See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334261939

Modelling and co-simulation of a permanent magnet synchronous generator

Article  in  COMPEL International Journal of Computations and Mathematics in Electrical · July 2019

DOI: 10.1108/COMPEL-12-2018-0501

CITATIONS READS

10 1,811

3 authors:

Roberto Quintal Maciej Gwoździewicz

Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
16 PUBLICATIONS   66 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   81 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

M. Dybkowski
Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
73 PUBLICATIONS   1,173 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Banco de pruebas para aspas de pequeños aerogeneradores View project

Research and Development of Electrical and Mechanical Faults Detection and Compensation Methods for Vector-Controlled Drives with Induction Motors, Especially for
Safety Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maciej Gwoździewicz on 02 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0332-1649.htm

Permanent
Modelling and co-simulation of a magnet
permanent magnet synchronous synchronous
generator
generator
Roberto Eduardo Quintal-Palomo
Department of Mechatronics, Faculty of Engineering,
Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, Merida, Mexico, and Received 7 December 2018
Revised 14 February 2019
Accepted 8 April 2019
Maciej Gwozdziewicz and Mateusz Dybkowski
Department of Electrical Machines, Drives and Measurements,
Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Wroclaw, Poland

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to obtain an accurate methodology for modelling and analysis of the
permanent magnet synchronous generator connected to power electronic components.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper presents the methodology of the co-simulation of a
permanent magnet synchronous generator. It combines Simulink, Maxwell and Simplorer software to
demonstrate the electrical machine behaviour connected with the power electronics’ circuit. The finite element
analysis performed on the designed machine exhibit a more accurate behaviour over simplified Simulink
models. Results between both simulation and co-simulation are compared to measurements.
Findings – The co-simulation approach offers a more accurate depiction of the machine behaviour and its
interaction with the non-linear circuits.
Research limitations/implications – This paper focuses on the interior permanent magnet type of
PMSG and its interaction with a passive rectifier (nonlinear circuit).
Practical implications – The advanced capabilities of the co-simulation method allow to analyse more
variations (geometry, materials, etc.), and its interaction with non-linear circuits, than previous simulation
techniques.
Originality/value – The co-simulation as a tool for analysis and design of systems interconnected with
unconventional and conventional electrical machines and prototypes, and the comparison of the obtained
results with classical analysis and design methods, against measurements obtained from the prototype.
Keywords Finite element analysis, Circuit analysis, Power electronic simulation,
Computational electromagnetics, Co-simulation, Permanent magnet synchronous generator,
Modelling
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Different machine models have been developed in the literature for design and fault
analysis. The synchronous generator performance is determined by complex
interconnected components. These parts were usually modelled using separate specific
simulation tools.
COMPEL - The international
journal for computation and
mathematics in electrical and
electronic engineering
Funding: Mexican Council of Science and Technology CONACYT and the Department of Research, © Emerald Publishing Limited
0332-1649
Innovation and Higher Education of the Yucatan State SIIES grant number 312140. DOI 10.1108/COMPEL-12-2018-0501
COMPEL Many papers refer to the co-simulation to the simulation of interconnected software, e.g.
MathWorks Simulink and PSIM (Maswood et al., 2011), (Antony, 2017); however, those co-
simulation examples use an analytical model of the electrical machine, sometimes with an
additional modelled saturation (hysteresis), for taking into account some non-linearities of
the machine (Zidan et al., 2018).
Other authors use a combination of software and hardware in their so-called co-
simulation but again, the electrical machine is modelled as first-order differential equations
(no non-linearities taken into account) then the mathematical model is discretized and
embedded in the hardware’s real-time platform (Yang, 2010), (Hong et al., 2015), (Singh,
2018).
Some authors also refer to co-simulation when connecting an analytical model of the
machine (e.g. mathematical equations in LabVIEW) with another simulation program with
integrated circuit emphasis (SPICE), e.g. Multisim as shown in Kumar and Devi (2016) and
Senthilnathan and Annapoorani (2018).
For small wind turbines the permanent magnet synchronous generator (PMSG) is
preferred because is not dependent on external energy sources and because it can generate
electricity even at low rotational speeds. The simulation of such systems involves coupled
nonlinear subsystems of the electric, electromagnetic, mechanical and thermal domains of
physics. The increase in computational power has made finite element analysis (FEA) the
standard for modelling, simulating and designing electric machines (Lipo, 2017), also for the
PMSG (Tessarolo et al., 2017). However, most of the research in this area has focused only on
the electrical machines (Toliyat et al., 2012). Small number of publications focused on the
connection models from FEA with power electronics elements and mechanical connections.
This methodology, first named co-simulation in Zhou et al. (2006), has been used for fault
detection in complex machines or protypes such as the doubly salient permanent-magnet
(DSPM) motor in (Zhao et al., 2008), also for a five-phase dual-rotor permanent magnet in
(Zhao et al., 2015), in the fault detection of induction motors (IM) in (Apostoaia, 2014), in the
design of a standalone 4 kW hydro generator (Cetinceviz, 2015) and for a 1 kW direct drive
wind turbine in (Ocak et al., 2018). A similar co-simulation was done with Simulink
connected to an analogous finite element software, Flux2D, in Gonzalez et al. (2016) and with
Mentor Magnet in Irfan et al. (2018).
An approach named coupled-field in Schöps et al. (2013) was used for the analysis of
PMSG for small wind turbines (Haniotis et al., 2006) and for the calculation of losses due to
switching in a BLDCM in Ciurys (2017). Although, it is important to mention that coupled-
field simulations do not always include interconnected software (for SPICE or control) like in
the co-simulation approach.
The main goal of the paper is the comparative analysis of the classical simulation with
the co-simulation approach. For the simulation analysis, the Simulink software is used. In
the co-simulation three types of the software are used: Simplorer to model the power
electronics circuit, the Maxwell software for the PMSG analysis using FEA method and
Simulink for the control algorithm. Simulation and co-simulation analyses are compared
with the experimental tests.

