1

Accelerating Electrical Machines Design

1
Konstantinos G. Papadopoulos and
1
Christos Mademlis
2
Alexandros M. Michaelides,
2
Christopher P. Riley,
2
Isabel Coenen,
2
Nick Robertson
1
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Thessaloniki, 54124, Greece
Tel & Fax: +30 2310 996234, e-mail: mademlis@eng.auth.gr
2
Vector Fields, 24 Bankside, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1JE, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1865 370151, fax: +44 (0)1865 370277, e-mail: info@vectorfields.co.uk
Abstract- The paper describes a template-style front-end to a
generic electromagnetic modeling tool, for the analysis and
optimisation of Electrical Machines. A two and three-
dimensional FEA model for a generator and motor can be
created in minutes, using templates with 'fill in the blanks'
style screens. Accurate virtual prototypes can then be pro-
duced to help engineers provide answers on the performance
of specific machine designs rapidly, and perform searching
'what-if?' investigations to identify the design characteristics
of the perfect machine. Optimisation tools are also available
within the Environment, enabling engineers to find the 'best'
solution automatically. Equally important is that the Envi-
ronment is structured to allow creation and analysis of cus-
tomised geometries, including special proprietary features.
I. INTRODUCTION
Many engineers designing rotating electrical machines
currently employ analytic computer programs as the
starting point for new designs. Such software solves
electromagnetic equations for specific geometries, and is
typically inexpensive and very quick to run. However,
analytic solutions can compromise accuracy and, more
importantly, are closed systems that cannot be modi-
fied except by the originators. Analytic programs com-
pute an average result for the overall geometry and only
approximating.
The alternative is a CAE tool employing, for example,
Finite Element Analysis (FEA). These programs typi-
cally offer flexible GUIs, allowing users to simulate any
design concept with supreme precision and accuracy.
Wider analysis options are also on offer; for example,
FEA programs can accurately compute eddy currents
and naturally evaluate motional effects.
However, the time required for analysis using FEM
software, with its three step approach of pre-processing,
solving and post-processing is unfavorable. While solu-
tion times have steadily decreased over the years owing
to steady technological advances in computers, signifi-
cant effort is still required by the user at the pre-
processing stage, that is, building the geometry and set-
ting the right conditions for solution. Thus, several
works have been presented for improving the design en-
vironment enhancing the electromagnetic analysis [1],
[2], adapting the dimensional model of the electromag-
netic devices [3] and developing an object oriented
TABLE I
OFFERED MACHINE TYPES
2d-version 3d-version
Induction Machine Induction Machine
Synchronous Machine Synchronous Machine
Switched Reluctance Ma-
chine
Switched Reluctance Ma-
chine
Permanent Magnet DC
Machine (rotor armature)
Permanent Magnet DC Ma-
chine (rotor armature)
Brushless PM Machine
(many variants)
Brushless PM Machine
(many variants)
Axial Flux PM Machine
build up design environment [4] and with sensitivity
analysis [5].
The present approach aims to develop a design envi-
ronment for two and three dimensional analysis of elec-
tric motors and generators that could fulfill the needs of
both the experienced and less experienced designer. The
user provides the necessary geometric and electrical data
for the machine through friendly dialog windows. The
software builds the resulting machine model, performs
the necessary solutions and provides simulation results at
selected operating conditions. Variation of the given de-
sign parameters allows different scenarios to be tested
and through an iteration process the user could arrive at
an optimal machine design. Alternatively, the parametric
model can be used to drive an Optimisation tool within
the Software, setting specific objective functions for the
software to achieve.
II. IMPLEMENTATION AND SIMULATION EXAMPLES
The Electrical Machines Environment is an add-on
toolbox available with the established commercial
packages, Opera-2d and Opera-3d. Within the Environ-
ment, a FEA model for a generator or motor can be cre-
ated in minutes using templates with 'fill in the blanks'
style screens. Templates have been designed for most
common electrical machine types, as listed in Table I.
