' 1
DJz d b y m h (b y) (24)
h
Axial segmentation — Fig. 4 shows half a block of magnet m
and so
rolled out in rectangular coordinates. The direction of rotation is E/D
in the y direction and z is the axial coordinate. The axial length Jz ' with J y ' m J z . (25)
2
1 m y / [m h (b y)]
of the block is 2h and its width is 2b, which can be taken as the
wavelength of the exciting harmonic. The current-density Jz is decreased by the factor in brackets.
Consider a filamentary loop of eddy-current. If the block was However, the losses are proportional to
infinitely long in the axial direction, the current density in the w ' D (J z2 d ) y J y2 y ) z ) (26)
filament would be Jz0 = FE = jTFA, where A is the solution of
the 2-dimensional field at the circumferential position y. The cut and this can be expanded by writing
edge of the magnet at z = h forces all the current to veer into the w )y
' d ) y m 2 y ) z ' (m h (b y) m 2 y (27)
circumferential direction and rejoin its return path. In Fig. 4 the D J z2 m
current is assumed to be symmetrical about the centre-line of the
block. It is further assumed that the current in the filament )y Substituting for Jz from (25), and simplifying, we get
turns abruptly into the circumferential direction and flows in a E2 [ m h (b y) ] 2
circumferential filament of width )z such that w ' )y. (28)
D m [ m h (b y) m 2 y ]
J y )z ' J z )y . (19)
If there is no end-effect we have simply
The filament widths are further assumed to be related by
)y E2
' tan ( ' m , w0 ' h )y. (29)
)z
(20) D
where ( is an arbitrary angle defining the slope of the “break” Hence it is possible to define a loss reduction factor 8 for the
line shown dashed in Fig. 4. Hence filament at y :
Jy ' mJz. (21) w [m h (b y)] 2
8(y) ' ' . (30)
Considering just one quadrant of the loop, the driving EMF can w0 mh [ mh (b y) m 2 y ]
be identified as Ed. In the case where the magnet is infinitely
long in the z direction we have Ed = DJz0 h, where D = 1/F is the If we normalize h and y to b by writing h = h/b and y = y/b, this
resistivity. When the length is finite, the filament acquires a can be written
second segment of length y in the y-direction, while the segment w [m h (1 y)] 2
in the z-direction is shortened from h to d, where 8(y) ' ' . (31)
w0 mh [ mh (1 y) m 2 y ]
b y
d ' h a ' h . (22) If ( = 45E, m = 1 and the expression simplifies further:
m
The shortening of the axial length reduces the EMF w [h (1 y)] 2
proportionally, while the addition of the second segment 8(y) ' ' . (32)
w0 h[h 1 2y]
increases the total resistance. This is expressed by the equation
A magnet which is long in the axial direction has h >> 1, so that
Ed ' D Jzd Jyy (23) 8(y) ÷ 1 for all values of y. For long magnets ( is not critical, but
which can be expanded by writing in short magnets ( will have a minimum value.

5
 Fig. 5 End-effect factor: 1 proposed method; 2 Russell and
Norsworthy's method [7]
For example a “square” magnet has h = 1 or h = b. In this case
( must not be less than 45E, giving m > 1. A magnet for which h
= 0@5 (or h = b/2) restricts ( to values greater than arc tan(2) =
63@4E. These limits of course have no physical basis, but are
constraints imposed by the modelling assumptions.
The loss reduction factor for the whole block is obtained as the
average of 8(y) for all the filaments, or
1
1 synchronous reactance Ld(jT), which for the moment is assumed
7 ' 8( y ) dy . (33)
1 0
This can be integrated numerically or formally, giving
(A C B 1 / C) ln (1 C) (B 1/2) C 1
7 (h) ' (34)
C 2 k (k 1)
where k = mh, A = (k 1)2; B = 2 (k 1); and C = (1+m2)/(k 1).
Fig. 5 shows examples of 7(h) calculated by (34) for various
values of the magnet length/width ratio, h. The parameter k is
arbitrary and should be adjusted to match test data.
The overall factor 7 in (34) is so far simply an end-effect
factor for the losses in magnets of different length/width ratio h.
