Analytical modeling and analysis of magnetic field and torque for novel axial flux

eddy current couplers with PM excitation

Zhao Li, Dazhi Wang, Di Zheng, and Linxin Yu

Citation: AIP Advances 7, 105303 (2017);

View online: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4998658
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/adv/7/10
Published by the American Institute of Physics

Articles you may be interested in

A novel L-band coaxial transit-time oscillator with tunable frequency
AIP Advances 7, 105302 (2017); 10.1063/1.4991445

Eddy current loss calculation and thermal analysis of axial-flux permanent magnet couplers
AIP Advances 7, 025117 (2017); 10.1063/1.4977702

Competition between the inter-valley scattering and the intra-valley scattering on magnetoconductivity
induced by screened Coulomb disorder in Weyl semimetals
AIP Advances 7, 105003 (2017); 10.1063/1.4998395

Physical-chemical characterization of the textile dye Azo Ab52 degradation by corona plasma
AIP Advances 7, 105304 (2017); 10.1063/1.4993181

2D PIV measurement on the interaction zone between two parallel planar jets in a crossflow
AIP Advances 7, 105104 (2017); 10.1063/1.5005017

Multi-domain substructures synthesis with general joints for the dynamics of large structures
AIP Advances 7, 105007 (2017); 10.1063/1.4999110
 AIP ADVANCES 7, 105303 (2017)

Analytical modeling and analysis of magnetic field

and torque for novel axial flux eddy current couplers
with PM excitation
Zhao Li,a Dazhi Wang, Di Zheng, and Linxin Yu
Information Science and Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang 110819, China
(Received 2 August 2017; accepted 26 September 2017; published online 6 October 2017)

Rotational permanent magnet eddy current couplers are promising devices for
torque and speed transmission without any mechanical contact. In this study, flux-
concentration disk-type permanent magnet eddy current couplers with double con-
ductor rotor are investigated. Given the drawback of the accurate three-dimensional
finite element method, this paper proposes a mixed two-dimensional analytical
modeling approach. Based on this approach, the closed-form expressions of mag-
netic field, eddy current, electromagnetic force and torque for such devices are
obtained. Finally, a three-dimensional finite element method is employed to vali-
date the analytical results. Besides, a prototype is manufactured and tested for the
torque-speed characteristic. © 2017 Author(s). All article content, except where oth-
erwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4998658

I. INTRODUCTION
Permanent magnet (PM) eddy current couplers are developed to transmit torque and power
without physical contact between a primary motor and a load. The working principle of such devices is
based on the interaction between a relative motion magnetic field with PM excitation and a conductor.
According to the Faraday’s law, the eddy currents in conductor are induced and interacted with the
magnetic field. Then the Lorentz forces and mechanical torque are generated and act against the
relative motion.1 Compared with the traditional mechanical equipment, they offer some advantages,
such as less harmonic noise, lower sensitivity to harsh environments, more energy-efficient, and
higher reliability for severe cases.2,3
Regarding the position of the magnets, there are also two types: 1) surface-mounted,4–6 and 2)
embedded couplers,7,8 both with disk or cylinder configurations. So far, the former has drawn the
attention of many scholars. However, few studies have been reported for the latter. By comparison,
the latter brings out some advantages, such as robust rotor construction and high irreversible demag-
netization withstand, but a drawback of lower torque. Nevertheless, in this paper, the proposed novel
topology can effectively improve the torque characteristic.
As is well known, accurate modeling of electromagnetic devices is essential at their first design
stages. To review the research related to analysis and modeling of such devices, three approaches
can be available: 1) numerical method,9,10 2) analytical method4–7 and 3) magnetic equivalent circuit
(MEC).8,11 Finite element analysis (FEA/FEM), considering the actual geometry and nonlinearity
of materials, is a typical representative of numerical method. This method is high in precision, but
extremely time-consuming, especially the three-dimensional FEA (3-D FEA). Thus, such method is
usually employed as a validation tool in a form of commercial software packages. In practice, most
researchers attempt to develop alternative methods, for example, two-dimensional (2-D) analytical
method and 3-D analytical method. To be specific, the analytical model is established for the eddy
current couplers with surface-mounted PM;12–14 and for the eddy current couplers with a slotted

a
Electronic mail: 1410326@stu.neu.edu.cn.

