Field Weakening VS Gear Box VS Higher voltage battery

liveforphysics said:
Shift the burden to the motor controller. The motor controller is the piece of this puzzle making drastic performance improvements in the ability to provide continuous current, and will only get better with each new astounding generation of ever lower RdsOn mosfets with gate designs that enable faster switching with reduced losses.

I can't wait for these controllers. The holy grail will be 1 turn motors and controllers than only need 1s battery packs too. I've got what looks like a 1.5 turn motor, and the controllers I have try to run and hide instead of getting connected to it. :mrgreen:
 
I don't think 1 turn motors will be common john. Motor inductance helps motor efficiency to an extent so to little motor inductance will not work well even when the controller can handle it.
 
Anyone know how many turns the Volt HVH winding uses? I think it's 1.5-2t if I'm not mistaken.

Motor slots will soon enough be filled with bars of copper or Aluminum. Anything less is compromise.
 
liveforphysics said:
Anyone know how many turns the Volt HVH winding uses? I think it's 1.5-2t if I'm not mistaken.

HVH is a Remy Buzzword: High Voltage Hairpin. And at one point a few years ago, the Remy guys were a bit sensitive about the Volt motor appearance being so close to their own in regards to the armature coils. It has been a couple of years since my Remy tour and I am not disclosing anything proprietary here, but from memory on the 250 size machine, they used a 10 pole wave wind (3 phase, of course) with 4 conductors per slot. That makes it effectively 2 turns per coil.
 
I found it from my inductance thread. http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=29852&hilit=inductance&start=275
from rhitee05
At low speeds, voltage doesn't matter and you can produce any desired torque up to the current limit. This is called the constant-torque range. In terms of vector control, Iq is controlled and Id is kept to zero. Iq is the current aligned with the EMF, the component that produces useful torque. Id produces no torque, but can oppose (or augment) the magnetic flux. So, in this region, the current is kept aligned with EMF,all the current produces useful torque, and we can produce any desired Iq up to Imax. Note that keeping Id zero does require timing advance.

"Base speed" is the limit of the constant-torque range. In terms we're more familiar with, this is the max-power point, or roughly half of the free-wheel speed of the motor. Above this speed, we can no longer produce maximum torque, but the torque*speed product remains constant so this is the constant-power range (see wr_2 in the picture above). If we keep Id zero, the maximum Iq we can generate rapidly reduces until we can no longer produce any useful torque. Instead, we apply a negative Id, which is called field-weakening (because it opposes the permanent magnet flux). By choosing the right value for Id, we can place ourselves at the intersection of the voltage and current circles, which maximizes the possible torque. The required Id gets larger as the speed increases, which causes Iq to decrease to stay within the limit Imax = sqrt(Id^2 + Iq^2). Basically, this is like adding more timing advance. If eventually Id = Imax, then Iq will be zero and we can no longer produce any torque. This is the limit of the constant-power range.

Now comes the important part, which I'll quote directly from the paper: "If the inductance is large enough, the constant power speed range can be infinite." In the picture above, the center of the voltage circle is given by the ratio of the PM flux density to the inductance. If the inductance is large enough, this point will be inside the current limit circle, which means that we will always be able to produce some useful torque even at very high speeds. If the center is outside the current circle, then there will always be a finite speed at which we can no longer make Iq > 0, thus above this point we can't produce any torque.

So, a higher-inductance motor will actually be able to produce torque at a higher speed than a comparable low-inductance motor. I have to admit I actually didn't expect that result, but after reading I understand why and how. I will note that this doesn't say anything about inductance vs. power or inductance vs. power density, so I'll leave that part of the discussion be. The paper also does note that, in general, a low-inductance motor will have a larger CT region and a high-inductance motor will have a larger CP region. The specific application here is to a sinusoidal-EMF motor (PMSM), but the application is similar for a trapezoidal motor and square-wave commutation.
 
