Final report Cooperative Agreement No.

DE-FC36-02GO12112

The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors
and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or
endorsements, either expressed or implied, of the Department of Energy or the
U. S. Government.

SUPERCONDUCTING FLYWHEEL POWER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

COMMERCIAL ENTRY PHASE

Final Report for the Period November 1, 2002 – March 31, 2007

Submitted by: Boeing Phantom Works

Program Manager:
Dr. Michael Strasik
206-544-5389

Principal Investigator:
2002 – 2006 Art Day, Phil Johnson
2006 – 2007 Dr. John Hull
206-544-5803

Team Members:

Boeing Phantom Works

Southern California Edison
Praxair Specialty Ceramics Corporation
Praxair Cryogenics
Ballard Power Systems
Ashman Technologies
Argonne National Laboratory

PREPARED FOR THE UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Under Cooperative Agreement
No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

1
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

1. SUMMARY

This is the Final Technical report for “Superconducting Flywheel Power

Risk Management System – Commercial Entry Phase”, a Cooperative
Agreement between a Boeing-led team and the Department of Energy under
the Superconductivity Partnership Initiative. It covers the period November 1,
2002 – March 31, 2007.

Boeing Phantom Works and its team originally proposed a three-year

Phase III SPI project to develop a 30-kWh flywheel with a 100 kW power
capability as a power risk management system (RMS) for power users and
providers.
Boeing Phantom Works was planning to perform system design,
integration, and test. Praxair Specialty Ceramics was planning to work with
Boeing to improve and commercialize HTS processes. Southern California
Edison was planning to refine system requirements and conduct on-site
testing of the prototype to validate the system’s performance. This
qualification testing would ensure wider acceptance by other utilities and
power users. Ashman Technologies was planning to develop the
motor/generator and motor controller, and Praxair Cryogenics division was
planning to develop and commercialize the cryocooler technology. Argonne
National Laboratory (ANL) was assisting in the bearing optimization and loss
reduction studies. Toray Composites was going to bring expertise in
composite rotor fabrication.

The chief objectives for the Risk Management System Flywheel were to
(1) demonstrate its ability to protect a critical load such as a small data center
from swings in power availability, cost, and power factor and (2) show that the
RMS flywheel can perform these functions with reduced noise, emissions,
and operating costs when compared with non-HTS competitors including
batteries, diesel generators, and microturbines.

The proposed development plan included three phases of effort, each of a

year’s duration, with significant technical milestones to be achieved and
reviewed at the end of each phase. The first step in the plan was to complete
the application and market assessment studies. Boeing was going to obtain
inputs from our end-user Southern California Edison and other members of
the User Advisory Group comprised of Clearwood Associates (a geothermal
producer), Alaskan utilities, and power system experts at the University of
Washington and National Laboratories. In coordination with this task, all team
members would carry out system requirement trades in Task 2 and
participate in a Requirements Review at the 3-month point. The review was
supposed to cover (1) a set of agreed-upon metrics to be used to evaluate
our success in meeting the program’s key objectives, (2) an evaluation of
program risk areas with mitigation plans, and (3) design requirements for the
system and for major components.

2
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

A preliminary system design was going to be developed in Task 3,

concluding with a team-wide preliminary design review. At this point we were
going to authorize risk-reduction experiments for those parts of the system
that still appear to pose significant obstacles. For example, finite-element
modeling of the spoke system has revealed this component to be one of the
greatest obstacles to successful flywheel design. Other candidates for risk
reduction include large rotor winding, HTS bearing losses, and cryostat
sealing techniques. Subsequent tasks would build and test these components
to ensure reliable final designs.
Throughout the first year of the program the team would conduct
optimization studies of the HTS bearing approach, using subscale tests as
well as electromagnetic modeling in an effort to better understand and reduce
system losses. ANL was assisting with complementary studies. Boeing and
Praxair were planning to also work to enhance HTS material properties,
particularly Jc. The bearing and HTS materials efforts comprised Tasks 4 and
5.
While this program cannot answer all questions on subsystem reliability,
Task 6 was supposed to begin the process of accumulating long-term data on
cycling and operation of appropriate sub-scale components. These were to
include rotors and also subscale HTS subsystems. Task 7 was to address
rotor material properties systematically from the coupon level up through
complete rotors. Task 8 was to address the proposed sub-slab installation of
the flywheel system with the assistance of qualified civil engineers.
Finally, an ongoing System Engineering task was to coordinate this and all
other work to keep it relevant to the defined System Requirements. This was
planned to be done, in part, by systematically updating a series of system
performance budgets in spreadsheet format. The rotordynamics consulting
firm Vibragon was employed to augment Boeing’s modeling of system
dynamic performance.

This project was initially partially funded at a very small level and the main
focus was on the first three tasks of the proposed project. The Boeing
Company changed cost policy determination of the original proposal resulting
in doubling of the proposed labor rates on the project. As a result of that
financial reclassification from the original proposal, it was mutually agreed by
Boeing and DOE to put the project on hold until a successful renegotiation
would take place with the new rates. Therefore, the project was put on hold in
March 2003, less than a year after start of the contract, and this hold
continued until it was restarted in August 2006. Only very minimal work was
completed from August 2006 until the completion of the contract on March 31
2007, as only about $60K of funding was remaining when the project was
restarted in 2006. The project was never fully renegotiated between Boeing
and DOE, and therefore the original objective of the proposal was never
achieved, and only limited amount of accomplishments on the first three tasks
was completed. This report will summarize those accomplishments.