2. Methodology of co-simulation
The new trend in modelling and analysis of power electronics and electrical drives systems
is to combine the different simulation platforms to provide better calculation results. Mixed
simulation with two or more platforms is named co-simulation. The general idea of this
method is presented in Figure 1.
 Classical simulation analysis of the electrical drives uses many simplifications. Permanent
Normally, electrical machines models are linear (Krause et al., 2002). It is not possible to magnet
analyse behaviour during different important states such as heating, saturation or synchronous
demagnetization.
These states can be analysed using advanced mathematical models of the electrical generator
machines (Casadei et al., 2012) (e.g. PMSM or PMSG), or using programs based on FEM
modelling (e.g. Maxwell) (Bianchi, 2005). The disadvantage of this type of model is the long-
time necessity to carry out simulation tests.
In the co-simulation, the subsystems (in Figure 1 FEM model and power electronics
model) will exchange data. Co-simulation is also the joint simulation of the well-known
software and semantics.
Problems are calculated or estimated with their suitable solvers (Makolo, 2013).
Co-simulation has an advantage in calculation of multi-domain systems. Because the
model is calculated by more than one system, it is possible to model complex and large-scale
objects (Persarvet, 2011).

3. Co-simulation of permanent magnet synchronous generator

In this chapter the idea of the co-simulation for modelling small wind turbines is presented.
Classical simulation analysis, performed in SimPower Systems (MATLAB), was compared
with co-simulation (Simplorer and Maxwell), then, the obtained results were compared with
the experimental tests.

3.1 Modelling and analysis of permanent magnet synchronous generator

The PMSG is based on the Sh90-L4 three-phase induction motor with the same stator and
housing but with a new rotor with internal permanent magnets. For this purpose, 18
4

30 mm rectangular cuboid N38SH NdFeB magnets were used. The geometry for the
placement of the magnets is shown in Figure 2a. Notice that the angles of the W in the upper
and lower poles are not symmetrical.
Magnets are mounted in the W shape. Created rotor includes the screws for holding the
steel sheets (presented in Figure 2a) and end-plates (Figure 2b) together, as well as four
grooves used for cogging torque reduction.
The geometry and the construction of the PMSG are described in Quintal-Palomo et al.
(2017). Notice that the model in Figure 2a is of the complete machine, as opposed to common
models with fractional parts of the machine and symmetrical condition boundaries (reduced
size 2D model). This is because the geometry of the upper half of the rotor is not the same as
the lower W shape; in other words the rotor is asymmetrical. This has proven to improve the
total harmonic distortion in Quintal-Palomo et al. (2017) and Gwozdziewicz and Zawilak
(2017). The parameters of the machine can be seen in in the Appendix.

