Voltage Unbalance Impact on the Performance of Line-Start Permanent-Magnet Synchronous Motors

Fernando J. T. E. Ferreira1,2, Mihail V. Cistelecan3, and Anbal T. de Almeida1

1 2 3

Institute of Systems and Robotics, University of Coimbra (ISR-UC), Portugal Engineering Institute of Coimbra (ISEC), Dep. of Electrical Eng., Portugal Research Institute for Electrical Machines (ICPE-ME), Romania

Abstract
The line-start permanent-magnet synchronous motor (LSPMSM), with starting squirrel cage, is a promising technology to reach the Super-Premium/IE4 efficiency level indicated in the new IEC 60034-30 Standard, maintaining the IEC standard motor frame size in each power level and the linestart capability. In fact, many experts see LSPMSM as the most probable substitute for the generalpurpose line-fed three-phase squirrel-cage induction motor (SCIM), which is, by far, the dominant electric motor worldwide. The efficiency and power factor of most LSPMSM prototypes are both relatively high and the starting torque, although low, is enough for particular applications, such as fans. Nevertheless, further research is required to improve some characteristics of LSPMSMs, including the starting torque, the synchronization and the part- and full-load efficiency. Moreover, the mains voltage unbalance and/or magnitude deviation, which are common phenomena in industrial plants, can have a strong, negative effect in the LSPMSMs starting torque, synchronous-speed torque, power factor and efficiency. In this scope, the main results of a set of experiments performed in a LSPMSM prototype and in a commercial equivalent SCIM are presented and comparatively discussed in the paper, with the focus on the motor steady-state performance and on the impact of voltage unbalance and magnitude deviation. The outcomes constitute an important contribution for the comprehension of the potential technical and economical benefits and drawbacks associated with the LSPMSM technology.

I. Introduction
Electric motors consume roughly 40% of the electrical energy worldwide, being responsible for about 13% of the global CO2eq emissions. In developed countries, on average, electric motors consume nearly 50% of the electrical energy, reaching 65-70% in Industry and 30-35% in the tertiary sector (non-residential). Among all electrical motor types, the three-phase squirrel-cage induction motor (SCIM) is, by far, the dominant electric motor worldwide, being used in more than 90% of the industrial electric motor applications. Most industrial electric motors operate a large number of hours per year and, therefore, the use-phase cost becomes the most relevant, reaching 60 to 200 times the purchase or initial motor cost over its entire lifetime of 12 to 20 years. The use-phase cost is directly related with motor efficiency, justifying in most cases the extra investment in high-efficiency motors, since it can be recovered within 2 to 3 years. The line-start permanent-magnet synchronous motor (LSPMSM), with auxiliary squirrel cage for starting, is a promising technology to reach the Super-Premium/IE4 efficiency level indicated in the new IEC 60034-30 Standard, maintaining the IEC standard motor frame size in each power level and the line-start capability. In fact, many experts see LSPMSM as the most probable substitute for the general-purpose SCIM. The efficiency and power factor of most LSPMSM prototypes are both relatively high and the starting torque, although low, is enough for particular applications, such as fans. Nevertheless, further research is required to improve some characteristics of LSPMSMs, including the starting torque, the synchronization and the part- and full-load efficiency. Moreover, the mains voltage unbalance and/or magnitude deviation, which are common phenomena in industrial plants, can have a strong, negative effect in the LSPMSMs starting torque, synchronous-speed torque, power factor and efficiency. Although the poor power quality impact is relatively well known for

SCIMs [1], in the case of LSPMSMs, little information is published, being mainly focused at the LSPMSM design and performance optimization under ideal power supply conditions [6-20]. In this scope, the main results of a set of experiments performed in a LSPMSM prototype and in a commercial equivalent SCIM are presented and comparatively discussed in the paper, with the focus on the motor steady-state performance and on the impact of voltage unbalance and magnitude deviation.

