Abstract -- This paper presents an improved physical

phase variable model for electric drive simulations of

permanent magnet machines. Emphasis is put on the accuracy
of the mechanical behavior of the machine model and this
makes the improved model suitable for noise and vibration
investigations. Furthermore, the data storage scheme and
interpolation method for the look up tables are revised and a
memory and time efficient approach is suggested. This makes
the new model also applicable for use in real time applications
(e.g. drive controllers). Several comparisons of transient
simulations between a finite element model and the model
presented in this work illustrate the advantages of this method.

Index TermsPermanent magnet motors, finite element
methods, motor drives, numerical models
I. NOMENCLATURE
v Electrical voltage (in V)
i Electrical current (in A)
,
d q
i i Transformed currents in rotor reference system,
direct and quadrature direction (in A)
R Ohmic resistance (in )
Magnetic flux linkage (in Vs)
t Time (in s)
Angular rotor position (in rad)
p Number of magnetic pole pairs
z
A z-component of magnetic vector potential A,
(in Vs/m)
z
l Length in z-direction (in m)
S Surface, area, cross section (in m
2
)
L Inductance (in H)
L Differential inductance (in H)
T Mechanical torque (in Nm)
W Magnetic co-energy
y
x
a Spline parameter x in segment y
, N n Counting quantity
Condition number of a matrix

This work has been supported by the Christian Doppler Research

Association (CDG) and by the AVL List GmbH.
Martin Mohr is with the Christian Doppler Laboratory for
Multiphysical Simulation, Analysis and Design of Electrical Machines at
the Institute for Fundamentals and Theory in Electrical Engineering, Graz
University of Technology, A-8010 Graz, Austria (e-mail:
martin.mohr@tugraz.at).
Oszkr Br is head of the Christian Doppler Laboratory for
Multiphysical Simulation, Analysis and Design of Electrical Machines
and head of Institute for Fundamentals and Theory in Electrical
Engineering, Graz University of Technology, A-8010 Graz, Austria (e-
mail: biro@tugraz.at).
Andrej Stermecki is with the Christian Doppler Laboratory for
Multiphysical Simulation, Analysis and Design of Electrical Machines at
the Institute for Fundamentals and Theory in Electrical Engineering, Graz
University of Technology, A-8010 Graz, Austria (e-mail:
andrej.stermecki@tugraz.at).
Franz Diwoky is with AVL List GmbH, Hans-List-Platz 1, A-8020
Graz, Austria (e-mail: franz.diwoky@avl.com).
II. INTRODUCTION
HE high torque ripple of permanent magnet
synchronous machines (PMSM) influences mainly two
design stages of an electrical drive with the objective
of guaranteeing mechanical endurance and compliance with
several regulations. The first stage is the mechanical design
of a machine or drive, where vibration and noise
investigations are required and thus dedicated machine
models are needed [1],[2][3]. The second stage is the
control system design of electrical drives, where for active
torque ripple minimization fast and accurate machine
models for the electrical as well as the mechanical domain
build the basis for the controlling concept [4],[5],[6].
One model approach fulfilling these requirements is
named physical phase variable model (PPV) and uses look-
up tables (LUT) generated by finite element method (FEM)
simulations for further analyses. Several implementations
and applications based on this approach have already been
published [1]-[8].
The aim of this paper is to enhance this model approach
to make it suitable for the above two application cases. In
contrast to [1]-[8], our proposed method uses flux linkage
and torque data directly from FEM-simulations for
describing the behavior of the machine.
Furthermore, an efficient interpolation method for the
LUT evaluation is also proposed. Both improvement steps
will decrease memory demand and calculation time.
Finally, a model of a PMSM is presented and a
comparison between transient FEM-simulations and the
improved PPV model is shown.
III. THE PHYSICAL PHASE VARIABLE APPROACH
A. Description of the electrical behavior
The voltage equation of a single coil is given by

d
v iR
dt

= + , (1)
with the external voltage v, the current i flowing through the
coil, the ohmic resistance R of the coil and the flux linkage
linked with the coil.
This equation is also used to describe the electrical
behavior of electrical machines and builds the basis of the
PPV approach. For electrical machines, is typically a
nonlinear function depending on the angular position of
the rotor and the currents i
1
, i
2
of all machine coils.
Considering these dependencies, the voltage equation for
the k
th
coil of the machine can be written as

