An Investigation of the Use of a Halbach Array in

MW Level Permanent Magnet Synchronous

Generators

Salem Alshibani, Rukmi Dutta, Vassilios G. Agelidis

Abstract This paper reports on the use of a Halbach

array in megawatt level permanent magnet synchronous
generators (PMSGs) for wind turbine applications.
Conclusions derived from the machines linear approximation
are applied here on the cylindrical PMSGs. An analytical
model is used to model the machines performance when a
Halbach and a conventional array are considered. The
Halbach array displayed superior fundamental flux density
after design manipulation through the analytical equations.
Finite Element Analysis simulation has been used to verify the
analytical equations and findings. Discussion of the results is
provided and future research direction is briefly described at
the end of the paper.

Index TermsFinite Element Methods, Permanent Magnet

Machines, Wind Energy.
I. INTRODUCTION
Permanent magnet synchronous generators (PMSGs) are
well established as a robust technology for wind turbines.
Their direct drive (gearless) operation and low maintenance
characteristics due to the absence of excitation windings
have made them very attractive especially for offshore
applications [1-5]. At megawatt (MW) level, however,
direct drive PMSGs tend to be rather heavy, large in
diameter, and, consequently, costly [4], [6-8]. In [9] it was
argued that the high capital cost of PMSGs could be
downgraded by robust and reliable lifetime operation
expected of direct drive PMSGs.
This increase in cost, weight, and diameter, was
challenged in many different and interesting ways. To
outline a few, in [8], a one-stage gearbox is placed between
the turbine blades and the PMSG to make it smaller though
taking away the direct-drive advantages. In [4] a novel
stator design with lightweight material is proposed with
70% weight reduction. For above 90% efficiency, however,
this stator needs a larger diameter and more magnets than a
typical PMSG. In the design of [10], the inner rotor is
replaced with an outer rotor to improve the compactness.
However, outer rotors require special care regarding the
thermal characteristics of the machine [6]. Another good
solution to address transportation and installation issues,
which are directly related to weight and size, is to use a
modular design. The machine in modular design is
manufactured of independent smaller sections to be
transported easily and get assembled on-sight [11-13].
Continuing on this line of design alterations, the purpose
of this paper is to report on the investigation of the use of a
Halbach array as a technology to reduce the diameter and
weight of megawatt level PMSGs.
The next two sections give a brief description of the
Halbach array (Section II) and the preliminary investigation
performed on a linear model (Section III). Section IV
presents the parameters and the geometric characteristics of
the machine that underwent the application of Halbach
array in FEA simulation. Sections V and VI discuss the
analytical equations their application and results
respectively. Section VII verifies those results through FEA
simulation. Finally, section VIII revisits the analytical
equations for further variation after which a section on
future work precedes the conclusion.
II. HALBACH ARRAY
The Halbach array was first thought of as A Magnetic
Curiosity that made the flux intensify in one side when
horizontal magnets are alternated in an array with vertical
ones [14]. Klaus Halbach, whom it is named after, later
utilized the array in the 1980s through experiments on
electron accelerators in the Laurance Berkeley National
Laboratories [15-17].
The Halbach array produces higher power density with
less magnet volume [18-20], which reduces the cost
associated with the permanent magnet (PM). It also holds
on to most of its flux density without the back iron [20-22].
This makes it possible to replace the heavy iron yoke of the
rotor with less expensive lighter non-magnetic material.
Fig. 1 presents the formation of a Halbach array from
conventional array with the associated flux lines.

Fig. 1 . Flux lines of (a) conventional magnet array and (b), Halbach array.

