3734 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 58, NO.

9, SEPTEMBER 2011

Computational Algorithms for Induction Motor

Equivalent Circuit Parameter Determination—Part II:
Skin Effect and Magnetizing Characteristics
Aldo Boglietti, Senior Member, IEEE, Andrea Cavagnino, Senior Member, IEEE, and Mario Lazzari

Abstract—This paper proposes methods and algorithms for the

estimation of induction motor equivalent circuit parameters, start-
ing from the geometrical and electrical data generally available
after an electromagnetic design. This part includes an approach
for the skin effect determination in arbitrarily shaped rotor slots,
based on the elementary layer method. In addition, a complete
analytical development for the fundamental airgap flux density,
including magnetic saturation phenomena and no-load charac-
teristic determination, is reported. Finally, a comparison between
the computed and measured values is provided and discussed for
several induction motors.
Index Terms—Electromagnetic design, equivalent circuit
parameters, induction motor.

I. I NTRODUCTION

I N ORDER TO determine the induction motor performances

(torque, current, efficiency, and so on), the equivalent circuit
parameters have to be computed after the induction motor
electromagnetic design [1]. Unfortunately, the passage from
the geometrical and electromagnetic data obtained from the
lamination and winding design to the equivalent circuit is not
so easy or immediate. A geometrical approach to the induction
motor electromagnetic design was proposed by the authors in
[2], and methods and algorithms for the resistance and leakage
inductance computation were reported in [3] and [4].
This paper deals with the skin effect modeling in arbitrarily
shaped rotor slots and the determination of the fundamental
airgap flux density, including magnetic saturation phenomena.
In addition, a nonlinear computation method for the no-load
characteristics (magnetizing current and iron losses versus the
supply voltage curves) is presented and discussed.
The proposed algorithms have been validated through the
comparison with experimental data on five industrial induction
motors (three-phase induction motors with symmetric stator
windings and squirrel cage rotor).
Manuscript received January 22, 2010; revised July 14, 2010; accepted
September 7, 2010. Date of publication October 7, 2010; date of current version
August 12, 2011.
The authors are with the Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica, Politecnico
di Torino, 10129 Torino, Italy (e-mail: aldo.boglietti@polito.it; andrea.
cavagnino@polito.it; mario.lazzari@polito.it).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
Fig. 1. Layer subdivision of the slot.
II. S KIN E FFECT
For ac supply, the current density in slot-bound conductors
is not uniform. This effect depends on the actual frequency of
rotor bar currents, and it leads to an increase of the equivalent
rotor bar resistance and a reduction of the equivalent leakage
bar reactance.
These rotor bar parameter variations are usually taken into
account by two corrective coefficients (KR and KL for the
resistance and inductance, respectively) to be applied at the
value of the parameters evaluated in dc condition.
For the corrective coefficient evaluation, the authors pro-
posed a numerical algorithm named elementary layer method
(ELM) [5]. Another similar approach is described in [6]. Here-
inafter, a short description is reported for convenience. The
method is based on the following hypothesis:
1) ideal iron (infinite permeability and no losses);
2) field lines parallel in the slot;
3) slot subdivided into N thin layers (Fig. 1).
When a sinusoidal voltage is applied to the bar, it is equally
distributed to all conductor layers. For a generic kth layer, the
electromagnetic phasor equations are as follows:
V = Rk ΔI k + jωe · Λk (1)

N

at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. Λk = Mkj · ΔI j . (2)

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIE.2010.2084975 j=1

0278-0046/$26.00 © 2010 IEEE

BOGLIETTI et al.: COMPUTATIONAL ALGORITHMS FOR EQUIVALENT CIRCUIT PARAMETER DETERMINATION II 3735

Fig. 3. Airgap fundamental flux density in saturation conditions.