As with analytic computer programs, these templates
represent the most characteristic geometries used in ro-
tating machinery.
One important feature of the Environment is that tem-
plates are built using generic scripting and parameterisa-
2
(a)
(b)
Fig. 1. Dialog window requesting information for: (a) the stator
and (b) the rotor of the induction motor
Fig. 2. Induction motor 3d-model
tion techniques and the underlying code can easily be
modified by users, providing the freedom to create and
analyse customised geometries, including special pro-
prietary features such as profiled stator teeth in SRMs or
flux weakening features in PM machines.
Figs. 1(a) and (b) show one such example for the defi-
nition of an Induction Motor. All lengths, angles and
points positions are parameterised providing geometric
flexibility. The program builds the machine geometry
based on these parameters (Fig. 2). If the user is satisfied
Fig. 3. Graph of torque versus rotor slip of the induction motor
(typical simulation results)
with the geometry created, they may proceed to analysis.
Analysis data, specific to each type of machine is subse-
quently entered, as well as solution details, including
mesh density and the required resolution in the results.
The program proceeds with solutions to multiple cases
and machine specific post-processing. One such example
of results, the Induction Motor Torque Vs Speed curve is
shown in Fig. 3. All output data is stored into named
folders so that users are able to recover and further ex-
amine results.
As an additional example, sequential dialog windows
for the definition of the brushless PM synchronous ma-
chine rotor are illustrated in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively.
A sample result of the model solution is shown in Fig. 6
representing the graph of static torque versus rotor angle
on a 3-phase, 8-pole surface mount magnet PM synchro-
nous motor.
(a)
3
(b)
(c)
Fig. 4. Dialog window requesting information for: (a) the PM
motor type, (b) shape of the magnets and (c) dimensions for the
magnets and retaining can of the rotor
Fig. 5 PM synchronous motor 3d-model (3-phase, 8-poles, sur-
face mount magnet type PM synchronous machine)
Fig. 6. Graph of torque versus rotor angle of the PM synchronous
motor (simulation results)
III. MANIPULATING DESIGN CONSTRAINTS
The structure of the Environment is open to the user.
The user is able to examine the logical organisation of
the models and analysis settings and change or add spe-
cific features. Addition of features can range from the
addition of minor geometrical features, winding ar-
rangements, complete stator or rotor structures or alter-
native analysis and post-processing requests
The design of the machine is subject to constraints
which are activated during the model definition. These
are geometrical constraints and are derived from the
technical drawing. A set of algebraic expressions have
been assigned for each design parameter so that the re-
spective design constraint is implemented. When the
input value of a geometric parameter is out of the range
specified to each parameter & model, the software re-
sponds with an error message and prompts the user to
alter the input value through a technical drawing. These
constraints simplify the desired parameterisation within a
machine model and avoid the cost of aimless designing
iterations. The use of variables and expressions in the
design constraints allows changes to the geometric di-
mensions to be made quickly.
Fig. 7 illustrates an error message informing the user
for insufficient room for stator tooth construction. The
user is prompted to reduce the number of stator teeth or
increase the distance between the stator tooth and the
origin so that the stator tooth fits to the angle available
for every tooth.
4
Fig. 7. Dialog window informing the user of insufficient room
for stator tooth construction.
Fig. 8. Dialog window informing the user of a pole & stator teeth
combination that is not allowed in this example.
In the example of Fig. 8, the user asked for a perma-
nent magnet synchronous motor consisting of 8 poles
and 36 stator teeth. The software responded informing
that the current combination between poles and stator
teeth cannot be constructed.
All constraints can be adjusted/altered by the user,
who can also provide additional constraints pertinent to
the particular electric machine variant designed. In simi-
lar fashion, post-processing can also be modified or
added-to matching the expectations of the user.