2158-3226/2017/7(10)/105303/13 7, 105303-1 © Author(s) 2017

105303-2 Li et al. AIP Advances 7, 105303 (2017)

conductor topology.15 Among these models available, the layer model theory is widely employed.
The overall 2-D model is divided into several layers, each of which has homogeneous physical
properties. Based on the variable separation method, the magnetic field expression in each layer is
obtained by solving the Laplace’s and Poisson’s equations. More recently, a 3-D analytical model
is developed.16 However, the 3-D magnetic field model is too complicated to be easily formulated.
Relatively, the 2-D analytical method may be a better choice. In addition, MEC is another simple and
useful modeling approach for PM machines. Taking all material properties into account, this approach
has been employed to estimate the performance of eddy current couplers.6,7 The shortcomings of
this approach are that the magnetic path needs to be determined, and the predictions are poor for the
devices with large air-gap.
In this paper, a flux-concentration disk-type permanent magnet eddy current coupler with dou-
ble conductor rotor topology is developed and researched. Due to the non-homogeneous physical
properties in PM region, conventional layer model theory is no longer applicable. To solve such
problem, subdomain model seems to be an effective analytical method.15 However, the computation
complexity of modeling within this method is greatly increased. Therefore, combining MEC with
2-D layer model theory, a mixed analytical method is proposed. The solutions of magnetic field and
eddy current are given by solving the field equations. The expressions for the torque and the force
are formulated by using the Maxwell stress tensor or energy conversion theory. To verify the validity
of the proposed model, the results are compared with those obtained from 3-D FEA and test.

II. DESCRIPTION OF NOVEL TOPOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS

A. Geometry
A schematic of the studied eddy current coupler is shown in Fig. 1. As described in this fig-
ure, the device consists of three disks: one PM rotor and double-sided conductor rotor (generally
copper). The circumferentially magnetized magnets (Nd-Fe-B) are inserted into back iron yoke. In
particular, in reality, such device is equipped with adjustment mechanism to control the length of
air gap. The geometrical parameters are as follows: l 1 and l 2 are the outer and inner radii of PM,
respectively. h1 , h2 , h3 , and h4 are the thickness of the copper plate, PM, iron yoke and iron core,
respectively. g is the length of air gap, l 3 is the overhang length of copper rotor, and p is the number of
pole-pairs.

B. Modeling assumptions
For the machine with a realistic 3-D geometry, the general practice is to convert the 3-D problem
into a 2-D problem. In this paper, we assume the structure is spread along the circumferential direction
at the average radius of PM (lav = (l 1 + l 2 )/2). Fig. 2 shows the simplified 2-D analytical model and the
flux paths to be utilized. A Cartesian coordinate system is used, where x-axial denotes the tangential
direction, y-axial denotes the axial direction and z-axial denotes the radial direction. As shown in
Fig. 2, the whole 2-D analytical model is divided into seven regions, namely, the PM with iron core

FIG. 1. Geometry of the studied eddy current coupler: geometry (left); and PM rotor plate (right).
105303-3 Li et al. AIP Advances 7, 105303 (2017)

FIG. 2. Simplified 2-D analytical model and flux paths.

region (region 1), the air-gap region (region 2 and region 5), the conductor region (region 3 and region
6) and the back iron region (region 4 and region 7).
To simplify the analytical modeling, some reasonable assumptions, commonly employed in the
modeling of such devices, are adopted as follows.
(1) Assume that the PM with iron core region is moving with the velocity v, while the conductor
and back iron are stationary.
(2) The lengths of the model in the x-direction and in the z-direction are infinite, thus the end
effects of the linear model are negligible.5,13
(3) The conductivity of iron is very low, thus the induced currents in these regions should be
neglected.14
(4) The permeability of the conductor plate and the PMs is treated as equal to that of air µ0 .
(5) The magnetic vector potential Ai in every layer (i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) has only a z-direction
component.