II. Motor Testing Equipment and Methodology

In order to experimentally evaluate the impact of mains voltage unbalance and magnitude deviation on LSPMSMs and, for comparison purposes, on equivalent SCIMs, a non-optimized1 2.2-kW, 4-pole, 400-V LSPMSM prototype (denoted as LSPMSME and shown in Fig. 1) and a commercial 2.2-kW, 4pole, 400-V, EFF2-class2 SCIM (denoted as SCIME) have been tested. In Table I, their main characteristics are shown. The LSPMSME was manufactured in the frame of a 2.2-kW, 4-pole, 400-V SCIM, having four modules of polar pieces with interior ring-shape embedded permanent magnets (PMs), axially and alternately magnetized, in order to obtain a 4-pole rotor configuration, in a claw-pole modular construction with copper-made starting squirrel cage in the pole shoes, as it can be seen in Fig. 1a. The squirrel cage is made of circular 5-mm diameter copper bars, crossing axially the pole shoes, being welded together in the front parts with two end short-circuited copper rings. Figs. 1b and 1c show the rotor and motor pictures. Detailed information on the tested LSPMSME is presented in [2]. Since the stator lamination was kept straight, the four claw-pole modules were rotated in order to lower the cogging torque. However, the squirrel-cage bars are straight (unskewed). It should be referred that better starting characteristics can be obtained using the pole-changing winding concept3 (e.g., 2 to 4 pole change, starting with 2-pole mode) [2], but, of course, this strategy increases the motor implementation cost since additional contactors and pole change schemes need to be used. For both motors, several tests were performed. Firstly, no-load and locked-rotor tests were performed under balanced conditions. Secondly, load tests were performed under balanced and unbalanced voltage conditions. Since in general the unbalanced voltage condition may include voltage magnitude deviation and/or unbalance, two different load test sets were carried out: - Balanced line-to-line voltages with different amplitudes; - Unbalanced voltages by means of decreasing one line-to-neutral. The motors were tested in a high-accuracy motor test bench, described in [3]. The balanced and unbalanced voltage supply conditions were created by means of a three-phase autotransformer, which allows simultaneous regulation of the line-to-line voltage amplitude in all phases, and a singlephase autotransformer, which allows independent regulation of the line-to-neutral amplitude in one phase. The presented values were measured under controlled ambient temperature (between 22 and 23C) and, in the case of load tests, ensuring motor thermal equilibrium (frame temperature variation equal or lower than 1C/h). The efficiency was measured using direct method (or input-output method), without loss segregation and correction. The output power was automatically measured by means of a load cell and an encoder, both integrated in a hysteresis dynamometer setup, being the respective output signals acquired by a power analyser, which performs real time calculations, including the motor output shaft power and efficiency [3]. A. No-Load and Locked-Rotor Test In Tables II-III and Figs. 2-5, the main results of no-load and locked-rotor tests are shown. In Figs. 24, the capacitive and inductive behaviour of the LSPMSME are clearly identified. On the basis of the
First prototype of a 2.2-kW, 4-pole LSPMSM, designed and constructed at the Research Institute for Electrical Machines, Bucharest, Romania. Improved prototypes are being developed and tested. Nevertheless, as the rated torque at 2.2 kW output power is 14 N.m and starting torque is approximately 15 N.m, it results that the starting torque is quite enough for any fan drive application. In the tested prototype, the electromotive force (related with the flux of the rotor permanent magnets) is quite low. The new prototype has about 15% higher flux, leading to the improvement of the motor efficiency and power factor. 2 Equivalent to the IE1 Class of the new IEC 60034-30 Standard. 3 The stator three-phase winding is a special pole changeable solution with 2-poles for starting and 4-poles for normal running, in order to obtain a controlled space harmonic content of the armature magnetomotive force and a high value of the fundamental wave [2].
1

locked-rotor test, a 15 N.m and a 25 N.m average starting torque for the LSPMSME and SCIME, respectively, were estimated.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 1. LSPMSME: (a) Components of half of the rotor; (b) Rotor picture; (c) Motor picture. Parameter Table I. Main characteristics of both LSPMSME and SCIME. LSPMSM SCIM
2.2 kW -3 400 V 50 Hz 4.58 A (measured) 0.86 (measured) 82.5% 14.0 N.m (measured) Star (Wye) 1500 r/min 100 25 kg PM plus Starting Squirrel Cage Auto, External Centrifugal Fan IP 55 Yes 162.0 mm 102.0 mm 80.0 mm 0.5 mm 0.35 mm 318 53 6 Single conductor of 0.95 mm 0.7088 mm2 Single layer B = 0.486 T 3.5 36 2.2 kW EFF2 (equivalent to the new IE1) 3 400 V 50 Hz 4.84 A (nameplate); 5.05 A (measured) 0.81 (nameplate); 0.79 (measured) 81% (EFF2 Class); 79% (measured) 14.9 N.m (measured) Star (Wye) 1420 (nameplate); 1404 (measured) 100 r/min 21 kg Squirrel Cage (Type N) Auto, External Centrifugal Fan IP 55 Yes 160.0 mm 99.5 mm 87.0 mm 0.5 mm 0.25 mm 288 48 6 Two parallel conductors of 0.71mm 0.792 mm2 Single layer B = 0.689 T 2.9 36