Figure 1.
Idea of the
co-simulation
COMPEL

Figure 2.
FEA model of the
PMSG with 7,644
elements (a), the W
generator rotor
without permanent
magnets inserted and
without the end-
plates (b), the new
PMSG based on the
Sh90-L4 IM (c) and
mechanical stress
analysis at 3,600
rpm (d)

In Figure 2a the rotor of the PMSG is shown – the outer surface has four slits for lamination
alignment and flux distribution.
Detailed model of the new concept of the PMSG can be analysed from the electrical and
mechanical point of view. In Figure 2d the stress analysis of the PMSG rotor is presented.
This analysis is performed for the safety reasons the safety factor of the technical gap can be
calculated optimal (Quintal-Palomo et al., 2017). During simulation analysis the rotor of
PMSG was spinning to 3,600 rpm and no area was over 70 MPa. An additional simulation
with a tangential moment of 15 Nm and fixed shaft show as a result a 92.5 MPa. The
maximum yield strength of the M400-50A steel is 325 MPa (Cogent power, 2009). With a
safety factor of 2 the maximum allowable tensile stress is 162.5 MPa. The back
electromotive force (BEMF) of the generator at open circuit is presented in Figure 3.

3.2 Analysis of permanent magnet synchronous generator operation with passive rectifier
The three-phase bridge rectifier (uncontrolled rectifier) is used in this paper for the
conversion of the AC currents from the PMSG into DC. This conversion is preferred for
stand-alone renewable energy systems containing some sort of energy storage (e.g.
batteries) because of the DC bus voltage. The three-phase rectifier in this case consists of six
diodes as shown in Figure 4a.
Another advantage of such system is the low cost of the rectifier circuit in comparison to
other systems using thyristors, metal-oxide field effect transistors or insulated gate bipolar
transistors and their respective driving circuits.
 Permanent
magnet
synchronous
generator

Figure 3.
Comparison of the
full detail FEA model
predicted BEMF with
N38SH magnets
(dotted line) and the
measured line voltage
(solid line) at
nominal rpm

Figure 4.
Schematic of the
system (a), Simulink
SimPower Systems’
diagram with the
trapezoidal model
(BLDCM) (b) and
Maxwell Simplorer’s
Co-Simulation
diagram (c)
COMPEL The system was simulated with the six-diode arrangement which represents the passive
rectifier. These are the non-linear components of the system.
At the beginning the analysis of the generation system with PMSG and passive rectifier, which
was modelled in the SimPower Systems’ toolbox (MATLAB-Simulink), was performed, as shown
in Figure 4b. These simulations were done to validate the results of the modelling techniques
The three-phase passive rectifier with a capacitor and a single resistor was connected to
the 2D finite element model of the PMSG. The co-simulation was compared with the
classical simulation made in the SimPower Systems. The scheme of the models in the
different programs are presented in Figures 4b and 4c.
In Figure 4c the machine model is represented by the icon which links the Simplorer to
the Maxwell’s FEA software.
At the end of this part of the paper the results of both models, co-simulation and the
Simulink SimPower Systems’ machine model, were compared with actual measurements of
the constructed prototype PMSG.
The classical mathematical model for the PMSG on the rotating reference frame as found
in the literature Wilamowski and Irwin (2011), Gieras (2009) and MathWorks (2018) is:

