Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
I. Introduction
IGH efficient electrical machines play a key role in
the ongoing climate discussions to reduce the energy
consumption and to improve the efficiency, in order to meet
the new European Commission Regulation (EC) No 640/2009
concerning the efficiency for electric motors [1]. Furthermore,
intensive research in high efficient electrical drive systems is
conducted for future traction applications, where wide speed
ranges and high power densities are demanded. Especially permanent magnet synchronous and brushless DC machines are
ideally suited for these high efficiency applications, but also
induction machines have a high potential for further energy
savings. There are several ways to improve the efficiency and
to reduce the losses in these machines. One key factor is the
electromagnetic iron losses, which occur mainly in the stator
teeth and yoke as well as in the rotor yoke. In field weakening
operation of traction machines, iron losses can even become
the major loss component.
From a physical point of view, the losses in conducting
ferromagnetic materials are all based on Joule heating [2].
Losses due to spin relaxation are negligible for electrical
machines, because their impact is significantly only at frequencies in the MHz range and above. Thus, both hysteresis
and eddy current losses are caused by the same physical
phenomena: every change in magnetization (which also occurs
at DC magnetization) is a movement of domain walls and
creates (microscopic and macroscopic) eddy currents which,
in turn, create Joule heating. The fact that hysteresis losses
also arise at almost zero frequency is due to the fact that
even if the macroscopic magnetization change is very slow,
the local magnetization inside the domains is changing rapidly
Table I
I NFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT FACTORS ON S I F E STEEL SHEETS PROPERTIES
[11], [19], [20].
hyst
Influencing Factor
Grain size (grain )
Impurities ()
Sheet thickness ( )
Internal stress ()
Cutting/punching process
ec
exc
Pressing process
Welding process
Alloy content (%Si )
Fe = SE
(1)
(2)
(3)
ec =
12
where () is the flux density as a function of time, is the
thickness of the electric sheet, its specific resistivity and
the material density. Equation (2) has been proven correct
for several Nickel-Iron (NiFe) alloys but lacks accuracy for
SiFe alloys [23]. For this reason, an empirical correction factor
exc , called the excess loss factor (often also referred to as
anomalous loss factor), was introduced by Pry and Bean [24].
It extends (2) to
Fe = hyst + a ec =
2 + exc ec 2
2
hyst
(4)
ec_measured
> 1. For thin grain oriented SiFe
with exc = ec_calculated
alloys, exc reaches values between 2 and 3 [23].
Another approach to improve (2) is to introduce an additional loss term exc to take into account the excess losses
as a function of the flux density and frequency. It separates
the iron loss formula Fe into three terms, the static hysteresis
Figure 1.
(5)
exc =
0
(6)
where is the cross sectional area of the lamination sample,
0.136 a dimensionless coefficient of the eddy current
damping and the electric conductivity of the lamination. 0
characterizes the statistical distribution of the local coercive
fields and takes into account the grain size [27]. It has to be
noted that this loss separation does not hold if the skin effect
is not negligible [29]. A recently study on the properties of
the coefficients from Bertottis statistical model is presented
in [30].
Next to the loss separation into static and dynamic losses,
there are also further analytical approaches available for determining iron losses in electrical steel sheets. Several approaches
focus on the iron losses created due to rotational magnetization
(also called rotational losses) in the sheets [31], [32], [33],
[34], [35]. It has to be mentioned that these physical loss
behavior is not regarded in the previous presented models. An
often applied loss model, which takes into account these losses
due to rotational magnetization, is the loss separation model
after the magnetizing processes. This means that the losses
caused by linear magnetization, rotational magnetization and
higher harmonics are added up to determine the total iron
losses [36]:
Fe = 1 a + 2 rot + 3 hf
(7)
is also separated into the iron losses occurring in the teeth and
the one occurring in the yokes of the machine. The waveform
of the flux densities in the different machine parts are assumed
to be piecewise linear. This means the change rate of the flux
density becomes a function of the number of phases and poles
per pole and phase.
