Electrical Engineering in Japan, Vol. 170, No.

1, 2010
Translated from Denki Gakkai Ronbunshi, Vol. 127-B, No. 8, August 2007, pp. 894–901

Proposal for a Benchmark Model of a Laminated Iron Core and a Large-Scale and
Highly Accurate Magnetic Analysis

YASUHITO TAKAHASHI,1 SHINJI WAKAO,2 KOJI FUJIWARA,3 HIROYUKI KAIMORI,4 and

AKIHISA KAMEARI4
1
Kyoto University, Japan
2
Waseda University, Japan
3
Doshisha University, Japan
4
Science Solutions International Laboratory, Inc., Japan

SUMMARY cores by the ordinary finite element method (FEM), a fairly

This paper describes a benchmark model proposed
for the clarification of the characteristic of various methods
for modeling the laminated iron core. In order to obtain a
reference solution of the benchmark model, a large-scale
nonlinear magnetostatic field analysis with a mesh fine
enough to represent the microscopic structure of the lami-
nated iron core is carried out by using the hybrid finite
element–boundary element (FE-BE) method combined
with the fast multipole method (FMM) based on diagonal
forms for translation operators. The computational costs
and accuracy of two kinds of homogenization methods are
discussed, comparing them with the reference solution. As
a consequence, it is verified that the homogenization meth-
ods can analyze magnetic fields in laminated iron core
within acceptable computational costs. © 2009 Wiley Peri-
odicals, Inc. Electr Eng Jpn, 170(1): 26–35, 2010; Published
online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.
com). DOI 10.1002/eej.20809
Key words: laminated iron core; nonlinear analy-
sis; hybrid finite element–boundary element method; fast
multipole method; homogenization method.
1. Introduction
In order to reduce the losses and improve the effi-
ciency of electric machinery, a highly accurate magnetic
field analysis of the laminated iron core is desirable. The
thickness of one silicon steel sheet is about 0.5 mm and the
number of sheets in a laminated core is extremely large. In
addition, steel sheets have complex and nonlinear magnetic
properties. For highly accurate analysis of laminated iron
fine mesh division of the laminated structure is necessary.
From a practical point of view, however, it is impossible to
divide not only the steel but also the extremely thin insula-
tion gaps between steel sheets microscopically into hexa-
hedra or tetrahedra, because of the extremely large
computational costs. As a simple method of modeling, the
laminated core is frequently modeled as a solid one. In the
case of skewed motors or motors with an overhanging
magnet, the eddy current induced by the magnetic flux
penetrating perpendicular to the steel sheets generates non-
negligible large eddy-current losses and the simple model-
ing cannot estimate the losses because of the difference in
magnetic properties between the solid core and the lami-
nated one. Therefore, the development of an accurate and
fast method for modeling laminated iron cores is highly
desirable.
Recently, various approximate methods for modeling
laminated iron cores, such as gap elements, double nodes,
and homogenization methods, have been proposed, and
research is energetically proceeding toward the practical
use of these methods [1–5]. However, there are still ambi-
guities about their advantages and disadvantages, and it is
necessary to compare various modeling methods by using
appropriate benchmark models. With this background, in
order to clarify the features of various modeling methods,
we propose a benchmark model of the laminated iron core.
In addition, we calculate the reference solution required in
order to estimate the performance of various modeling
methods. Using the reference solutions, we investigate the
accuracy of the homogenization method, which is consid-
ered to be fairly effective from the viewpoint of the compu-
tational cost.
In order to compare the various approximate model-
ing methods based on the benchmark model, the existence