1
N
k k m
k k k
m m
di d
v R i
dt i dt

=

= + +

, (2)
for a machine with N coils.
The underlying idea of the PPV approach is
straightforward: build up a LUT for the complete parameter
An Improved Physical Phase Variable Model for
Permanent Magnet Machines
M. Mohr, O. Br, A. Stermecki, F. Diwoky

T
978-1-4673-0141-1/12/$26.00 2012 IEEE
51


space of the flux linkage (
LUT
) for every coil or current
path in the machine using FEM simulations and evaluate
this function by interpolation. Hence, time consuming FEM
simulations can be done in advance and this will drastically
speed up the transient simulation.
Already published methods [1], [3], [4] use LUTs for the
main flux linkage
M
of the rotor and for the self and
mutual inductances L
xx
of the stator. Equation (3) shows this
approach [5] for a typical three phase machine, where all
inductances and flux linkages are defined by LUTs.

0 0
0 0
0 0
a
a a a aa ab ac
b
b b b ba bb bc
c c c ca cb cc
c
aa ab ac
a
ba bb bc
b
ca cb cc
di
dt
v R i L L L
di
v R i L L L
dt
v R i L L L
di
dt
dL dL dL
d d d
i
dL dL dL
i
d d d
dL dL dL
d d d



(
(

( ( ( ( (
( ( ( ( ( = + +
( ( ( ( (


(
(

(
(
(
(
(
(
(

.
Ma
Mb
c
Mc
d
dt
d d
dt dt
i
d
dt

(
(
( (

( (
+
( (

(
(

(3)
This leads to a high number of LUTs and thus higher
memory usage and calculation time than comparable
interpolation methods. It has been suggested [7] to use the
direct and quadrature currents i
d
, i
q
of the rotor related
reference system for the parameterization of the LUTs if the
sum of all three phase currents is zero
0
A B C
i i i + + = . (4)
This simplifies (3) and reduces the number of LUTs but this
approach requires the separation of rotor flux from stator
flux. Thus, additional linearized FEM-simulations for all
operating points are needed resulting in higher
computational time. In order to avoid these cumbersome
and time-demanding computations, published models often
include simplifications (e.g. for saturation effects [5]).
Our improved approach uses LUTs for the real phase
variables, the flux linkages, only. These quantities can be
directly calculated from nonlinear FEM results and thus no
additional linearized FEM simulations are required.
For a three phase PMSM with isolated star point, the
LUTs are parameterized by

( )
, , , ,
LUT LUT LUT
a b c d q
f i i = (5)
and (2) and (4) will finally lead to

( ) ( )
{ }
( ) ( )
{ }
( ) ( )
{ }
,
,
,
f f ,
f f ,
f f
LUT LUT
LUT LUT
LUT LUT
m
a a a a m a
m d q
m
b b b b m b
m d q
m
c c c c m c
m d q
di
v R i
dt
di
v R i
dt
di
v R i
dt

= + +
= + +
= + +

(6)
where f

and f
m
are the interpolation operators for the first
partial derivatives of the function defined by the LUT.
However, for the evaluation of this model, an
interpolation method supporting this feature is required.
This method, its implementation and the associated benefits
are shown in section IV.
B. Description of the electromagnetic torque
For calculating the mechanical torque T of an electrical
machine, the derivative of the electromagnetic co-energy W
is typically used:

( )
1
1
,
N
N m
m m
dW i i W d W di
T
dt dt i dt

=

= = +

. (7)
Published methods use various simplifications for the
torque calculation. In most cases
( )
1
2
T T abc Mabc
abc abc abc Cog
d d
T p T
d d

