Chicago UGM-8 - ANSYS Conference - 08292011

Scripting in Maxwell 2D for
Computationally Efficient FEA with

Optimization Algorithms
Gennadi Sizov and Peng Zhang
Marquette University
1
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014
Electrical and Computer Engineering

advisors: Professors Demerdash and Ionel
Overview
Introduction
Model-based optimization
difficulties
choice of a modeling approach
Computationally Efficient Finite

Element Analysis (CEFEA)
Electric circuit symmetry
vector potentials, flux linkages, induced
voltages
Magnetic circuit symmetry
core loss calculation
Torque calculation
Design Optimization
Objective function selection (single weighted
function vs. multi-objective)
Optimization algorithm
Differential Evolution
2
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014
Optimization of 9-slot, 6-pole

IPM Motor
Design objectives
Optimization study (10,000 candidate designs)
eleven independent stator and rotor
variables
significant design improvements are
achieved
Scripting Maxwell 2D
RMxprt geometric primitives
Simple interfacing of Maxwell 2D to Matlab
Optimization of Toyota Prius IPM motor
Introduction
Model-based optimization of electric machinery
Difficulties:
Complex geometries (large number of geometric variables)

Nonlinear material properties
Multi-domain (physics) modeling (electromagnetic, thermal, stress, etc.)
Multiple design objectives
Population based design is problematic
Search of large design spaces
Choice of modeling approach

Tradeoffs
Speed vs. Accuracy
Analytic/Lumped Parameter (MEC) vs. FEA
Computationally Efficient FEA [Trans. on IA 2010/2011, ECCE 2010, IEMDC 2011]

Fast simulation of synchronous machinery
Accurately estimates EMFs, average torques, cogging torque, on-load torque ripple, and
core losses.
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014
Difficulties in Optimization of Interior-PM Machines

Maximum Torque per Ampere MTPA
Maximum Torque per Ampere MTPA

Optimum operating point depends on design
variables
Every design requires additional model evaluations
increasing computational time
Average torque [Nm]
20
MTPA
15
10
MTPA
0
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
Torque angle, [deg. el.]
Field Weakening Operation

1.25
Field Weakening Operation

increasing computational time
Computational savings are possible by employing
solutions from MTPA search
Torque [pu]
Depends on design variables.

Requires further design evaluations
1
0.75
0.5
0.25
0
0
3
Speed [pu]
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014
Computationally Efficient Finite Element Analysis

(CEFEA)
1
)]
25
Torque Ripple [%]
loss
30
Goodness [Nm/sqrt(W
35
20
15
10
5
0
10,000 designs in less than 51 hours!

6 static FE solutions (20 seconds/per design)
CE-FEA (seconds) vs. time-stepping FE (minutes)
several days vs. months!
large scale FEA-based optimization studies
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014
20
15
10
Shaft Torque [Nm]
25
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
The fundamentals of CE-FEA

fully exploits symmetries of electric and
magnetic circuits to reduce simulation time
minimum number of magnetostatic solutions,
correlated with the maximum order of
significant field harmonics
one-to-two orders of magnitude reduction of
simulation time
suitable for most types of synchronous
machines.

(CEFEA)
What is not included in CE-FEA?
Why is time-stepping (transient) FEA still needed?
PM loss
Eddy currents in conductors
Current regulation in unconventional controllers (which may
require coupled simulations with Simplorer)
Motor-drive-controller simulations
Fault conditions
Unbalanced operation
Machine asymmetries, for example due to tolerances, e.g. airgap eccentricity
More detailed space (i.e. multiple points) and time (e.g. PWM
switching) info for core losses
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014

(CEFEA)
CE FEA
CE-FEA is applicable to design and analysis of both

surface-PM and interior-PM machines.
Assumptions:
Determination of number of
solutions and rotor positions
iR () iY () iB ()
mech
Machine model is excited by instantaneous values of a set of
balanced three-phase sinusoidal currents.