III. SOLUTION OF MAGNETIC FIELD IN DIFFERENT REGIONS

A. Virtual magnetic source
As observed from Fig. 2, the region 1 includes PM and iron core, which will result in com-
plex boundary. Therefore, conventional 2-D layer model theory will be helpless. Suppose that all
the iron cores in the region 1 were the magnetic source like the PMs, the physical properties
in this region will get homogeneous. In this paper, by using equivalent magnetic circuit method,
a fairly accurate magnetization of the virtual magnetic source is derived, and represented by the
symbol Mv .
Fig. 3 shows the equivalent magnetic circuit of the studied current coupler. The flux source and
the reluctance of PM are as follows:
h2
ϕm = Br h4 (l1 − l2 ), Rm = , (1)
µ0 h4 (l1 − l2 )
where, Br is the remanence of PM.
The total reluctance of the air gap and conductor plate is calculated as follows:
2(g + h1 )
Rg = , (2)
µ0 h4 (l1 − l2 )(τp − h2 )
The leakage reluctances of the air gap are found as follows:
" , , ! # −1
Rli = µ 0 (l1 − l2 ) π × (g + h1 )
π × Ln 1 + h2 . (3)
105303-4 Li et al. AIP Advances 7, 105303 (2017)

FIG. 3. Equivalent magnetic circuit.

In addition, Rp and Rs are the reluctances of the iron core and the back iron, respectively. ϕg is
the air-gap flux, which passes through the iron pole vertically. In this paper, the solution of magnetic
circuit problem in Fig. 3 is discussed in two cases.
1. Case 1: No magnetic saturation in soft iron
In this case, the Rp and Rs are so small that can be neglected, and the MEC is simplified.17,18
The following expressions can be easily obtained:
ϕm × Ri 2Rm


ϕg =  , (4)
Rg + Ri 2Rm
Therefore, the magnetization of virtual filed source can be expressed as
ϕg
Mv =   . (5)
µ0 τp − h2 (l1 − l2 )

2. Case 2: No magnetic saturation in soft iron

In this case, the nonlinear B-H characteristic of ferromagnetic material is considered, as shown
in Fig. 4. The permeability in these regions, for example, iron core and back iron vary with working
point. To calculate them, an iterative process is employed.19–22 Rp and Rs can be approximately

FIG. 4. B-H curve for the ferromagnetic material used (No. 1010).
105303-5 Li et al. AIP Advances 7, 105303 (2017)

expressed by
τp − h2
Rp = f   . g, (6)
µ0 µ1 h4 (l1 − l2 ) + τp − h2 (l1 − l2 ) 2
" , , ! # −1
µ µ (l − l )
Rs = 0 2 1 2 π × Ln 1 + π × h 3 , (7)
h 2

where, µ1 and µ2 are the permeability to be identified. Firstly, to initialize the permeabilities, the
MEC of system is solved, and flux density values in iron regions are obtained; then permeabilities
are updated based on nonlinear B-H curve (Fig. 4). This is one round. The iteration of permeabilities
is determined by


 µi (k) = µ̂i (k)0.1 µi (k − 1)0.9

 Bi (k) , (8)
 µ̂i (k) =


 H i (k)
Meanwhile, the convergence condition is provided by
Bi (k) − Bi (k − 1) ≤ 0.01, (9)
In the end, ϕg and Mv in this case can be re-expressed as
  
ϕm × Ri 2Rm
ϕg0 =     , (10)
Rg + Rp + Rs 2 + Ri 2Rm
ϕg0
Mv =   . (11)
µ0 τp − h2 l1 − l2

B. Field source expression

Since the iron pole in region 1 is regarded as the virtual magnetic source, there will be the
horizontal (Mx ) and the vertical (My ) component in the magnetization of region 1, as illustrated in
Fig. 5.
According to the assumptions, in the Cartesian coordinate system, the magnetization can be
further expanded into a Fourier series. Moreover, to facilitate the calculation of field problem, the
expressions of Mx and My in a complex form can be written as:
X
Mx (x) = Mxn e jmx , (12)
n=±1,3,5,···
X
My (x) = Myn e jmx . (13)
n=±1,3,5,···

FIG. 5. Magnetization distribution along coordinate x.