© 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

26
of a reference solution is preferable. It is considered signifi- Table 1. B–H curve of 50A1300
cant to verify the computational accuracy of various ap-
proximate modeling methods by comparing them with a
reference solution obtained without any approximation,
based on clearly defined conditions of analysis. However,
it is impossible to accurately analyze the magnetic field in
a laminated iron core, while allowing for surrounding free
space with an open boundary, by using the ordinary FEM,
because the computational costs are extremely large due to
detailed modeling of the laminated structure. On the other
hand, the hybrid finite element and boundary element (FE-
BE) method [6–8] and the magnetic moment method [9]
can reduce the number of elements drastically because no
mesh division is required for free space. Furthermore, by
introducing the fast multipole method (FMM) [10–13], we
can analyze large-scale problems such as the detailed mod-
eling of laminated structures. In this paper, we divide not
only steel but also extremely thin insulation gaps into
multiple layers of elements and perform a large-scale analy-
sis of the benchmark model by the hybrid FE-BE method
combined with the FMM. Because there is no precedent for
extremely large-scale three-dimensional analysis with de-
tailed modeling of laminated iron, it can be utilized as a
reference solution for the validation of other approximate ing of Japan (IEEJ). The configuration is the same as the
modeling methods. benchmark model for magnetostatic field analysis men-
Next, we verify the effectiveness of the homogeniza- tioned in Ref. 14. The coil is excited by a 3000 AT DC
tion method. In the homogenization method, the mesh is current. The core is constructed by laminating 200 nonori-
not restricted by the laminated structures. Therefore, the ented electrical steel sheets (JIS grade: 50A1300) in the x
homogenization method is superior to gap elements and direction. The thickness is 0.5 mm and the space factor is
double nodes from the standpoint of computational cost. 96%. The magnetic properties of the steel sheet are assumed
We compare the numerical results obtained by the homog- to be isotropic and nonhysteretic. Table 1 shows the mag-
enization method with the reference solutions and investi- netic flux density B (T) and the magnetic field H (A/m),
gate the accuracy. which are average values of the longitudinal and lateral
components, measured by a single sheet tester [15]. As the
first step for highly accurate analysis of a laminated iron
2. Benchmark Model of Laminated Iron Core core, we investigated nonlinear magnetostatic field prob-
lems to clarify the effectiveness of the various modeling
Figure 1 shows the proposed laminated iron core methods in this paper.
model. This is one of the benchmark models proposed by a
research committee of the Institute of Electrical Engineer-
3. Calculation of Reference Solution by Hybrid
Finite Element–Boundary Element Method

3.1 Formulation of hybrid FE-BE method

We adopt the hybrid FE-BE formulation using the

Fig. 1. Benchmark model of laminated iron core.
magnetic scalar potential and the current vector potential
[6, 8]. This hybrid method has the advantage that the
number of unknowns can be reduced by using the scalar
potential as much as possible in the formulation. Therefore,
it is considered very effective for large-scale analysis. A
first-order hexahedral element is adopted for the FEM and
a mixed linear and constant quadrilateral element for the
boundary element method (BEM) [6].

27
 In this paper, two regions are considered. Region Ωm,
with boundary Γm, consists of both a nonconducting mag-
netic substance, whose permeability µm may have nonlinear
characteristics, and insulation gaps, whose magnetic prop-
erties are assumed to be the same as a vacuum. In this region
with no supply current, the magnetic scalar potential ψ can
be defined and the FEM is applied as follows:
(1)
where N is the scalar shape function for a nodal finite
element and n is the unit normal vector on Γ.
The region Ω0 is free space, which extends to infinity,
with a supply current. The BEM is applied to this region
and ψ is considered as the physical quantity. The integral
equation is
(2)
where Γ is the boundary between the FEM and BEM
regions (= Γm), CP is the solid angle enclosed by region Ω0,
and ψJ is the magnetic scalar potential produced by a supply
current [6].
The interface conditions between the free space and
the region Ωm are based on the continuity of the potential
and of the normal component of the magnetic flux density.
The BEM and FEM can be combined directly without
change of variables by using mixed linear and constant BE
discretization, in which a linear element is used for the
potential and a constant element for the normal derivative
of the potential.
3.2 Application of FMM to BEM
In order to reduce the large computational costs, the
FMM based on diagonal forms for translation operators
[10, 12] is introduced into the first and second terms of the
right-hand side of Eq. (2), which correspond to the single
and double layer potentials, respectively [13]. By using the
spherical harmonic addition theorem, the first and second
terms of the right-hand side of Eq. (2) can be written as
follows:
(3)
(4)
28
where Ymn denotes the spherical harmonics defined in Ref.
10 and (r, θ, φ) are spherical coordinates. The correspond-
ing multipole expansions are as follows:
(5)
(6)
In applying the FMM to the double layer potential, the
gradients of the spherical harmonics are required. Although
various methods with both advantages and disadvantages
have been proposed [16–19], a method which is not re-
quired to take into account the singularity of Ym n on the
z-axis is fairly useful (see the Appendix for more informa-
tion). In this paper, we adopt the method based on Eq. (A.3),
which provides the best performance from the standpoint
of CPU time.
After obtaining the multipole expansions by Eqs. (5)
and (6) and adding the coefficients, we can deal with the
contribution of the single and double layer potential simul-
taneously in the FMM process. Therefore, the translations
of multipole and local expansions such as the multipole-to-
multipole (M2M), multipole-to-local (M2L), and local-to-
local (L2L) translations [10] are the same as the ordinary
FMM. The method based on Eq. (A.3) can be easily applied
to the BEM, considering vector quantities such as the
magnetic vector potential and the magnetic field as un-
knowns [20].
3.3 Calculation of reference solution by
hybrid FE-BE method with FMM
In order to obtain a reference solution of the bench-
mark model, a large-scale nonlinear magnetostatic field
analysis is carried out by the hybrid FE-BE method com-
bined with the FMM. We apply Eq. (1) to the laminated iron
core including insulation gap and Eq. (2) to free space. The
interface between the FEM and the BEM region is set in
free space. Figure 2 shows the mesh of the laminated iron
core model. An eighth part of the whole model is analyzed
because of the symmetry. One sheet is divided into three
layers of hexahedral elements in the laminated direction
and the insulation gap between steel sheets is divided into
two layers as shown in Fig. 2.
As a nonlinear iteration method, we utilize the New-
ton–Raphson (NR) method. When the change of the flux
density is less than 10–3 T for each element, the NR iteration
is terminated. We utilized the GMRES method [21] as an
iterative solver in the NR method, and minor iterative
preconditioning (MIP) with incomplete LU factorization
[8, 23] as a preconditioning method. In the hybrid FE-BE
method, the convergence characteristic of the NR iteration
deteriorates when the convergence criterion of the iterative
solver in the NR method is relaxed [19]. Therefore, the
Fig. 2. Mesh of laminated core model. (a) Overall view;
(b) Enlarged view.