Assumption is well justified in motor-drive systems with well tuned
current regulators.
Principle:
2-D magnetostatic finite element formulation is utilized:
1 A 1 A
= J J PM
+
x x y y
Instantaneous values of rotor position, mech, phase currents, iR, iY, iB,
are inputs to the model and the magnetic vector potentials (MVPs),
A, are the outputs used in the post-processing stage to extract fluxdensities, flux-linkages, energies (energy/co-energy).
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014
FEA 2-D (static)
A
Post Processing:
Flux linkages, emfs
Flux densities
Energies
(energy/co-energy)
Torques
Losses

(CEFEA)
Principle (flux linkages and back emfs):
Symmetry of electric circuit results in the following:
AR + ( + 60
) = AY + ( )
AR + ( + 120 o ) = AB + ( )
o
AB+
AY+
where, A, is the average MVP in the coil side. Similar

expressions can be developed for all the other coil
sides.
AR+
From the coil side MVPs tooth fluxes, , and phase flux
linkages, , can be estimated as follows:
R ( ) = l Fe ( AR + ( ) AR ( ))
R ( ) = N ph R ( )
where, lFe, is the effective stack length and, Nph, is the
number of series turns per phase.
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014
ARR
AR+

(CEFEA)
Flux linkages, , can be written in Fourier series form as:
M
R ( ) = cos( + )
=1
Accordingly, resulting back emfs, e, can be written in Fourier series

form as:
M
dR d
= sin ( + )
eR ( ) =
d dt
=1
Here, the maximum harmonic order, vM, is related to the number of
magnetostatic FE solutions, s, as follows:
M = 3s 1
Note: due to aliasing, the minimum number of FE solutions is limited

by the highest harmonic present in the flux linkage waveform.
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014

(CEFEA)
Coil side MVP, AR+
AB+
AR + ( + 60 o ) = AY + ( )
AY+
AR + ( + 120 o ) = AB + ( )
R
AR+
0.01
0.0100
0.008
0.0080
0.006
0.0060
[Wb/m]
0.004
0.0040
0.002
0.0020
1.2E-17
0.0000
R+
R+
-0.002
-0.0020
Y+
Y+
-0.004
-0.0040
B+
B+
-0.006
-0.0060
-0.008
-0.0080
-0.01
-0.0100
00
20
20
40
40
60
80
80
100 120
120 140
140 160
160180180
100
[deg.el.]
el.]
[deg.
Five
Onemagnetostatic
magnetostaticFE
FEsolutions
solution
10
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014

(CEFEA)
Coil side MVP, AR+
5 - solutions
Assuming lack of even order harmonics (half-wave symmetry)
0.0100
0.0080
0.0060
[Wb/m]
0.0040
0.0020
0.0000
-0.0020
-0.0040
-0.0060
-0.0080
-0.0100
0
60
120
180
240
300
360
[deg.el.]
Five magnetostatic FE solutions
Single magnetostatic FE solution yields six equally spaced points on MVP waveform!
Using five static FE solutions yeilds thirty samples of MVP Flux EMF!
11
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014

(CEFEA)
EMF Harmonic Magnitude, |ea| [V]

250
Estimated from 5 solutions
225
200
175
No significant
harmonic
content
beyond 13th
order
no aliasing
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Harmonic Order
Selection of the number of static solutions

Has to be chosen to avoid aliasing in Fourier series
Example 9-slot, 6-pole IPM with 5-static FE solutions (no aliasing)
Spectrum of back emf, eR
Rated-load, 3600 r/min
12
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014

(CEFEA)
Verification (5-solutions):
With respect to time-stepping FE
Phase flux-linkage, R, and back emf, eR
Open-Circuit, 3600 r/min
Rotor Position, [el. deg.]
120
180
240
60
300
Flux Linkage, R , [Wb]
0.1
TSFE
eq. (2)
0.15
0.1
0.05
0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.1
-0.15
-0.15
-0.2
0.00
2.78
5.56
8.33
11.11
Time, [ms]
13.89
R ( ) = cos( + )
=1
13
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014
-0.2
16.67
60

120
180
240
300
360
200
300
TSFE
eq. (3) 200
100
100
300
0.2
0.2
0.15
360
EMF, eR , [V]
0
-100
-100
-200
-200
-300
0.00
2.78
5.56
8.33
11.11
Time, [ms]
13.89
-300
16.67
M
dR d
= sin ( + )
eR ( ) =
d dt
=1

(CEFEA)
Phase flux-linkage, R, and back emf, eR
Rated-load, 3600 r/min
Rotor Position [el. deg.]
Rotor Position [deg. el.]