3
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

The original Phase III effort was proposed while the Boeing team was in
the initial stages of Phase II development, prior to testing of the large 10-kWh
flywheel system. That design included an innovative but unproven composite
spoke system, chosen to give the flywheel a high energy density.
Unfortunately, it encountered a dynamic response during full integration
testing that resulted in damage to the flywheel system. As a result of this test
experience, the Boeing team used more conservative design approach when
designing the 5-kWh / 100-kW UPS for utility testing. A key element of this
conservative approach was proven by a successful full-speed spin test of the
redesigned metal hub and a composite rotor.

To build on this experience base, we are now proposing a staged

approach in the development of the world’s largest composite flywheel
system with superconducting bearings. As part of our existing Phase II
flywheel project, we will design, build, and test a 10-kWh hub/rotor system
based on our successful approach with the 5-kWh design. In a new Phase IIB
program, we are proposing to develop preliminary design for a 30-kWh / 100-
kW flywheel power risk management system. As part of the preliminary
design effort, we will also conduct a detailed design on the critical full-sized
hub/rotor system. Boeing will lead the team in design and fabrication to verify
the design and modeling approach, before continuing with a detailed design
of the complete system. Given the development status of this technology, the
Boeing team feels that the most will be gained by focusing on the high-risk
aspects, with ambitious goals for both basic technology development and
scale-up of new technology, rather than on final product development and
demonstration. The proposed cost matching ratio reflects these development
risks.

In the following section, a brief review of the market assessment and an

established need for the flywheel based Power Risk Management System is
summarized.

2. NEED FOR POWER RISK MANAGEMENT

The power market has changed dramatically in the last several years and
will continue to evolve -- with both users and providers looking for smarter
strategies and technologies. Risk management will be much more
individualized, and a significant number of power users will need localized
solutions under their own control. With the advent of rolling blackouts on both
the West and East Coasts of the United States, reliability of power has
become even more critical. Meanwhile, peak prices are rising dramatically.
Inevitably, the greatest costs will be borne by those drawing during peak
hours, and unlike existing uninterruptible power supply (UPS) systems,
flywheels have the potential to store significant amounts of energy at a
reasonable cost.

4
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

It was the aim of this program to develop the first flywheel electricity
systems that give power users and utilities a full-scale device to manage both
their cost and reliability risks. This development relies fundamentally on
advances in the capabilities of high-temperature superconducting (HTS)
materials. Principal reasons include the need for a system that can be cycled
tens of thousands of times, is easy to control and therefore reliable, has no
wear parts in critical mechanisms, and is far more efficient than flywheels with
non-HTS suspensions. Figure 1 shows the design for Boeing’s 5-kWh
flywheel system being developed under the Phase-2 cooperative agreement
between the Boeing team and DOE, which was the point of departure for this
new program.

Figure 1. Boeing 5- kWh Flywheel.

2.1. Background of Application

2.1.1. PROPOSED HTS SYSTEM

The HTS system we proposed was conceived as a result of new
conditions in power markets and the emerging needs of power consumers.
Both utilities and business operators are increasingly looking for innovative
ways to manage the risks of grid-provided power.
The system we proposed to fill this need is a superconducting flywheel
power Risk Management System (RMS). The system, shown schematically in
figure 2, will (1) provide uninterruptible power with significant ride-through
capabilities, (2) efficiently store off-peak energy and then autonomously re-
supply that energy when peak power rates are in effect, and (3) condition grid
power to maintain near-unity power factors at the meter and at critical loads.
We sized this system for an output of 100-kW average power and a total
stored energy of 30-kWh. This size was recommended by our team member
SCE based on the needs of their small and medium-sized commercial
customers, and SCE’s own plans to develop distributed power resources.

5
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

They are very interested in avoiding the costs and delays associated with
siting new transmission lines to accommodate the growing loads in urban
areas.

POWER FROM POWER TO

UTILITY GRID CUSTOMER

¢ ¥ ¡$ ¢ ¥ ¡¢
POWER INVERTER
AND CONDITIONER

FLYWHEEL MOTOR
CONTROLLER

FLYWHEEL
STORAGE UNIT

CUSTOMER
UTILITY
VAULT

Figure 2. Schematic Operational Diagram of Boeing Flywheel Power Risk

Management System.

Previous and ongoing flywheel work at Boeing and elsewhere has focused
on the potential use of flywheels to act as uninterruptible power systems
(UPS). This potential is growing, with the recent introductions of small
flywheels for immediate backup until on-site diesel generators come online.
The Boeing product concept includes this function, but also addresses the
emerging susceptibility of electricity to prolonged outages and exceedingly
high peak-demand price. Members of our User Advisory Group (SCE,
Clearwood Electric, Alaska Energy Authority, GE Power Systems, and Boeing
Facilities) have expressed a strong interest in flywheels to protect them from
the economic risk of these high peak prices. Finally, many customers now
require harmonic filtering and power factor correction. Rather than force
customers to solve all of these problems individually, the flywheel RMS will
use the enabling efficiency and storage capacity of flywheels with
superconducting bearings to meet the need for comprehensive power risk
management.