The complete analytical developments of the previous equa-

tions and the comparison between the ELM approach and FEM
Fig. 2. Current distribution in the slot layers and related phasor diagram. one is reported in [5], while the experimental validation, based
on variable-frequency locked-rotor tests, is presented in [7].
In order to calculate the bar layer current ΔI¯k , provided by
the solution of the equation system (1) and (2), it is necessary
to determine a general formulation for the Mjk coefficients. For III. F UNDAMENTAL A IRGAP F LUX
the mutual inductance between the kth and jth layers from the D ENSITY D ETERMINATION
slot bottom, it is possible to observe the following.
In this section, the determination of the fundamental airgap
1) Mjk is equal to Mkj for the physics of the problem.
flux density as a function of the fundamental MMF is discussed,
2) If j < k (the jth layer is under the kth layer), the jth-
taking into account the magnetic material nonlinearity.
layer-linked flux due to the kth layer current is invariant
It is important to remember that the fundamental airgap flux
with the position of the jth layer. This means that Mjk =
density is requested to compute the rms winding-induced EMF
Mkk if j < k.
(4). In (4), kw,1 is the fundamental stator winding coefficient,
On the basis of this mutual-inductance matrix peculiarity, it and Zph is the number of stator conductors in series per phase
is possible to find the following phasor relation:
  2π·f ·Kw,1 ·Zph 2 Rairgap · Lcore
wk Erms = √ Bmax, fund . (4)
ΔI k = ΔI k−1 + jδ ∗ ΔI 1 + ΔI 2 + · · · + ΔI k−1 2Npole
wk−1
(3)
where Unfortunately, in the presence of magnetic saturation, the
airgap flux density waveform produced by the fundamental
δ∗ = ωe (μ0 /ρ)(h2 /N 2 );
MMF is distorted, as shown in the Fig. 3. In these conditions,
ωe = 2πf current electrical pulsation;
the flux density peak value in the teeth and in the yokes does not
ρ conductor resistivity (at the actual rotor
depend on the amplitude of the fundamental airgap flux density
temperature).
(Bmax,fund ), but it depends on the actual airgap flux density
Equation (3) shows that the current in a layer depends on
(Bmax,airgap ).
the total current under the layer itself. This means that, if the
Therefore, starting from the Bmax,airgap value, it is possi-
current in the first layer is known, as amplitude and phase,
ble to correctly calculate the MMF drop along the different
all the other layer currents can be calculated with a recursive
machine parts (airgap, teeth, and yokes) using the well-known
procedure. Then, in order to evaluate the current distribution in
magnetic circuital rule. Once the Bmax,airgap versus the MMF
the bar, it is possible to consider an arbitrary current in the first
drop characteristic is known, it is possible to determine the
layer (i.e., ΔI¯ = 1 + j0 A), as shown in Fig. 2. Once the layer
distorted airgap flux density waveform in the airgap using a
currents are known, the correction coefficients KR and KL are
procedure similar to the one adopted for the determination of
evaluated through the following relations:
the magnetizing current distorted waveform in a single-phase
Rac (f ) Lac (f ) transformer. At this point, the fundamental airgap flux density
KR (f ) = KL (f ) = (Bmax,fund ) can be easily computed by a Fourier analysis, and
Rdc Ldc
(4) can be used.

N
ΔI k
2
In the following, the different MMF contributions are dis-
ck
PJ (f ) N k=1 cussed. The considered machine parts are shown in Fig. 4.
Rac (f ) = 2 =ρ 2
I h I
1 
k
A. Stator and Rotor Teeth MMF Drop
Hk = ΔI n magnetic f ield in the kth layer
wk n=1 In strong saturation condition of the teeth, a nonnegligible
part of the airgap magnetic flux goes through the slot air with a

N 2
wk H k reduction of flux density in the teeth and the related MMF drop.
2Wm (f ) h k=1 An evaluation of this magnetic shunt effect due to the slot can
Lac (f ) = 2 = μ0 2 .
I N I be done on the basis of the following considerations.
3736 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 58, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2011

Fig. 4. Sketch of the considered machine parts.

Fig. 6. Magnetic working point of the teeth, taking in to account the slot shunt
effect.