105303-6 Li et al. AIP Advances 7, 105303 (2017)

where, n and τ p denote the spatial harmonic number and the pole pitch, respectively, m = nπ/τ p ,
and
2M0 nπh
Mxn = sin , (14)
nπ 2τp
2Mv nπh
Myn = cos (15)
jnπ 2τp

where, M 0 = Br /µ0 .
C. Magnetic field calculation
Due to the symmetry in structure of the research object, to simplify the calculation process, only
region 1, 2, 3, and 4 is considered and analyzed. The magnetic vector potential is introduced and
defined as B = ∇ × A, subject to the Coulomb gauge. Therefore, in the PM with iron pole region,
Poisson’s equations is given by

∂ 2 A1 ∂ 2 A1 ∂My
+ 2 = −µ0 , (16)
∂ x
2 ∂ y ∂x

In the air gap and back iron region, Laplace’s equation can be expressed by

∂ 2 A2 ∂ 2 A2
+ 2 = 0, (17)
∂2x ∂ y

∂ 2 A4 ∂ 2 A4
+ 2 = 0, (18)
∂2x ∂ y

In the copper plate region, Poisson’s equations can be expressed by

∂ 2 A3 ∂ 2 A3
+ 2 = −µ0 J3 , (19)
∂2x ∂ y

where, J is the induced current in the copper plate, and can be deduced by the Lorentz’s equation as
follows:
∂A3
J3 = −σ3 v , (20)
∂x
where, σ 3 is the conductivity of copper. According to the continuity of the magnetic vector potential
at y = a, the following boundary condition is obtained:

A1 = A2 | y=a , (21)

Some boundary conditions, which are different from traditional eddy current coupler, are
employed as follows:

1 ∂A1 1 ∂A2 
− Mx =  , (22)
µ0 ∂y µ0 ∂y y=a

1 ∂A1 
− Mx = 0 , (23)
µ0 ∂y y=a

According to the normal component of magnetic field at y = d is null, the following boundary
condition is obtained.
∂A2 
= 0 , (24)
∂x  y=d
105303-7 Li et al. AIP Advances 7, 105303 (2017)

According to the continuity of the magnetic vector potential and the tangential component of the
magnetic field at y = b and y = c, the following boundary conditions are obtained.
A2 = A3 
∂A2 ∂A3  ,

(25)
=
∂y ∂y 

y=b

A4 = A3 
1 ∂A4 1 ∂A3  .

(26)
=
µ1 ∂y µ0 ∂y y=c


In order to solve the differential equations, the variable separation method is used. Thus, the
general solution of (16)–(19) can be expressed as follows:
j µ0 Myn jmx
X !
A1 (x,y) = my
C1n e + D1n e −my
+ e , (27)
n=±1,3,5,···
m
X  
A2 (x,y) = C2n emy + D2n e−my e jmx , (28)
n=±1,3,5,···

C3n eλy + D3n e−λy e jmx ,

X  
A3 (x,y) = (29)
n=±1,3,5,···
X  
A4 (x,y) = C4n emy + D4n e−my e jmx , (30)
n=±1,3,5,···

where, q
j
m4 + (mµ0 σ3 v)2 e 2 arctan(m µ0 σ3 v) .
4 −1
λ= (31)

The undefined coefficients C 1n —D4n in (27)–(30) are determined by the boundary condi-
tions (20)–(26). Then, the resulting tangential and normal magnetic flux density in each region
are calculated by the definition of the magnetic vector potential, respectively, as follows
∂A
Bix = , (32)
∂y
∂A
Biy = − . (33)
∂x

IV. ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE AND TORQUE

Axial magnetic force is an important performance parameter for the design of an axial eddy
current coupler. By using the Maxwell stress tensor, the axial force is obtained by
 l1  τp
p
Fa = (B2y B∗2y − B2x B∗2x )dxdz, (34)
4µ0 l2 −τp
where, B2y * and B2x * denote the complex conjugate of B2y and B2x , respectively.
In addition, the electromagnetic torque is also obtained using the Maxwell stress tensor and
expressed by
 
plav l1 τp
T1 = Re(B∗2y B2x )dxdz, (35)
2µ0 l2 −τp
where, Re(.) denotes the real part.
Based on the energy conservation, another approach to calculate the torque of the electromagnetic
device is almost always used by
  2
P (l1 − l2 ) 2πlav c 
T2 = = Re[−jmσ3 v(C3n eλy + D3n e−λy )e jmx ] dxdy, (36)
ω ωσ3 0 b
where, ω denotes the angular speed.
105303-8 Li et al. AIP Advances 7, 105303 (2017)

FIG. 6. Eddy current paths in copper plate: (a) ideal case; (b) considering 3-D end effects.