Rated Power IEC Efficiency Class Phases Rated Voltage Rated Frequency Rated Current Rated Power Factor Rated Efficiency Rated Torque Winding Connection Rated Speed IEC Frame Weight Rotor Cooling Protection Line Starting Capability Stator Ferromagnetic Stack Outer diameter Inner diameter Length Sheets Thickness Air-gap Turns per phase Turns per coil Series coils per phase Conductor diameter Per-phase cross section Winding Type Average air-gap flux density Resistance per phase @20C Number of Stator Slots

Parameter
Line-to-Line Voltage Line Current

Table II. No-load test results for both LSPMSME and SCIME. LSPMSM SCIM
400 V 1.59 A 400 V 3.14 A

Input Real Power Speed

272 W 1500 r/min

286 W 1498 r/min

Table III. Locked-rotor test parameters at rated line current for both LSPMSME and SCIME. Parameter LSPMSM SCIM
Zlr Rlr Xlr 11.6 9.2 7.0 10.3 5.8 8.6

Note: Zlr, Rlr and Xlr are motor equivalent circuit parameters obtained with the locked-rotor test.

Fig. 2. No-load input power as a function of the voltage squared for both LSPMSME and SCIME.

Fig. 3. No-load power factor as a function of the voltage squared for both LSPMSME and SCIME. 25% and 50% load power factor as a function of the voltage squared for the LSPMSME.

(a) Uab = 400 V

(b) Uab = 340 V

(c) Uab = 310 V Fig. 4. Instantaneous voltage and current waveforms for the LSPMSME at no-load in 3 different situations regarding the relation between electromotive force, E, and applied voltage, U: (a) U > E; (b) U E; (c) U < E [2].

Fig. 5. Locked-rotor test input power (in p.u., being the locked-rotor input power at rated current the reference) as a function of voltage for both LSPMSME and SCIME. B. Voltage Magnitude Deviation In Table IV, the voltage supply conditions for the balanced voltage magnitude deviation tests are shown. In these experiments, all line-to-line voltage amplitudes were set equal, varying between 410 V and 360 V. In Figs. 6-10, the main results are shown for both LSPMSME and SCIME, including efficiency, power factor, current amplitude, current THD, and frame temperature rise. Table IV. Voltage magnitude deviation tests. Ubn Ucn Uab Ubc (V) (V) (V) (V)
230.9240 236.7240 225.2240 219.4240 213.6240 207.8240 230.9120 236.7120 225.2120 219.4120 213.6120 207.8120 400.00 410.00 390.00 380.00 370.00 360.00 400.0240 410.0240 390.0240 380.0240 370.0240 360.0240

Load Test
Test I Test II Test III Test IV Test V Test VI

Uan (V)
230.90 236.70 225.20 219.40 213.60 207.80

Uca (V)
400.0120 410.0120 390.0120 380.0120 370.0120 360.0120

Ud/UN Ui/Ud (%) (%)

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

C. Voltage Unbalance In Table V, the voltage supply conditions for the unbalanced voltage tests are shown. In these experiments, two line-to-neutral voltages were fixed at 230.9 V, and the third varied between 230.9 V and 115.5 V. In Figs. 11-15, the main results are shown for both LSPMSME and SCIME, including efficiency, power factor, current amplitude, current THD, and frame temperature rise. Table V. Unbalanced voltage tests. Ucn Uab Ubc (V) (V) (V)
230.9120 230.9120 230.9120 230.9120 375.332 351.235 327.938 305.541 400.0-90 400.0-90 400.0-90 400.0-90

Load Test
Test I Test II Test III Test IV

Uan (V)
202.10 173.20 144.30 115.50

Ubn (V)

Uca (V)
375.3148 351.2145 327.9142 305.5139

Ud/UN Ui/Ud (%) (%)

95.8 91.7 87.5 83.3 4.4 9.1 14.3 20.0

230.9240 230.9240 230.9240 230.9240

Fig. 6. LSPMSME efficiency and power factor as a function of motor load, for different voltages.

Fig. 7. SCIME efficiency and power factor as a function of motor load, for different voltages.