Now suppose we start with a full-length magnet with a certain
value of length/width ratio h1 and end-effect factor 71. If this
magnet is divided into n segments in the axial direction, the end-
effect factor for each segment becomes 7n, calculated with hn =
h1/n. Although 7n operates on only (1/n) of the losses, there are
now n segments, so the overall effect is that the end-effect factor
is 7n for the whole array, instead of 71.
As an example, suppose we start with a full-length magnet
having h = 3, and divide it into 3 segments. The end-effect factor
with ( = 60E is 0@699 for the undivided magnet, and 0@2935 for
the divided magnet. Thus the division into 3 segments reduces the
loss by a factor of 0@2935/0@699 = 0@419.
It should be said that this end-effect analysis is a rough-and-
ready estimate. It is compared in Fig. 5 with Russell and
Norsworthy's method, which is somewhat more “analytical” than
the present method, and was tested experimentally on an
induction motor. Without detailed tests and finite-element
calculations, it is impossible to say which is better for PM
machines, but the two methods support each other very roughly.
6
Fig. 6 Integration of slot-modulated airgap flux
B. Interior-magnet Machines (IPM)
Losses caused by time-harmonics in the stator current — The
IPM presents a problem in that the magnet region inside the rotor
is not a plain cylinder and so it does not conform to the earlier
solution of the diffusion equation. However, an approximate
estimate of harmonic losses can be made with the aid of the
equivalent-circuit model and the frequency-dependent
known, [4]. We know that the phase angle of Ld(jT) is always
negative, so we can write
Ld ( j T) ' LdR j LdX , (35)
where the real and imaginary components LdR and LdX are both
functions of frequency T.
A d-axis current Id(jT) which alternates at the radian frequency
T produces a voltage
V d ( j T) ' [ Rd j T Ld ( j T ) ] I d ( j T ) (36)
where Rd is the armature resistance. Substituting the real and
imaginary components of Ld(jT),
Vd ' ( Rd T LdX ) j TLdR I d . (37)
The term TLdX represents the resistance of the conductive
elements on the rotor, referred to the d-axis circuit of the stator.
Generally these elements are just the magnets. The losses in the
magnets are therefore given by
Wm(d) ' T LdX Id2 , (38)
where Id is the RMS current at the harmonic frequency T.
In a balanced 3-phase machine the simplest cases of such a
current arise from the (6k ± 1)th time-harmonics interacting with
the fundamental electrical space-harmonic of the winding
distribution. For example the 5th harmonic produces a rotating
ampere-conductor distribution rotating backwards relative to the
rotor at six times the fundamental synchronous speed, and this
can be resolved into d- and q-axis components which are
stationary with respect to the rotor, but which pulsate at six times
the fundamental frequency. (See Tables I and II.). The analysis
for higher-order space-harmonics is more complex, but these
should be attenuated relative to the fundamental.
 Losses of this type can in principle also occur in the q-axis,
but here they are ignored on the grounds that the q-axis armature-
reaction flux does not pass through the magnets, and in any case
the circuits formed by induced currents in the magnets will be far
less effective in the q-axis.