(a)
(b)
978-1-4673-0141-1/12/$26.00 2012 IEEE
57
The flux lines of a conventional array are plotted in Fig.
1(a). Fig. 1(b) shows the concentration of flux on the upper
side of the magnet in a Halbach arrangement, which
translates into higher fundamental air-gap flux density.
Also, the absence of backside fields in a Halbach array of
Fig. 1(b) indicates the possibility of using non-magnetic
material instead of the back iron. These plots were
generated through the finite element analysis (FEA)
software Ansys Maxwell [23], which is also used
throughout this paper for FEA simulations.
III. PRELIMINARY LINEAR ANALYSIS
Before applying Halbach array to the magnets of a
cylindrical PMSG, their application was tested on a
simplified linear approximation of the machine. This linear
representation allows faster processing time and easier
adjustment of geometric parameters. Fig. 2 shows this FEA
model with Halbach array.
Various Halbach array advantages were investigated and
verified through this modelling; including higher
fundamental flux density, low total harmonic distortion
(THD), same flux density to conventional array with less
magnet volume, and robust operation with non-magnetic
rotor yoke. All of this justified carrying on with the
investigation to the more laborious cylindrical FEA model
of the machine.
One more thing was learned from the linear model that
performance with less than unity pole-embrace is more
suitable for a conventional array than a Halbach array.
When the pole embrace was set to 0.7, which is typical of
large PMSGs, the Halbach array was inferior to the
conventional array. Therefore, for the Halbach array to
maintain its advantages the pole embrace must remain at
unity and the design of the machine stator must be adjusted
accordingly. In this paper, all of these findings are applied
to the cylindrical model.
IV. PMSG SPECIFICATIONS
To examine the effect of applying the Halbach array to
MW level cylindrical PMSGs, a conventional PMSG was
selected [24], the rotor magnets of which were replaced by
the Halbach array. The objective was to preserve the
original magnetic volume and reduce the machine radius.
The machine radius was reduced down to render the pole
embrace as unity. This means that a reduction of radius by
30% is suitable for a machine with a 0.7 pole embrace. The
length of the machine is kept the same. The fundamental
component of the flux density is tested with both arrays
under unity pole embrace.

Fig. 2 . Linear approximation of the cylindrical PMSG.
Reference [24] was the primary source from which the
initial machine design data were derived such as power
rating, frequency, rated speed, machine length, rotor and
stator diameters, number of poles and magnet height.
Table I summarizes machine specifications, while, Table
II summarizes major dimensions. Fig. 3 displays the PMSG
as modelled in FEA. With 0.7 pole embrace, and as was
expected from the linear model, when the magnet array of
the above PMSG was replaced by Halbach array the
machines flux density went down. Therefore, the pole
embrace has to be turned to unity. By scaling down the
stator and rotor inner and outer radii, while keeping the
magnet volume the same, the desired unity pole embrace
was achieved. However, and contrary to the findings of the
linear model, the fundamental component of the air-gap
flux density of the conventional array, at unity pole
embrace, outperformed the Halbach array.

TABLE I
PMSG SPECIFICATIONS

Number of Phases 3
Rated Power (kW) 2000
Rated Voltage (V) 660
Rated Speed (rpm) 22.5
Rated Frequency (Hz) 11.25
Number of Poles 60
Pole Embrace 0.7
Number of slots 288
Slots/Pole/phase 1.6

TABLE II
PMSG GEOMETRIC DIMENSIONS

Stator Outer Diameter (mm) 3800
Stator Inner Diameter (mm) 3480
Air-gap minimum clearance (mm) 5
Machine Axial Length (mm) 1300
Magnet Height (mm) 22
Magnet Length (mm) 125
Stator Slot width (mm) 17.2
Stator Slot Height (mm) 80



Fig. 3 . A portion of the PMSG as modelled in FEA software.
58
The conclusion asserted here was that while the Halbach
array, under linear approximation, achieved very promising
results, under full PMSG model of this particular design
with these specific dimensions its performance was inferior
to the conventional array. Whether under different PMSG
specifications such conclusion would change is too time
consuming to test with FEA simulation. Analytical
equations are the better choice of methods in this case. The
next section deals with this method.
V. ANALYTICAL REPRESENTATION OF A HALBACH ARRAY
Halbach arrays literature does assert the superiority of
the Halbach array over the conventional array in both linear
and cylindrical machines and in both slotted and slotless
formats [18], [21], [22], [25]. It is intriguing to find the
reasons for the contradictory findings mentioned above. It
has led to a speculation on whether there exists a critical
diameter after which Halbach array ceases to be
advantageous and whether involved design modifications
are required with the Halbach array. This research aims at
answering some of these questions as existing literature
provides no information about them.
Two useful analytical equations to be utilized for the
analytical study were found in [25]. The first equation
defines the fundamental flux density of a conventional
slotted surface mounted permanent magnet machine and is
given here as,
(1)
where
p
is the pole embrace and B
p
is the peak air-gap flux
density defined as follows:
(2)
where B
r
is the remanent flux density of the permanent
magnet , which is 1.23 for the NdFeB magnets used in this
simulation, R
r
is the rotor outer radius or inner magnet
radius, R
m
is outer magnet radius, and R
s
is air-gap radius or
inner stator radius.
The second equation defines the fundamental flux density
of the same machine but with Halbach array.