0
60
120
180
240
300
0.2
0.2
0.1
TSFE
0.15
Samples (5 solutions)
0.1
eq. (2)
0.05
0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.1
-0.15
-0.15
-0.2
-0.2
0.00
0.93
1.85
2.78
3.70
4.63
Time [ms]
R ( ) = cos( + )
=1
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014
5.56
Induced Voltage, ea [V]
Flux Linkage, a [Wb]
0.15
14
360
60
120
180
240
300
360
300
300
200
200
100
100
-100
-100
-200
TSFE
eq. (3)
-300
0.00
-200
-300
0.93
1.85
2.78
Time [ms]
3.70
4.63
5.56
M
dR d
= sin ( + )
eR ( ) =
d dt
=1

(CEFEA)
Principle (stator core flux densities):
Symmetry of magnetic circuit [PAS 1981, IAS 2011] results in the following
relationships for elemental radial and tangential components of stator core fluxdensities at different rotor positions:
Br ,t t + s , r , = Br ,t (t , r , + k s )
where, k, is a positive integer, s, is the slot-pitch in electrical measure.

15
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014

(CEFEA)
0
60

120
180
240
300
1.5
Flux Density, [T]
1.5
e2
1
0.5
0
360
1
0.5
e1
e3
-0.5
-0.5
-1
-1
2s
-1.5
-1.5
-2
-2
0.00
2.78
5.56
8.33
11.11
Time, [ms]
13.89
16.67
Using the same magnetostatic solutions used for estimation of flux-linkages and
back emfs and assuming the lack of even order harmonics (half-wave symmetry),
Fourier series of elemental flux densities can be created:
M
Br ,t ( ) = B cos( + )
=1
Radial and tangential components of elemental flux densities will be used for
estimation of stator core losses (efficiency).
16
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014

(CEFEA)

Flux densities at locations: 1, 2
Full-load, 3600 r/min
3
4

0
60
120
180
240

300
1.5
0.5
0.5
-0.5
-0.5
B r TSFE magnify x10
B r eq. (11) magnify x10
B t TSFE
B t eq. (11)
-1.5
-2
-1
-1.5
-2
0.00
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
0.93
1.85
2.78
3.70
4.63
5.56
60
120
180
240
300
1.5
0.5
0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-1
-1
B t TSFE
B t eq. (11)
B r TSFE
B r eq. (11)
-1.5
-2
-1.5
-2
0.00
0.93
1.85
2.78
3.70
4.63
Time [ms]
Time [ms]
Location 1 (Yoke)
Location 2 (Tooth-Yoke Junction)
November 23,
2014
360
2
1.5
Flux Density [T]
Flux Density [T]
1.5
17
360
2
-1
5.56

(CEFEA)

Flux densities at locations: 1, 2
Full-load, 3600 r/min
3
4

0
60
120
180
240

300
360
2.5
0.5
0.5
0
-0.5
B r TSFE
-1
-1
B t TSFE magnify x10
-1.5
-1.5
B r eq. (11)
-2
B t eq. (11) magnify x10
-2.5
-2
-2.5
0.00
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
0.93
1.85
2.78
3.70
4.63
5.56
240
360
2.5
2
1.5
0.5
0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-1
-1
-1.5
B r TSFE
-2
-1.5
B t TSFE
B r eq. (11)
B t eq. (11)
-2.5
-2
-2.5
0.00
0.93
1.85
2.78
3.70
Time [ms]
Time [ms]
Location 3 (Tooth)
Location 4 (Tooth Tip)
November 23,
2014
300
1.5
Flux Density [T]
Flux Density [T]
180
1.5
120
60
2.5
1.5
18
0
2.5
-0.5
4.63
5.56

(CEFEA)
Principle (torque calculation):
Creating a Fourier series of the energy stored in the magnetic
circuit:
W
Wstored ( m ) =
W cos( N
cog
m + )
=1
Taking the derivative:
W
dWstored
= N cog W sin N cog m +
d m
=1
Using flux-linkages obtained earlier the electromagnetic torque

can be estimated using the following expression:
alignment and reluctance
Tem =
cogging
dWstored
P dR
d
d
+ iY Y + iB B
iR
d
d
dmech
2 d
M
M
M
P
o
= iR ( ) sin ( + ) + iY ( ) sin ( ( 120 ) + ) + iB ( ) sin ( ( 240o ) + )
2
=1
=1
=1
W sin (
=1
19
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014
mech
+ )