The intersection between (7) and the magnetic material char-

acteristic defines the magnetic working point of the teeth, as
shown in Fig. 6. Now, it is possible to evaluate the MMF drop
in the teeth zone by


to all layers
ΔAtooth (Bmax, airgap ) = Hk∗ Δx. (8)
k

The magnetic working point of the teeth can be determined

using a recursive algorithm, as shown in Fig. 6 by the arrow
loop. Hereinafter, the step-by-step procedure is described.

Algorithm 3—teeth MMF drop calculation

Fig. 5. Flux shunt effects due to the slot.
The magnetic equipotential lines are supposed to be parallel
in the teeth zone, and the teeth are subdivided into layers
delimited by the equipotential lines, as shown in Fig. 5. For
each layer, the following relationship can be applied:
ΔΦ =Bmax, airgap ·τslot
=Kfe ·Btooth ·wtooth +Bslot ·(wslot +(1−Kir ) wtooth ) .
(5)
In (5), kir is the lamination pack coefficient, and the last term
on the right represents the flux shunt effect due to the slot and
the air between the teeth laminations.
The equipotential hypothesis leads to the following identity:
With reference to Fig. 5, the slots and the teeth have to
be subdivided into NS thin layers with thickness dx = h/Ns ,
with h as the slot or tooth height. For all the layers (from
i = 1, . . . , Ns ), the following steps have to be performed.
Step 1) Let us choose a value of the flux density Bmax,airgap .
Step 2) The starting value for the tooth flux density B0i has
to be calculated by (6).
Step 3) The value of the related magnetic field can be
computed by the B−H magnetic material curve.
Step 4) By (7), it is possible to compute a new value of
Btooth (H ∗ ).
If the difference from this new value and the previous one
is greater than a defined tolerance, then go back to step 3);
otherwise, the obtained H ∗ value can be used in (8) to calculate
the tooth layer MMF drop.

Hslot = Htooth = H ∗ . B. Airgap MMF Drop

The flux density in the tooth without any slot shunt effect can The MMF drop in the airgap, with radial thickness that is
be computed by (6). Substituting (5) in (6), the B0 quantity can equal to hairgap ) can be quickly evaluated by
be expressed by (7). This relation describes a straight line in the
plane (Btooth , H ∗ ) Bmax, airgap
ΔAairgap (Bmax, airgap ) = KC, aveS,R · hairgap
ΔΦ μ0
B0 = (6) (9)
Kfe · wtooth
  where KC,ave,S,R is the average Carter coefficient [8], [9]. This
μ0 wslot
B0 = Btooth (H ∗ ) + · + 1 − Kir H ∗ . (7) coefficient takes into account the field weakening due to the
Kir wtooth presence of the slot openings in the stator and rotor airgap


m surfaces.
BOGLIETTI et al.: COMPUTATIONAL ALGORITHMS FOR EQUIVALENT CIRCUIT PARAMETER DETERMINATION II 3737

while the total flux density per pole is

π/2
2dα
Φpole =2 Bairgap (α)Rairgap Lcore
Npole
0
π
2
2 Rairgap Lcore
=2 Bairgap (α) dα. (12)
Npole
0

Equations (10)–(12) allow one to define the two following

coefficients, which take into account the airgap distortion
Fig. 7. MMF drop in the teeth zone.
Bmax, airgap π Bmax, airgap
kB = =
Bmax, fund
4 π/2
Bairgap (α) cos α · dα
0

π/2
Bairgap (α)dα
Φpole π 0
kΦ = = .
Φpole, fund
4 π/2
Bairgap (α) cos α · dα
0

Without saturation distortion, these two coefficients are equal

to one. For a square waveform airgap flux density (this means
Fig. 8. Saturated airgap flux density waveform calculation. a hard saturation condition and a heavy airgap flux density
waveform distortion), the two coefficients are