IV. OPTIMISATION
Once the user has produced a design using the Electri-
cal Machines Environment they can chose to optimise it
automatically using the general purpose Opera Opti-
miser. The optimisation process takes the original ge-
ometry, adjusts it automatically, solves the model using
finite elements, checks the results for improvements and
carefully selects a new geometry with a high likelihood
of further improvements to the design.
Fig. 9. Optimiser dialog window displaying the constraints tab.
During a simple interactive set-up procedure (Fig. 9)
the user is able to select important input parameters from
the design environment; these will be adjusted as the
optimiser creates new geometries in its search for a
global minimum. A post-processing analysis with result-
ing parameters can be created to allow the optimiser to
define the quality of the generated model.
Input parameters can be assigned upper and lower lim-
its, to prevent the construction of unfeasible models and
to define the size and shape of the input parameter space.
However, due to the automatic geometry checking
within the Machines Environment the optimiser will not
construct geometrically bad models. These models are
not simply ignored however; the optimiser realises the
implications upon this region of the input parameter
space.
Constraints can be imposed onto the optimisation by
creating functions of the input and output variables. Ana-
lysed model geometries can then be seen to satisfy the
constraints in graphical form as a function of the interac-
tion number. Again, the optimiser does not simply dis-
card models which do not satisfy the constraints; it real-
ises the implications on the input parameter space.
The optimiser begins by submitting a range of designs
across the input parameter space to the Opera batch
processor, to gain a diffuse knowledge of the relation-
ship with the objective space. The searching algorithm
then begins to home in on regions of interest where min-
ima occur. However, exploratory models are also built in
sparse regions of input space to reduce the likelihood of
missing other small but potentially deep minima. A bal-
ance is therefore maintained between the two to prevent
effort seeking tiny improvements on potentially false
minima.
The optimisers search algorithm analyses the stochas-
tic properties of the input space and utilises a Kriging-
assisted surrogate method to predict the shape of its solu-
tion surface and thus determine the position of the next
model with the highest likelihood of improvement.
5
Where multiple objective functions are specified, solu-
tions are ranked according to their location between
Pareto surfaces in the objective space, [6],[7].
Fig. 10. The example synchronous machine before optimisation.
To demonstrate the optimisation of an electrical ma-
chine a synchronous machine with thirty six stator teeth
and an asymmetric six-bar, four-pole rotor was con-
structed in Opera-2D using the Electrical Machines En-
vironment; shown in Fig 10. The objectives of the opti-
misation were to minimise undesirable normalised Fou-
rier harmonics of the radial magnetic field component on
a 180
O
arc along the gap region. High order harmonics
are produced by both the rotor bars and the stator teeth,
while lower order harmonics are generated by the rotor
shape. Thus, the A3 and A17 harmonics were selected
as objectives to be minimised. The harmonics were nor-
malised to the primary harmonic of the original model to
maintain consistency.
Fig. 11. The Evolution with iteration of: the two normalised ob-
jective functions (left); the normalised Fourier harmonic con-
straint, A5 < A3 (right).
Four critical input parameters were selected as optimi-
sation variables: the asymmetric radius of curvature of
the rotor end; the width of the rotor end; the stator tooth
width; and the inner stator coil width. Intelligent limits
were chosen on the input parameters to define the size of
the four-dimensional input space. Constraints were also
imposed on numerous none-objective Fourier harmonics
so that they maintain their relative relationship to the
objective harmonics found in the original model. Thus,
preventing their growth is a response to the minimisation
of the objective harmonics. Fig. 11 shows the objective
functions and one of the constraints development as the
optimisation progresses.
Fig. 12. The location of the iteration inside the objective function
space showing the nine first rank Pareto solutions.
The optimisation process converged to nine pareto
rank one solutions after 117 iterations; it took approxi-
mately twelve hours on a relatively cheap dual processor
desktop PC with 2GB of memory. The majority of the
time was spent, not in solving the finite element models
since each of these took only a few minutes, but in the
optimisers Kriging algorithm between iterations; due to
the large four dimensional input space and subsequent
matrix inversions.