(CEFEA)
Cogging torque
Open-circuit, 3600 r/min
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014
20
30
40
50
60
17.4
17.3
17.2
17.1
17
16.9
Cogging - TSFE
Cogging - eq. (8)
Energy (5 solutions)
Energy - eq. (5)
16.8
16.7
20
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
Stored Energy [J]
Cogging Torque [Nm]

(CEFEA)
On-load
Electromagnetic torque
Open-circuit, half-load, rated-load (3600 r/min)
0
60
120
180
240
300
360
20
20
Torque [Nm]
eq. (8)
TSFE
15
15
10
10
-5
-5
0
21
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014
60
120
180
240
300
360

(CEFEA)
Average torque estimation error [%]

5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
1
10
Number of magnetostatic FE solutions, s
Average torque calculation

Error in estimation of the average torque as a function of number of static FE
solutions.
Compared to TSFE (based on Maxwell Stress Tensor)
22
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014
Design Optimization
Model-based optimization:
Conflicting requirements on the modeling approach used for optimization
(accuracy vs. execution time).

Need for search of very large design spaces to find optimum design.
Large number of design variables (geometry, materials, etc.)
CE-FEA can be used for fast and accurate evaluation of very large number of
candidate designs.
23
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014
Design Optimization
Objective function selection:
Single weighted objective function:
N
f1 =
n f n (x)
n =1
Pros: simple implementation

Cons: choice of weights, wn, conflicting vs. non-conflicting objectives
Multi-Objective (Pareto-based Optimization)

minimize : f1 = Tem ( pk pk )
Tem
maximize : f 2 =
PCu + PFe
min(Torque Ripple)
max(Goodness)
measure of average electromagnetic
torque with respect to total losses
Pros: meaningfully accounts for tradeoffs between multiple design
24
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
goals, no weights, results in a family of best compromise designs

Cons: implementation
November 23,
2014
Optimization of 9-slot, 6-pole IPM Motor
9-slot, 6-pole IPM:

11 geometric variables
Only outer diameter is fixed
7Arms/mm2, 0.3 slot fill factor
Search of MTPA for every design
25
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014
x = [ D Si , g, wT , l S , d S , d T , T , w PM , h PM , P , wq ]
M-1: High Specific Torque

M-2: Compromise between
Specific Torque and
Ripple
M-3: Low Ripple
Typ
Typ: Machine of Normal

Proportions
M-1
M-3
M-2
Optimization results:
Generations = 100, Population = 100
Total of 10,000 candidate design evaluations
51 hours on a single core (single license)
Search of maximum torque per amp (MTPA ) for every design
26
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014

Optimized machines:
max. Bmid-tooth = 1.75T,

min. BPM = 0.76T

min. BPM = 0.75T
M-1:
High Specific Torque
M-2:
Compromise
Specific Torque
and Ripple

min. BPM = 0.73T

min. BPM = 0.78T
Typ:
Machine of Normal
Proportions
M-3:
Low Ripple
27
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014

Electromagnetic Torque at Rated-Load (MTPA):
Verified with time-stepping FEA (2nd order elements)
Electro magnetic torque [Nm]
22
M-1 Tem = 20.84Nm, Ripple = 4.93%
21
20
M-2 Tem = 18.55Nm, Ripple = 2.72%
19
18
M-3 Tem = 15.79Nm, Ripple = 0.45%
17
16
15
Typ Tem = 15.21Nm, Ripple = 10.64%
14
0
10
20
30
Position [deg. el.]
28
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014
40
50
60

Electromagnetic Torque at Open-Circuit (Cogging):
Verified with time-stepping FEA (2nd order elements)
Electro magnetic torque [Nm]
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
M-1 Tpk-pk = 0.41Nm

M-2 Tpk-pk = 0.29Nm
M-3 Tpk-pk = 0.19Nm
Typ Tpk-pk = 1.87Nm
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
0
10
20
30
Position [deg. el.]
29
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014
40
50
60

Axial length
1
0.75
1.5
7.5Hp rating (15Nm,

3600
1.00 r/min)
0.96
1.25
0.82
0.73axial-length is
1.25
scaled to achieve the desired rating

1
PM Mass [pu]
Axial Length [pu]
1.25
PM Mass
0.5
0.25
1.05
0.93
0.75
0.5
0.25
M-1
M-3
M-2
Typ.
M-1
M-2
Total Machine Mass [pu]
Total Mass
1.25
0.92
1
0.75
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
1.00
0.81
0.75
0.5
0.25
0
M-1
30
1.00
November 23,
2014
M-2
M-3
Typ.
M-3
Typ.