(3)

where p is the number of pole pairs, and K = 1 for air-cored
rotor, while for iron-cored, K is defined by the following
equation:
(4)
Halbach array here is always defined with unity pole
embrace while the conventional machine has the option of
varying this value.
Under the eight pole PM machine presented in [25], the
Halbach array was reported to achieve superior torque by
up to 33% due to the increase in the fundamental
component of flux density augmented by the reduction of
back-iron losses. Therefore, it is not expected that all the
33% come from the fundamental flux density, yet some
significant increase must have been recorded there.
In this paper, these equations were approached
differently. For our study, the number of pole pairs, magnet
height, and air-gap length are kept constant while the inner
magnet radius was varied from few millimetres to 2000
mm. It should be noted here that the air-gap or the stator
radius, R
s
, can be made a function of the outer magnet
radius which itself is a function of the inner magnet radius,
R
r
. These relations are presented in the following equations:
(5)
where is the air-gap length, which is kept constant here at
5mm, and R
m
is defined as follows:
(6)
where h
m
is the magnet height and is kept constant at 22mm
according to the specifications of the PMSG used in this
paper and described in Section IV.
R
r
is then become an independent variable which was
varied from 1mm to 2000mm, and the fundamental flux
density of both Halbach and conventional arrays is
calculated for the range from equations (1) and (3). The
pole embrace here was kept as unity for both conventional
and Halbach representations to assure same magnet volume
at each radius.
Fig. 4 plots the fundamental flux density of Halbach
array and conventional array as function of rotor radius as
described above. The results were very much enlightening
and helped to understand the relation between machine radii
and air-gap flux density of Halbach array.
It should be noted from Fig. 4 that there exist a region in
which the Halbach array outperforms the conventional
array. As the machine gets larger in radius, the conventional
array is more advantageous. This explains the FEA results
that came in favour of the conventional array, which was at
1713mm or 1200mm with unity pole embrace.



Fig. 4 Plot of the fundamental flux density with conventional array vs.
that with the Halbach array for a range of machine sizes while keeping air-
gap length, magnet height and number of poles constant.
0 500 1000 1500 2000
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Radius (mm)
F
l
u
x

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
T
)


Halbach
Conventional
!
B
1h
=
2B
r
p
( p +1)
1" R
r
R
m
( )
( p+1)
[ ]
K R
m
R
s
( )
( p+1)
!
K = 1" R
r
R
m
( )
2p
R
m
R
s
( )
2p
[ ]
("1)
!
R
s
= R
m
+"
!
R
m
= R
r
+ h
m
59
For the Halbach array to significantly outperform this
fundamental flux density the radius has to be at 439mm. At
this value the Halbach plot is at its maximum. But this
decrease in radius (around 60%) will negatively affect the
no-load output voltage as it is directly related to stator inner
radius R
s
. The no-load output voltage of a PMSG is defined
with the following equation from [8]:


E
p
= 2k

N
s

m
R
s
L
e
B
g1
(7)
where, is the winding factor, N
s
is the number of turns

m
is the mechanical angular frequency, R
s
is the stator
radius, L
e
is the core length, and B
g1
is the fundamental flux
density.
According to equation (7), a decrease with more than
half of the radius would compromise the voltage in exactly
this portion provided that other stator conditions are the
same. A 60% increase in the fundamental flux density is
required then to compensate for the loss radius. But this
increase is too much for Halbach array to achieve even at a
linear level.
Therefore, from Fig. 4 it could be concluded that for a
PMSG with the specified air-gap length, number of poles,
and magnet height, there exists an optimum radius for the
Halbach array. It will outperform the conventional array
significantly when the machine radius is equal to this
optimum value. Above this radius value, the Halbach array
gets less effective until up to a critical radius where its air-
gap flux density is equal to the conventional array
(1000mm for the studied case). Above this critical radius,
the Halbach array will lose its advantage over the
conventional array.
VI. VARIATION OF NUMBER OF POLES
From equation (1) and (2), it can be deduced that the
conventional fundamental flux density is independent of the
number of poles. The pole embrace, air-gap radius, and the
magnet height define it. The Halbach fundamental flux
density is defined similarly, but always with unity pole
embrace as well as the number of pole pairs (equations (3)
and (4)). This number of poles was varied at each radius
and the effect on the Halbach fundamental flux density was
observed.
The PMSG used for this research has an inner magnet
radius of 1713mm with pole embrace of 0.7. This
corresponds to 1200mm radius with a unity pole embrace to
preserve the magnet volume. Fig. 5 plots the outcome of
varying the number of poles on the Halbach fundamental
flux density for the PMSG with 1200mm inner magnet
radius. It can be observed that the increase in pole number
strengthens the fundamental flux density for Halbach array.
The original number of pole pairs was 30, which results in a
fundamental flux density below the conventional array. By
doubling the number of poles to 60 the flux density
increased to significantly surpass that of the conventional
array. Dotted vertical lines in Fig. 5 indicate the flux
density value at 30 and 60 poles. The new number of poles
was adapted and the flux density was revaluated for a range
of radii. Fig. 6 replots the flux density for the conventional
array and the Halbach arrays with 60 and 120 poles.


Fig. 5 Effect of increasing the number of poles on the fundamental flux
density with Halbach array compared to conventional array at 1200mm
rotor radius. For clarity, the dotted vertical lines indicate the value of the
flux density at 30 and 60 poles.



Fig. 6 . Plot of the fundamental flux density with conventional and
Halbach array (60 and 120 poles) for various machine radii. The dashed
vertical line indicates the radius of the PMSG with unity pole embrace.

The dashed vertical line in Fig. 6 indicates the radius by
which the same magnet volume is preserved with unity pole
embrace. It should be noticed that the Halbach array with
the larger number of poles out performs the conventional
array for a wider range of radii. Therefore, for the PMSG
specified in section IV Halbach array advantages will be
realized only after taking a further step of increasing the
number of poles.
VII. FEA VERIFICATION OF ANALYTICAL CALCULATIONS
To verify the validity of the analytical equations used in
the previous two sections, FEA simulation was carried out
for the PMSG under the same conditions. In essence, it is to
test the improvement of the performance after increasing
the number of poles and reducing the radius to create a
unity pole embrace that can take the Halbach array. Equally
important was to test the error of the analytical equations
when compared to FEA simulation and whether it is
consistent to rely on for a more elaborate final design guide.
Table III displays the FEA results of the fundamental
flux density when compared to the analytical equation
results and the discrepancies between the two.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
Number of Pole Pairs
F
l
u
x

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
T
)


Halbach
Conventional
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
0
0.5
1
1.5
Radius (mm)
F
l
u
x

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
T
)


Halbach
(120 poles)
Conventional
Halbach
(60 poles)
60
Table III shows that the analytical equations always
produced higher flux density. The discrepancy was a bit
large especially for the first three machine types. The
inaccuracy of flux density in the analytical equations is due
to the assumptions that stator and rotor iron material has
linear B-H characteristic, there is no saturation and stator
slot has negligible effects on air-gap flux density.
Nonetheless, the trend of the results was consistent with
FEA. The Halbach machine with 60 poles failed to
outperform the conventional machine at 1200mm radius in
FEA as well, while it outperformed it at the smaller radius.
When the number of poles was doubled, the Halbach
machine was able to outperform the conventional machine
as in the analytical equations. Therefore, these analytical
equations do serve as a quick guide to save time and inspire
design direction before FEA simulation. Table IV displays
the Halbach advantage (or the percentage increase of air-
gap flux density) calculated from the analytical equation
and from the FEA simulation under the various machine
design criteria.

TABLE III
COMPARING FUNDAMENTAL FLUX DENSITY WITH ANALYTICAL EQUATIONS
TO THAT WITH FEA FOR VARIOUS PMSGS

Fundamental
Flux Density
(T)
P
o
l
e

E
m
b
r
a
c
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

P
o
l
e
s

R
a
d
i
u
s

Array
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l

E
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
s

FEA
Error
(%)
0.7 1713 Conventional 1.128 0.708 37.2
Conventional 1.262 0.844 33.1
1200
Halbach 1.226 0.768 37.4
Conventional 1.239 1.049 15.3
60
439
Halbach 1.368 1.277 6.6
Conventional 1.262 1.062 15.8
U
n
i
t
y