d 1 Rs Lq
id ¼ Vd  id þ pv m iq (1)
dt Ld Ld Ld

d 1 Rs Ld l pv m
iq ¼ Vq  iq  pv m id  (2)
dt Lq Lq Lq Lq

3 

Te ¼ p l iq þ Ld  Lq id iq (3)
2

where Ld and Lq are the d and q axis inductances, Rs is the resistance of the stator
windings, id and iq are the d and q axis currents, Vd and Vq are the d and q axis voltages,
v m is the angular velocity of the rotor in radians per second, l is the amplitude of the
flux induced by the permanent magnets of the rotor in the stator phases, p in the number
of pole pairs and Te is the electromagnetic torque. This model will be referred to as the
sinusoidal model because the park and inverse park transformation inside the model are
given by:

ia ¼ id cosu  iq sinu (4)

i b ¼ id sinu þ iq cosu (5)

where u is the rotor position in electrical degrees. From (4) and (5), it is visible that the model
assumes a pure sinusoidal current output.
A more complex model of the PMSG is referred to as trapezoidal model. Here it is
important to mention that according to MathWorks (2018) the equations governing the
SimPower systems’ model are:

d 1


ia ¼ 2vab þ vbc  3Rs ia þ l pv m 2U0a þ U0b þ U0c (6)
dt 3Ls
 d 1

Permanent
ib ¼ vab þ vbc  3Rs ib þ l pv m U0a  2U0b þ U0c (7)
dt 3Ls magnet
 
synchronous
d d d generator
ic ¼  ia þ ib (8)
dt dt dt

Te ¼ pl U0a  ia þ U0b  ib þ U0c  ic (9)

where Ls is the inductance and Rs is the resistance of the stator windings, ia, ib and ic are the
a, b and c phase currents, vab and vbc are ab and bc phase-to-phase voltages, v m is the
angular velocity of the rotor, l is the amplitude of the flux induced by the permanent
magnets of the rotor in the stator phases, p is the number of pole pairs, Te is the
electromagnetic torque and U’a, U’b and U’c are a, b and c phase electromotive forces in per-
unit value to the amplitude of the flux l and is represented by Figure 5.
Notice that (6) to (9) are first-order differential equations where Ls is assumed constant
and does not vary with the rotor position.
Also, this model assumes a linear magnetic circuit with no saturation of the stator and
rotor iron. In Figure 6 the phase currents with the passive rectifier are shown for the
different models. Notice the similarities between the trapezoidal machine model from
SimPower Systems Figure 6b and the FEA model in Figure 6c. These similarities indicate
that the W shape of the interior permanent magnets concentrate the flux very similar to the
effect of rectangular surface permanent magnets, that the brushless DC machines (BLDCM)
use, which are the basis for the trapezoidal back EMF model. In other words, even though
we have an interior permanent magnet machine the flux distribution looks more similar to
that of a BLDCM.
In Figure 7 the speed reference for the simulation and co-simulation is shown. This speed
reference was used for the comparison of both modelling methods. Notice that it reaches the
nominal speed at 157 rad/s (1,500 rpm) at 200 ms. Both simulation and co-simulation were
done with a 1,000 m F capacitor and a 400 ohm resistor on the DC bus. The results of the
simulation and co-simulation are shown in Figure 7. Notice the peak currents in Figure 7d
which are not present in Figure 7c, the Simulink SimPower systems’ simulation results.
Also, notice in Figure 7d the ripples of the DC bus current at constant speed, they are due
to the pole’s shape and the rectifier.

Figure 5.
Electromotive force U
for the SimPower
systems’ trapezoidal
model
COMPEL

Figure 6.
PMSG stator currents
A, B, C from the
sinusoidal model (a),
trapezoidal model (b)
and co-simulation (c)

