Dual rotor axial flux motor design
- Thread starter Miles
- Start date
You might need some kind of housing to connect the two end plates together. Lamination stacks are not very rigid. There could be some eddy currents in the screws holding the lams together, but it should be fairly minimal. Normally they try to avoid having the fasteners in the teeth. It would be a lot of work, but it might be worth using some kind of adhesive between the laminations.
Can I get a very rough approximation of the iron losses from the Watts per lb value given in the electrical steel specifications?
For Arnolds thin gauge GO 6mil (0.15mm) @ 15kG (1.5T); 400 Hz the losses are 9 Watts per lb.
My core weighs 1.48lbs. So, that's 13.5 Watts @ 1.5T; 400 Hz.
Say, 21 Watts at 533 Hz 1.5T.
Increase that to 25 Watts to allow for the greater flux density.
Increase again to 30 Watts to allow for stray, windage and bearing losses...
For Arnolds thin gauge GO 6mil (0.15mm) @ 15kG (1.5T); 400 Hz the losses are 9 Watts per lb.
My core weighs 1.48lbs. So, that's 13.5 Watts @ 1.5T; 400 Hz.
Say, 21 Watts at 533 Hz 1.5T.
Increase that to 25 Watts to allow for the greater flux density.
Increase again to 30 Watts to allow for stray, windage and bearing losses...
If the efficiency comes even close to the simulation it will be awesome. Most of us are dealing with 80% max.
markobetti
10 kW
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2009
- Messages
- 620
Miles said:Couldn't resist...
Looks a bit "steampunk"
i love it . Its going to make a beautiful BUH motor . By the way we have LAH 00000009 on board
HI all,
Maybe I am wrong, but to me it looks like the laminate direction in this design is wrong: look at the Apex drive lab's stator pictures ( http://www.apexdrivelabs.com/brushless-electric-motor-images.html ), each ply of the laminate is oriented in radial direction.
On other hand I know that in other types of axial flux machines (for instance, in Thorus topology) the laminate oriented perpendicularly to the radial direction. Why is it so?
Maybe I am wrong, but to me it looks like the laminate direction in this design is wrong: look at the Apex drive lab's stator pictures ( http://www.apexdrivelabs.com/brushless-electric-motor-images.html ), each ply of the laminate is oriented in radial direction.
On other hand I know that in other types of axial flux machines (for instance, in Thorus topology) the laminate oriented perpendicularly to the radial direction. Why is it so?
Welcome Doc!
This is the orientation that corresponds to the lamination direction in a radial flux motor. Most axial flux motors have laminations running circumferentially (spiral wound). In the Schiller design, which has a segmented stator, the laminations run this way. AFAIK, it is the optimum orientation for the containment of eddy currents.
Surely the apparent twin cores in the Apex design must be contiguous (a "U" shape)? So, in their case, the laminate direction would be a compromise to achieve the topology.
Other motors (eg Lynch) have the laminations running radially, so it can't be too much of a compromise.
I'd like to know more about this, too!
This is the orientation that corresponds to the lamination direction in a radial flux motor. Most axial flux motors have laminations running circumferentially (spiral wound). In the Schiller design, which has a segmented stator, the laminations run this way. AFAIK, it is the optimum orientation for the containment of eddy currents.
Surely the apparent twin cores in the Apex design must be contiguous (a "U" shape)? So, in their case, the laminate direction would be a compromise to achieve the topology.
Other motors (eg Lynch) have the laminations running radially, so it can't be too much of a compromise.
I'd like to know more about this, too!
This is interesting...
http://www.set.ugent.be/docs/TO_HEAF_v2.pdf
That makes 3 ways to equalise the radial flux density:
- Equalise, per lamination, the ratio of the cross sections of the core "head" to core "neck" .
- Reduce magnet area as radius decreases (only applicable in the case where the no. of poles is less than no.of slots).
- Reduce the airgap distance as radius increases (Ghent university proposal).
http://www.set.ugent.be/docs/TO_HEAF_v2.pdf
That makes 3 ways to equalise the radial flux density:
- Equalise, per lamination, the ratio of the cross sections of the core "head" to core "neck" .
- Reduce magnet area as radius decreases (only applicable in the case where the no. of poles is less than no.of slots).
- Reduce the airgap distance as radius increases (Ghent university proposal).
kenkad
100 W
Miles,
The end of the third paragraph on the Ghent papers says:
"contentrated pole windings----A disadvantage is that for a three-phase machine several windings should be connected in series. When connecting n concentrated windings in series, the total electromotive force is not n times the voltage of a single winding, because of phase shift in the neighboring windings. An atlternative is to make a machine with many phases [3]."