120 1200
Halbach 1.358 1.182 12.9

TABLE IV
COMPARISON OF HALBACH ADVANTAGE USING ANALYTICAL EQUATIONS
AND FEA FOR VARIOUS DESIGN CONDITIONS

Halbach Array Advantage
Comparison Condition
Analytical FEA
60-pole Halbach machine vs. 0.7 pole
embrace conventional machine
8.0% 7.7%
120-pole Halbach machine vs. 0.7
pole embrace conventional machine
16.9% 40.1%
60-pole unity pole embrace machines -3.0% -10.0%
120 pole unity pole embrace
machines
7.0% 10.1%
439mm radius machines 9.4% 17.9%
Finally, Fig. 7 plots the FEA calculated flux density of
the air-gap for both the Halbach and the conventional 120-
pole PMSG. Notice how the Halbach flux density is more
sinusoidal with less Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) than
the conventional array.
From the FEA simulation it can be concluded that the
Halbach machine with 120 poles and 1200 mm produced
better flux density than the original conventional machine
with the same magnet volume and 0.7 pole embrace by
almost 40%. This advantage is enough to compensate any
drop of no-load voltage resulting from reducing the
machine radius.
VIII. ANALYTICAL VARIATION OF OTHER VALUES
In order to examine the effect of varying other design
parameters such as air-gap length on air-gap flux density of
a PMSG with Halbach array, the analytical calculations
were performed. First, the air-gap length was reduced to
half and the comparison between the Halbach and the
conventional array was replotted in Fig. 8. As expected,
when the air-gap was narrowed to 2.5mm, the flux density
increased. Incidentally, it was also noticed that the Halbach
array exhibited stronger advantage over the conventional
array and over a wider radius region than with a 5mm air-
gap.
In order to investigate further, a new PMSG with
different characteristics was adapted. This new machines
specifications were taken from [8]. The new machine was
rated at 1.5 MW. In addition to the power rating, it differs
from the PMSG of section IV by the following features: It
has a bigger air-gap radius, a larger number of poles, and a
smaller magnet height and width. Fig. 9 compares the two
machines fundamental flux density with and without the
Halbach array when the radius is varied.


Fig. 7 FEA generated Air-gap flux density plots of (a) the 120-pole PMSG
with conventional array, and (b) with Halbach array. THD is total
harmonic distortion.
0 180 360 540 720
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
F
l
u
x

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
T
)
0 180 360 540 720
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Electrical Degrees
F
l
u
x

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
T
)
THD: 16%
THD: 29%
(a)
(b)
61

Fig. 8 . Comparison of the fundamental flux density of Halbach (red) and
conventional arrays (blue) with 5mm air-gap (dashed) and 2.5mm (solid).


Fig. 9 . Comparison of the fundamental component of the flux density with
Halbach (red) and conventional (blue) arrays for a range of rotor radii for
two different conventional machine designs; (a) and (b).

The new PMSG, Fig. 9b, exhibited a wider range of radii
for which the Halbach array has an advantage, albeit with a
peak slightly lower than the PMSG of Section IV (Fig. 9a).
This peak, however, occurred around 800mm, which was
much larger than the one in Fig. 9a.
One can conclude from this comparison that optimal and
critical radii of the Halbach array depend also on other
machine design parameters. This stresses the need for an
optimization algorithm that takes into account all the design
parameters to provide optimized machine dimensions for a
Halbach array PMSG.
IX. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Halbach array could be a viable
alternative to the conventional PMSGs at MW level in the
direct drive wind turbine applications. However, it is very
important to optimize the machine dimensions for the
Halbach array so that its advantages can be fully utilized.
This paper presents a study by which the application of the
Halbach array was calculated through analytical equations
available in the technical literature. Certain modifications of
an existing PMSG design allowed the Halbach array to
produce superior performance while keeping the magnet
volume constant. A critical rotor radius was first observed
at which the Halbach array starts to lose its advantages to
the conventional arrays. By increasing the number of poles,
it was possible to shift this critical radius to larger sizes.
This allowed a positive utilization of the Halbach array at
MW level. FEA simulation has been used to verify the
analytical equation findings.

