Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
468
469
AFIR topologies [20, 21]. Since then, there have been only a few
papers reporting application of sizing equation to AFPM machine
design, no doubt because of its limits (e.g., magnet skewing and
winding configurations cannot be considered) [22]. Unlike traditional
RFPM machines, AFPM machines have a unique construction,
including a complex magnetic circuit that usually needs 3D Finite
Element Analysis (FEA) for design of the machines. FEA, though
accurate, has a long computation time that still can increase with the
remodeling (including re-meshing) required when machine geometry
changes. A solution to this problem is the application of 3D FEA
complementarily to sizing equation. The electromagnetic torque
against diameter ratio is extracted from AFPM machines fundamental
equation, to obtain maximum torque. A sizing equation capable
of calculating,with acceptable accuracy and speed, flux distribution
and torque characteristics, is then applied to obtain the initial
AFPM motor dimensions, before FEA is applied, for permanentmagnet skewing, accuracy enhancing, and the desired electric motor
parameters.
This research aims for an electric motor that is suitable for electric
vehicle application. The limits of the sizing equation used in the design
was overcome by FEA, which increased accuracy, so the resulting motor
has high power density, a most-sinusoidal back-EMF waveform, and
reduced torque.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the basic
equations for vehicle dynamics; Section 3 extracts the sizing equations
that give the TORUS AFPM machine its power-producing potential;
Section 4 presents the electromagnetic field analysis via FEA on the
proposed motor topology, from the sizing equation, for the desired
parameters, results of the FEA simulation results and of the sizing
equation compared; Section 5 concludes with discussing the results.
2. VEHICLE DYNAMIC, DESIGN RESTRICTIONS AND
REQUIREMENTS
A simple model of vehicle dynamics that evaluates vehicle performance
is herewith presented. A simplified vehicle driving resistance force
or road load (Frm ) consists of rolling resistance force (fro ), climbing
resistance force (fst ), and aerodynamic drag force (fl ):
Frm = fro + fst + fl
(1)
(2)
470
(3)
(6)
(7)
(8)
471
Br
1 + ra LkCpmg
(9)
Spm
Sg
where, g and Lpm are respectively the air-gap thickness and permanent
magnet thickness; Sg and Spm are respectively the air-gap area and
Speed (Km/h)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
Time (s)
105
120
135
150
472
350 mm
Total Axial-Length
100 mm
Material Limitations
Permanent Remanence
1.3 T
150 V
Requirements
Minimum Torque
33 Nm
Output Power
10 kW
Motor Efficiency
90%
t
t g
(10)
where t is the average slot pitch, and the fictitious air-gap coefficient
is defined by:
2
4 Ws
Ws
Ws
=
tan1
ln 1 +
(11)
2g
2g
2g
where Ws is the width of the slot opening. Fig. 2 is construction of
the double-sided slotted AFPM machine including its configurations
for rotor, stator, and slot. Assuming a sinusoidal waveform for the airgap flux density, the average electromagnetic torque of a double-sided
AFPM motor is calculated from:
= Bg Alin Do3 (1 2 )
(12)
4
where Alin is the linear current density of the machines inner radius
and is AFPM diameter ratio Di /Do ; Do is diameter of the machines
outer surface; Di is diameter of the machines inner surface. For
a given outer diameter and magnetic and electrical loading, AFPM
473
Wsb
Ds
Dd
d1
d2
Ws
l
(b)
(a)
Electom agneticTorque pu
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
~ 0.58
~
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Diameter Ratio
474
Ipk
1
=r
2
Irms
R
1 T i(t)
T
Ipk
(15)
dt
fe
(1 2 )Do2
p
(16)
1 + Do
2 2m1 Nph
(17)
1
m
fe
1+ 2
ke ki kp kL Bg A (1 2 )
Do Le
1 + k m 1 2
P
2
(18)
Pout
2 L
m 4 Dtot
tot
(19)
475
e (t)
i (t)
ki
kp
Sinusoidal
0.5Cos
Sinusoidal
0.5
Rectangular
Trapezoidal
1.134
0.777
Triangular
0.333
m is rotor angular speed, Dtot and Ltot , respectively, are the total
of the machines outer diameter and total of the machines length
including stack outer diameter and end-winding protrusion from radial
and axial iron stacks.