| |
= + +
|
\
L
i i i (8)
is assumed, with the number of magnetic pole pairs p, the
current vector i
abc
, the self and mutual inductance matrix
L
abc
, the main flux linkage vector
Mabc
and the cogging
torque T
Cog
.
This approach allows a rotor position dependent torque
calculation related to the machine currents under the
assumption of a sinusoidal field distribution in the air gap.
The additional cogging torque term in (8) is needed because
this torque component cannot be determined from phase
currents. Nevertheless, this is a simplification neglecting
saturation effects and higher harmonics in the air gap field.
It is also obvious that this approach needs an additional
LUT evaluation for the cogging torque. Due to this and the
fact that the total torque of the machine can be evaluated
very easily during the FEM simulations, the use of a LUT
for the total torque (T
LUT
) is reasonable:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
0
f T , , , f T , ,
LUT LUT
a b c
a b c d q
i i i
T i i i i i
+ + =
= = , (9)
with f being the interpolation of the function defined by the
LUT.
This improved PPV model will consider all saturation
effects covered by the FEM simulations for the electrical as
well as the mechanical quantities or, in other words, the two
models are equivalent in all but interpolation errors.
IV. THE INTERPOLATION METHOD
The use of splines (piecewise polynomial functions) is a
state of the art method for interpolation purposes. For
smooth functions, cubic splines are a good choice [9] and
this property is fulfilled by the flux linkage and torque
functions. For the PPV model, this interpolation method is
furthermore suggested because it enforces continuous
function values and continuous first and second derivatives,
even at the sampling points. Hence, this interpolation
method is well suited for the evaluation of the first partial
derivatives, even in nonlinear iteration loops.
The cubic spline is defined by

( )
( )
2 3
0 1 2 3
2
1 2 3
1
f ,
f 2 3 ,
for:
i i i i
i
i i i
i
i i
x a a x a x a x
x a a x a x
x x x
+
= + + +
= + +

(10)
where
i
x
a are the coefficients of a piecewise cubic
polynomial in the i
th
interval.
The calculation of these parameters in every segment is
done with the following constraints;

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
f , f ,
f f ,
f f .
i i i i i i
i i i i
i i i i
x y x y
x x
x x
+ +
+ + +
+ + +
= =
=
=
(11)
For the outer segments, two additional constraints are
necessary [10]. Here, we use periodic constraints for the
rotor position (12) and natural constraints for the current
52


parameters (13):

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
1 1
1 1
f f ,
f f
last last
last last
x x
x x
=
=
(12)
( ) ( )
1 1
f f 0
last last
x x = = . (13)
This allows a continuous linear extrapolation in a very
simple way.
Furthermore, this method provides the same
interpolation accuracy with a coarser subdivision of the
parameter space compared to linear interpolation [11].
Uniformly distributed sampling points are also not needed,
decreasing the FEM simulation effort.
Last but not least, all spline parameters can be calculated
in advance, so only the evaluation of the spline is needed
during the simulation. For this evaluation, the well known
Horners method is recommended, because the number of
floating point operations is reduced to a minimum and this
evaluation method has good numerical properties [12].
In our PPV-approach, a tri-cubic spline with the
parameter set {, i
d
, i
q
} is used. This spline type is defined
by 64 parameters
ijk
xxx
a per segment (i, j, k):

( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
3 3 3
0 0 0
1
1
1
, ,
,
,
for:
ijk m n o
d q mno d q
m n o
i i
d d d
j j
q q q
k k
f i i a i i
i i i
i i i


= = =
+
+
+
=

(14)
and fulfills the continuity of the function value f, the first
partial derivatives f

, f
id
, f
iq
and the mixed partial derivatives
f
,id
, f
,iq
, f
id,iq
and f
,id,iq
in every sampling point by
construction. The calculation of the spline parameters and
the proof of continuity between adjacent segments are
described in [9].
The evaluation is done with a cascaded Horners method
( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
0 1 2 3
1 2 3
0 1 2 3
1 2 3
0
, ,
,
2 3
, ,
,
2 3
, ,
, ,
, ,
, for:
, for:
, for:
, for:
mn q mn q mn q mn id
mn
mn q mn q mn iq
m d m d m d m iq
m
m d m d m id
d q
id d q
iq d q
a i a i a i a f f f
a
a i a i a f
a i a i a i a f f f
a
a i a i a f
f i i
f i i a
f i i

+ + +

=

+ +

+ + +

=

+ +

=
`

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
1 2 3
1 2 3
,
, , 2 3
d q
a a a
f i i a a a