Calculating the iron losses by applying Fourier analysis to
the magnetic field and magnetic flux density is proposed
and investigated in [39], [40]:
Fe =
sin
( )
(9)
=1
and
the
Here is the fundamental frequency in Hz,
th
peak values of the harmonic and the angle between
and
. It should be mentioned that neglecting the
(10)
eq =
2 2 0
(11)
the peak
where Fe is the specific time-average iron loss,
flux density and r the remagnetization frequency (r = 1/r ).
SE , and are the same fitting coefficients as in (1).
A DC-bias premagnetization can also be taken into account
by introducing a second correction factor. This factor includes two more coefficients which have to be resolved from
measurements at different frequencies and magnetizations.
A disadvantage of the MSE is that it looses accuracy for
waveforms with a small fundamental frequency part.
Another, and also newer modification of the Steinmetz
equation is the so called Generalized Steinmetz Equation
(GSE), described and also compared to the MSE in [47]. This
modification of the Steinmetz equation is based on the idea that
the instantaneous iron loss is a single-valued function of the
flux density and the rate of change of the flux density /,
without regarding the history of the flux density waveform. A
formula is derived which uses this single-valued function and
connects it to the Steinmetz coefficients. This yields
1
()
SE
(12)
Fe =
0
An advantage of the GSE compared to the MSE is that the
GSE has a DC-bias sensitivity without the need of additional
coefficients and measurements. Further, the GSE can also
be used for deriving an equivalent frequency or equivalent
amplitude which can be applied in the classical Steinmetz
equation (similar to the MSE). For this purpose, different
approaches are proposed in [47].
A disadvantage of the GSE is the accuracy limitation if the
third or a closely higher harmonic part of the flux density
becomes significant, thus if multiple peaks are occurring in
the flux density waveform. Because of the minor loops in
the hysteresis loop, it can be necessary to take into account
analytical hysteresis loss models at this point of operation.
To overcome this problem, the previously derived GSE is
optimized to the so called improved Generalized Steinmetz
Equation (iGSE) [48]. The idea of the iGSE is to split the
waveform in one major and one or more minor loops to regard
the minor loops of the hysteresis loop for the loss calculation.
Therefore, in [48], a recursive algorithm is presented which
divides the flux density waveform into major and minor
loops and calculates the iron losses for each determined loop
separately by
1
Fex =
SE
(13)
0
where is the peak-to-peak flux density of the current major
or minor loop of the waveform. A disadvantage of the iGSE
is that it does not have the DC-bias sensitivity like the GSE
because the iGSE is a function of instead of ().
A similar approach to the iGSE has been published as
the Natural Steinmetz Extension (NSE) [49], where also the
peak-to-peak value of the flux density value is taken into
account:
(
Fe =
SE
(14)
) = stat () + dyn (,
)
(15)
Table II
C OMPARISON OF INVESTIGATED IRON LOSS MODELS .
Iron loss model
Steinmetz Equation (SE)
Modified Steinmetz Equation (MSE)
Improved Generalized Steinmetz
Equation (iGSE)
Static/Dynamic Loss Separation model
Dynamic Preisach model
Loss Surface model
Magnetodynamic Viscosity Based model
Friction Like Hysteresis model
Energy Based Hysteresis model
Loss separation after
magnetizing processes
Complex
waveforms
Rotating
field
+
+
+
+
+
+
VI. Results
Material prior
knowledge
small
small
low
low-medium
small
low-medium
+
+
medium
high
high
high
high
high
model
dependent
medium
good
good
good
good
good
model
dependent
Accuracy
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Dr. Oskar Wallmark from
KTH Royal Institute of Technology (Sweden) and Dr. Yujing
Liu from ABB Corporate Research (Sweden) for the open
discussions during the presented study. Prof. Jrgen Schneider
from TU Bergakademie Freiberg (Germany) is especially
thanked for the invaluable suggestions and provided references.