convergence criterion for the GMRES method is set to 10–8.

In the minor iteration of the MIP, we adopt the Bi-
CGSTAB2 method [22], and its convergence criterion is set
to 10–3. Table 2 shows the specifications of the analysis. The
CPU time is about 15 hours, because we utilize an ex-
tremely fine mesh to guarantee computational accuracy.
Figure 3(a) shows the flux density distribution. The
magnetic flux is deflected to the end of the core in the
Fig. 3. Reference solution obtained by the hybrid
direction of the lamination. Because the homogenization
FE-BE method. (a) Distribution of magnetic flux
method is based on the assumption of periodicity of the density; (b) Z-component of magnetic flux density in
microscopic structure, there is a possibility that the compu- laminated core.
tational accuracy may deteriorate at the end of the core,
where periodicity does not apply. For this reason, the flux
density is evaluated at the end of the core. Figure 3(b) shows
the z-component of the flux density Bz along line A (0 < x of the core is fairly large because line B is close to the edge
< 50, y = 49 mm, z = 50 mm) and line B (0 < x < 50, y = 49 of the core.
mm, z = 99 mm) shown in Fig. 1. All the evaluation points
are inside the steel sheets. On line A, Bz is constant in one 4. Finite Element Analysis with
steel sheet and varies discontinuously between the steel
Homogenization Method
sheets. On the other hand, the change of Bz near the surface

4.1 Homogenization method 1 [2]

Table 2. Specifications of analysis By using the homogenization method, the laminated

structure shown in Fig. 4(a) is replaced by a homogeneous
magnetic substance with the equivalent magnetic aniso-
tropy as shown in Fig. 4(b). Therefore, the homogenization
method enables us to regard the laminated iron core as a
solid one. In this homogenization method, the magnetic
properties of the steel sheet are assumed to be isotropic and
nonhysteretic. In addition, the magnetic field and the mag-
netic flux are assumed to be locally uniform in the steel and
the insulation gap.

29
 (12)
Fig. 4. Homogenization of laminated iron core.
(13)
(a) Laminated core; (b) Macroscopic model.