The generalized sizing equation approach can easily be applied to
double-sided AFPM TORUS-type motor. The outer surface diameter
(Do ) can be written as:
s
Pout
Do = 3 m
(20)
fe
2 1+
2 m1 ke kp ki ABg p (1 )( 2 )
The machine outer diameter total Dtot for the TORUS motor is given
by:
Dtot = Do + 2Wcu
(21)
where Wcu is protrusion of the end winding from the iron stack, in
radial direction. For back-to-back wrapped winding, protrusions exist
towards the machine axis as well as towards the outsides, and can be
calculated as:
q
ave
Di Di2 2AD
kcu Js
Wcu =
(22)
2
476
where Dave is the average diameter of the machine, Js is the slot current
density, and kcu is the copper fill factor. Axial length Le of the machine
is given by:
Le = Ls + 2Lr + 2g
(23)
Lr is the rotors axial length, and g is the air-gap length. Axial length
of the stator Ls can be written as:
Ls = Lcs + 2Lss
(24)
Note that for slotted machines, depth of the stator slot is Lss = Wcu .
Axial length of stator core Lcs can be written as:
Bg p Do (1 + )
(25)
4pBcs
where Bcs is the flux density in the stator core, and p is the ratio of
the average air-gap flux density to the peak air-gap flux density. Axial
length of the rotor, Lr , becomes:
Lcs =
Lr = Lcr + Lpm
(26)
r Bg
kC g
k
Br kfd Bg
(28)
477
Vnom
Pnom
P
m
f
Do
Di
Lpm
p
i
2 Lcs
Lcr
Wsb
Ws
Ds
d1
d2
Ns
Nph
Bg
g
130 V
10 kW
3
3
50
91.5%
240 mm
139 mm
0.58
12 mm
117
7
41 mm
9 mm
6
3
11 mm
3
3
18
(18 10)/3
0.71 T
2 mm
478
(a)
(b)
479
Stator yoke
Rotor yoke
Magnet surface
Bg
Bcs
Bcr
Bm
Ave.
Max.
Ave.
Max.
Ave.
Max.
Ave.
Max.
FEA
0.71
0.95
0.67
0.95
0.82
1.15
0.97
1.10
Sizing Eq.
0.70
0.95
0.64
0.95
0.80
1.10
0.96
1.10
480
(a)
(b)
Figure 6. Stator magnetic flux density, for average radius. (a) Stator
yoke. (b) Stator teeth.
4.1. Back-EMF Waveform
One well-known approach to minimizing cogging torque is magnet
skewing. It also reduces back-EMF total harmonic distortion (THD)
and eliminates some of the undesired harmonic components. The
481
(a)
(b)
482
Figure 9.
magnets.
483
(a)
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0
10
15
20
25
30
(in degrees)
(b)
484
120
100
80
Phase A
60
Phase B
40
Phase C
20
0
-20
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
360
-40
-60
-80
-10 0
THD = 3.1 %
RMS Back EMF = 74 V
80%
Back-EMF
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
11
13
15
Harmonic Order
17
19
21
23
25
485
3
without skew
7 degrees skew
2
1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
-1
-2
-3
-4
486
(a)
(b)
n f2
kh B m
(31)
Pe =
2 f2
ke B m
(32)
1
Prot = cf r n3 Do5 Di5
(33)
2
where cf is friction coefficient, r is density of the rotating part, and n
is rotation speed (in rotation per second). Efficiency of the laminatedstator motor, obtained with full loading at full load, was 91.5 %.
487
100%
90%
80%
Efficiency
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Speed (rpm)
488
b) All slots filled; the number of slots is thus a multiple of the number
of phases (i.e., Ns = k Nph ); for three-phase motors, the number
of slots is thus always a multiple of three.
c) Two coil-sides in each slot, the winding can be classified as doublelayer winding.
d) Balanced-windings only, i.e., only pole and slot-count combinations that result in back EMF of phases B and C being 120E
offset from back EMF of phase A.
e) Coils have equal number of turns, all spanning equal number of
slots, implying same-sized coils and therefore same resistance and
same inductance.
The assumptions routinely lead to motors capable of high performance,
and to motors that are readily wound. Motors can be wound violating
one or more of the assumptions, but they may be more difficult to
wind; such winding could also lower performance. Fig. A1 shows the
coil arrangements (9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24 slots) that gave the best
sinusoidal waveforms. A, B, and C represent the phases, and + and
represent direction of the windings.
The number of winding configuration options can also be increased
by short-pitching the fractional-slot structures. The 15-slot stator was
Table A1. Possible winding configurations and number of slots in
each pole, per phase.