C. Teeth Zone MMF Drop kB = π/4 ≈ 0.785 kΦ = π2/8 ≈ 1.234

At this step, it is possible to compute the MMF drop along
the stator-teeth–airgap–rotor-teeth path, summing point to point
the two previous contributions, as shown in Fig. 7.
When the teeth zone is saturated, the induction distribution,
produced by the fundamental MMF waveform along the airgap,
is distorted, as shown in Fig. 3.
In the proposed approach, let us assume that the MMF
drops in the machine yokes do not influence the airgap flux
density waveform distortion. In other words, this distortion
is mainly caused by iron saturation in the teeth zone. As a
consequence, the distorted flux density distribution Bairgap (α)
due to a sinusoidal distribution of MMF A(α) can be computed
by the numerical procedure graphically shown in Fig. 8. The
fundamental flux density amplitude can be evaluated by
Algorithm 4—Computation of the kB and kΦ distortion
coefficients.
Step 1) Let us define the table Bmax,airgap − Ateeth zone
(airgap flux density versus the MMF drop in the stator and rotor
teeth and in the airgap, Fig. 8).
Step 2) Let us subdivide the half-pole arc at the airgap
(0 − π/2 electrical angle) in Ns interval with a width of Δα =
π/2Ns ; each interval is defined by its angular coordinate in the
medium point αi = (i + 0.5) × Δα, with i = 0, 1, . . . , Ns −1.
Step 3) Define a value of the airgap flux density distribution
Bmax, airgap . By the table Bmax, airgap − Ateeth zone , it is possi-
ble to define the corresponding value of Ateeth zone .
π/2 Step 4) For each angular coordinate αi [defined at Step 2)],
4 it is possible to compute the value of the function Ateeth zone ·
Bmax, fund = Bairgap (α) cos α · dα. (10)
π cos(αi ) and, by the table Bmax, airgap − Ateeth zone , the corre-
0 sponding values Bairgap (αi ).
Step 5) The following sums can be computed:
The flux density per pole due to the fundamental flux density
distribution is

Ns −1
4Rairgap Lcore Σtot = Bairgap (αi )
Φpole, fund = Bmax, fund
Npole i=0


Ns −1
π/2
8 2 Rairgap Lcore Σfun = Bairgap (αi ) cos(αi ).
= Bairgap (α) cos α · dα (11)
π Npole i=0
0
3738 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 58, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2011

magnetic voltage drop as a function of the maximum value of

the airgap induction using the following relationship:

ΔAyoke (Bmax, airgap )


all yoke segments
2
= H (Byoke (αk ))·Rave, yoke · Δα
Npole
k

where the H(Byoke (αk )) value has to be determined by the

magnetic material characteristic.
The yoke MMF drop can be computed together with the
Fig. 9. Flux density waveform in the yoke.
distortion coefficients modifying algorithm 4, as reported in
algorithm 5.

Algorithm 5—Computation of the kB and kΦ distortion

coefficients and of the yoke MMF drop.
Steps 1) to 4) See algorithm 4.
Step 5) For i = 0 to i = Ns − 1, the following addition can
be computed:

i
Σtot (i) = Bairgap (αj )
j=0


Ns −1

Σfun = Bairgap (αi ) cos(αi ).