The homogenized magnetic reluctivities parallel and
perpendicular to the lamination N|| and N⊥ are obtained as
follows:
(7)
(8)
where α is the space factor, ns(bs) and n0 are the magnetic
reluctivities of the steel sheet and the vacuum, and bs is the
magnetic flux density in the steel sheet. These equations are
easily derived from the continuity of the tangential compo-
nent of the magnetic field and the normal component of the
flux density.
On the other hand, bs is given by
In applying this homogenization method to the FEM, we
replace the original constitutive relations with the homoge-
nized one represented by Eq. (12).
4.2 Homogenization method 2 [24, 25]
In the case of an ordinary laminated iron core, n0 >>
ns and α ≈ 1 are generally true. By using this assumption,
Eqs. (7) and (9) can be simplified as follows:
(14)
(15)

(9) In this case, we can calculate bs directly from the homoge-

nized magnetic flux. Furthermore, because β is approxi-
mated by 1, Eq. (12) is simplified as follows:
where B(BX, BY, BZ) is the homogenized magnetic flux
density, obtained by the FEM, and the Z direction is per-
pendicular to the lamination. bs and ns are obtained from
Eqs. (7) and (9) by the NR method.
The homogenized field is solved by the usual FEM
with the following equation:
(16)
(10)

where A is the magnetic vector potential, H is the magnetic

field, J is the current density, and Ni is the vector shape
function. Because Eq. (10) is a nonlinear equation, it is
solved by using the NR method as follows:
(11)
The Jacobi matrix can be derived from Eqs. (7) to (9) and
is given as follows:
Figure 5 shows the original magnetic properties of
50A1300 and the homogenized ones obtained by Eqs. (7)
and (14). The value in parentheses is the space factor. In
order to clarify the difference between homogenization
methods 1 and 2 from the standpoint of versatility, we
investigate two values of the space factor: 0.96, which is the
original space factor, and 0.1, the extreme case. When α is
0.96, there is little difference between homogenization
methods 1 and 2, which means that Eq. (14) approximates
the homogenized magnetic properties with satisfactory ac-
curacy. On the other hand, when α is 0.1, the difference
becomes greater as the steel becomes magnetically satu-

30
 Fig. 5. Magnetic characteristics of laminated core.

rated. When the steel is extremely saturated, ns(bs) is about

equal to n0. In this situation, the difference between the
homogenized magnetic reluctivities obtained by Eqs. (7)
and (14) is about 4.2% when α is 0.96, and about 10% when
α is 0.1. Therefore, it is necessary to adopt homogenization
method 1 when the space factor is fairly small or the steel
is extremely saturated.
Fig. 6. Distribution of magnetic flux density
(homogenization method). (a) Nonuniform mesh;
(b) Uniform mesh. [Color figure can be viewed in the
online issue, which is available at
www.interscience.wiley.com.]

4.3 Numerical examples

We perform the finite element analysis of the lami-

nated iron core model shown in Fig. 1 by the homogeniza-
tion method. A first-order hexahedral element is used.
When the change of the flux density is less than 10–3 T for
each element, the NR iteration is terminated. The NR
iteration for bs in the process of homogenization method 1
is terminated when the relative residual norm is less than
10–3. Dirichlet boundary conditions are imposed on the
surfaces at x = 1 m, y = 1 m, and z = 1 m. In order to
investigate the influence of mesh division, a nonuniform
mesh, in which the core is divided nonuniformly in the
direction of lamination and the z direction, taking compu-
tational accuracy into consideration, and a uniform mesh,
in which the core is divided uniformly, are compared. In the
nonuniform mesh, the size of the elements in the direction
of the lamination is 2.5 mm inside the core and becomes
gradually smaller near the end of the core. The smallest size
is 0.44 mm, which is thinner than the thickness of a steel
sheet. In the uniform mesh, the size of all elements in the
core is 2 mm. Table 2 shows the specifications of the
analysis for the nonuniform mesh in homogenization
method 1.
Figure 6 shows the magnetic flux density distribu-
tion. It agrees qualitatively with Fig. 3(b), which was ob-
tained by the hybrid FE-BE method as a reference solution.
However, the magnetic flux density shown in Fig. 6(b) is Fig. 7. Comparison of computational results between
slightly smaller at the end of the core than in Figs. 3 and various methods for modeling the laminated core.
6(a), because the mesh division is too coarse in the part (a) Bz on line A; (b) Bz on line B.