3.3 Comparison with measurements

Simulation results were compared with actual measurements of the PMSG.
In Figure 8 the laboratory setup with the prototype of the PMSG machine is presented.
As a driving machine the induction motor is used. This motor is controlled using the scalar
control u/f = const. The generator PMSG is connected by a rigid coupling.
A comparison of the phase currents for the simulation, co-simulation and the real
machine measurements is shown in Figure 9; there is one phase shown for clarity purposes.
Notice the similitude between the co-simulation and the measurements. Also, in Figure 9 the
simulation results are labelled as “tuned model” because the results shown are from the
SimPower Systems’ trapezoidal model with a lower flux linkage established by the magnets
of 0.8 webers per pole pair. This was done to obtain results closer to the measured voltages
and currents. These results can also be confirmed in Figure 10 where the DC bus voltage (the
voltage after the passive rectifier) is shown. From Figure 10, it is important to mention that Permanent
initial voltage sag in the measurements is mainly due to the scalar control of the driving magnet
machine (an induction motor) which was coupled with the PMSG, as shown in Figure 8.
Further measurements were done at different speed ramps and different loads, as shown in
synchronous
Figure 11. There is some discrepancy visible between the measured DC bus voltage and the generator
co-simulation in steady state, but the co-simulation results are closer still to the measured
values than the simulation’s tuned model of the trapezoidal back EMF machine. Again, in
Figure 11a, some initial voltage sag due to the scalar V/Hz control of the driving machine is
visible.
Notice in Figures 10c and 11d that the steady state DC bus voltage is not so different for
the measurements and the simulation. This is because at slower speed the machine non-
linear effects such as saturation are not influencing the machine behaviour. Also notice in
Figure 11b in the inset that the simulation results tend to overestimate the peak current of
the transient almost 0.3 A in comparison to the measurements and co-simulation.

Figure 7.
Speed reference for
simulation and co-
simulation (a), DC bus
voltage results from
the simulation and co-
simulation (b), DC
bus current from the
simulation (c) and DC
bus current from the
co-simulation (d) with
400 ohm

Figure 8.
Laboratory setup for
experimental tests
COMPEL As mentioned earlier, the trapezoidal model was modified to obtain results closer to the
measurements made in the laboratory, specifically the machine constant (also known as
voltage constant) which according to the back-EMF measurements (line-to-line) should be
412.2 Vpeak at 1,000 rpm (equivalent to 0.98 Wb), instead a voltage constant of 335.1Vpeak
at 1,000 rpm was used (equivalent to 0.8 Wb).

Figure 9.
Phase current
comparison for the
simulation, co-
simulation and
measurements at
nominal speed
(1,500 rpm) and a
140 ohm load

Figure 10.
Transient
comparison with a
140 ohm load from 0
to 1,500 rpm in
500 ms ramp
 Permanent
magnet
synchronous
generator

Figure 11.
Transient
comparison with a
240 ohm load from 0
to 1,500 rpm in
500 ms ramp DC bus
voltage (a), phase
currents (only one
phase is shown for
clarity) (b), from 0 to
750 rpm DC bus
voltage (c) and phase
currents (d)

Figure 12.
Phase currents from
co-simulation (dotted
line) and
measurements (solid
line) with 140 ohm
load at 1,500 rpm.

4. Conclusion
From the results shown in Figures 9, 10, 11 and 12, the similarities between the co-
simulation and measurements are clear. The trapezoidal model, despite its similitude to the
analysed IPM PMSG, it is still not able to replicate the measurements as good as the co-
simulation does.
Even in the transients the co-simulation was able to show a behaviour closer to the
measurements than the trapezoidal model. This is even clearer in the steady state. It is
COMPEL believed that for more accurate predictions of the machine behaviour in the design phase,
the co-simulation of the system brings better results.
With these results it is noticeable the benefit of designing and assessing the
transient behaviour of a complete system (electrical machine, power electronics, and
control) when using the co-simulation approach. Even in specific differences such as the
DC bus voltage, for example, a system that uses this parameter as an input for speed
estimation will have a different behaviour when presented with the results from the
first-order model or results from the co-simulation. Also, the interaction of these
interconnected systems will show a more realistic behaviour than the classical models
used for control design and simulation.
Also, because of the nature of the analysed machine, an IPM machine with asymmetrical
poles (as described in Quintal-Palomo et al., 2017), the co-simulation provides results closer
to the measurements obtained in comparison to the simulation results that assumes an
electrical machine with symmetrical poles.
For the co-simulations presented in Figures 10 and 11; took about 2 h of computation
time on a core i7 with 8 Gb of memory. This is a clear disadvantage in comparison to the
trapezoidal model which takes only few seconds to simulate. The computation time will
decrease with further improvements in processor technologies and/or distributed
computing; therefore, co-simulation will pervade in more applications in the near
future.