This is what I had tried to bring up earlier. I had see this paper before but had not copied it at that time. Thank you for posting it here so now I can make a copy and give it to the PhD student that hopefully will do my modeling/simulation soon. I believe that a nine phase motor cited in the reference above is bsically the same as three separate three-phase windings. I do know in my design that it reduces the required drive of each three-phase group.
kenkad
The end of the third paragraph on the Ghent papers says:
"contentrated pole windings----A disadvantage is that for a three-phase machine several windings should be connected in series. When connecting n concentrated windings in series, the total electromotive force is not n times the voltage of a single winding, because of phase shift in the neighboring windings. An atlternative is to make a machine with many phases [3]."
This is what I had tried to bring up earlier. I had see this paper before but had not copied it at that time. Thank you for posting it here so now I can make a copy and give it to the PhD student that hopefully will do my modeling/simulation soon. I believe that a nine phase motor cited in the reference above is bsically the same as three separate three-phase windings. I do know in my design that it reduces the required drive of each three-phase group.
kenkad
kenkad
100 W
Miles,
Yes, I had this copy. This is a paper that the PhD students Professor cited to me as a probable issue of the harmonics. Of course, that is something to find out. I am not a motor designer as you and I have discussed before. There are a lot of tradeoffs in any design problem. I was trying to find a way create a motor design that would allow shutting down of some of the three-phase groups when a vehicle is crusing. At that point, cogging effects as less of an issue, etc. Sort of like running an 8-cyl engine on 4 cylinders to save fuel. It really makes a difference in finding a full bridge driver for each three-phase group! As usual, it will all come out in the end one way or another. If the simulation is of any consequence, then we go on to a prototype, if I live long enough or if we live through Dec 21, 2012 (ha ha).
kenkad
Yes, I had this copy. This is a paper that the PhD students Professor cited to me as a probable issue of the harmonics. Of course, that is something to find out. I am not a motor designer as you and I have discussed before. There are a lot of tradeoffs in any design problem. I was trying to find a way create a motor design that would allow shutting down of some of the three-phase groups when a vehicle is crusing. At that point, cogging effects as less of an issue, etc. Sort of like running an 8-cyl engine on 4 cylinders to save fuel. It really makes a difference in finding a full bridge driver for each three-phase group! As usual, it will all come out in the end one way or another. If the simulation is of any consequence, then we go on to a prototype, if I live long enough or if we live through Dec 21, 2012 (ha ha).
kenkad
Yeah electric motors don't work that way. Instead the controller only puts the required power to move the motor for the load and speed required. The controller uses PWM to control this so in essence at cruise it is turning all the phases on and off really fast to save energy.Miles said:
And ICE with cylinder deactivation on the other hand will not just stop putting fuel into the deactivated cylinders it will also close the valves so the pressure inside those cylinders will neutralize and become an air spring for the piston to bounce off of on the end of each stroke. So if you wanted to simulate this with an electric motor (which will not likely gain you anything at all) you would have to find a way to remove the eddy current losses and Hysteresis losses from the non powered coils.
Yes, a better approach to decrease idle losses could be to make the rotor discs able to move further apart at light loads, which weakens the field and decreases iron losses. But it will only help at very light loads, since that would decrease the torque constant, hence increase resistive losses.
Maybe it's more beneficial in a performance/cost relationship to buy better steel, than to make the rotor discs moveable.
Maybe it's more beneficial in a performance/cost relationship to buy better steel, than to make the rotor discs moveable.
Regarding access to the center of the motor for the three phase wires.....
The copper winding strip is 14mm x 1mm so that's 14 sq. mm in cross sectional area. Equivalent to a 4.2mm diameter round wire...... Compromising a bit on the total cross sectional area, I could use 2.6mm dia. wire in a loop, sharing the current. There's just room for this to pass between the core heads and the coils, at each end.
But.........How seriously will this proximity to the coil/core unbalance the electromagnetics?
Should I feed in from the other side of the core modules to maintain the coil winding direction?
This will reinforce the armature field on 2 of the 6 modules, for each phase?
Should I reconsider the original idea of linking the coils on the outside of the motor?
The copper winding strip is 14mm x 1mm so that's 14 sq. mm in cross sectional area. Equivalent to a 4.2mm diameter round wire...... Compromising a bit on the total cross sectional area, I could use 2.6mm dia. wire in a loop, sharing the current. There's just room for this to pass between the core heads and the coils, at each end.
But.........How seriously will this proximity to the coil/core unbalance the electromagnetics?
Should I feed in from the other side of the core modules to maintain the coil winding direction?
This will reinforce the armature field on 2 of the 6 modules, for each phase?
Should I reconsider the original idea of linking the coils on the outside of the motor?
Attachments
If the wire passes through the slot, it will be 1/2 turn, negating 1/2 turn of the strip. Running it the other way will add 1/2 turn, which would probably be better but you have to be sure it won't fight the BEMF from the other windings. Making the connection on the outside to maintain an even turns count would be the best bet.