31
 Table 3. CPU time and number of NR iterations to
convergence
Computer used: Pentium D/3.0 GHz
where the change of magnetic flux is sharp. Although the
homogenization method does not require detailed model-
ing, such as a mesh restricted by the laminated structure, a
fine mesh sufficient to approximate the change of the mag-
netic field accurately is essential.
Figure 7 shows a comparison of Bz along lines A and
B between the reference solutions and the numerical results
obtained with the nonuniform mesh. The numerical results
obtained by homogenization methods 1 and 2 are both in
good agreement with the reference solutions. Because the
space factor is very close to 1 in this benchmark model,
homogenization method 2 can achieve the same degree of
computational accuracy as homogenization method 1. The
homogenized magnetic flux obtained by finite element
analysis is spatially smooth and the magnetic flux in the
steel is calculated by Eq. (9). On line B, the numerical
results obtained by the two homogenization methods are in
good agreement, but they differ slightly from the reference
solutions near the edge of the core. Periodicity of the
microscopic structure does not persist near the edge of the
core, and the magnetic field varies drastically in the surface
steel sheet. Therefore, the difference indicates the precision
limit of the homogenization method for modeling the lami-
nated iron core.
Table 3 shows the CPU time and the number of
nonlinear iterations of the two homogenization methods
when the number of DC ampere-turns is varied from 1000
to 50,000 AT. Within the limits of the investigation reported
in this paper, the convergence characteristics of homogeni-
zation methods 1 and 2 are almost the same, which means
that the homogenized reluctivities parallel to the lamination
are accurately approximated by Eq. (14). In these analyses,
the number of NR iterations with respect to bs in homog-
enization method 1 is a maximum of 3. Therefore, the CPU
time for homogenization method 1 is very close to that for
homogenization method 2.
5. Conclusions
We have proposed a benchmark model for the devel-
opment of an approximate method for modeling laminated
iron cores. First, a large-scale and highly accurate analysis
32
of the proposed benchmark model is carried out by using
the hybrid FE-BE method with the FMM, and the reference
solutions are calculated. Next, the computational costs and
accuracies of two homogenization methods are discussed
by comparing them with the reference solutions, and it is
verified that the homogenization methods can analyze mag-
netic fields in laminated iron cores within acceptable com-
putational costs. The results of this research should promote
progress in the practical design of electrical machines based
on accurate electromagnetic field computations, taking ac-
count of the laminated structure in detail, which will lead
to the development of high-performance electric machines
with high reliability. A summary of the conclusions is as
follows:
(1) The numerical results obtained by homogeniza-
tion method 1 are in good agreement with the reference
solutions obtained by the hybrid FE-BE method. The com-
putational costs for the homogenization method are almost
the same as those for the analysis of a solid core, because
the mesh is not restricted by the laminated structure.
(2) Homogenization method 2, which is a simplifica-
tion of homogenization method 1 using an approximation
of the magnetic reluctivities parallel to the lamination, has
the same level of accuracy as homogenization method 1.
There is little difference between homogenization methods
1 and 2 from the viewpoint of CPU time and number of
nonlinear iterations.
(3) At the edge of the core, the numerical results
obtained by the homogenization methods differ slightly
from the reference solutions. The periodicity of the micro-
scopic structure does not hold true near the edge of the core,
and the magnetic field varies drastically in the surface steel
sheet. Therefore, the computational accuracy of the homog-
enization method can deteriorate near the edge of the core.
As a method of improving accuracy, we may consider
dividing the surface steel sheets directly into multiple layers
of elements.
Furthermore, from the viewpoint of programming, it
is easy to modify homogenization method 1 into homog-
enization method 2. Considering the case in which the space
factor is fairly small or the steel is extremely saturated,
homogenization method 1 enables us to obtain more accu-
rate numerical results.
In the future, we will perform the measurements on
this benchmark model and compare the numerical results
obtained by various modeling methods with experimental
data. In this paper we dealt with nonlinear magnetostatic
field problems, as a first step toward highly accurate analy-
sis of a laminated iron core. We will investigate modeling
methods for nonlinear magnetic field analysis of laminated
iron cores including eddy currents.
 Acknowledgment
The authors thank the members of the IEEJ Research
Committee on Advanced Computational Techniques for
Practical Electromagnetic Field Analysis for useful discus-
sions of the benchmark model.
REFERENCES
1. Yamazaki K, Watanabe Y, Mogi H, Mishima Y, Kaido
C, Kanao S, Takahashi K, Ide K, Hattori K, Nakahara
A, Watanabe T. Basic study of methods of eddy
current analysis for stator core ends of turbine gener-
ators. Papers of the Technical Meeting on Rotating
Machinery, IEE Japan, RM-05-154, 2005. (in Japanese)
2. Kaimori H, Kameari A, Fujiwara K. FEM computa-
tion of magnetic field and iron loss in laminated iron
core using homogenization method. IEEE Trans
Magn 2007;43:1405–1408.
3. Kameari A, Fujiwara K. Formulation for nonlinear
transient magnetic field analysis with eddy currents
in laminated iron core using homogenization method.
Papers of the Joint Technical Meeting on Static Ap-
paratus and Rotating Machinery, IEE Japan, SA-06-
24, RM-06-24, 2006. (in Japanese)