References
Antony, A. (2017), “Frequency transformer for power conversion in offshore wind farms”, 2017
International Conference on Energy, Communication, Data Analytics and Soft Computing
(ICECDS), IEEE, pp. 1526-1531.
Apostoaia, C.M. (2014), “Multi-domain system models integration for faults detection in induction
motor drives”, IEEE International Conference on Electro Information Technology, pp. 388-393.
Bianchi, N. (2005), Electrical Machines Analysis Using Finite Elements, edited by Rashid, M.H., 1st ed.,
CRC Press, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2349-9
Casadei, D., Filippetti, F., Mengoni, M., Gritli, Y., Serra, G., Tani, A. and Zarri, L. (2012), “Detection of
magnet demagnetization in five-phase surface-mounted permanent magnet generators”, 2012
3rd IEEE International Symposium on Power Electronics for Distributed Generation Systems
(PEDG), IEEE, pp. 841-848.
Cetinceviz, Y. (2015), “Multi-Criterion design and 2D cosimulation model of 4 kW PM”, Synchronous
Generator for Standalone Run-of-the-River Stations, Vol. 5, pp. 1470-1476.
Ciurys, M.P. (2017), “Time-stepping finite element analysis of a brushless DC motor with the PWM
speed control”, 2017 International Symposium on Electrical Machines, SME 2017, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1109/ISEM.2017.7993557
Cogent power (2009), “Typical data for SURA M400-50A”, available at: https://cogent-power.com/cms-
data/downloads/m400-50a.pdf (accessed 30 November 2018).
Gieras, J. (2009), Permanent Magnet Motor Technology, edited by Gieras, J.F., 3rd ed., CRC Press,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420064414
Gonzalez, J., Hernandez, C., Melgoza, E., Espinoza, C., Hernandez, J.L., Arjona, M.A. and Martinez, F.J.
(2016), “Analysis of a PMSG and its power electronic converter in isolated operation”,
Proceedings - 2016 22nd International Conference on Electrical Machines, ICEM 2016,
pp. 126-131.
Gwozdziewicz, M. and Zawilak, J. (2017), “Limitation of torque ripple in medium power line start
permanent magnet synchronous motor”, Przegląd Elektrotechniczny, Vol. 1 No. 6, pp. 3-6.
Haniotis, A., Kladas, A. and Tegopoulos, J. (2006), “Coupled field, circuit and mechanical modelling of Permanent
wind-turbine”, edited by Wiak, S., COMPEL - The International Journal for Computation and
Mathematics in Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 357-367.
magnet
Hong, Y.Y., Ye, Y.T., Chang, Y.R., Lee, Y.D. and Liu, P.W. (2015), “FPGA-based on-line neural network
synchronous
in energy storage system for power regulation of wind-turbine generator”, International generator
Conference on Power Systems Transients (IPST2015), Cavtat.
Irfan, M., Ermanu, A.H., Suhardi, D., Kasan, N., Effendy, M., Pakaya, I. and Faruq, A. (2018), “A design
of electrical permanent magnet generator for rural area wind power plant”, International Journal
of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (Ijpeds), Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 269-275.
Krause, P.C., Wasynczuk, O. and Sudhoff, S.D. (2002), Analysis of Electric Machinery and Drive Systems,
1st ed., IEEE, available at :https://doi.org/10.1109/9780470544167
Kumar, N.S. and Devi, S.V. (2016), “Design of power electronic transformer based variable speed wind
energy conversion system”, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Circuit, Power and
Computing Technologies, ICCPCT 2016, IEEE, pp. 1-7.
Lipo, T.A. (2017), Introduction to AC Machine Design, Wiley, Madison, available at: https://books.
google.pl/books?id=jPY2DwAAQBAJ
Makolo, P. (2013), “Wind generator Co-Simulation with fault case analysis master of science ”, Thesis,
Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, available at: http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/
records/fulltext/179741/179741.pdf (accessed 30 November 2018).
Maswood, A.I., Sarangan, N. and Venkataraman, A. (2011), “Comparison of current control methods for
a near Unity power factor converter in a wind generator system feeding stand-alone loads”,