+ + +
= + +
(15)
with { } , 0,1, 2, 3 m n .
This will need 63 floating point multiplications for the
function value evaluation (torque) and only 120
multiplications for all three partial derivatives together. This
means for a three phase machine in total 423 multiplications
per evaluation with the possibility to parallelize the
approach.
V. THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD MODEL
For parameter identification and comparison purposes, a
2D FEM model of an interior permanent magnet motor with
six magnetic pole pairs and tooth coils on the stator side is
used. To reduce the model size, rotational symmetry of the
machine is utilized, thus, only one magnetic pole pair is
modeled. For all FEM simulations ANSYS, Release 12.1
is used [13].
A. Parameter Determination
For the parameter determination, several magneto-static
FEM simulations are needed. This amount can be reduced
by taking advantage of machine symmetry. For the machine
under investigation, the angular rotor position can be
limited to a span of 60 electrical degrees (deg
E
). This is
sufficient because the periodicity of the torque is 60 deg
E

and the three phase flux linkages shifted by 120 deg
E
are
identical except for their phase shift. So, the information of
60 deg
E
is enough to reconstruct the flux linkage for
360 deg
E
.
A further reduction of FEM simulations is possible by
taking the symmetry character of positive and negative
quadrature currents into account.
The torque can be directly evaluated using embedded
ANSYS macros [13]. The flux linkage is calculated
during post processing. Our model uses the A
z
-formulation,
thus the flux linkage for stranded coils can be determined
as

1 1
Coil Coil
z z z
Coil Coil
S S
N l A dS A dS
S S +
+
| |
| =
|
\

(16)
with N the number of windings, l
z
the length of the coil in z-
direction, S
Coil
the winding cross sections for the area with
positive and negative current flow and A
z
the z-component
of the magnetic vector potential A. For the coordinate
system used see Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. FEM model for transient simulation with circuit elements for
voltage fed coils. The coils are modeled as stranded coils coupled with the
according circuit elements. The additional resistors are used to consider
end winding resistance to keep the model scalable in the machine length.
Since no separation of the flux linkage is needed, the
typical simulation flow including linearizing the model for
every load step by freezing the material properties and
performing additional magneto-static simulations for every
component of the flux linkage can be avoided.
The number of simulations needed, N
Sim
, is the product
of the number of rotor positions n

, direct currents n
id
and
quadrature currents n
iq


Sim id iq
N n n n

= . (17)
For the machine under investigation, a very fine
parameter resolution was used (60 -, 17 i
d
- and 11 i
q
-
53


values). However, fewer sampling points are sufficient for
an acceptable model as shown in section VIII. The allover
calculation time was about 26 hours, but these simulations
need to be done only once.
B. Transient FEM Simulations for Validation
For the validation of our PPV model, a transient FEM
simulation with voltage fed stranded coils was used. The
implementation uses circuit elements [13] shown in Fig. 1.
The input for the model consists of the time instants, the
angular rotor positions and the three machine potentials for
every phase connection and is generated with MATLAB
SIMULINK [14]. The output quantities (the phase currents
and flux linkages as well as the total machine torque) are
compared to the PPV model results.
The used solver for this simulation is the backward
Euler, an implicit solver. The results are presented in
section VII.
VI. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PPV MODEL FOR A
PERMANENT MAGNET SYNCHRONOUS MACHINE
According to (5) and (9), three state variables are used to
describe the state of the machine. These are the mechanical
rotor position , an input for the electrical simulation and
therefore a known quantity, and the two currents i
d
and i
q
,
the real unknowns of the electrical system.
This leads to an over determined system of equations for
(6). Nevertheless all three equations are needed, because
every pair out of these three equations will lead to a singular
system for special rotor positions. Therefore, the least
square method could be used to solve this system of
equations.
However, the phase voltages are typically not known
because the star point for such machines is often designed
isolated and hence, its potential is unknown. Only the
machine terminal potentials or the phase to phase voltages
are known. Therefore, the use of the phase to phase voltages
is advantageous [8], which is equivalent to the use of linear
combinations of the phase voltage equations. This finally
leads to

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
{ }
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
{ }
,
,
f f
f f ,
f f
f f
LUT LUT
LUT LUT
LUT LUT
LUT LUT
ab a b a b a b
m
m a m b
m d q
bc b c b c b c
m
m b m c
m d q
v v v R i i
di
dt
v v v R i i
di
dt