The Boeing system as initially introduced would consist of three units: (1)
a power inverter and conditioning unit that also houses the flywheel’s motor
controller, (2) the flywheel storage unit in a vacuum canister with integral
cryocooler, and (3) a customer utility vault for the flywheel storage unit.

6
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

Eventually, fully qualified containers may become integral parts of the storage
units but early customers will prefer the assurance of below ground
installation.
In operation, the ac power unit will receive power from the utility grid and
transfer some part of this power to the flywheel storage unit through a
motor/generator and motor controller. Because the flywheel unit can store a
significant amount of energy (typically sized for 1 to 3 hour’s usage), it will
primarily draw power when grid demand and prices are low. When prices are
high, or when power is interrupted, the unit will deliver this power to the
customer at low cost. At all times, the integrated inverter/controller unit will
maintain good power quality and correct the power factor to the benefit of the
utility as well as the customer. The system itself will run continuously, with a
rated lifetime in excess of 20 years. Potential commercial uses of the Risk
Management System are numerous because power cost and reliability are
central to the operation of our economy.

2.1.2. ADVANTAGES OVER COMPETING TECHNOLOGIES

Competing storage technologies include batteries, coil-based

superconducting magnetic energy storage (SMES), pumped hydro,
compressed air, and non-HTS flywheels. The flywheel RMS was also be
compared with centralized gas turbines and distributed microturbines.

Conventional UPS devices have evolved out of a combination of diesel

engines, generators, batteries, and UPS electronics. Chemical-based
batteries, which provide temporary power for nearly all UPS systems, have
numerous problems. Probably the most significant of these is the fact that
batteries will weaken substantially over the operating life of a system. This
reduces the reliability of the “uninterruptible” component and requires ongoing
testing, maintenance, and finally disposal and replacement of the battery
string. At Boeing’s Bellevue Data Center, batteries are replaced every 4 to 6
years. The high life-cycle costs of these systems in actual use at Boeing are
shown in figure 3. Continued system maintenance is required to ensure
adequate battery fluid levels and contact resistances, system health, and
hydrogen gas removal. Life cycle battery costs for UPS systems are about
$5000 per kWh. Therefore, a flywheel UPS system with a design life of 25
years will show an early return on investment, even if initial capital costs are
somewhat higher. The Boeing flywheel energy storage system represents a
more reliable, lower-maintenance, environmentally friendly alternative to
batteries for uninterruptible power systems.

SMES systems use the energy stored in the magnetic field generated by a
current in a superconducting coil. The SMES option might be used to provide
short bursts of power, but cannot compete with flywheels for ride-through
protection. Foreseeable SMES systems also have very large capital and

7
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

operating costs associated with liquid helium usage. HTS versions seem far
in the future.

$10,000,000
Lead-Acid Batteries
- 5 year life/battery
- $1.60/Wh battery cost
$8,000,000 - includes O&M
- 56,000 lbs
Life Cycle Cost

750 kWh UPS System

$6,000,000
Boeing Bellevue Data Center

$4,000,000

$2,000,000 - 25 year lifetim e

- $3/Wh FES cost 750 kWh UPS System
- includes O&M 20x 35 kWh Flywheels
- 40,000 lbs
$-
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
Years of System Operation

Figure 3. Boeing Life-Cycle Cost Experience with Battery-Based UPS.

Pumped hydro storage has fairly low efficiency and is geographically

restricted to a few (usually large) applications. Compressed air energy
storage is another option limited by geography. Neither of these technologies
is easily scalable from its baseline configuration and none offers rapid and
efficient response nor distributed storage near points-of-use.

Gas turbines and microturbines are often used as points of reference for
storage system costs. While large gas turbines produce much of the original
power, they cannot directly help the thousands of commercial customers who
face poor power supply from the grid. Microturbines are being proposed and
tested as a way of providing distributed local generation, which would be
preferred by both customers and the utilities. SCE has several such units
under test but has found them to be highly inefficient (typically 24%).
Downfalls of the microturbines include noise, generation of emissions, and
monthly maintenance. Gas turbines are not solving the customer’s needs for
clean, uninterruptible power.

Emerging competition exists from other flywheel developers, such as

Beacon Power, AFS Trinity Power, Active Power, and Pentadyne. These
competitors rely on much less reliable and lossier bearing systems such as
mechanical or active electromagnetic, which will result in higher operating and

8
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

replacement costs for customers than the proven Boeing HTS bearing design.
Only Active and Pentadyne have truly entered the market so far, with Active
Power having a usable but inefficient and very limited product. Figure 4
compares the energy losses for mechanical, electromagnetic, and Boeing
HTS bearing. The total bearing loss in the 10 kWh system tested in the Phase
II project met the DOE’s goal of HTS bearing loss of 0.1% per hour. The
figure shows that the HTS bearing is the only economical solution to long-
term storage and UPS service. Other factors supporting this conclusion
include wear of mechanical bearings and complex inductive coupling
limitations of electromagnetic bearings.