However, when using (36), taking no account of the 3-D end effects of the device will cause an
inaccurate analytical result. As is shown in Fig. 6, under different modeling assumptions, the eddy
current exhibits different distributions. To consider the tangential component of eddy current in the
overhang and central regions, an effective Russell–Norsworthy (R–N) factor 23 is introduced by
tanh λ 2
k3D = 1 − , (37)
λ 2 (1 + tanh λ 2 · tanh λ 3 )
where,
π(l1 − l2 )

 λ2 =
τp




, (38)
πl

3
 λ3 =



τp


Therefore, the corrected electromagnetic torque is further calculated by
T3 = k3D T2 . (39)

V. VALIDATION AND ANALYSIS

In order to verify the efficiency of analytical model, a 3-D FEM commercial package ANSOFT
MAXWELL (ANSYS; Version No. 16.0; PA) is employed. The 3-D simulation model is shown in
Fig. 7. In this model, the field is divided into many enough small grids. It is worth pointing out that
the temperature factor is not considered in this work, which is described in our previous research.24
Table I lists the specifications and material parameters of the studied case.
A. Virtual magnetic source
Fig. 8 illustrates the tangential and normal flux density distributions on the surface of conductor
plate at different relative speeds, namely, 0 r/min, 40 r/min, and 400 r/min, while the air-gap length is
fixed at 1 mm. These parameter values are arbitrary, and correspond to different operating conditions in
reality, that is static, low slip speed and high slip speed. As can be observed from Fig. 8, the analytical
results agree well with those obtained from 3-D FEM. More than that, one of the interesting things

FIG. 7. Three-dimensional FEM: parts (left); meshed model (right).

105303-9 Li et al. AIP Advances 7, 105303 (2017)

TABLE I. Dimensions of the validation model.

Parameters Value Parameters Value

Outer radius, l1 50 mm Inner radius, l2 30 mm

Thickness of copper plate, h1 1 mm Height of PM, h2 5 mm
Thickness of back iron, h3 3.7 mm Thickness of iron core, h4 10 mm
Pole-pairs number, p 4 Length of air-gap, g 1 mm
Over length of copper plate, l 3 10 mm Remanence of magnets, Br 1.27 T
Conductivity of copper, σ 3 58 MS/m

is the flux density curve has been distorted by the induced current effect, furthermore, the higher the
relative speed, the more obvious the phenomenon is. The main reason is that the total magnetic field
is the superposition of permanent magnetic field and induced magnetic field, whereas the latter is
closely related to the slip speed. Furthermore, the bigger the slip speed is, the stronger the induced
magnetic field is. Thus, as described in some studies, in the low slip, the reaction field is neglected
and the analytical model is simplified.5
B. Eddy current density
Fig. 9 shows the eddy current density on the surface of conductor plate at different relative
speeds, namely, 40 r/min and 400 r/min, and the air-gap length is fixed at 1 mm. It can be seen that
the analytical results have high accuracy according to the 3-D FEM results. With the increase of
relative speed, more induced currents generate, which will produce bigger torque. In addition, one
thing needs to mention is the deviation is getting bigger along with the relative speed due to the 3-D
effects of geometry.
C. Axial force and torque
There is large axial force between the PM rotor and copper plate of eddy current coupler. More-
over, it greatly affects the bearing losses and lifetime. Thus, it is necessary to know this performance

FIG. 8. Comparison of results between 3-D FEM and analytical model at the relative speed: 0 r/min (top); 40 r/min (middle);
and 400r/min (bottom).
105303-10 Li et al. AIP Advances 7, 105303 (2017)

FIG. 9. Comparison of current density between 3-D FEM and analytical model at the relative speed: 400 r/min (top); and
40 r/min (bottom).