= = + +

= = + +

(18)
with the advantage of a typically very well conditioned
matrix. In the case of our PPV model the condition number
is less than 10.
Fig. 2 shows the block diagram of the PPV-model on the
basis of the realization with MATLAB SIMULINK. The solver
ode1 (forward Euler) has been used, an explicit solver.
There are three main blocks present. The first block Tri-
Cubic Spline Interpolation performs the computation of the
flux linkage derivatives and the torque by searching the
actual segment and by evaluating (15). The spline parameter
set used during the simulation is stored in binary files and
must be loaded in advance. The second block dq2abc
performs the transformation of the d-q-currents into the real
three phase currents.
Fig. 2, PPV model realized in MATLAB SIMULINK with the three main
blocks for the spline evaluation, the reference system transformation and
the solution of the linear system of equations (18).
The last block Solve System of Equations for Id, Iq
finally solves the equation system (18) taking the flux
linkage symmetry between the phases into account.

( )
( )
( )
( )
1 11 12
21 22 2
11
12
21
,
2
f , , , f , , , ,
3
2
f , , , f , , , ,
3
2
f , , ,
3
LUT LUT
LUT LUT
LUT
with
d d
q q
d
d
ab a b
q
bc b c
i d q i d q
i d q i d q
i d q
di
v R i i b a a
dt
di a a v R i i b
dt
a i i i i
a i i i i
a i i

(
(
(
(
= (
(
(


(
(

| |
=
|
\
| |
=
|
\
| |
=

\
( )
22
1
2
4
f , , , ,
3
2 4
f , , , f , , , ,
3 3
2
f , , , f , , , ,
3
2 4
f , , , f , , , .
3 3
LUT
LUT LUT
LUT LUT
LUT LUT
d
q q
i d q
i d q i d q
d q d q
d q d q
i i
a i i i i
b i i i i
b i i i i

| |

| |
\
| | | |
=
| |
\ \
| |
=
|
\
| | | |
=
| |
\ \
(19)
VII. COMPARISON BETWEEN FEM AND PPV MODELS
For this comparison, a MATLAB SIMULINK model of a
simple electro-mechanical power train was built up
including models for the power supply, the inverter, the
control system, the mechanical load and the PPV-model of
the machine, shown in Fig. 3. To keep the focus on the
PPV-model all models were kept as simple as possible, a
pulse width modulation (PWM) for the machine voltage
was therefore not modeled.

Fig. 3, Test environment in Matlab-Simulink with the model blocks for
the control system, the inverter, the battery, the mechanical load and the
PPV-model of the electrical machine.
54


A transient MATLAB SIMULINK simulation has been
performed for a test cycle with changing load torque and
speeds to cover a wide operating range of the electrical
machine. The input to the PPV model was logged and used
as input for a magneto-static and a transient FEM
simulation. In this way, a direct comparison of the two
models (FEM and PPV) is possible because they have the
same input.
The magneto-static FEM simulation uses as input the
rotor position and the phase machine currents. This allows
the appraisal of the interpolation. For the transient FEM
simulation the rotor position and the machine terminal
potentials are used as input and allow a direct comparison to
the PPV-model in the time domain.
Figs. 4-6 show this comparison for a simulation time
window with 2000 time steps during a load change. Every
figure shows the quantities for comparison (white legend
and left ordinate) as well as the absolute error (grayed
legend and right ordinate). The axis of the error is scaled by
10 compared with the left axis.
Fig. 4 shows the comparison for the phase flux linkages
for three simulations. The comparison between magneto
static FEM and PPV simulation shows the interpolation
error. For the total error of the phase variable the transient
FEM and the PPV simulation are compared.
Fig. 5 shows the comparison for the phase currents
between transient FEM and PPV simulation and therefore
the total error for the electrical machine model.

Fig. 4, Flux linkage comparison: FEM versus PPV model (LUT-1).

Fig. 5, Phase current comparison: FEM versus PPV model (LUT-1).
Fig. 6 shows the comparison for the machine torque for
the same three simulations as for Fig. 4. Again, the
interpolation error and the total error of the mechanical
machine model are shown, respectively.