4. Muramatsu K, Okitsu T, Fujitsu H, Shimanoe F.
Method of nonlinear magnetic field analysis taking
into account eddy current in laminated core. IEEE
Trans Magn 2004;40:896–899.
5. Gyselinck J, Sabariego RV, Dular P. A nonlinear
time-domain homogenization technique for lami-
nated iron cores in three-dimensional finite-element
models. IEEE Trans Magn 2006;42:763–766.
6. Wakao S, Onuki T. Novel boundary element formu-
lation in hybrid FE-BE method for electromagnetic
field computation. IEEE Trans Magn 1992;28:1162–
1165.
7. Wakao S, Onuki T. Electromagnetic field computa-
tions by the hybrid FE-BE method using edge ele-
ments. IEEE Trans Magn 1993;29:1487–1490.
8. Takahashi Y, Wakao S. Large-scale analysis of eddy
current problems by the hybrid finite element-bound-
ary element method combined with the fast multipole
method. IEEE Trans Magn 2006;42:671–674.
9. Takahashi Y, Wakao S, Kameari A. Large-scale and
highly accurate magnetic field analysis of magnetic
shield. J Appl Phys 99, 08H904, 2006.
10. Cheng H, Greengard L, Rokhlin V. A fast adaptive
multipole algorithm in three dimensions. J Comput
Phys 1999;155:468–498.
11. Hamada S. Basic formulas of fast multipole method
for the Laplace equation in three dimensions. Papers
of Joint Technical Meeting on Static Apparatus and
33
Rotating Machinery, IEE Japan, SA-07-54, RM-07-
70, 2007. (in Japanese)
12. Hamada S, Kobayashi T. Analysis of electric field
induced by ELF magnetic field utilizing fast-mul-
tipole surface-charge-simulation method for voxel
data. Trans IEE Japan 2006;126-A:355–362. (in
Japanese)
13. Nishida T, Hayami K. The economic solution of 3D
BEM using the fast multipole method. Trans JSCES
1996;1:315–318. (in Japanese)
14. Technical Report 286, IEE Japan, 2000. (in Japanese)
15. Fujiwara K, Nakano M, Ishihara Y. Standard test
methods for measurement of magnetic properties of
power magnetic materials. Trans Magns
2004;28:661–669. (in Japanese)
16. Buchau A, Huber CJ, Rieger W, Rucker WM. Fast BEM
computation with the adaptive multilevel fast multipole
method. IEEE Trans Magn 2000;36:680–684.
17. Washizu M, Jones TB. Dielectrophoretic interaction
of two spherical particles calculated by equivalent
multipole-moment method. IEEE Trans Magn
1996;32:233–242.
18. Hamada S, Kobayashi T. Analysis of electric field
induced by ELF magnetic field utilizing generalized
equivalent multipole-moment method. Trans IEE Ja-
pan 2006;125-A:533–543. (in Japanese)
19. Takahashi Y, Matsumoto M, Wakao S, Fujino S.
Large-scale magnetic field analysis of laminated core
by using the hybrid finite element-boundary element
method combined with the fast multipole method.
Papers of the Joint Technical Meeting on Static Ap-
paratus and Rotating Machinery, IEE Japan, SA-06-
78, RM-06-80, 2006. (in Japanese)
20. Stratton JD. Electromagnetic theory. McGraw–Hill;
1941. p 250–254.
21. Saad Y, Schultz MH. GMRES: A generalized mini-
mal residual algorithm for solving nonsymmetric
linear systems. SIAM J Sci Comput 1986;7:856–869.
22. Gutknecht MH. Variants of Bi-CGSTAB for matrices
with complex spectrum. SIAM J Sci Comput
1993;14:1020–1033.
23. Hamada S, Takuma T. Effective precondition tech-
nique to solve a full linear system for the fast mul-
tipole method. IEEE Trans Magn 2003;39:
1666–1669.
24. Tokumasu T, Fujita M. Problems remained in 2 di-
mensional electromagnetic analyses (2). Papers of
the Joint Technical Meeting on Static Apparatus and
Rotating Machinery, IEE Japan, SA-06-02, RM-06-
02, 2005. (in Japanese)
25. Muto H, Takahashi Y, Wakao S, Fujiwara K, Kameari A.
Magnetic field analysis of laminated core by using
homogenization method. J Appl Phys 99, 08H907,
2006.
 APPENDIX
Multipole Expansion of Double Layer Potentials
In calculating the multipole expansion of the double
layer potential by Eq. (6), the gradients of the spherical
harmonics are required. Although formulas for the gradi-
ents of spherical harmonics in Cartesian coordinates were
published in Ref. 16, they have a rather complicated form
due to the associated Legendre functions and their deriva-
tives. In addition, we must take into consideration the
singularity of the associated Legendre functions on the
z-axis. Here, we outline the three methods for calculating
the gradients of the spherical harmonics without complex-
ity caused by singularities.
In Ref. 12, recurrence equations for the spherical
harmonics are described as follows:
(A.1)
where i is the imaginary unit. With these recurrence equa-
tions, partial derivatives of Ym
n with respect to x can be
analytically obtained as follows [19]:
(A.2)
34
Partial derivatives of Ymn with respect to y and z can easily
be obtained in the same way. In this approach, the recur-
rence equations are simple and we can obtain the partial
derivatives of Ymn directly. Furthermore, in the case of BEM
considering the vector quantities as unknowns, where the
x-, y-, and z-components of multipole and local expansions
are necessary, this method can derive the three components
simultaneously.
In another method which has the same advantages,
by modifying the recurrence equations presented in Ref. 17
so as to be consistent with the definition of Ym n in Ref. 10,
the recurrence equations for rnYm n are obtained as follows:
(A.3)
Because this method is straightforward and the multipole
expansion can be calculated directly from Eq. (6), it is fairly
effective from the viewpoint of computational cost.
A method based on conversion of the origin of the
coordinate system in which the multipole and local expan-
sions are defined in a cell has also been proposed [18]. First,
by treating r′ as the origin of the coordinate system, the
first-order coefficient of the multipole expansion is easily
obtained from Eq. (A.4). Next, the origin of the multipole
expansions, which is located at r′, is converted to the center
of the cell by M2M translation. This method is also fairly
effective from the standpoint of computational cost:
(A.4)
 AUTHORS (from left to right)