100
Battery

80
Energy Remaining (%)

Boeing Flywheel
superconducting bearings
60 (includes cryogenics)

40 Flywheel
electromagnetic
bearings
20 Flywheel
mechanical
bearings
0
0 50 100 150 200
Time (Hours)

Figure 4. Energy Remaining in Flywheel with Time for Various Bearing Systems.

Boeing’s low-loss superconducting bearing is the key technical advantage

and leads to several economic benefits. First, the Boeing HTS bearing
enables autonomous operation of the flywheel as a peak energy cost/risk-
mitigation device; storing power when costs are low and providing that power
back to the user during peak power cost times. Second, the HTS bearing is
the “solid-state” equivalent of a complex electromagnetic bearing. This
technical advantage manifests itself in scalability of design to various sizes
without the complication of ever increasing inductive coupling and control
problems. A number of other advantages and benefits to power users are
listed in figure 5.

9
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

Key Feature of Boeing Flywheel

Power Risk Management System
Low loss superconducting bearing
Non-contact bearings, simple design
Fast response time, voltage or current
regulation
Environmentally benign
Benefits to Electric Power Users
• Provides energy for peak demand periods (load leveling/following)
• Peak power price protection
• Eliminates or minimizes system blackouts and brownouts
• Smoother, more reliable “black start” operations
• Defer investment in new generation capacity
• Enables better use of wind, solar, or geothermal power sources
• Low maintenace compared to batteries, or flywheels with conventional bearings
• System price target competitive with conventional generation or storage
technologies
• Uninterruptible power source
• Eliminates sags or surges
• Enhanced power quality
• Reactive power supply
• Power oscillation damping
• Green power
• Allows generation at environmentally acceptable areas
• No hazardous waste
• No noise or air pollution

Figure 5. Technical and Economic Benefits of Flywheel Power Risk

Management System.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED HTS SYSTEM TO BE DEVELOPED

The proposed system approach for the Superconducting Power Risk

Management System takes as its point of departure the work and designs
developed under an ongoing Phase II SPI program, also led by Boeing. In
that program, the ultimate goal is the demonstration of a UPS flywheel
providing 100-kW of power for 30-60 seconds. The demonstration system
was preceded by a 10-kWh laboratory prototype with a 3-kW average /10-kW
peak power motor, nominally for load leveling. With this system, we have
successfully verified many technologies. We have proven stable levitation
with permanent magnet lift system, proven stability and very low loss of our
superconducting bearing design, built and demonstrated motor/generator with
low negative-stiffness, and successfully operated this motor with novel control
system. The motor/generator system was also used to fully control the
flywheel system. Full flywheel system stability and operation was
demonstrated. Unfortunately, this system was later damaged during high-
speed testing, where the composite-spoke approach proved to be
dynamically difficult. Figure 6 illustrates the 10-kWh flywheel being assembled
for testing and Figure 7 shows subsequent damage after a touch-down event
due to excessive composite spoke flexibility. As a result of this test
experience, the Boeing team used more conservative design approach when
designing the 5-kWh / 100-kW hub and rotor system. This conservative
approach was proven by a successful full speed test of the redesigned metal
hub and a composite rotor. Figure 8 shows the redesigned composite rotor
mounted on an aluminum hub being installed for spin testing. Figure 9 shows
the spin testing data showing a successful full speed test (22,900 rpm,

10
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

exceeding the peak operational speed of 22,500 rpm) of the redesigned 5-

kWh rotor/metal hub assembly.

Figure 6. 10- kWh Flywheel with Figure 7. 10-kWh Flywheel with

Composite Spokes Being Installed. Composite Spokes Damaged During
SpinTesting.

Figure 8. 5- kWh Flywheel with an

Aluminum Hub Being Installed in Figure 9. Spin Test Result of 5-kWh
Boeing Spin Pit. Flywheel with an Aluminum Hub.

The initial design concept for the 30-kWh flywheel unit, carried forward
from the 5-kWh / 100-kW prototype, is shown in figure 10, with some
features highlighted.

Composite Rotor. A flywheel rim must withstand tremendous centripetal

forces to achieve the most cost-effective use of its carbon-fiber composite
materials. The hub has a similar challenge and must be able to match the
radial growth of the wheel. The program will design these components with

11
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

realistic factors of safety (typically two or more) and fatigue de-rating factors
to replicate the conditions of a commercial life.
Hybrid HTS/Permanent-Magnet Bearing. The energy losses associated
with mechanical and electromechanical bearings are prohibitively high for nearly
all potential flywheel applications. These losses are typically at least 3% to 10%
of the stored energy per hour. With hybrid superconducting bearings, we have
demonstrated that it is now possible to obtain losses that are as low as 0.1% per
hour - after imposing a cryogenic overhead factor FCOH of 20 – 30 at 77K. HTS
bearings possess other significant advantages such as dynamic stability,
simplicity, and reliability. The Boeing-patented bearing design (figure 11)
employs horizontally-polarized magnets to achieve a high magnetic stiffness
per unit area of superconductor.

Figure 10. RMS Unit Design, exclusive of Power Electronics and Cryocooler.