References
[1] Commission regulation (EC) no 640/2009 of 22 july 2009 implementing directive 2005/32/EC of the european parliament and of the council
with regard to ecodesign requirements for electric motors, Official
Journal of the European Union, vol. 52, Jul. 2009.
[2] C. D. Graham, Physical origin of losses in conducting ferromagnetic
materials, Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 82768280,
Nov. 1982.
[3] H. Ahlers and J. Ldke, The uncertainties of magnetic properties
measurements of electrical sheet steel, Journal of Magnetism and
Magnetic Materials, vol. 215-216, pp. 711713, Jun. 2000.
[4] R. Rygal, A. J. Moses, N. Derebasi, J. Schneider, and A. Schoppa,
Influence of cutting stress on magnetic field and flux density
distribution in non-oriented electrical steels, Journal of Magnetism
and Magnetic Materials, vol. 215-216, pp. 687689, Jun. 2000.
[5] A. Schoppa, J. Schneider, and J. O. Roth, Influence of the cutting
process on the magnetic properties of non-oriented electrical steels,
Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, vol. 215-216, pp.
100102, Jun. 2000.
[6] T. Nakata, M. Nakano, and K. Kawahara, Effects of stress due to cutting
on magnetic characteristics of silicon steel, IEEE Translation Journal
on Magnetics in Japan, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 453457, 1992.
[7] A. J. Moses, N. Derebasi, G. Loisos, and A. Schoppa, Aspects of the
cut-edge effect stress on the power loss and flux density distribution in
electrical steel sheets, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials,
vol. 215-216, pp. 690692, Jun. 2000.
[8] J. Schneider, Magnetische Werkstoffe und Anwendungen. Lecture notes
from RWTH Aachen University, 2008.
[9] A. Kedous-Lebouc, B. Cornut, J. C. Perrier, P. Manf, and T. Chevalier,
Punching influence on magnetic properties of the stator teeth of an
induction motor, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, vol.
254-255, pp. 124126, 2003.
[10] Y. Liu, S. K. Kashif, and A. M. Sohail, Engineering considerations on
additional iron losses due to rotational fields and sheet cutting, in ICEM
2008. 18th International Conference on Electrical Machines, 2008, pp.
14.
[11] W. Arshad, T. Ryckebusch, F. Magnussen, H. Lendenmann, B. Eriksson, J. Soulard, and B. Malmros, Incorporating lamination processing
and component manufacturing in electrical machine design tools, in
Industry Applications Conference, 2007. 42nd IAS Annual Meeting.
Conference Records, 2007, pp. 94102.
[12] A. Boglietti, A. Cavagnino, L. Ferraris, and M. Lazzari, The annealing
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36] L. Michalowski and J. Schneider, Magnettechnik - Grundlagen, Werkstoffe, Anwendungen, 3rd ed. Vulkan-Verlag GmbH, 2006.
[37] S. Jacobs, D. Hectors, F. Henrotte, M. Hafner, M. H. Gracia,
K. Hameyer, P. Goes, D. R. Romera, E. Attrazic, and S. Paolinelli,
Magnetic material optimization for hybrid vehicle PMSM drives, in
EVS24 - International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
Symposium, Stavanger, Norway, 2009.
[38] W. Roshen, Iron loss model for permanent-magnet synchronous motors, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 34283434,
2007.
[39] A. Moses, Effects of magnetic properties and geometry on flux harmonics and losses in 3-phase, 5-limb, split-limb, transformer cores, IEEE
Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 37803782, 1987.
[40] A. Moses and G. Shirkoohi, Iron loss in non-oriented electrical steels
under distorted flux conditions, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics,
vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 32173220, 1987.
[41] K. Oberretl, Eisenverluste, flupulsation und magnetische nutkeile in
kfiglufermotoren, Electrical Engineering (Archiv fur Elektrotechnik),
vol. 82, no. 6, pp. 301311, Nov. 2000.