X. REFERENCES

[1] H. Haraguchi, S. Morimoto, and M. Sanada, "Suitable design of a
PMSG for a large-scale wind power generator," in IEEE Energy
Conversion Congress and Exposition, 2009, pp. 2447-2452.
[2] D. Yao and R. G. Harley, "Present and future trends in wind turbine
generator designs," in IEEE Power Electronics and Machines in
Wind Applications,, 2009, pp. 1-6.
[3] X. Yu-Shi, H. Li, L. Hui, and X. Li-Dan, "Optimal design and
comparison of different PM synchronous generator systems for wind
turbines," in International Conference on Electrical Machines and
Systems, 2008, pp. 2448-2453.
[4] E. Spooner, P. Gordon, J. R. Bumby, and C. D. French, "Lightweight
ironless-stator PM generators for direct-drive wind turbines,"
Electric Power Applications, IEE Proceedings, vol. 152, pp. 17-26,
2005.
[5] H. Li and Z. Chen, "Optimal direct-drive permanent magnet wind
generator systems for different rated wind speeds," in European
Conference on Power Electronics and Applications, 2007, pp. 1-10.
[6] A. S. McDonald, M. A. Mueller, and H. Polinder, "Structural mass in
direct-drive permanent magnet electrical generators," Renewable
Power Generation, IET, vol. 2, pp. 3-15, 2008.
[7] H. Polinder, F. F. A. van der Pijl, G. J. de Vilder, and P. J. Tavner,
"Comparison of direct-drive and geared generator concepts for wind
turbines," IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion,, vol. 21, pp.
725-733, 2006.
[8] L. Hui, C. Zhe, and H. Polinder, "Optimization of Multibrid
Permanent-Magnet Wind Generator Systems," IEEE Transactions on
Energy Conversion, vol. 24, pp. 82-92, 2009.
[9] S. Alshibani and V. G. Agelidis, "Issues regarding cost estimation of
permanent magnet synchronous generators for mega-watt level wind
turbines," in Electric Machines & Drives Conference (IEMDC),
IEEE International, 2011, pp. 1629-1634.
[10] Siemens. (2010, Accessed Jan. 25 2012). Direct drive wind turbine
SWT-3.0-101. Available:
http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/pool/hq/power-generation/wind-
power/E50001-W310-A161-X-4A00_SWT-3.0-101_US.pdf
[11] Z. Jianzhong, C. Ming, and C. Zhe, "A novel stator interior
permanent magnet generator for direct-drive wind turbines," in
International Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems, 2007,
pp. 723-728.
[12] E. Spooner, A. C. Williamson, and G. Catto, "Modular design of
permanent-magnet generators for wind turbines," Electric Power
Applications, IEE Proceedings, vol. 143, pp. 388-395, 1996.
[13] G. Catto, "Direct Coupled Permanent Magnet Synchronous
Generators for Wind Turbine Application," PhD, University of
Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, Manchester, UK,
1994.
[14] J. Mallinson, "One-sided fluxes -- A magnetic curiosity?,"
Magnetics, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 9, pp. 678-682, 1973.
[15] K. Halbach, "Strong Rare Earth Cobalt Quadrupoles," Nuclear
Science, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 26, pp. 3882-3884, 1979.
[16] H. Winick, H. Wiedemann, I. Lindau, K. Hodgson, K. Halbach, J.
Cerino, A. Bienenstock, and R. Bachrach, "An All Wiggler and
Undulator Synchrotron Radiation Source," Nuclear Science, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 30, pp. 3097-3099, 1983.
[17] G. Rennie. (2004, Oct.) Magnetically levitated train takes flight.
Science & Technology Review.
[18] J. Ofori-Tenkorrang and J. H. Lang, "A comparative analysis of
torque production in Halbach and conventional surface-mounted
permanent-magnet synchronous motors," in Industry Applications
Conference, Thirtieth IAS Annual Meeting, Conference Record of the
IEEE, 1995, pp. 657-663 vol.1.
0 500 1000 1500 2000
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Radius (mm)
F
l
u
x

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
T
)


Halbach with 5mm airgap
Conventional with 5mm airgap
Halbach with 2.5mm airgap
Conventional with 2.5mm airgap
0 500 1000 1500 2000
0
0.5
1
1.5
Radius (mm)
F
l
u
x

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
T
)


0 500 1000 1500 2000
0
0.5
1
1.5
Radius (mm)
F
l
u
x

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
T
)