Fig. 8. LSPMSME and SCIME line current RMS value as a function of motor load, for different voltages.

Fig. 9. LSPMSME and SCIME line current THD as a function of motor load, for different voltages.

Fig. 10. LSPMSME and SCIME frame temperature rise as a function of motor load, for different voltages.

Fig. 11. LSPMSME efficiency and power factor as a function of motor load, for different voltage unbalance levels.

Fig. 12. SCIME efficiency and power factor as a function of motor load, for different voltage unbalance levels.

Fig. 13. LSPMSME and SCIME highest line current as a function of motor load, for different voltage unbalance levels.

Fig. 14. LSPMSME and SCIME current THD in the lowest line current phase as a function of motor load, for different voltage unbalance levels.

Fig. 15. LSPMSME and SCIME frame temperature rise as a function of motor load, for different voltage unbalance levels.

III. Analysis of the Experimental Results

In this section, on the basis of the experimental results presented in previous sections, a number of short outcomes are presented. As it is well-known, in relation to the SCIM, the LSPMSM has a quite better steady-state performance, but the starting and overloading conditions can be critical to its operation.

Under ideal supply conditions, i.e., balanced 400-V line-to-line voltage, the experimental results show the steady-state full-load performance superiority of the LSPMSM over an equivalent SCIM, even considering that the tested LSPMSM prototype was not optimized. Besides the better efficiency, the power factor is, by far, higher, which is an important advantage since the typical low power factor of SCIMs contributes significantly to the overall poor power factor of the power network. It should be mentioned that the first tests on a new 3-kW, 4-pole LSPMSM prototype, in which improved PMs were used, show a much higher maximum efficiency (nearly 85%) and quasi-unity power factor, as it can be seen in Fig. 16. These preliminary results show the superior steady-state performance potential of this line-start motor technology. In most cases, during their duty cycle, motors operate continuously or periodically under full-load, resulting in a low load factor (in the European Union, the average load factor is nearly 60%). Therefore, in motors operating a large number of hours per year (> 2000 h/year), it is important to take into account the efficiency and power factor variation with the motor load. The presented results demonstrate that, in relation to the SCIMs, the LSPMSMs can have a flatter efficiency-load curve and a much higher power factor over the entire load range, as it can be seen in Figs. 6, 7 and 16.

Fig. 16. Efficiency and power factor of a new 3-kW, 4-pole LSPMSM prototype, as a function of shaft power, P2 [4]. Regarding the tolerance to voltage magnitude deviations, the experimental results, shown in Figs.6 and 7, demonstrate that the efficiency variation is lower for the LSPMSM over the entire load range, and the power factor increases significantly with the voltage decrease in both cases, but this variation is more pronounced for the LSPMSM. Nevertheless, it is important to refer that the LSPMSM is quite robust to the balanced voltage magnitude variation in terms of steady-state performance. Actually, the LSPMSM efficiency-load curve is maintained almost unchangeable with a voltage variation of -10%, which is an important advantage over SCIMs. For the rated voltage, the overload limit (overload level, in percentage of rated load, after which the motor stops) of the LSPMSM is lower than that of the SCIM. Moreover, contrarily to SCIMs, a significant decrease of the overload limit can occur in LSPMSMs when the voltage is reduced. For example, for the rated voltage (400 V) the LSPMSME was able to operate at 112% load (12% overload), but when the voltage was set to 390 V (2.5% decrease), it was only able to operate near rated load (at 112% load it stops). In the case of the SCIME, even when the voltage was set to 360 V (10% decrease), the motor was still able to operate at 112% load without stopping, but its temperature rise increased significantly beyond the nominal level due to the slip increase. If a LSPMSM stops due to a short-period voltage drop, it can heat up to destructive levels. Therefore, for some load types, it is important to provide protection devices to such motors that can identify a power-on stopping situation and turn-off the motor from mains. An interesting conclusion is that LSPMSMs can significantly benefit from voltage regulation as a function of motor load in terms of power factor improvement but no significant benefits should be expected in the efficiency, contrarily to the significant improvement of those parameters in SCIMs operating under rated load. Moreover, in the LSPMSMs, the voltage regulation allows the power factor control from inductive (current lagging) to capacitive (current leading), as it can be seen in Figs.