Fig. 10. Flux calculation for the yokes. i=0

Step 6) The two coefficients are computed by Step 5.1) The yoke flux density at the angular coordinate αi
can be computed by
π Bmax, airgap Ns Bt max, airgap
kB = = Rairgap 1 2
4 Σfun · 2Nπ
2 Σfun Byoke (αi ) = Σtot (i) · Δα.
s
hy Kir Npole
π Σtot
kΦ = . Step 5.2) The MMF drop for the yoke arc Δα can be added
4 Σfun
to the total yoke MMF drop.
2
The operation from steps 3) to 6) can be repeated for several Ayoke = Ayoke + H (Byoke (αi )) · Rave, yoke · Δα.
values of Bmax, airgap in order to build the following complete Npole
table: Step 6) After the loop at step 5), Ayoke is the total yoke
MMF drop for the chosen Bmax, airgap value, while the coef-
Ateeth zone Bmax, airgap kB kΦ . ficients kB e kΦ have to be calculated as in algorithm 4. For
convenience aims, they are hereinafter rewritten using the new
symbols
π Bmax, airgap Ns Bmax, airgap
D. Yoke MMF Drop kB = =
4 Σfun · 2Nπ
s
2 Σfun
In the machine yoke, the flux density increases progressively
along the airgap angle. The induction in the yoke starts from π Σtot (Ns − 1)
kΦ = .
zero, where the airgap induction is maximum, and reaches 4 Σfun
its maximum value at 90 electrical degrees, where the airgap
induction is zero, as shown in Figs. 9 and 10.
With reference to Fig. 9, the yoke flux density waveform can E. Fundamental Airgap Flux Density Versus the Total MMF
be evaluated by Drop Characteristic
α For each considered Bmax, airgap value, the total fundamental
Rairgap 1 2
Byoke (α) = Bairgap (α) dα. (13) MMF is achieved by summing the MMF drops in the different
hy Kir Npole motor parts. The fundamental magnetization characteristic is
0
then obtained by referring the obtained MMF value to the am-
Once the yoke induction values are known as a function plitude of the corresponding fundamental flux density evaluated
of the airgap α-coordinate, it is possible to evaluate the yoke by (10).
BOGLIETTI et al.: COMPUTATIONAL ALGORITHMS FOR EQUIVALENT CIRCUIT PARAMETER DETERMINATION II
Fig. 11. Determination of the Bfund, airgap -versus-Amax, fund
characteristic.
From a graphical point of view, this procedure is shown in
Fig. 11. The continuous black curve drawn in Fig. 11 allows one
to easily compute the magnetizing current versus the winding-
induced EMF characteristic, taking into account the magnetic
saturation effects, as shown in the next section.
IV. N O -L OAD C HARACTERISTIC D ETERMINATION
For each point of the Bfund, airgap − Amax,fund characteristic
shown in Fig. 11, the rms magnetizing current can be calculated
by (14) and the induced EMF by
2 π · Npole /2 Amax, fund
Imagn, rms = · ·√ . (14)
3 Zph 2 · Kw,1
Obviously, in the no-load condition, in order to pass from
the induced EMF to the phase voltage, the voltage drop on
the stator resistance and reactance have to be considered. The
computation of these stator parameters is reported in [3].
The proposed method to take into account the saturation of
the teeth zone increases in solid way the accuracy in the no-load
current estimation without the use of FEM approach [10].
In order to determine the no-load current, the iron loss current
component should be added to the magnetizing one. Taking into
account that the current component related to the iron losses
is small with respect to the magnetizing one and that the two
components are orthogonal, it is possible to approximate the
no-load current with the magnetizing one.
Nevertheless, an estimation of the iron losses in the no-
load condition is useful for a more realistic motor energetic
performance evaluation. An easy and quick approach to the iron
loss prediction is based on the specific iron losses (in watts per
kilogram) data, usually available from the lamination manufac-
turers. This method is generally adopted, and as usual, only the
stator magnetic structure (teeth and yoke) is considered. Since,
in the stator teeth MMF drop calculation (Algorithm 3), the
teeth have been subdivided into thin layers and the flux density
is known in each layer, it is easy to include the stator teeth
iron loss calculation in this algorithm. The yoke iron losses
3739
TABLE I
PARAMETER E STIMATION P ERCENTAGE E RRORS [%]
TABLE II
AVERAGE P ERCENTAGE E RRORS [%]
are evaluated, considering the maximum yoke flux density
computed by Algorithm 5. It is well known that the motor iron
losses estimated with this method can be very different than the
actual one (i.e., due to the punching and lamination assembly