12
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

The bearings rely on YBCO materials technology developed at Boeing

over the past sixteen years, using a patented process. Boeing produces the
largest and best-quality single-grain YBCO monoliths available in the U.S.
(Fig. 11). With critical current densities Jc of about 30,000 A/cm2 at 77K, the
superconductors produce interaction forces (with the permanent magnets in
the rotating portion of the bearing) that are sufficiently high to enable a very
low-loss flywheel bearing.

Boeing YBCO HTS Bearing HTS Bearing Installed HTS

Crystal Stator Rotor Bearing

Figure 11. Boeing HTS Stability Bearing.

Lift Magnet System. The system design uses permanent magnet rings to
carry most of the flywheel’s weight, significantly reducing the thrust
requirement on the HTS bearing. A small but inevitable amount of instability in
the lift system is counteracted with the HTS bearing. This approach has been
validated in systems built at Boeing and Argonne.
Cryogenic System. Compared with most potential HTS applications, the
Flywheel Risk Management System imposes relatively light requirements on
the cooling load and base temperature. Pulse-tube cooler technology now
promises to provide the most efficient, reliable cooling for this application.
Pulse-tube cooler designs eliminate moving parts from the cooler and do
away with sliding seals.
Motor/Generator (M/G). The flywheel transforms electrical energy to
mechanical and back again through a brushless permanent-magnet motor.
An unusual design requirement is that the motor magnets and laminations
must not destabilize the HTS bearing and flywheel. Team member Ashman
Technologies met this requirement in both 10-kW and 100-kW designs.
Motor Control and Power Conversion Electronics. A motor controller
unit transforms the variable speed motor output to an intermediate dc bus
level. Special algorithms have been developed through Ashman for efficient,
sensorless control of the flywheel M/G. From there, the power electronics for
the proposed system will be based very closely on commercial systems now
in use for battery UPS and renewable generation systems, typically
incorporating power factor correction. These systems are already very simple
to operate and have been developed with standby power requirements as low
as 50W.

13
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

4. INITIAL DESIGN OF THE 38 KWH ROTOR

The first task in the original Phase 3 proposal was to transfer the 100 kW
UPS flywheel system, once testing was completed during Phase 2, to SCE
and carry out on-site testing. The system must then be capable of unattended
operation and will require a few upgrades to enhance stability and self-
monitoring. This task was never completed due to lack of funding in Phase 3
and the delay in completing Phase 2 tests, due to redesign of the rotor/hub
interface after previous instabilities described in the previous section.

The thermosyphon cooling loop originally designed by Mesoscopic

Devices for Phase 2 showed occasional instabilities that led to warming of the
superconductors above normal limits. This situation could usually be
managed with personnel on hand, but would not be tolerable for unattended
use. As a useful task that could be accomplished with the limited funding
committed so far for Phase 3, we decided to redesign the thermosyphon
system for more stable operation. This has been done collaboratively with
Praxair.

5. SPIN ANALYSIS OF THE 38 KWH FESS

Results of the preliminary rotor spin loads analysis of the 38 kWh system
are presented in the sections below. As a precursor to the analysis of a full-
up system, which includes a central hub, the composite rotor without a hub
was subjected to assembly and spin loading. The results show that this
loading will produce acceptable stresses and displacements.

5.1. Model Description.

The rotor design variables are presented in Table 1. The candidate rotor
consists of three hoop wound composite rims. The rim materials as well as
the model attributes are presented in figure 12.

TABLE 1. THE 38 KWH DESIGN

VARIABLES
Operating Speed = 20k RPM
Stored Energy = 38.8 kWh
Rotor Mass = 686 lb
Rotor Height = 22.5 in

The middle and outer rims have a 0.025” diameter interference fit. As with
previously performed flywheel analyses, the analysis includes load steps to
follow the assembly sequence. Contact surfaces are used to model the
interaction of bodies with each another. The composite rims are modeled with
orthotropic material properties.

14
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

Model Attributes
¾31” ID
¾40” OD
¾0.025” Interference @
T700s/T800s Interface

S2-Glass
T700S
¾Contact surfaces

T800S
between each rim
¾ Central Hub is not
included
Load Steps
15.5” IR Step Description
1 T700s/T800s Press Fit
2 Spin to 20k RPM

20.0” IR

Figure 12. The 38 kWh Axisymmetric Spin Analysis. The FE model was created
with IDEAS and solved with ABAQUS.

5.2. Results
The results of the spin loads show that the rotor will experience
acceptable stress levels. The absence of a hub should be noted. The shear
stress levels will increase once this hardware is included. With that in mind,
the resulting max stress levels are presented in table 2. The table shows a
minimum Safety Factor of 1.6 on the hoop stress levels in the inner (S2-
Glass) and outer (T800s) rims.

Table 2. The 38 kWh Safety Factors @ 20k RPM

Stress Stress Safety

Item Material Fty or Fcy
Comp (ksi) Factor
Rim 1 S2-Glass Radial -5 -40 8.0
Hoop 110 175 1.6
Shear 1 7 7.0
Rim 2 T700s Radial -3 -40 13.3
Hoop 233 385 1.7
Shear 1 13 13.0
Rim 3 T800s Radial -2.5 -40 16.0
Hoop 290 453 1.6
Shear 1 7 7.0

15
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

The hoop and radial stress distributions through the rotor thickness are
presented in figure 13. The discontinuities in the curve show the borders of
each rim.