[42] D. Philips, L. Dupre, and J. Melkebeek, Comparison of Jiles and
Preisach hysteresis models in magnetodynamics, IEEE Transactions on
Magnetics, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 35513553, 1995.
[43] L. Dupre, R. V. Keer, and J. Melkebeek, An iron loss model for
electrical machines using the Preisach theory, IEEE Transactions on
Magnetics, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 41584160, 1997.
[44] A. Benabou, S. Clnet, and F. Piriou, Comparison of Preisach and
Jiles-Atherton models to take into account hysteresis phenomenon for
finite element analysis, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials,
vol. 261, no. 1-2, pp. 139160, Apr. 2003.
[45] J. Reinert, A. Brockmeyer, and R. D. Doncker, Calculation of losses
in ferro- and ferrimagnetic materials based on the modified Steinmetz
equation, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 37, no. 4,
pp. 10551061, 2001.
[46] A. Brockmeyer, Dimensionierungswerkzeug fr magnetische Bauelemente in Stromrichteranwendungen, PhD Thesis, RWTH Aachen University, 1997.
[47] J. Li, T. Abdallah, and C. Sullivan, Improved calculation of core loss
with nonsinusoidal waveforms, in Industry Applications Conference,
2001. Thirty-Sixth IAS Annual Meeting. Conference Records, vol. 4,
2001, pp. 22032210.
[48] K. Venkatachalam, C. Sullivan, T. Abdallah, and H. Tacca, Accurate
prediction of ferrite core loss with nonsinusoidal waveforms using only
Steinmetz parameters, in IEEE Workshop on Computers in Power
Electronics, 2002, pp. 3641.
[49] A. V. den Bossche, V. Valchev, and G. Georgiev, Measurement and loss
model of ferrites with non-sinusoidal waveforms, in PESC 2004 IEEE
35th Annual Power Electronics Specialists Conference, vol. 6, 2004, pp.
48144818 Vol.6.
[50] F. Preisach, ber die magnetische Nachwirkung, Zeitschrift fr
Physik A Hadrons and Nuclei, vol. 94, no. 5, pp. 277302, May 1935.
[51] I. D. Mayergoyz, Mathematical Models of Hysteresis and their Applications, 2nd ed. Academic Press, Aug. 2003.
[52] D. Jiles and D. Atherton, Theory of ferromagnetic hysteresis, Journal
of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, vol. 61, no. 1-2, pp. 4860,
Sep. 1986.
[53] G. Bertotti, Dynamic generalization of the scalar Preisach model of
hysteresis, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 2599
2601, 1992.
[54] L. R. Dupre, R. V. Keer, and J. A. A. Melkebeek, On a
magnetodynamic model for the iron losses in non-oriented steel
laminations, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, vol. 29, no. 3,
pp. 855861, 1996.
[55] O. Bottauscio, M. Chiampi, L. Dupr, M. Repetto, M. V. Rauch, and
J. Melkebeek, Dynamic Preisach modeling of ferromagnetic laminations: a comparison of different finite element formulations, Le Journal
de Physique IV, vol. 08, no. PR2, p. 4 pages, 1998.
[56] L. Dupre, O. Bottauscio, M. Chiampi, M. Repetto, and J. Melkebeek,
Modeling of electromagnetic phenomena in soft magnetic materials
under unidirectional time periodic flux excitations, IEEE Transactions
on Magnetics, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 41714184, 1999.
[57] T. Chevalier, A. Kedous-Lebouc, B. Cornut, and C. Cester, A new
dynamic hysteresis model for electrical steel sheet, Physica B:
Condensed Matter, vol. 275, no. 1-3, pp. 197201, 2000.
[58] Flux 10 - 2D/3D Applications Users Guide. Cedrat Group, 2007.
[59] S. Zirka, Y. Moroz, P. Marketos, and A. Moses, Viscosity-based
magnetodynamic model of soft magnetic materials, IEEE Transactions
on Magnetics, vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 21212132, 2006.