Separation of Losses
7.5Hp rating (15Nm, 3600 r/min)
Equal split between copper and core losses for optimized designs
Power Loss [W]
350
347.6W
337.9W
354.8W
300
250
164.9
170.5
184.0
373.3W
167.2
200
Copper
150
100
Core
182.7
167.4
170.8
M-1
M-2
M-3
206.1
50
0
Typ.
Note a 9.5% reduction of losses

with optimized machine M-2!
31
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014
RMxprt geometric primitives
Large number of predefined parameterized
geometries:
Stator slot shapes
Rotor topologies (various interior-PM and
surface-PM layouts)
Primitives are accessible through scripting
Custom geometries can be created through lowlevel primitives such as lines, arcs, etc.
Simple interfacing of Maxwell 2D to third

party software
Communicates to any software that uses
Common Object Module (COM)

Matlab, MS Office Excel, Visual Basic, etc.
Optimization exercise for Toyota Prius IPM

type motor
48-slot, 8-pole, V-shaped IPM rotor topology

Three parameters:
PM width, PM length, V depth
32
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014
Advice/hint:
Use Tools\Record Script To File to get an idea of how to write your own script!
ENABLE Record Script To File PERFORM the functions using Graphical User
Interface (GUI)
THEN look at the recorded text file to get an idea how to script.
Opening Maxwell from Matlab environment

Create COM object, open Maxwell, start new Maxwell 2D project, select transient
solver
% Maxwell COM object:

iMaxwell=actxserver('AnsoftMaxwell.MaxwellScriptInterface');
Desktop=iMaxwell.GetAppDesktop();
% remove set from the object definitions
Desktop.RestoreWindow
% Create project in Maxwell or open an existing project
Project=Desktop.NewProject;
invoke(Project,'Rename','C:\Users\labadmin\Desktop\Optimization
Project\Scripting\ANSOFT\Scripting\IPM2.mxwl',true)
invoke(Project,'InsertDesign','Maxwell 2D','Design1','Transient','')
Design=Project.SetActiveDesign('Design1');
invoke(Design,'SetSolutionType','Transient','XY')
Editor=Design.SetActiveEditor('3D Modeler');
invoke(Editor,'SetModelUnits',{'NAME:Units Parameter','Units:=','mm','Rescale:=',false}) %
Setup units [mm]
33
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014
Execution of Maxwell models from Matlab environment
Changing Maxwell params. from Matlab

% Input parameters
Imax=250; % Imax: the magnitude of
Thet_deg=20;
% Thet_deg:
O2=7.28; % O2: Distance form duck
TM=6.48; % TM: Magnet thickness
WM=32;
% WM: Total width of all
phase currents
the load angle in degree, initial value: 20deg
bottom to shaft surface
magnet per pole
Passing values to Maxwell using invoke/ChangeProperty commands

Make sure to add units to all dimensions (using Matlabs strcat function).
Also change all numerical values to strings (using Matlabs num2str function) before passing
them to Maxwell.
O2S=strcat(num2str(O2),'mm');TMS=strcat(num2str(TM),'mm');WMS=strcat(num2str(WM),'mm');
% Change these 5 parameters:
invoke(Design,'ChangeProperty',{'NAME:AllTabs',{'NAME:LocalVariableTab',{'NAME:PropServers','LocalVariab
les'},...
{'NAME:ChangedProps',{'NAME:Imax','Value:=',num2str(Imax)}}}})
les'},...
{'NAME:ChangedProps',{'NAME:Thet_deg','Value:=',num2str(Thet_deg)}}}})
les'},...
{'NAME:ChangedProps',{'NAME:O2','Value:=',num2str(O2S)}}}})
les'},...
{'NAME:ChangedProps',{'NAME:TM','Value:=',num2str(TMS)}}}})
les'},...
{'NAME:ChangedProps',{'NAME:WM','Value:=',num2str(WMS)}}}})
34
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014
Running the simulation
% Run program:
invoke(Design,'Analyze','Setup1');
Extracting results (Post-processing)