Conference Record - IAS Annual Meeting (IEEE Industry Applications Society), pp. 1-8.
MathWorks (2018), “SimPower systems PMSG model”, Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machine, available
at: www.mathworks.com/help/physmod/sps/powersys/ref/permanentmagnetsynchronousmachine.
html (accessed 30 November 2018).
Ocak, C., Uygun, D. and Tarimer, I. (2018), “FEM based multi-criterion design and implementation of a
PM synchronous wind generator by fully coupled co-simulation”, Advances in Electrical and
Computer Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 37-42.
Persarvet, G. (2011), Evaluation of Finite Element Method Based Software for Simulation of
Hydropower Generator – Power Grid Interaction, Uppsala Universitet, available at: http://uu.
diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:461456/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed 30 January 2019).
Quintal-Palomo, R.E., Gwozdziewicz, M. and Dybkowski, M. (2017), “Design and test of an internal
permanent magnet generator for small wind turbine applications”, 2017 19th European Conference
on Power Electronics and Applications, EPE 2017 ECCE Europe, 2017–Janua, p. 2012.
Schöps, S., De Gersem, H. and Weiland, T. (2013), “Winding functions in transient magnetoquasistatic
field-circuit coupled simulations”, COMPEL - The International Journal for Computation and
Mathematics in Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 2063-2083.
Senthilnathan, K. and Annapoorani, K.I. (2018), “Co-simulation and hardware implementation of multi-
port rectifier for power system and renewable energy applications”, Wind Engineering,
p. 309524X1878038.
Singh, S. (2018), “Real time simulation of power electronic converters”, 2018 International Conference
on Control, Power, Communication and Computing Technologies (ICCPCCT), IEEE, pp. 450-454.
Tessarolo, A., Luise, F., Pieri, S., Benedetti, A., Bortolozzi, M. and De Martin, M. (2017), “Design for
manufacturability of an off-Shore Direct-Drive wind generator: an insight into additional loss
prediction and mitigation”, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol. 53 No. 5,
pp. 4831-4842.
Toliyat, H.A., Nandi, S., Choi, S. and Meshgin-kelk, H. (2012), Electric Machines: Modeling, Condition
Monitoring, and Fault Diagnosis, Electric Machines, Taylor and Francis, available at: https://doi.
org/10.1201/b13008-1
COMPEL Wilamowski, B. and Irwin, D. (2011), The Industrial Electronics Hanbook, edited by Wilamowski, B. and
Irwin, D., 2nd ed., CRC press.
Yang, S. (2010), Novel Sensorless Generator Control and Grid Fault Ride-through Strategies for
Variable-Speed Wind Turbines and Implementation on a New Real-Time Simulation Platform.
Zhao, W., Cheng, M., Zhu, X., Hua, W. and Kong, X. (2008), “Analysis of fault-tolerant performance of a
doubly salient permanent-magnet motor drive using transient cosimulation method”, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 1739-1748.
Zhao, J., Gao, X., Li, B., Liu, X. and Guan, X. (2015), “Open-phase fault tolerance techniques of five-phase
dual-rotor permanent magnet synchronous motor”, Energies, Vol. 8 No. 11, pp. 12810-12838.
Zhou, P., Lin, D., Fu, W.N., Ionescu, B. and Cendes, Z.J. (2006), “A general cosimulation approach for
coupled field-circuit problems”, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 1051-1054.
Zidan, A., Housseini, B., Tarbouchi, M. and Bouchard, D. (2018), “Incorporating saturation in
Permanent-Magnetic synchronous generator modeling for All-Electric ship applications”, 2018
IEEE International Conference on Smart Energy Grid Engineering (SEGE), IEEE, pp. 260-266.

Appendix
Parameters of the PMSG: Pole pairs 2, nominal power 3,000 W, nominal speed 1,500 rpm, stator phase
resistance 5.56 ohm, stator phase inductance 4.11 mH, inertia 0.015 kg·m2, viscous damping
0.0004924 N·m·s and voltage constant 414.2 Vpeak L-L/krpm (tuned to 335.1 Vpeak L-L/krpm).

Corresponding author
Roberto Eduardo Quintal-Palomo can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

View publication stats