S2-Glass
T700S

T800S

290 ksi

15.5” IR 233 ksi

Path-1
110 ksi
20.0” IR

Figure 13. The Rotor Radial & Hoop Stress vs. Rotor Thickness at 20K RPM.

The resulting radial displacements of the inner and outer radii, as a

function of load step time, are presented in figure 14. The plot shows that the
press fit causes the IR to contract 0.007r while the rotor OR expands 0.007r.
Application of the 20 kRPM spin loads causes the IR of the S2-Glass to
expand to 0.180r inches while the OR expands to 0.175r inches. It should be
noted that the linear slope of the response curves, be it displacement, stress,
or contact pressure, are due to the fact that the load step time is proportional
to ω2, not ω.

16
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

Press-Fit Spin to 20k RPM

T800s OR S2-Glass IR

Figure 14. The Radial Displacement of the Rotor IR & OR.

6. INITIAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF 38 KWH FLYWHEEL CONCEPT

The XLRotor code was used to extrapolate from the 5 kWh design, based
on the rim concept discussed in the previous section (figure 15). Also, simple
scaling was used for the motor/generator to account for the new speed range
of nominally 10,000 – 20,000 rpm plus a modest increase in power output, to
150 kW. To get the power at the bottom of this speed range, the motor’s
magnet area must be increased by roughly a factor of 2.7 from the earlier
design. This was done by increasing the length by a factor of 1.5 and the
diameter by a factor of 1.8.

17
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

Model Attributes
¾31” ID
¾40” OD
¾0.025” Interference @
T700s/T800s Interface

S2-Glass
T700S
¾Contact surfaces

T800S
between each rim
¾ Central Hub is not
included
Load Steps
15.5” IR Step Description
1 T700s/T800s Press Fit
2 Spin to 20k RPM

20.0” IR

Figure 15. The 38 kWh rim design.

The geometry of the scaled design is shown in figure 16. Note the thin rim
design. If the aluminum hub is to be used, the rim will have to get somewhat
thicker (smaller ID) which will increase weight. This will be one of many trades
in developing the working design.
FLYWHEEL DYNAMIC MODEL
25

28 30
6
15
Shaft Radius, in

5 10 12 14 1618
4 8 22
24
2 20 26

-5

-15

Axial Location, in
-25
-5 15 35 55

Figure 16. XLRotor model geometry.

18
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

The computed results for this model show a fairly stiff rotor (a benefit),
with a low speed bearing fundamental. However, there is a mode (shown as
the red line in figure 17) that closely follows the speed of the rotor. This would
lead to excessive vibration at most speeds of less than 5,000 rpm. It may be
possible to hold the rotor on auxiliary bearings through this speed range, but
a better strategy would be to reduce the moment ratio to some number
significantly less than 1.0. The key problem at present is that the transverse
and polar moments of inertia are nearly equal. Moving the hub lower on the
rim would also help, as was done on the 5 kWh design. The analysis
described here will show the need for fundamental adjustments prior to
establishing component requirements for designers.
Rotordynamic Damped Natural Frequency Map
FLYWHEEL DYNAMIC MODEL

200

180
Natural Frequency, Hz

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Rotor Speed, rpm

Figure 17. Critical speed map of the initial 38 kWh flywheel design.

7. FACILITY ANALYSIS FOR HIGH-ENERGY TESTING

Boeing has completed an analysis of the High Energy Spin Pit to

determine the best location for both near-term and far-term test activities.
Several alternatives were evaluated including relocating the Air Turbine
system to an adjoining below grade bunker like chamber (FEL Chamber in
figure 18) as well as utilizing outside spin test services. Following an initial
review of analysis performed by Lab Operations Test Engineering group, it

19
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

has been determined that the existing pit with the addition of the cement
barrier was the best solution and the analysis indicates that the existing pit is
sufficient to contain any potential failure and leave the second system intact.
The analysis has shown that the two tiers of cement ceiling blocks will not be
lifted clear of the nested interlock holding the blocks in place. With two layers
of blocks the energy rating is over 60 kWh. It should be noted that this
assumes that the momentum transfer takes place over a 10 ms period. The
rating decreases if the duration is shorter, as is shown in figure 19.

Figure 18. Overview of spin test facility configuration.

20
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

Momentum Duration (Sec) 0.001 0.005 0.01 0.02 Energy Density Calculator
Effective Energy Ratio Ee/Et 75% 75% 75% 75% OD (in) 22.75
Load Factor fl 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 ID (in) 13.50
H (in) 13.50
Energy Density
ED Permissible Energy (KWh)
(KWh/#) 1st Layer of Bolocks Only Gama (#/in^3) 0.0530
0.01 1.50 7.51 15.01 30.02 RPM 24,000
0.02 2.12 10.61 21.23 42.46 W (lb) 188.43
0.022 2.23 11.13 22.27 44.53 I (#-Ft-Sec^2) 3.55
0.04 3.00 15.01 30.02 60.05 E (KWh) 4.23
0.06 3.68 18.39 36.77 73.54
0.1 4.75 23.74 47.47 94.94
0.15 5.81 29.07 58.14 ED (KWh/#) 0.022