Fig. 13. The change in rotor and stator tooth geometry between
the original (left) and a Pareto solution (right).
The evolution of the objective functions and con-
straints through the optimisers iterations can be dis-
played graphically (Fig. 11), as can the location of mod-
els within the input and objective parameter spaces. Fig
12 displays the model locations inside objective space
and distinguishes between feasible, unfeasible and
6
Pareto solutions. The resulting geometric changes to the
machine are displayed in Fig. 13.
Fig. 13. Radial B field component along a 180 degree arc inside
the gap region demonstrating the reduction in high order harmon-
ics from the original design (top) and a parato solution (bottom).
Examination of the nine first rank Pareto solutions
shows that the seventeenth order harmonic has been re-
duced to between a third and a half of its original value
depending on the model. The constraints imposed on
other harmonics resulted in them being reduced also.
The third order harmonic was seen to be reduce by ap-
proximately ten percent from its original value in most
of the solutions. This implies that the rotor input parame-
ters selected do not provide sufficient control of this
harmonic and that an intelligent replacement should be
selected; thus, allowing the optimisation process to be
repeated. Fig. 13 reproduces the magnetic wave form
inside the gap region and demonstrates the improvement
of a Pareto solution over the original design due to it
containing smaller high order Fourier harmonics.
The optimisation of this synchronous machine can be
viewed as a demonstration of the type of route now
available to machine designers striving for the ultimate
system design and that further examinations are required
with the aim of improving the purity of Fourier terms
further.
V. CONCLUSION
This approach to design can deliver significant advan-
tages in today's market environment. The accuracy of
FEA simulations, combined with the easy to interpret
delivery of results, gives designers the means to rapidly
make informed decisions - whether the need is simply to
make the most cost-effective solution for a given appli-
cation, or to come up with something new. Currently,
there's enormous pressure to improve energy efficiency
for instance. FEA allows searching 'what-if?' investiga-
tions to be performed rapidly, identifying the design
characteristics of the right machine with great accuracy.
Preliminary design studies can be performed in minutes.
Optimisation tools are also available within the Envi-
ronment, enabling engineers to find the 'best' solution
automatically.
VI. REFERENCES
[1] C. F. Parker, J. K. Sykulski, S. C. Taylor, and C. S. Biddlecombe,
Parametric Environment for EM computer aided design, IEEE
Trans. Magnetics, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 1433-1437, May 1996.
[2] F. Deng and N.A. Demerdash, Comprehensive salient-pole syn-
chronous machine parametric design analysis using time-step finite
element-state space modeling technique, IEEE Trans Energy Con-
version, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 221-229, Sept. 1998.
[3] R. Rong and D.A. Lowther, Adapting design using dimensional
models of electromagnetic devices, IEEE Trans. Magnetics, vol. 32,
no. 3, pp. 1437-1440, May 1996.
[4] M.B Norton, P.J. Leonard, An object oriented approach to param-
eterized electrical machine design, IEEE Trans Magnetics, vol. 36,
no. 4, pp. 1687-1691, July 2000.
[5] P.J. Weicker and D.A. Lowther, A sensitivity-driven parametric
electromagnetic design environment, IEEE Trans. Magnetics, vol.
42, no. 4, pp. 1199-1202, April 2006.
[6] G.I. Hawe and J.K. Sykulski A hybrid one-then-two stage algorithm
for computationally expensive electromagnetic design optimization.
COMPEL: The International Journal for Computation and Mathe-
matics in Electrical and Electronic Engineering, 26 (2). pp. 236-246,
(2007).
[7] G.I. Hawe and J.K. Sykulski, Considerations of Accuracy and Un-
certainty with Kriging Surrogate Models in Single-Objective Elec-
tromagnetic Design Optimization. IET Science, Measurement &
Technology, 1 (1). pp. 37-47, (2007).