Halbach
Conventional
Halbach
Conventional
(a)
(b)
62
[19] Z. Q. Zhu, "Recent Development of Halbach Permanent Magnet
Machines and Applications," in Power Conversion Conference, PCC
- Nagoya., 2007, pp. K-9-K-16.
[20] Z. Q. Zhu, Z. P. Xia, K. Atallah, G. W. Jewell, and D. Howe, "Novel
permanent magnet machines using Halbach cylinders," in Power
Electronics and Motion Control Conference Proceedings, IPEMC,
The Third International, 2000, pp. 903-908 vol.2.
[21] J. F. Gieras, Advancements in Electric Machines: Springer, 2008.
[22] R. Krishnan, "Permanent Magnets and Machines," in Permanent
Magnet Synchronous and Brushless DC Motor Drives, ed: CRC
Press, 2009, pp. 3-133.
[23] "Ansys Maxwell," 13th ed: Ansys Inc.
http://www.ansoft.com/products/em/maxwell/.
[24] H. Shoudao, L. Xin, C. Luoqiang, H. Keyuan, and G. Jian, "An
engineering design of a 2MW direct-drive permanent-magnet wind-
power generation system," in International Conference on Electrical
Machines and Systems, 2008, pp. 2337-2342.
[25] K. Atallah and D. Howe, "The application of Halbach cylinders to
brushless AC servo motors," Magnetics, IEEE Transactions on, vol.
34, pp. 2060-2062, 1998.


XI. BIOGRAPHIES
Salem Alshibani earned his bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering
from the University of Hartford, Connecticut, USA in 1999. He then
jointed the Ministry of Electricity and Water in Kuwait where he worked
in the maintenance of power transmission Networks. Through a study
leave in 2005 he acquired his Masters Degree in Advanced Technologies
in Electronics from the University of the West of England. In 2007 he
joined the College of Technological Studies as a lecturer of Electrical
Power Engineering. He is currently working toward his PhD at the
University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.
Rukmi Dutta has received the PhD degree in electrical engineering from
the University of New South Wales, Australia, 2007 and the Bachelors of
Engineering degree in electrical engineering from Assam Engineering
College of Guwahati University, India, 1996-95. She is currently working
as a lecturer at University of New South Wales, Australia. Before this, she
had worked as an Electrical Engineer at CMG Pty Ltd, and as an associate
lecturer at University of New South Wales. She also worked at Institute of
Industrial Science, Tokyo University and Reliance Industry Ltd, India.
Her research interests are PM machine design and control, electromagnetic
analysis of electric devices, renewable energy, distributed generation.
Vassilios G. Agelidis was born in Serres, Greece. He received the B.Eng.
degree in electrical engineering from Democritus University of Thrace,
Thrace, Greece, in 1988, the M.S. degree in applied science from
Concordia University, Montreal, QC, Canada, in 1992, and the Ph.D.
degree in electrical engineering from the Curtin University of Technology,
Perth, Australia, in 1997. From 1993 to 1999, he was with the School of
Electrical and Computer Engineering, Curtin University of Technology. In
2000, he joined the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, U.K., as a Research
Manager for the Glasgow-Strathclyde Centre for Economic Renewable
Power Delivery. From 2005 to 2006, he held the inaugural Chair of Power
Engineering in the School of Electrical, Energy and Process Engineering,
Murdoch University, Perth. From 2006 to 2010, he held the Energy
Australia Chair of Power Engineering at the University of Sydney,
Sydney. Currently, he is the Director of the Australian Energy Research
Institute and Professor of Power Engineering with the School of Electrical
Engineering and Telecommunications, University of New South Wales,
Sydney. He has authored/coauthored several journal and conference
papers, as well as the book Power Electronic Control in Electrical Systems
(Newnes, 2002).
Dr. Agelidis received the Advanced Research Fellowship from the
U.K.s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC-UK)
in 2004. He was an Associate Editor of the IEEE POWER
ELECTRONICS LETTERS from 2003 to 2005, and was the Power
Electronics Societys (PELS) Chapter Development Committee Chair
from 2003 to 2005. He was the Vice President of Operations within the
IEEE Power Electronics Society during 20062007, AdCom member of
IEEE PELS during 20072009, and Technical Chair of the 39th IEEE
PESC08, Rhodes, Greece. Currently, he is an Associate Editor of the
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS.
63
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)