Yasuhito Takahashi (member) received his B.E., M.E., and Ph.D. degrees from Waseda University in 2003, 2005, and
2008. From 2006 to 2008, he was a research associate on the Faculty of Science and Engineering, Waseda University. Since
2008, he has been a GCOE assistant professor in the Department of System Science, Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto
University. His research interests are large-scale electromagnetic field computation and its applications to electric machines.

Shinji Wakao (member) received his B.E., M.E., and Ph.D. degrees from Waseda University in 1989, 1991, and 1993.
In 1996, he joined the Department of Electrical, Electronics and Computer Engineering, Waseda University, and became an
associate professor in 1998. Since 2006, he has been a professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Bioscience.
His research interests are electromagnetic field computation, photovoltaic power generation system, and design optimization
of electric machines.

Koji Fujiwara (member) received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering from Okayama University in 1982
and 1984 and D.Eng. degree from Waseda University in 1993. From 1985 to 1986, he was affiliated with Mitsui Engineering
and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. From 1994 to 2006, he was an associate professor in the Department of Electrical and Electronic
Engineering, Okayama University. Since 2006, he has been a professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering, Doshisha
University. His major fields of interest are the development of the 3D finite element method for nonlinear magnetic field analysis
including eddy currents, and its application to electrical machines, and the development of standard methods of measurement
of the magnetic properties of magnetic materials.

Hiroyuki Kaimori (member) received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in mechanical engineering from Toyo University in 2000
and 2002 and joined Science Solutions International Laboratory, Inc. His major fields of interest are numerical methods for
electromagnetic analysis and their applications to electrical machines.

Akihisa Kameari (member) received his B.S. degree in physics from Kyoto University in 1973. From 1973 to 1996, he
was affiliated with Mitsubishi Atomic Power Industries, Inc. and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Since 1996, he has been
affiliated with Science Solutions International Laboratory, Inc. His major field of interest is the development of numerical
methods for electromagnetic analysis. He is a member of IEEE.

35