Fig. 6, Torque comparison: FEM versus PPV model (LUT-1).
The very good agreement in all figures is obvious, slight
deviations are caused by interpolation errors, different FEM
formulations and different time integration schemes.
Table I shows information about the time demand for the
FEM and the PPV simulations. The used PC has an Intel
Core2 Quad CPU (Q9400 @ 2.66GHz) with 8GB of RAM,
a typical state of the art PC. The speedup factor per time
step is about 1E4 for our PPV model compared to FEM
simulations, but our FEM model is very small since the
symmetry properties of the machine have been utilized.
TABLE I
TIMING INFORMATION FOR THE FEM AND PPV SIMULATION.
Model Number of
time steps
Total simulation
time
Time per
time step
PPV 60000 44.2 s 0.7 ms
2D FEM
transient
2000 ~16600 s
(~277 min)
8.3 s
The relative mean error values for various time windows
are given in Table II. The mean error for the flux linkages
e

is calculated as

1
100
2
PPV REF
N
i i
PPV REF
i
i i
e
N

=

=
+

. (20)
The error values for the machine phase currents
I
e and
the torque
T
e are calculated in a similar manner.
The interpolation error is carried out with a comparison
with magneto-static FEM simulations. Because of presetting
the machine phase currents in that case, no error value for
the phase currents is given in Table II.
The error compared to the transient FEM simulation is
the cumulative error in time and is therefore higher.
TABLE II
MEAN ERROR FOR FLUX LINKAGE, PHASE CURRENTS AND TORQUE.

e

I
e
T
e
FEM static 0.31% - 0.43%
FEM transient 0.81% 2.8% 1.62%
VIII. COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT SAMPLING STEP
SIZES FOR THE LUTS
In this section, the effect of the number of samples on the
55


simulation result is shown. It is important to say that a
smaller LUT will not speed up the simulation because the
spline evaluation stays the same. However, the memory
demand is decreased and makes this approach suitable for
use in embedded machine controllers. Furthermore, the
calculation time during preprocessing is reduced.
Table III shows an overview of the different LUT setups
for this comparison. All reduced LUTs were extracted from
LUT-1. The simulation time is the approximate time of the
magneto static FEM simulations with ANSYS.
TABLE III
COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT LUT-SETUPS FOR THE PPV MODEL.
Setup n
(deg
E
)
nid niq NSim Sim.time
(min)
Memory
(MB)
LUT-1 60 1 17 11 11220 1557 ~11.0
LUT-4 15 4 17 11 2805 389 ~2.73
LUT-41 15 4 9 11 1485 206 ~1.45
LUT-6 10 6 17 11 1870 260 ~1.83
LUT-61 10 6 9 11 990 137 ~0.97
LUT-62 10 6 17 6 1020 141 ~1.00
Fig. 7 shows a comparison of the total machine torque
for the different LUT sizes. The reduction of n

and n
id
has
less effect on the simulation. Only a reduction of n
iq
leads to
higher error values as shown in Table IV (LUT-62).

Fig. 7, Torque comparison: PPV model with different LUT setups.
TABLE IV
ERROR COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT LUT-SETUPS WITH LUT-1.
Setup
e