Energy Density
ED Permissible Energy (KWh)
(KWh/#) 1st & 2nd Layer of Blocks Number of Blocks & Block Wieght Calculator
0.01 4.50 22.52 45.03 90.07 H (Ft) 3
0.02 6.37 31.84 63.69 d (Ft) 3
0.022 6.68 33.40 66.80 b (Ft) 1.8
0.04 9.01 45.03 90.07 L (Ft) 12.5
0.06 11.03 55.16 h (Ft) 2
0.1 14.24 71.21 p-concrete (lb/Ft3) 144
0.15 17.44 87.21 Ee/Et 75%
#DIV/0!
This spreadsheet computs the energy #DIV/0!
necessary to lift one block due#DIV/0!
to the change #DIV/0!
in Block Weight (lb) 6,480
direction of the momentum flow. # 1st Layer Blocks 6.00 Actual Number Hit
# 2nd Layer Blocks 7 Actual Number Hit
Target Energy (KWh) 4.23 W-blocks-total (lb) 84,240
MS - 1 Block 4.02
MS - Both Rows of Blocks (3
total) 14.79

Figure 19. Boeing 15-08 building block lift Pit rating summary – Note that rating is
based on energy concentrated on only one 1st level block, the actual number of
1st and 2nd level blocks calculated in yellow for comparison.

A Test Procedure review was conducted with the analysis presented to

the flywheel group and additional failure possibilities have initiated some
testing and further investigation into likely failure modes. In particular, large
piece projectile failure at these energies shows that the pit walls could be
penetrated beyond the acceptable 4” limit (shown in figure 20, with thin-walled
containment assumed). Coupon testing in a gas gun as well as a meeting
with Toray Composites America test staff are planned to determine if some
absorbing barrier may be required to line the pit walls.

21
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

Figure 20. Spin Pit wall rating.

8. ACCOMPLISHMENTS ON MOTOR/GENERATOR AND FLYWHEEL

CONTROLLER SYSTEMS – AFTER 3 YEAR PAUSE IN FUNDING

This project was on hold for over 3 years and was restarted in July 2006.
The primary objective in this task was to troubleshoot the current
motor/controller and system controller hardware and software to determine
optimum configuration for a commercial system that would be required for the
Power Risk Management System that would be deployed remotely in service
at a utility customer. This section summarizes our accomplishments and
conclusions.

We transitioned motor controller software development and maintenance

to Boeing from the subcontractor, Ohio State University. This software is
being modified to work with a redesigned commercial motor/controller that
would be used in a commercial flywheel power risk management system. We
determined that real time operational status variables need to be displayed

22
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

and recorded during operation. Initial implementation was completed with

rotor torque angle and speed estimations in both Hall-effect mode and
sensor-less mode, via CAN bus. Boeing wrote a statement of work for a new
motor/controller and utility interface hardware and solicited proposals from
several vendors for an integrated commercially produced motor/controller
system. Anderson Electric Controls, Inc., of Kent, Washington was selected
as the best potential vendor to design and build a future commercial controller
system that would be compatible with our motor/generator design.

9. STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) FOR THE MOTOR CONTROLLER FOR

THE 25KW FLYWHEEL

This SOW will address the design, build, delivery, and integration of the Motor
Controller for the Boeing Company’s 25 kW Flywheel Energy Storage System.

These activities will include:

1. Engineering services to design, build, deliver, and integrate a 25 kW motor /

generator controller system. This system will comprise of a one deliverable
25 kW motor controller system compatible of working together with the
Boeing selected 25 kW motor / generator (rotor / stator). It is anticipated the
flywheel controller will produce a variable frequency AC output from a 600-
volt DC power source to drive the flywheel rotor assembly during the charge
mode. During the discharge mode, the motor controller will take the AC output
of the 25 kW brushless DC permanent magnet motor / generator, on the
flywheel rotor assembly, and convert it to volts DC; its value with respect to
speed.

2. The motor controller will be a stand-alone controller with a simple user

interface system capable of remote operation and monitoring; distance as
great as 200 feet. Coordinate with Boeing engineering for remote
communication bus choice. The control system will have to be self monitoring
and fault tolerate. The motor controller will be packaged into an approved
commercial type enclosure. Switching frequency harmonic reduction desired,
to motor.

3. The motor controller will be required to operate the motor / generator in the
following modes of operation:

a. Startup (Charge) Mode: The system is not connected to the critical

load and is used for normal start up of the FESS. Hall Effect
sensors are present to allow position indication until such time other
sensing methods of control are suitable.

b. Normal (or Idle) Mode: The FESS is fully charged but is not
providing power to the load. This control method may utilize

23
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

“Sensorless Control” or as specified. If another method of position

or speed sensing is desired, it is necessary to coordinate with
Boeing engineering.

c. Discharge Mode: The FESS power system has now providing

power to the load. Intially, this mode will be controlled manually, i.e.
automatic action between the Motor-Controller and Load
Conditioning equipment will be defined by operators.

d. Recapture mode: After the FESS is partially discharged we restart

the motor drive action in a smooth and controlled fashion to
recharge the FESS.

e. Normal Shut Down Mode: Used for normal shutdown of the FESS.
This control method will require idling or disabling the drive control
and manually loading the FESS with external loads.

f. Emergency Shut Down Mode: Used for a rapid deceleration of the

flywheel rotor assembly during detection of an internal fault of the
FESS. Energy is now diverted to external load bank.