% Create reports of flux linkages, energy and torque:
Module=Design.GetModule('ReportSetup');
% Create the report of three phase flux linkages:
invoke(Module,'CreateReport','XY Plot 1','Transient','Rectangular Plot','Setup1 :
Transient',{'Domain:=','Sweep'},...
'Time:=',{'All'},'Poles:=',{'Nominal'},'Speed_rpm:=',{'Nominal'},'Thet_deg:=',{'Nominal'},'Imax:=',{'Nominal
'}},...
{'X Component:=','Time','Y
Component:=',{'FluxLinkage(PhaseA)','FluxLinkage(PhaseB)','FluxLinkage(PhaseC)'}},{})
invoke(Module,'RenameReport','XY Plot 1','FluxLinkages')
% Create the report of torque:
invoke(Module,'CreateReport','Torque','Transient','Rectangular Plot','Setup1 :
Transient',{},{'Time:=',{'All'},'Poles:=,{'All'},'Speed_rpm:=',{'All'},'Thet_deg:=',{'All'},'Imax:=',{'All'
}},{'X Component:=','Time','Y Component:=',{'Moving1.Torque'}},{})
% Calculate the energy:
Module=Design.GetModule('FieldsReporter');
invoke(Module,'EnterQty','Energy')
invoke(Module,'EnterVol','AllObjects')
invoke(Module,'CalcOp','Integrate')
invoke(Module,'AddNamedExpression','WEnergy','Fields')
% Create the report of energy:
invoke(Module,'CreateReport','XY Plot 2','Fields','Rectangular Plot','Setup1 :
Transient',{'Domain:=','Sweep'},...
{'Time:=',{'All'},'Poles:=',{'Nominal'},'Speed_rpm:=',{'Nominal'},'Thet_deg:=',{'Nominal'},'Imax:=',{'Nomina
l'},
'O2:=',{'Nominal'},'TM:=',{'Nominal'},'WM:=',{'Nominal'}},{'X Component:=','Time','Y
Component:=',{'WEnergy'}},{})
invoke(Module,'RenameReport','XY Plot 2','Energy')
35
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014
Saving results
% Export all data to .csv files:
invoke(Module,'ExportToFile','FluxLinkages','C:\Users\labadmin\Desktop\Optimization
Project\Scripting\ANSOFT\Scripting\Fluxlinkages.csv') % The file path can be changed
invoke(Module,'ExportToFile','Energy','C:\Users\labadmin\Desktop\Optimization
Project\Scripting\ANSOFT\Scripting\Energy.csv') % The file path can be changed
invoke(Module,'ExportToFile','Torque','C:\Users\labadmin\Desktop\Optimization
Project\Scripting\ANSOFT\Scripting\Torque.csv') % The file path can be changed
These basic step summarize show how to:
36
Create a Maxwell 2D model using RMxprt primitives

Change model parameters from Matlab environment
Solve using Maxwell
Extract the results
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014
Optimization exercise
Toyota Prius IPM type motor:
Objective function:
PM length
Single objective function:
maximize : f1 =
Tem
Mass PM
PM depth
Single constraint maintain torque of 243Nm

Goal reduce PM usage while maintaining same torque!
Differential Evolution Optimizer Settings

Three design variables (rotor only)
37
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
PM length, PM width, V-depth