Number
of Slots
Coil Pitch/Pole
Pitch
Number of slots
in each pole per phase
(Nspp )
2/2.25
0.75
12
2/3
12
full-pitch
15
2/3.75
1.25
15
3/3.75
1.25
18
3/4.5
1.5
18
4/4.5
1.5
21
3/5.25
1.75
21
4/5.25
1.75
10
21
5/5.25
1.75
11
24
4/6
12
24
5/6
13
24
full-pitch
Configuration
Number
489
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
+A -B -A +B -C -B +C -A -C
+A +C -A +B +A -B +C +B -C
(a)
Slot
No.
up
down
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
+A -B +C -A +B -C +A -B +C -A +B -C
+A -B +C -A +B -C +A -B +C -A +B -C
(b)
Slot
No.
up
down
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
+A -B +C -A +B +B -C +A +A -B +C -A +B -C -C
-B -B +C +C -A -C -C +A -B +C -A -A +B +B +A
(c)
Slot
No.
up
down
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
+A -B -B +C -A +B +B -C +A +A -B +C +C -A -A +B -C -C
+A -B +C +C -A -A +B -C -C +A -B +C +C -A +B +B -C +A
(d)
Slot
No.
up
down
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
+A -B -B +C +C -A -A +B -C -C +A +A -B -B +C -A -A +B +B -C -C
+A -B -B +C +C -A +B +B -C -C +A +A -B +C +C -A -A +B +B -C +A
(e)
Slot
No.
up
down
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
+A +A -B -B +C +C -A -A +B +B -C -C +A +A -B -B +C +C -A -A +B +B -C -C
+A +A -B -B +C +C -A -A +B +B -C -C +A +A -B -B +C +C -A -A +B +B -C -C
(f)
Figure A1. Stator winding constructions for 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
slots. (a) 9-slot double-layer stator winding (coil span = 2). (b) 12-slot
double-layer stator winding (full-pitch). (c) 15-slot double-layer stator
winding (coil span = 2). (d) 18-slot double-layer stator winding (coil
span = 4). (e) 21-slot double-layer stator winding (coil span = 5).
(f) 24-slot double-layer stator winding (full-pitch).
designed with a 3-slot coil span, but a 2-slot coil span is possible,
reconfiguration for it easy. For an 18-slot structure, 3-slot coil span,
and for 21-slot structure, both 3-slot and 4-slot coil spans can be
considered. For the 13 stator configurations in Table A1 and their
possible magnet spans, their losses, back-EMF harmonic content, and
pulsating torque components were investigated.Efficiencies were found
to not differ much except at lower speeds, where the differences were
more pronounced (owing to copper losses). The worst structure in
terms of copper losses was found to be 24-slot, full-pitched.
490
APPENDIX B. NOMENCLATURE
A
Alin
B
Bcr
Bcs
Bg
Bgpk
Bm
Bmax
Br
Bu
Cd
Dave
Di
Do
Ds
Dtot
Epk
Frm
Irms
Ipk
J
Js
H
Ke
Knn
Lcr
Lcs
Le
Lpm
Lr
Ls
Lss
Ltot
M
Nph
Nphs
Nphp
Ns
P
Paccel
Pcor
Pcu
Prot
Pnom
Pmin
Pout
Rs
S
Sg
Spm
T
Vnom
Wcu
Ws
Wsb
a
ag
cf
d1
d2
e(t)
i(t)
491
492
fe
fe (t)
fi (t)
fl
fr
fro
fst
g
gn1
kC
kL
kcu
kd
ke
kh
ki
kp
kf
kw
kP M
k
l
le
m
m1
n
r
scu
t
v
v0
0
r
ra
a
r
T
den
min
m
493
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors acknowledge University of Malayas provision of the High
Impact Research Grant No. D000022-16001 funding the Hybrid Solar
Energy Research Suitable for Rural Electrification.
REFERENCES
1. Rahim, N. A., W. P. Hew, and A. Mahmoudi, Axial-flux
permanent-magnet brushless dc traction motor for direct drive of
electric vehicle, International Review of Electrical Engineering,
Vol. 6, No. 2, 760769, April 2011.
2. Johansen, P. R., D. Patterson, C. OKeefe, and J. Swenson, The
use of an axial flux permanent magnet in-wheel direct drive in
an electric vehicle, Renewable Energy, Vol. 22, No. 13, 151157,
JanuaryMarch 2001.
3. Kim, M. J., B. K. Kim, J. W. Moon, Y. H. Cho, D. H. Hwang,
and D. S. Kang, A method for diagnosis of induction machine
fed by PWM vector control, International Journal of Applied
494
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
495
496