Losses caused by flux pulsations (slotting) — The flux Mm

through the magnet can be seen as the integral of the airgap flux
modulated by slotting, as shown in Fig. 6. Quite accurate slot-
modulation functions can be calculated by Weber's method as
reported in [11] and extended by Zhu et al [10]. Suppose the d-
axis is at an angle > relative to a fixed point on the stator (such as
the axis of phase 1). If the pole-arc is $, then the limits of Fig. 7 Incorrect finite-element solution: 4 blocks conducting
integration are 21 = > $/2 and 22 = > + $/2. Ignoring leakage,
and taking R as the mean airgap radius and Lstk as the axial
length, we have
> $/2
Mm (>) ' R Lstk Bg (2) d 2 . (39)
> $/2

The fundamental time-harmonic component of Mm(Tt) can be

represented as a phasor Mm(jT) if we write > = Tt, where T/2B
is the slot-passing frequency; the harmonics can be treated
likewise. The harmonic flux per pole Mm(jT) is now assumed to
link the fictitious N-turn coil wrapped around each magnet, and
if all the poles are assumed to be in series it will produce a total
Fig. 8 Approximate finite-element solution: 1 block conducting
flux-linkage per phase equal to Qm(jT) = 2pN Mm(jT). The
induced voltage will be jTQm(jT) at the harmonic frequency, and
this is “applied” to a rotor circuit whose inductance is denoted LR
for the moment. The resistance of this circuit is equal to LR/TdoNN,
where Td0NN is the open-circuit subtransient time-constant, so the
impedance at the harmonic frequency is
LR
Z( j T ) ' ( 1 j T Td0NN) . (40)
Td0NN
The current is
j T Q m( j T )
I( j T) ' (41)
Z( j T )
and the associated losses are
Fig. 9 Approximate finite-element solution: 2 blocks conducting
I 2 LR
Wm[slot mod] ' . (42)
Td0NN
III. RESIDUAL CURRENT SUPPRESSION AND FINITE ELEMENTS
Segmentation of the magnets in both the circumferential and axial
directions must be taken into account in the calculation of Td0NN. The finite-element method is held to produce results of assured
For surface-magnet machines the fundamental component of accuracy, but it is also the slowest and most expensive method in
ripple flux Mm(Tt) can be used to find the amplitude and terms of engineering time. 3D calculations may take days, yet
harmonic frequency of an ampere-conductor distribution that what is often needed is adequate accuracy in seconds or minutes.
produces the same harmonic field. This can then be used as the As mentioned earlier, 2D finite-elements are sometimes used in
source of excitation for the classical solution of the diffusion eddy-current problems, in which the zero net current condition
equation described earlier. In this way the losses caused by slot-
modulation can be treated in the same way as those due to the J dS ' 0 (43)
space- and time-harmonics in Tables I and II. This method was
originally described by Lawrenson, Reece and Ralph [3], and it is imposed (usually without proof) individually across each
takes advantage of advanced conformal transformation methods conducting region by means of a fictional external circuit
mentioned above to determine the slot-modulation, [10,11]. connection with a high resistance shorting the two ends.

7
 This technique requires a voltage-driven solution and a special
formulation in which the circuit equations are incorporated in the
field-solution matrix, [12]. Notwithstanding the excellent
mathematical literature on the finite-element method, a review of
ten books on finite-elements in electrical engineering fails to
provide any practical reassurance of the validity of this method.
Fig. 7 shows the problem of calculating eddy-currents with a
conventional 2D solver using current excitation (and no external
circuit connection). The problem is to calculate the no-load eddy-
current losses in the magnets at high speed. The particular
example in Fig. 7 uses the time-stepping algorithm of Crank-
Nicholson, and predicts a total loss of 2@06 W, but this result is
incorrect because the “infinite length” assumption permits
induced current in magnet A to return in magnet B, and likewise
current in magnet C to return in magnet D. Since there is no
electrical connection between the magnets, this is a false result.
(It is not the only example of the possibility of a false result
obtained from the finite-element method by the unwary user).
The simple finite-element formulation satisfies (43) only over
the whole solution domain, and not individually in each magnet
region. An improved result can be obtained by suppressing the
conductivity of, say, magnets B, C, and D, and simply calculating
the loss in magnet A. In a situation where the losses must be
equal in all magnet blocks, the final result is obtained by
multiplying the result for one block by 8. When this is done in
Fig. 8, the total calculated loss is 0@97 W when scaled up to
include all magnets. This is slightly less than half the incorrect
first estimate. The method can be described as a crude form of
residual current suppression without using external circuits.
This method of single-region eddy-current calculation
obviously relies on the assumption that the eddy-currents in any
magnet do not affect the eddy-currents in any other magnet. One
could assume that this is characteristic of “resistance-limited”
eddy-currents, but it is more correct to describe it as the neglect
of proximity effect, which in other situations is known to be
dangerous. Nevertheless, engineers in all disciplines have long
relied on simplified calculations combined with other means of
verification than simply throwing time and money at the problem
through very expensive calculating tools; and if this approach is
still permitted, the method is surely worth trying.
A “refinement”, if it can be so described, is to suppress the
conductivity judiciously in pairs or patterns of magnets, and Fig.