2, 3 and 4, similarly to a typical three-phase synchronous machine, which can be used to improve power factor in some plants if a large number of this type of motors are used. However, since the maximum tolerated load of LSPMSM decreases with the voltage, this power factor compensation capability only applies when the motor load is significantly lower than rated load. Nevertheless, it is an important characteristic to be exploited in future research. It should be noted that the power factor never reaches the unity in the tested LSPMSME because the line current is highly distorted, reducing the total power factor, which is equal to the product of the displacement power factor (depends on the fundamental voltage and current phase displacement) by the harmonic distortion power factor (depends on the current total harmonic distortion). The high current THD can be a significant disadvantage of LSPMSMs, particularly if large-scale use is considered. However, if skewed-bar starting squirrel-cage is used, the current THD can be significantly reduced in LSPMSMs. On the basis of the steady-state temperature rise tests, shown in Fig. 10, if the full-load temperature rise is taken as reference, it is possible to conclude that the temperature-based power derating due to the voltage magnitude decrease is lower for the LSPMSME. Regarding the voltage unbalance tolerance, both LSPMSME and SCIME experienced a similar decrease in the steady-state performance, as well as in the maximum tolerated load. From the temperature rise perspective, for up to 5% voltage unbalance the LSPMSME experience a lower power derating, but for a voltage unbalance higher than 5%, the derating becomes much higher, in relation to that of the SCIME, as it can be seen in Fig. 15. For 14% voltage unbalance the power derating, which ensures that the nominal operating temperature is not exceeded, is 46% and 36% for the LSPMSME and SCIME, respectively, evidencing the impact that the voltage unbalance has on the motor lifetime if the derating is not applied. It should be noted that only the frame temperature rise is presented. Since the asymmetrical currents in the stator windings are responsible for localized excessive heating of the winding, an accurate power derating of the motor should take that into account. In a SCIM subjected to unbalanced voltages, besides the main forward rotating magnetic field (created by the positive-sequence symmetrical system), there is also a backward field (created by the negative-sequence symmetrical system) which drags the rotor [1, 5]. The impact of such backward rotating field in the motor torque and rotor losses is similar in both SCIME and LSPMSME, due to the auxiliary squirrel cage for starting in the last case. In fact, although the rotor losses can be extremely reduced in the LSPMSM when its speed reaches the synchronous speed (synchronization), under unbalanced voltages, due to the backward rotating field, significant currents will be induced in the rotor, producing significant Joule losses. The same applies for negative sequence-voltage harmonics (5th, 11th, etc.). The LSPMSME starting torque is roughly equal to the rated torque, which is high enough for most fluid movement loads (centrifugal fans and pumps), that are responsible for a significant share of the electrical energy consumption in Industry and in the Tertiary Sector.

IV. Conclusions
On the basis of the presented experimental results, it can be concluded that, in relation to equivalent SCIMs, LSPMSMs have potentially much better steady-state efficiency and power factor under quasiideal operating conditions and, in terms of temperature-based power derating and steady-state efficiency variation, are less susceptible to the voltage magnitude deviation but more susceptible to significant voltage unbalance levels. However, the maximum tolerated load in LSPMSM can decrease significantly with the voltage reduction. Similarly to the conventional three-phase synchronous machines, there is a potential application of LSPMSMs for power factor improvement when they operate at low loads, by means of proper voltage regulation, but this issue requires further research. Moreover, for the same voltage decrease, the power factor improvement in LSPMSMs is more pronounced than that in SCIMs. It should be referred that for LSPMSMs with higher flux per pole in the rotor, the impact of the supply voltage anomalies should be lower and, of course, the efficiency and power factor are significantly improved (a power factor between 0.95 and 1.00 for a load between 25 and 100% is possible and a peak efficiency of 85% can be achieved for 3-kW, 4-pole LSPMSMs).

If straight rotor bars are used in the auxiliary cage of LSPMSMs, the current distortion is likely to be extremely high in all the load range, particularly for low load levels. In a large-scale use scenario, LSPMSMs can actually injecting harmonics in the mains contributing to the voltage distortion level. This issue should be properly taken into account during the motor design. The starting torque can be potentially higher enough to start and drive effectively low-inertia fans and pumps, but could be insufficient for speed-independent torque loads, such as conveyors, escalators and lifts, or high-inertia loads. The starting torque can be increased by means of using a pole number change scheme during starting period. The outcomes constitute an important contribution for the comprehension of the potential technical and economical benefits and drawbacks associated with the LSPMSM technology. The information presented evidences the importance of the research that is being carried out on the LSPMSM domain, reinforcing the idea of that technology as a serious candidate to replace SCIMs in the future.

