Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Abstract: The influence of the leading design parameters on the performance of slotless tubular
permanent magnet machines, and the relative merits of different tubular machine topologies, are
deduced from analytical field solutions. The force capability and force ripple are established as
functions of a set of dimensional ratios, with due account of magnetic saturation and subject to a
specific thermal constraint. The results provide an effective means of making comparative studies and
optimising machine designs, and will aid the design process when addressing a given performance
specification.
UK
456
Brei,, = remanence, T
F
= thrust force, N
G = air-gap length, m
Jr1,,, = RMS current density, Aim2
kpf = winding packing factor
k,
1,
Introduction
Force production
+ sin m,
Fwp= J
K , sin[m,(z
~ ~ ~ / 2 )(1)
]
n=l
where
mn = (an
I(,
l)x-/r,
(31
(5)
where F, is the constant thrust force due to the fundamental radial magnetic field component, and F, is the magnitude of the force ripple due to the (2n - 1)th harmonic field.
They are given, respectively, by:
FI = 8d&rpKrl J,,
sin(7r/4)
Fn = (-l)n&KnJTms
n = 2,3,. . .
= -qTpTwIdpnKTn
~sin
)
(z- T
(7)
K,, =
L:
r[alnBI1(m,r)
+ b1,Bh'l
(m,r)]dr
(3)
where R,and R, are the inner and outer radii of the coils,
respectively, and BI,(.) and BK,(.) are modified Bessel
functions of the first and second kind, respectively, of order
one. U[, and b,, are the coefficients of the (2n - 1)th
harmonic, and are dependent upon the machine topology,
the permanent magnet material properties and geometric
parameters [14]. It will be noted that for the Halbach
magnetised machine topology described later, in which only
fundamental magnetic field components exist, the harmonic
coeficients are all zero.
Fig. 1
Fig.2
2.3 Three-phasemachines
The winding arrangement for a three-phase slotless tubular
machine is shown in Fig. 2. The three phase windings are
mutually displaced by two thirds of a pole-pitch and, similar to the two-phase machine, each winding can comprise a
number of series connected coils, with one coil per pole and
each coil occupying one third of a pole-pitch. The current
density in the phase windings is now given by:
JA = hJ,,,
J B = JZJ,,,
cos&
Jc
cos(&
= hJ,,,
C O S ( W ~-
J A = hJ,,,
+ 2.ir/3)
(9)
2.2 Two-phasemachines
(z
2~/3)
n=l
+sinm,
(2
2)
2)
cos wt
):
cos (ut -
COS W t
J~ = JZJ,,, sinwt
(4)
where Jrm,y is the RMS value and w is the angular
frequency. Since the armature moves in synchronism with
the angular frequency, i.e. w = m/zpthe total thrust force is
obtained as
F = FA + FB
k = 1 , 2 ...
Fn3cos[(2n-5)(:)]
(11)
n=3k+3
k=0,1,2..
451
72 = 3 k + 3 , k = 0 , 1 , 2 , . . .
(12)
As will be evident from eqn. 11, the force ripple due to
triplen harmonics in the radial field distribution is zero. The
normalised total force ripple is therefore given by:
F =
f 3 k + 2 , k = 0 , 1 , 2 ; . .., (13)
Several observations can be made from the foregoing
analyses:
(i) For the same electrical and magnetic loadings, and the
same geometric design parameters, the ratio of the thrust
force of a three-phase machine due to the fundamental
radial field component to that of a two-phase machine is
1.061, i.e. the force capability of a three-phase machine is
about 6% higher than that of the two-phase equivalent.
(ii) The force ripple due to triplen field harmonics is zero in
the three-phase machine, while a force ripple exists for all
odd harmonics in the two-phase machine. Hence, the threephase machine has a lower force ripple compared to the
two-phase machine.
It follows that, in general, a three-phase machine will
have a better performance than a two-phase machine. Further, integrated power modules are widely available for
three-phase brushless machines. The subsequent discussion
will, therefore, be focused on three-phase machines only.
1%
Design optimisation
lT
H,,(z)dz
(16)
AG = (L
+W / ~ a v / P o
(17)
where F,, and F,, are the f drops in the armature and
stator cores, respectively, and Bo, is the average flux density
at the bore of the armature sleeve, i.e at r = R,. The effectiveness of this procedure has been confirmed by finite
element analysis.
Fig.3
armature
n2agnets
a
2.2
I
n
-
2.1
E 2.0
1
,j 1.9
.Lo
1.8
a,
n
P
1.7
1.6
1.5
b
2.3
2.2
;
- 2.1
I
n
-
2.0
.-.
5
7 1.9
.ln
1.8
2 1.7
1.6
1.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
tm/xp
0.9
1.0
%l/%
Fig. 5
(1R.t = 1.5
?IR = 1.0
h 5IR, = l!k,SR,lR,, = 0.75
R...IR = 0.80
..
.. RJR, = 0.75
RJR, = 0.70
c z,,IR, = 1.25, R,,,IR, = 0.715
RJR,,, = 0.80
- .. - .. RJR,,, = 0.15
RJR,,, = 0.10
-,,-?