parameter. Fig. 10 shows the variation of axial force along with relative speed at two air-gap length,
namely, 1 mm, and 3 mm. It is evident that the analytical solutions agree well with 3-D FEM. In
addition, three occurrences can be observed: (1) axial force will decrease with the increase of relative
speed; (2) axial force will decrease with the increase of air-gap length; and (3) under stationary state,
axial force is the greatest. In fact, when the slip speed is equal to zero, the reaction field is null. There-
fore, the axial force is mainly the attraction force, and has the maximum value. When the slip speed
is increased, more induced current is generated in the copper disk, thus the stronger reaction field
weakens the permanent magnetic field, which will lead to a decrease of the axial force. It is worth men-
tioning that when the slip speed exceeds a critical value, the axial force becomes the repulsive. In this
paper, such case is not discussed, because it is beyond the normal working range of the studied case.
Torque is one of the most important performance parameters of such devices. Fig. 11 shows the
comparison results of torque-speed characteristic obtained by analytical solutions and 3-D FEM. Two
values of air-gap length are discussed, namely, 1 mm, and 3 mm. It can be seen that the analytical
results from (35) clearly disagree with 3D FEM, whereas those from (39) are in good agreement
with the 3D FEM results upon considering the 3-D effects of eddy current based on correction factor.
Moreover, the 3-D geometry effects may be the main reason for the discrepancy between the analytical

FIG. 10. Comparison of axial force between 3-D FEM and analytical model at the air-gap length: 1 mm (top); and 3 mm
(bottom).
105303-11 Li et al. AIP Advances 7, 105303 (2017)

FIG. 11. Comparison of torque between 3-D FEM and analytical model at the air-gap length: 1 mm (top); and 3 mm (bottom).

results and those from the 3-D FEM. Besides, the torque decreased dramatically with the increase of
air-gap length. Thus, adjusting the air-gap, the torque and output speed can be easily controlled.

D. Experimental testing results

Fig. 12 shows the testing bench for the measurements of the electromagnetic torque. It is com-
posed of pedestal mounting plate, inverter, AC motor, prototype, torque/speed meter (model: ZH07;
made in china), AC motor, DC motor, infrared thermometer and PC in sequence.

FIG. 12. Testing bench: scheme (top); and actual composition (bottom).
105303-12 Li et al. AIP Advances 7, 105303 (2017)

FIG. 13. Comparison of torque between 3-D FEM and analytical model at the air-gap length: 1 mm (top); and 3 mm (bottom).

The measurement results of torque for eddy current coupler are shown in Fig. 13. As can be
observed, two values of air-gap length are considered, namely, 1 mm, and 3 mm. In addition, the
performance of the eddy current coupler with single-rotor is chosen as the object of a comparative
study. The measurement results are quite close to those obtained by the 3-D FEM and the analytical
solutions. It shows that the proposed analytical model can be employed to evaluate the performance of
the eddy current coupler. In addition, compared with single rotor topology, the eddy current coupler
with double conductor rotor topology has greatly increased the torque, thus improve the utilization
of magnetic materials.

VI. CONCLUSION
In this work, the novel axial flux eddy current coupler with PM excitation is studied. A mixed
analytical method, which combines 2-D layer model theory with MEC, is proposed and employed
to evaluate the performances of such devices. The simulation and experimental results show that the
analytical model is effective, and this topology is superior to the single rotor topology. In addition,
considering the computational time is reduced significantly, the analytical model can serve as a simple
and effective tool for the rapid analysis and optimization of eddy current coupler in their preliminary
design stage.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work was supported in part by the priming scientific research foundation for the junior teach-
ers in Northeastern University under Grant N150403005 and in part by National Science Foundation
of China under Grant 61433004.
1 N. Amati, A. Tonoli, A. Canova, F. Cavalli, and M. Padovani, “Dynamic behavior of torsional eddy-current dampers:
Sensitivity of the design parameters,” IEEE Trans. Magn. 43, 3266–3277 (2007).
2 Z. Mouton and M. J. Kamper, “Modeling and optimal design of an eddy current coupling for slip-synchronous permanent

magnet wind generators,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 61, 3367–3376 (2014).
3 L. Ye, D. Li, Y. Ma, and B. Jiao, “Design and performance of a water-cooled permanent magnet retarder for heavy vehicles,”

IEEE Trans. Energy. Convers. 26, 953–958 (2011).

4 J. Wang, H. Lin, and S. Fang, “Analytical prediction of torque characteristics of eddy current couplings having a quasi-

Halbach magnet structure,” IEEE Trans. Magn. 52, 1–9 (2016).

5 T. Lubin and A. Rezzoug, “Steady-state and transient performance of axial-field eddy-current coupling,” IEEE Trans. Ind.