References
[1] Ferreira, F., de Almeida, A.; Deprez, W.; Belmans, R.; Baoming, G.: Impact of Steady-State Voltage Supply Anomalies on Three-Phase Squirrel-Cage Induction Motors, Inter. Aegean Conf. on Electric Machines and Power Electronics (ACEMP07) and Electromotion Joint Conf., Conf. Proc., pp. 607-615, Turkey, 10-12 Sept. 2007.

[2] Cistelecan, M.; Popescu, M.; Melcescu, L.; Tudorache; T.: Three Phase Line Start Claw Poles Permanent Magnet Motor with Pole Changing Winding, SPEEDAM Conf., Conf. Proc., 2008, Ischia, paper BD-252. [3] de Almeida, A; Ferreira, F.: User-Friendly High-Precision Electric Motor Testing System, 4th Inter. Conf. on Energy Efficiency in Motor Driven Systems (EEMODS05), Conf. Proc., Vol. I, pp. 149-157, Heidelberg, Germany, Sept. 2005.

[4] Melcescu, L.; Cistelecan, M.; Popescu, M.; Craiu, O.; Gheorghe, t.: Claw Pole Line Start Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor Design and Development, EM09EPECJS Conf., Conf. Proc., 2009, paper 083. [5] Ferreira, F.; de Almeida, A.; Carvalho, J.: Experiments to Observe the Impact of Power Quality and Voltage-Source Inverters on the Temperature of Three-Phase Cage Induction Motors using an Infra-Red Camera, 2009 IEEE International Electric Machines and Drives Conf. (IEMDC), Conf. Proc., Miami, Florida, USA, 3-6 May, 2009.

[6] Boyd, J.H.: Line start permanent magnet motor, U.S. Patent Nr. 5,952,757/1999. [7] Chu, Ming-Tsung et al.: Rotor structure of line start permanent magnet synchronous motor, U.S. Patent Nr. 6,844,652/2005. [8] Cistelecan, M.; Popescu, M.; Nitigus, V.: A.C. three-phase line-start permanent magnet motor, Romanian Patent, RO 121623, filled 21.07.2005, issued 28.12.2007. [9] Kliman, G.: Permanent magnet line start motor having magnets outside the starting cage, U.S. Patent Nr. 5,548,172/1996. [10] Kliman, G.: Controllable flux permanent magnet motor, U.S. Patent Nr. 6,025,666/2000. [11] Hamdi, E.S.; Mubarak, A.N.: Design of line-start permanent magnet motors a review, ELECTROMOTION, No. 2, 1995, pp.53-61. [12] Knight, A.M., McClay, C.I.: The design of high-efficiency line-start motors, IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat., Vol. 36, No. 6, Nov./Dec. 2000, pp. 1555-1562.

[13] Knight, A. M.; Williamson, S.: Influence of magnet dimensions on the performance of a singlephase line-start permanent magnet motor, Inter. Conf. on Electric Machines and Drives (IEMD'99), Conf. Proc., 1999, pp. 770 -772. [14] Kurihara, K.; Rahman, A.: High efficiency line-start interior permanent magnet synchronous motor, IAS Conf., 2003. [15] Miller TJE: Synchronization of line-start permanent-magnet a.c. motor, IEEE Trans. on PAS, Vol. 103, No. 7, July 1984, pp.1822-1828. [16] Nee, H.; Lefevre, L.; Thelin, P.; Soulard, J.: Determination of d and q reactances of permanentmagnet synchronous motors without measurements of the rotor position, IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat., Vol. 36, No. 5 , Sept./Oct. 2000, pp. 1330 -1335. [17] Popescu, M.; Miller, T.: Line start PM motor: single phase starting performance analysis, IEEE Trans. on Ind. Appl., Vol. 39, No.4, 2003, pp.1021-1030. [18] Soulard, J.; Nee, H.: Study of the synchronization of line-start permanent magnet synchronous motors, IEEE Industry Applications Conf., Conf. Rec., 2000, Vol. 1, pp. 424-431. [19] Stephens, C.; Kliman, G.; Boyd, J.: A line-start permanent magnet motor with gentle starting behavior, IEEE Industry Applications Conf., 33rd IAS Annual Meeting, Vol. 1, 1998, pp. 371-379. [20] Stephens, C.: Starting and synchronizing system for line-start permanent magnet motor, U.S. Patent Nr. 5,859,513/1999.