process [11], [12]). In the design offices, the computed iron
losses are corrected using appropriate coefficients obtained by
the designer experience. In addition, the method to compute
the stator iron losses can be adopted for other ac machine
typologies too [13]–[16].
V. C OMPARISON B ETWEEN C OMPUTED AND M EASURED
I NDUCTION M OTOR PARAMETERS
The proposed algorithms have been implemented in a soft-
ware tool in order to estimate the magnetization parameters of
the equivalent circuit of five industrial induction motors. For
each machine, the percentage errors (15) between the predicted
and measured values are shown in Table I, while the average
percentage errors on the five considered machines are reported
in Table II. All the considered induction motors have the
following characteristics: 220 V (phase rated voltage), 50 Hz,
and four poles, with the rated power shown in Table I. It is
important to remark that the proposed algorithms provide the
nonlinear magnetizing characteristics (no-load current versus
the supply phase voltage characteristic, and the iron losses
versus the back-EMF phase voltage one). The values reported in
Tables I and II are referring to the rated phase voltage value. For
each considered motor, the phase stator resistance and leakage
inductance to pass from the stator back-EMF voltage to the
phase supply one have been computed, as shown in [3]
computed value − measured value
Error% = · 100.
measured value
(15)
According to the International Standard [17], the machine
parameters have been measured by no-load tests, and the calcu-
lated values have been estimated in the same conditions.
Tables I and II highlight the proposed algorithms that allow
a prediction of the no-load parameters with percentage errors
in the range 10%–20%. It is important to remember that the
accuracy in the no-load current and iron loss computations
is heavily depending on the availability of accurate magnetic
and geometrical lamination data. Since other much more time-
consuming numerical methods (such as FEM) are suffering
from the same problems linked to the magnetic material and
geometrical data uncertainty, it is the authors’ opinion that
3740 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 58, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2011
the obtained errors can be considered acceptable, particularly
during the initial machine design stage.
VI. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, the authors have provided methods and al-
gorithms for the estimation of induction motor no-load char-
acteristics, starting from the geometrical and electrical data
generally available after an electromagnetic design. A complete
theoretical analysis plus the step-by-step algorithms to develop
numerical code have been included in this paper. The compar-
ison between the predicted and measured values is reported,
confirming the validity of the proposed approaches. Algorithms
to compute the skin effect coefficients to be applied at the rotor
bar resistance and leakage inductance are also reported.
R EFERENCES
[1] P. L. Alger, Induction Machines, 2nd ed. New York: Gordon and Breach,
1970.
[2] A. Boglietti, A. Cavagnino, and M. Lazzari, “Geometrical approach to
induction motor design,” in Conf. Rec. IEEE-IECON, Taipei, Taiwan,
Nov. 5–8, 2007, pp. 149–156.
[3] A. Boglietti, A. Cavagnino, and M. Lazzari, “Algorithms for the computa-
tion of the induction motor equivalent circuit parameters—Part I,” in Conf.
Rec. IEEE-IECON, Orlando, FL, Nov. 10–13, 2008, pp. 2020–2027.
[4] A. Boglietti, A. Cavagnino, and M. Lazzari, “Algorithms for the com-
putation of the induction motor equivalent circuit parameters—Part II,” in
Conf. Rec. IEEE-IECON, Orlando, FL, Nov. 10–13, 2008, pp. 2028–2034.
[5] A. Boglietti, A. Cavagnino, and M. Lazzari, “A recursive algorithm to
resolve the skin effects in rotor bars of squirrel cage induction motor,” in
Conf. Rec. ICEM, Cracovia, Poland, 2004, pp. 394–400.
[6] I. Boldea and S. A. Nasar, The Induction Machine Handbook. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC, 2002.
[7] A. Boglietti, A. Cavagnino, L. Ferraris, and M. Lazzari, “Skin effect
experimental validations of induction motor squirrel cage parameters,” in
Proc. ICEM, Vilamoura, Portugal, 2008, pp. 1–4, [CD-ROM].
[8] F. W. Carter, “The magnetic field of the dynamo-electric machine,” J. IEE,
vol. 64, no. 359, pp. 1115–1138, Nov. 1926.