9 shows an example where magnets A and C are treated as
conductive while magnets B and D are not. The total loss
calculated in this case is 1@02 W, again scaled up to include all
magnets. This is reasonably close to the 0@97 W calculated using
the single-block approximation, and the difference may give
some idea of the accuracy of the method. The only way to be
sure is to measure it, although some confidence might be
obtained through more sophisticated calculation tools.
An interesting observation in Figs. 7,8 and 9 is the “lateral”
diffusion of the eddy-currents towards the edges of the magnets,
with little variation in current density in a direction parallel to the
flux. This property is used in [4] in the formulation of simplified
loss calculations for the IPM, and the related calculation of the
frequency-dependent synchronous inductance mentioned earlier.
IV. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
The methods presented in this paper are intended for fast
calculation of rotor losses in permanent-magnet brushless
machines. Together with iron-loss calculations [5], they are part
of a complete set of calculating methods proposed to deal with
this very complex calculation, and combined with the necessary
simulation tools [2] required to handle the external circuit and
controls. Validation of the 2-dimensional solution of the complex
diffusion equation is not an issue, because it is a widely used and
long established method [1]. Validation of the separate methods
for analysing the effect of magnet segmentation is almost
impossible by practical measurement because of the difficulty of
segregating several coincident phenomena, but the total losses
can of course be compared with test data. Comparison with
finite-element calculations may also give some reassurance but is
not a satisfactory substitute for physical testing. The methods
developed here are used in the companion paper [4] to help
calculate subtransient parameters for short-circuit analysis.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to thank M. Olaru and the companies of the
SPEED Consortium for support and discussions.
REFERENCES
[1] T.J.E. Miller and P.J. Lawrenson, Penetration of Transient Magnetic Fields
Through Conducting Cylindrical Structures, with Particular Reference to
Superconducting AC Machines, Proc. IEE, Vol. 123, No. 5, 1976, 437-443
[2] T.J.E. Miller, SPEED's Electric Machines 2009, available from the
SPEED Laboratory
[3] P.J. Lawrenson, P. Reece and M.C. Ralph, Tooth-ripple losses in solid
poles, Proc. IEE., Vol. 113, No. 4, April 1966, pp. 657-662
[4] (in press) K.W. Klontz, T.J.E. Miller, H. Karmaker and P. Zhong, Short-
circuit Analysis of a Permanent-Magnet Generator, IEMDC 2009
[5] D.M. Ionel, M. Popescu, M.I. McGilp,T.J.E.Miller,S.J. Dellinger, and R.J.
Heidemann, Computation of Core Losses in Electrical Machines Using
Improved Models for Laminated Steel, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. vol. 43, No.
6, Nov/Dec 2007, pp. 1554-1564.
[6] A. Hughes and T.J.E. Miller, Analysis of fields and inductances in air-cored
and iron-cored synchronous machines, Proc. IEE, Vol. 124, No. 2, February
1977, pp. 121-126
[7] R.L. Russell and K.H. Norsworthy, Eddy Currents and Wall Losses in
Screened-Rotor Induction Motors, Proc. IEE, Vol. 105A, pp. 163-175, 1958
[8] K. Oberretl, Eddy Current Losses in Solid Poles of Synchronous Machines
at No-Load and On Load, IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-91, 1972, pp. 152-160
[9] N.T. Irenji, S.M.Abu-Sharkh, and M.R. Harris, Effect of rotor sleeve
conductivity on rotor eddy-current loss in high-speed PM machines, ICEM
2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000, pp. 645-648
[10]Z.Q. Zhu, K. Ng, N. Schofield and D. Howe, IEE Proc.-Electr. Power Appl.,
Vol. 151, No. 6, November 2004, pp. 641-650
[11]B. Heller and V. Hamata, Harmonic effects in induction machines, Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1977
[12]S.J. Salon, Finite-Element Analysis of Electrical Machines, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 1995
[13]Jung Jae-Woo et al, Optimum Design for Eddy Current Reduction in
Permanent Magnet to Prevent Irreversible Demagnetization, ICEMS 2007,
Oct. 8~11, Seoul, Korea, pp. 949-954
[14 N. Boules, Impact of Slot Harmonics on Losses of High-Speed Permanent
Magnet Machines with a Magnet Retaining Ring, Electric Machines and
Electromechanics, Nov. 1981, pp. 527-539.