4. The motor / generator controller design effort will be in coordination with the
Boeing team to insure compatibility with the FESS motor / generator. The
motor / generator is Tau connected and operated as Delta wound, e.g.
floating neutral.

5. Beginning engineering services within 5 days of receipt of contract will

include: a preliminary data package consisting of physical properties such as
dimensions and weights: electrical characteristics such as reliability, voltage
per phase, current per phase, electrical noise and shielding techniques; and
other such characteristics or test data sufficient to commence with a final
design approval. The Boeing Company will respond to the preliminary data
package within 5 days.

6. Final engineering services with 100 days of receipt of contract will include
delivery of one motor / generator controller system as well as engineering
services to integration and tune the motor controller to the FESS motor /
generator. Final engineering services will include documentation such as
mechanical drawings, parts list, schematics, operating instructions, software,
and other test data used to verify the specifications outlined in Table 3.

SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS
Table 3. Description of Inverter Characteristics.

Description of Inverter Characteristics Conceptual Design

600 Vdc
Input Nominal Voltage

24
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

25 kWatts
Input Power Rating
Input Connection 2 wire plus ground
Input Voltage Range 500-670 Vdc
Input Current 60 Amps (RMS)
Input Power Factor 0.98 (at rated linear load)
Speed Range 0-20,000 rpm

Output Rating at Critical Load 25Kwatts

Output Current 60 Amp (RMS)
Output Voltage 600 Vdc nominal at 20,000rpm
Output Voltage Regulation unregulated
Output Power Factor 0.7 lag to 0.9 lead
Output Harmonic Distortion 3-5% THD maximum over range of load
Output Ride Through Time 4 minutes

Other
Packaging Commercial Grade
Operating Temperature 40F to 120F
Motor Poles 6
Motor Phases 3

Testing of the Motor/Generator Controller required software additions,

modifications and monitoring points. Specifically, the added visible monitor
points included many status variables previously suppressed, such that we
could not accurately diagnose some stability problems and operating modes.
These parameters indicate the true operation of the Motor controller, i.e.
torque vs. speed-loop and monitored conditions. Systematically, we
determined that some control variables were incorrectly defined, yielding
erroneous operation and control. Range of variables affected proper control of
the speed-loop, when initiated no acceleration and speed maintenance
resulted. Our software engineer examined the code and determined the
correct ranges for the speed-loop control variables. Software additions
comprised of completion of the Speed-loop portion of the software (figure 21).
This portion of the ‘code’ is necessary to complete system integration, with
the UPS. Ultimately, the goal is to operate the flywheel under speed-loop
control via the three integrated program buttons provided on the UPS remote
panel, with automatic transitions. We are uncertain about the operation of the
basic ‘sensor-less loop’ control blocks of software, i.e. Kalman Filter, Speed
Estimator etc. Timing analysis of the control loop software is not completed
and tested. Once these operational parameters are established, the operating
limits of the M/C will be defined. It has been determined that use of the
Torque-Loop for operation is not desirable with this Controller and Motor-

25
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

Generator (M/G) system, except for startup. Smooth operations under torque
control is limiting acceleration rate and is problematic. Thus, we have limited
our startup average current to 10 amps under Hall-Effect control and 20 amps
under Current-loop Sensor-less control. We expect better control and higher
acceleration under Speed-loop Sensor-less control.

Figure 21. Sensorless motor/generator control schematic.

The UPS tests accomplished insured basic autonomous function and

control of the interface and of its output power quality. This provided the
knowledge necessary to prepare integrating the Motor Controller and UPS via
the “Can Bus” interface, and provide the necessary feedback and lessons
learned as a departure point for a new design. We verified operation using
our ‘Variac’ to supply varying AC Power, for 'voltage range interlock' operation
and load regulation. Additional software functions were added to provide
remote monitoring of the UPS operation, on the “Can Bus”.

Efficient testing of this system requires an accurate bench test system to

develop the software. We used a small motor system from a previous system,
but its pole number, stator inductance, and rotor inertia is very different than
the future flywheel system. Thus, bench testing and development is severely
curtailed and its effectiveness minimal. Even though rotor gaps and
suspension, of the motor, may differ in the future, the basic size and
construction is essential. The system interface development should be
centrally controlled, at the implementation site. Since the operation of the
Power Risk Management System and motor/generator controller are similar
and use like functions and components, a completely integrated system from

26
 Final report Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC36-02GO12112

a single supplier is desired in the future. This will avoid some of the multiple
supplier integration issues encountered during our Phase 2 activities.
Software completion requires substitution of code to replace the ‘hard
switches’ currently used for startup, operation and shutdown. This code
needs developing, testing and implementation into firmware, and then loaded
into the microprocessor. Current software versions do not include this portion
of program code. Most of the basics blocks of code exist to test the
motor/controller functions, although some untested, but an integrated version
is not complete. This code addition is required for future integration of the
Power Risk Management System via the Can Bus interface in a commercially
deployed, autonomously operated flywheel system.

27