Electron. 62, 2287–2296 (2015).

6 S. Mohammadi, M. Mirsalim, and S. Vaez-Zadeh, “Nonlinear modeling of eddy-current couplers,” IEEE Trans. Energy.

Convers. 29, 224–231 (2014).

7 S. Mohammadi, M. Mirsalim, S. Vaez-Zadeh et al., “Analytical modeling and analysis of axial-flux interior permanent-

magnet couplers,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 61, 5940–5947 (2014).

105303-13 Li et al. AIP Advances 7, 105303 (2017)

8 L. Belguerras, L. Hadjout, S. Mezani et al., “Study of HTS magnetic coupler using analytical and numerical computations,”

IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 24, 1–12 (2014).

9 S. E. Gay and M. Ehsani, “Parametric analysis of eddy-current brake performance by 3-D finite-element analysis,” IEEE
Trans. Magn. 42, 319–328 (2006).
10 J. S. Kim, J. H. Lee, and J. Y. Song, “Characteristics analysis method of axial flux permanent magnet motor based on 2-D

finite element analysis,” IEEE Trans. Magn. 53, 1–4 (2017).

11 M. C. Tsai, K. Y. Chiou, S. H. Wang, and C. Y. Lin, “Characteristics measurement of electric motors by contactless

eddy-current magnetic coupler,” IEEE Trans. Magn. 50, 1–4 (2014).

12 M. G. Park, J. Y. Choi, H. J. Shin, and S. M. Jang, “Torque analysis and measurements of a permanent magnet type eddy

current brake with a Halbach magnet array based on analytical magnetic field calculations,” J. Appl. Phys. 115, 17E707
(2014).
13 X. Dai, J. Cao, Y. Long, Q. Liang, J. Mo, and S. Wang, “Analytical modeling of an eddy-current adjustable-speed coupling

system with a three-segment Halbach magnet array,” Electr. Pow. Compo. Sys. 43, 1891–1901 (2015).
14 A. Canova and B. Vusini, “Design of axial eddy-current couplers,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 39, 725–733 (2003).
15 X. Dai, Q. Liang, J. Cao, Y. Long, J. Mo, and S. Wang, “Analytical modeling of axial-flux permanent magnet eddy current

couplings with a slotted conductor topology,” IEEE Trans. Magn. 52, 1–15 (2016).
16 T. Lubin and A. Rezzoug, “3-D analytical model for axial-flux eddy-current couplings and brakes under steady-state

conditions,” IEEE Trans. Magn. 51, 1–12 (2015).

17 M. F. Momen and S. Datta, “Analysis of flux leakage in a segmented core brushless permanent magnet motor,” EEE Trans.

Energy. Convers. 24, 77–81 (2009).

18 L. Zhu, S. Jiang, Z. Zhu, and C. Chan, “Analytical modeling of open-circuit air-gap field distributions in multisegment and

multilayer interior permanent-magnet machines,” IEEE Trans. Magn. 45, 3121–3130 (2009).
19 M. F. Hsieh and Y. C. Hsu, “A generalized magnetic circuit modeling approach for design of surface permanent-magnet

machines,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 59, 779–792 (2012).

20 B. Sheikh-Ghalavand, S. Vaez-Zadeh, and A. H. Isfahani, “An improved magnetic equivalent circuit model for iron-core

linear permanent-magnet synchronous motors,” IEEE Trans. Magn. 46, 112–120 (2010).
21 Y. Liu, M. Zhang, Y. Zhu, J. Yang, and B. Chen, “Optimization of voice coil motor to enhance dynamic response based on

an improved magnetic equivalent circuit model,” IEEE Trans. Magn. 47, 2247–2251 (2011).
22 Y. Kano, T. Kosaka, and N. Matsui, “Simple nonlinear magnetic analysis for permanent-magnet motors,” IEEE Trans. Ind.

Appl. 41, 1205–1214 (2005).

23 R. L. Russell and K. H. Norsworthy, “Eddy currents and wall losses in screened-rotor induction motors,” Proc. IEE A,

Power Eng. 105, 163–175 (1958).

24 D. Zheng, D. Wang, S. Li, Z. Li, and L. Yu, “Eddy current loss calculation and thermal analysis of axial-flux permanent

magnet couplers,” AIP Advances 7, 025117 (2017).