Strategy DE/best/1 with jitter, F = 0.85, Cr = 1
Np = 15 candidates per population
Ng = 10 generations
Total candidate design evaluations = Ng*Np = 150 designs
Simulation time approximately 30 minutes
November 23,
2014
38
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014
Toyota Prius IPM type motor:
Original (Toyota)
min. BPM = 0.65 T
Optimization results
Original motor (Toyota)
PM mass = 2.1 kg @ 243Nm
Optimized motor
PM mass = 1.75 kg @ 245Nm
Possible reduction of up to 20% of PM mass
39
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014
Optimized
min. BPM = 0.61 T
References
40
1.
F. A. Fouad, T. W. Nehl, and N. A. O. Demerdash, Magnetic field modeling of permanent

magnet type electronically operated synchronous machines using finite elements, IEEE Trans.
on PAS, vol. PAS-100, no. 9, pp. 4125-4133, 1981
2.
D. M. Ionel and M. Popescu, Finite element surrogate model for electric machines with
revolving field - application to IPM motors, IEEE Trans on Ind. Apps., vol. 46, no.6, pp. 24242433, Nov/Dec 2010.
3.
G. Y. Sizov, D. M. Ionel, and N.A.O. Demerdash, Modeling and design optimization of PM AC

machines using computationally efficient finite element analysis, IEEE Energy Conversion
Congress and Exposition ECCE, pp. 578-585, Atlanta, Georgia, September 2010, updated version
accepted for publication at IEEE Transactions on IES.
4.
G. Y. Sizov, D. M. Ionel, and N.A.O. Demerdash, Multi-Objective Optimization of PM AC

Machines Using Computationally Efficient - FEA and Differential Evolution, IEEE International
Conference on Electric Machines and Drives IEMDC, pp. 1537-1542, Niagara Falls, Canada, May
2011.
5.
G. Y. Sizov, D. M. Ionel, and N.A.O. Demerdash, A Review of Efficient FE Modeling Techniques

with Applications to PM AC Machines, IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (PES2011), Detroit, Michigan, July 24-28 2011.
6.
G. Y. Sizov, P. Zhang, D. M. Ionel, N.A.O. Demerdash, and M. Rosu, Automated Multi-Objective

Design Optimization of Integral-MW Direct-Drive PM Machines Using CE-FEA, IEEE Energy
Conversion Congress and Exposition ECCE 2011, Phoenix, Arizona, September 2011.
7.
K. V. Price, R. M. Storn, and J. A. Lampinen, Differential Evolution - A Practical Approach to

Global Optimization, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2005.
2011 ANSYS, Inc.
November 23,
2014

Chicago UGM-8 - ANSYS Conference - 08292011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chicago UGM-8 - ANSYS Conference - 08292011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scripting in Maxwell 2D for

Computationally Efficient FEA with

Gennadi Sizov and Peng Zhang

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Computationally Efficient Finite

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

Optimization of 9-slot, 6-pole

Complex geometries (large number of geometric variables)

Choice of modeling approach

Computationally Efficient FEA [Trans. on IA 2010/2011, ECCE 2010, IEMDC 2011]

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

Difficulties in Optimization of Interior-PM Machines

Maximum Torque per Ampere MTPA

Average torque [Nm]

Torque angle, [deg. el.]

Field Weakening Operation

Field Weakening Operation

Depends on design variables.

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

Computationally Efficient Finite Element Analysis

Torque Ripple [%]

10,000 designs in less than 51 hours!

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

The fundamentals of CE-FEA

Computationally Efficient Finite Element Analysis

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

Computationally Efficient Finite Element Analysis

CE-FEA is applicable to design and analysis of both

Machine model is excited by instantaneous values of a set of

balanced three-phase sinusoidal currents.

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

FEA 2-D (static)

Flux linkages, emfs

Computationally Efficient Finite Element Analysis

where, A, is the average MVP in the coil side. Similar

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

Computationally Efficient Finite Element Analysis

Accordingly, resulting back emfs, e, can be written in Fourier series

Note: due to aliasing, the minimum number of FE solutions is limited

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

Computationally Efficient Finite Element Analysis

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

Computationally Efficient Finite Element Analysis

Five magnetostatic FE solutions

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

Computationally Efficient Finite Element Analysis

EMF Harmonic Magnitude, |ea| [V]

Principle (flux linkages and back emfs):

Estimated from 5 solutions

Selection of the number of static solutions

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

Computationally Efficient Finite Element Analysis

Flux Linkage, R , [Wb]

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

Rotor Position, [el. deg.]

Computationally Efficient Finite Element Analysis

Rotor Position [deg. el.]

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

Induced Voltage, ea [V]

Flux Linkage, a [Wb]

Computationally Efficient Finite Element Analysis

where, k, is a positive integer, s, is the slot-pitch in electrical measure.