I
e
T
e
LUT-4 0.008% 0.020% 0.051%
LUT-41 0.016% 0.060% 0.057%
LUT-6 0.043% 0.070% 0.188%
LUT-61 0.043% 0.099% 0.190%
LUT-62 1.73% 1.49% 0.715%
IX. CONCLUSION
The PPV model introduced in this paper has been
validated. The simplifications of the PPV model approach
in combination with the proposed implementation leads to
an accurate and time efficient machine model compared to
transient FEM simulations. A comparison between different
LUT setups shows that the used interpolation method works
even with a low number of sampling points very well.
X. REFERENCES
[1] Mohammed, O.A.; Liu, S.; Liu, Z.; , "Physical modeling of electric
machines for motor drive system simulation," Power Systems
Conference and Exposition, 2004. IEEE PES , vol., no., pp. 781-
786 vol.2, 10-13 Oct. 2004
[2] Proca, A.B.; Keyhani, A.; El-Antably, A.; Wenzhe Lu; Min Dai; ,
"Analytical model for permanent magnet motors with surface
mounted magnets," Energy Conversion, IEEE Transactions on ,
vol.18, no.3, pp. 386- 391, Sept. 2003
[3] Mohammed, O.A.; Liu, S.; Liu, Z.; Abed, N.; , "Physical phase
variable models of electrical equipments and their applications in
integrated drive simulation for shipboard power system," Electric
Ship Technologies Symposium, 2005 IEEE , vol., no., pp. 163- 170,
25-27 July 2005
[4] Mohammed, O.A.; Liu, S.; Liu, Z.; , "A phase variable PM machine
model for integrated motor drive systems," Power Electronics
Specialists Conference, 2004. PESC 04. 2004 IEEE 35th Annual ,
vol.6, no., pp. 4825- 4831 Vol.6, 20-25 June 2004
[5] Mohammed, O.A.; Liu, S.; Liu, Z.; , "Phase-variable model of PM
synchronous machines for integrated motor drives," Science,
Measurement and Technology, IEE Proceedings - , vol.151, no.6,
pp. 423- 429, 4 Nov. 2004
[6] Petrovi, V.; Stankovic, A.M.; , "Modeling of PM synchronous
motors for control and estimation tasks ," Decision and Control,
2001. Proceedings of the 40th IEEE Conference on , vol.3, no.,
pp.2229-2234 vol.3, 2001
[7] Liu, Z.; Mohammed, O.A.; Liu, S.; , "An improved physics-based
phase variable model of PM synchronous machines obtained through
field computation," Computation in Electromagnetics, 2008. CEM
2008. 2008 IET 7th International Conference on , vol., no., pp.166-
167, 7-10 April 2008
[8] Mohammed, O.A.; Liu, S.; Liu, Z.; , "Physical modeling of PM
synchronous motors for integrated coupling with Machine drives,"
Magnetics, IEEE Transactions on , vol.41, no.5, pp. 1628- 1631,
May 2005
[9] Lekien, F.; Marsden, J.; , Tricubic interpolation in three
dimensions, Internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg., 63 3 (2005), pp.
455-471
[10] Boor, C.D.; , A practical guide to splines, New York: Springer-
Verlag, 1978, p39f., ISBN: 9780387903569
[11] Neumaier, A.; , Introduction to Numerical Analysis, Cambridge
University Press, 2001, p. 153f.,
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612916
[12] Higham, N.J.; , Accuracy and Stability of Numerical Algorithms,
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2002, p 94f.,
ISBN 0-89871-521-0
[13] ANSYS Academic Research, Release 12.1, Help System, Low-
Frequency Electromagnetic Analysis Guide, ANSYS, Inc.
[14] MATLAB SIMULINK, Data Sheet, [Online], available:
http://www.mathworks.de/products/simulink/technicalliterature.html
XI. BIOGRAPHIES
Martin Mohr graduated at the Faculty of Electrical and Information
Engineering, Graz University of Technology in the year 2009. Presently he
is working at his PhD as a member of the Christian Doppler Laboratory
for Multiphysical Simulation, Analysis and Design of Electrical Machines
located at the Institute for Fundamentals and Theory in Electrical
Engineering (IGTE), Graz University of Technology.
Oszkr Br received the M.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from the
Budapest University of Technology, Budapest, Hungary, in 1977 and the
Ph.D. degree in 1987. Since 2004 he is head of the Institute for
Fundamentals in Electrical Engineering (IGTE), Graz University of
Technology, Graz, Austria. His research field is computational
electromagnetics, particularly the finite element modeling of
electromagnetic fields. Furthermore he is head of the Christian Doppler
Laboratory for Multiphysical Simulation, Analysis and Design of
Electrical Machines located at the Institute for Fundamentals and Theory
in Electrical Engineering (IGTE), Graz University of Technology.
Prof. Br is member of the Board of the International Compumag Society.
Andrej Stermecki graduated at the Faculty of Electrical Engineering and
Computer Science, University of Maribor in the year 2002. In 2007 he
received his PhD degree at the University of Maribor. Presently he is a
member of the Christian Doppler Laboratory for Multiphysical
Simulation, Analysis and Design of Electrical Machines located at the
Institute for Fundamentals and Theory in Electrical Engineering (IGTE),
Graz University of Technology
Franz Diwoky graduated at the Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of
Graz, Austria in the year 2000. In 2003 he received his PhD degree at the
Graz University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering.
Presently, he works as software development engineer for AVL List
GmbH.
56
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)