[9] B. Heller and V. Hamata, Harmonic Field Effect in Induction Machines.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, 1977.
[10] D. M. Ionel and M. V. Cistelecan, “Analytical and numerical computa-
tion of the no-load magnetic field in induction motors,” COMPEL-Int. J.
Comput. Math. Elect. Electron. Eng., vol. 17, no. 1–3, pp. 225–231, 1998.
[11] A. Boglietti, A. Cavagnino, L. Ferraris, and M. Lazzari, “The annealing
influence onto the magnetic and energetic properties in soft magnetic
material after punching process,” in Conf. Rec. IEEE-IEMDC, Madison,
WI, Jun. 1–4, 2003, vol. 1, pp. 503–508.
[12] M. A. Waqas, T. Ryckebush, F. Magnussen, H. Lendenmann, J. Soulard,
B. Eriksson, and B. Malmros, “Incorporating lamination processing and
component manufacturing in electrical machine design tools,” in Conf.
Rec. IEEE-IAS Annu. Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Sep. 23–27, 2007,
pp. 94–102.
[13] M. Aydin, S. Huang, and T. A. Lipo, “Design, analysis, and control of a
hybrid field-controlled axial-flux permanent-magnet motor,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 78–87, Jan. 2010.
[14] C. Gerada and K. J. Bradley, “Integrated PM machine design for an
aircraft EMA,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 3300–3306,
Sep. 2008.
[15] K. I. Laskaris and A. G. Kladas, “Internal permanent magnet motor design
for electric vehicle drive,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 57, no. 1,
pp. 138–145, Jan. 2010.
[16] P.-D. Pfister and Y. Perriard, “Very-high-speed slotless permanent-magnet
motors: Analytical modeling, optimization, design, and torque measure-
ment methods,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 296–303,
Jan. 2010.
[17] Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators,
IEEE Std 112-2004, 2004.
Aldo Boglietti (M’04–SM’06) was born in Rome,
Italy, in 1957. He received the Laurea degree in
electrical engineering from the Politecnico di Torino,
Torino, Italy, in 1981.
In 1984, he joined the Dipartimento di Ingegneria
Elettrica, Politecnico di Torino, as a Researcher in
electrical machines, where he became an Associate
Professor of electrical machines in 1992, has been a
Full Professor since November 2000, and is currently
the Head of the department. He is the author of about
120 papers. His research interests include energetic
problems in electrical machines and drives, high-efficiency industrial motors,
magnetic materials, and their applications in electrical machines, electrical
machine and drive models, and thermal problems in electrical machines.
Prof. Boglietti is an Associate Editor for the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON
I NDUSTRIAL E LECTRONICS, the Technical Chair of the Electrical Machine
Committee IEEE Industry Applications Society (IAS) and the Chair of the
Electrical Machine Committee IEEE Industrial Electronics Society. He was the
recipient of the First Prize, Best Paper Award from IEEE IAS Electric Machines
Committee in 2008.
Andrea Cavagnino (M’04–SM’10) was born in
Asti, Italy, in 1970. He received the M.Sc. and
Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the
Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy, in 1995 and
1999, respectively.
Since 1997, he has been with the Electrical
Machines Laboratory, Dipartimento di Ingegneria
Elettrica, Politecnico di Torino, where he is currently
an Assistant Professor. He is the author of more than
80 papers published in technical journals and con-
ference proceedings. His research interests include
electromagnetic design, thermal design, and energetic behaviors of electric
machines.
Dr. Cavagnino is an Associate Editor for the Electrical Machine Committee
T RANSACTIONS ON I NDUSTRIAL A PPLICATIONS. He was the recipient of the
First Prize, Best Paper Award from IEEE Industry Applications Society Electric
Machines Committee in 2008.
Mario Lazzari was born in Lucca, Italy, in 1945. He
received the Laurea degree in electrical engineering
from the Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy, in 1969.
In 1970, he joined the Dipartimento di Ingegneria
Elettrica, Politecnico di Torino, where he is currently
a Full Professor of electrical machines and drives.
From 1991 to 1993, he was the Chairman of the
Laurea course of electrical engineering. His research
interests include the dynamics of electrical machines
and electromechanical design, particularly in regard
to energetic problems. He is the author of several
technical papers on these topics.