~~
459
Fig. 6 shows how the force capability and the normalised total force ripple vary as functions of zplRs,assuming
R, = 0.03m, RmIR,$= 0.115, RJR, = 0.15, and zn,/zp= 0.8.
As will be seen, an optimum value of z$RI exists which
results in maximum force capability. As the ratio of zplRsis
reduced below the optimum value the field produced by the
permanent magnets decays more rapidly with radius, and
hence the force capability reduces. However, if the ratio of
SIR, is too large, the flux per pole becomes excessive and
results in saturation of both the stator and armature iron
cores, if their radii are maintained constant, or require
larger cores if their flux density is to be maintained constant. In both cases, the force density again reduces. The
total force ripple, however, increases progressively as the
ratio of zp/Rsis increased. Hence, a smaller ratio would be
preferred if a low force ripple is required.
leakage and saturation. In this particular example, the optimal values for R,IRs and R,IR,,, are 0.8 and 0.6, respectively. However, this ratio of RoIRmmay be excessive in
terms of cost and demagnetisation withstand capability.
Increasing the ratio to 0.15 would reduce the magnet cost
by 30%, but decrease the force density by only 7%.
0.9
2.10
m
-
2.08
2.06
2.3 I
2.04
2.2
.-5
?
2.02
m
-
0
,-.
2.1
m
E
.
z
2.0
.-
1.9
U
a3
1.a
2!
2.00
1.98
1.961
a3
1.7
1.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
RnlfR,
b
I
0.95
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
XpfR,
3.4
Fig. 7 shows the variation of the force density as a function of R,IR,,, and RJR, with ZJR.~= 1.25, the other
parameters being the same as those which were assumed
for Fig. 6. As will be seen, for a given RoIRln,there is an
optimal ratio of R,IR,\ which yields the maximum force
capability. This ratio represents an optimal balance
between the electrical loading and the magnetic loading
of the machine for a given thermal performance. The ratio
RJR,,,, on the other hand, determines the radial thickness
of the magnets, and the maximum value may be governed
by the required demagnetisation withstand capability under
the worst tase operating scenario. For a given R,n, increasing the magnet thickness leads to an increased material
cost, but does not necessarily result in an improved force
capability, as can be observed from Fig. 7a, in which an
optimal ratio of RoIRmexists which yields maximum force
density. Decreasing R,IR,, below t h s optimal value lowers
the force density, due to the combined effects of inter-pole
460
R..IR.,. = 0.80
RiIR;;;= 0.75
RJR,,, = 0.70
R,/R,,, = 0.65
RJR,,, = 0.60
a,
2
P
0.018
-aQ,
0.016
.E 0.014
0.012
0.010
.-
0.008
0.006
0.004
I
0.70
1.51
0.65
0.002
0.4
0.80
0.65 0.90
RdRS
b
Fig.% Norinulked totalforce ripple UI'fwiciion of R&,, and RJR,,
1
____
0.75
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
zm/Tp
Force dmrity
RJR,, = 0.80
RJR,,, = 0.75
RJR,, = 0.70
RJR,,, = 0.65
RJR,, = 0.60
b
normtrliwd totalforce r&de
CIS functions
of'~Jz,
a Force density
- .. - ..
RJR, = 0.70
RJR, = 0.65
k
Fig.9
nets
'e
.. .
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80 0.85
R m h
0.90 0.95
b
Fig. 11 Force density crsfwzction ofRJRs and T,&
TIR = 10
- - :IRA = 0.94
_ _ _ {IR; = 0 78
~
46 1
1.o
0.9
Fig. 13
0.8 0 7
RO/R,
b
_ _
_ _
NS
RJR, = 0 80
RJR, = 0 75
R,,IR, = 0 70
0.9
a
I
E.
2.3
2.2
.
z
rQ
2.1
2.0
'g
462
1.9
1.8
$2 1.7
1.6
1.5
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
.. - ..
TJR,= 1.0
IR = 0.80
{IR; = 0.60
IEE Proc -Elecrr. Power Appl.. Vol. 148, No. 5, September 2001
To~OlOgY
Radial
magnetisation
Axial
Halbach
magnetisation magnetisation
4 ,m
0.03
0.03
0.03
G,m
0.001
0.002
,0.001
rmlrp
0.8
0.7
RdRm
0.6
0.75
RmIRs
0.8
0.81
1 0.85
ZdRS
1.25
0.94
0.60
Force density,
N/m3
2.25 x I O 5
2.58 x 105
2.34 x
2.55 x
io5
4 R m 2- Ro2)
=8.94~
3
4
Conclusions
References
374U8
464
QlQ
Ullf-U1U
16 KIM, W.J., BERHAN, M.T., and LANG, J H.: Analysis and implementation of a tubular motor with Halbach magnet array. Proceedings of IEEE Industry Application Society, 31st Annual Meeting,
1996, Vol. 1, pp. 471478