Miles said:
Arlo1 said:
I found it from my inductance thread. http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=29852&hilit=inductance&start=275
from rhitee05
That was another great thread. I wish Eric (rhitee05) was still around.......
Gone since July 2013... what happened?
 
Hi Arlo1,

I'll try to post that diagram:

file.php


I have difficulty with the diagram. Current and voltage circles together on the same scale (impedance) and then the important point is magnet flux density to inductance ratio which is current density or what? H-field?

And you say
So, a higher-inductance motor will actually be able to produce torque at a higher speed than a comparable low-inductance motor. I have to admit I actually didn't expect that result, but after reading I understand why and how

Maybe not quite the same as my observations that increased motor torque production at higher speeds results in lower inductance machines. But these cases had voltage limitations. Dam constraints :wink:
 
Arlo1 said:
So, a higher-inductance motor will actually be able to produce torque at a higher speed than a comparable low-inductance motor

Because higher inductance permits greater use of field weakening?
 
Punx0r said:
Arlo1 said:
So, a higher-inductance motor will actually be able to produce torque at a higher speed than a comparable low-inductance motor

Because higher inductance permits greater use of field weakening?
Here is the paper we are referring to. http://power.eecs.utk.edu/pubs/Copy%20of%20pinto_dissertation.pdf
 
Punx0r said:
Arlo1 said:
So, a higher-inductance motor will actually be able to produce torque at a higher speed than a comparable low-inductance motor

Because higher inductance permits greater use of field weakening?
To say "higher" inductance without reference to an example leads me to ask "higher than what?"

So let me try to clarify this point: High inductance brings down the characteristic current, the point at the center of the voltage limit circle. Whether this is desirable or not depends on what the current limit of your inverter and the desired power from the machine. If the characteristic current is too high, creating torque beyond the base speed is severely limited, to a fraction of the possible range. If the characteristic current is too low, then the peak power of the machine is diminished.

This brings up an interesting point for the hobby/performance community where peak power is desirable beyond the average power capability: if peak power is needed as a certain value that is above what is desired for most uses (cruising) then the characteristic current has to be set high enough to get the desired power, but the inverter has to be able to supply that current continuously to be able to field weaken at high speeds. This is what Toyota choose to do. The motor itself can only do peak power dor about 18 seconds befor it reaches a thermal limit. This is enough to get on the freeway and then some, but it shows that the motor has to be the constrained component, where the inverter has to be able to provide rated current the whole time.

Edit: after I wrote this, im now questioning how the Toyota system runs in field weakening mode continuously considering the fact that the copper losses will be the same throughout because the magnitude of the current is the same in both peak power and any current near top speed. If anyone has any insights to share beyond possibly avoiding either condition for extended periods of time, I'd be glad to hear it. The prius has two motors and an engine which could be one cause, but the leaf has one motor and one gear, so high speed operation must require continuous full current.
 
liveforphysics said:
onloop said:
So has anyone ever tested / compared the results of:

running a buck booster device to increase voltage/motor speed

> VS <

maxing out the field weakening effect to increase motor speed.

I'm not a scientist but logic tells me Boosting voltage would give you more speed & same torque. So I suppose it would be a better option.


If you care about efficiency you use neither option. Choose an appreciate motor wind for whatever you pack voltage may happen to be. You can make the power you want over the speed range you want it from any pack voltage.


Hm I just got a handle on the field weakening I thought and here it all get contradicted. ;)

While field weakening will give you efficiency hit I am fairly sure I read in another thread that it is possible to dial in the controller when field weakening should occur. That way your controller/motor run in normal mode most of the time and switches to field weakening when targeted setting is reached.

Am I way off here or is there really all bad with field weakening? If I am sort of correct maybe someone could elaborate on the subject a little more so the one of us that does not have any engineering background gets a better understanding.


1BFC said:
Sounds like you want a step up converter, but only at light loads.

Technically possible, but you will take an efficiency hit.

Likely much better to devote the cost and extra space required to batteries to get the voltage directly.

But if range is no concern and you have the ability to create a step up converter that can handle the current you need for the motor, it's quite possible.


This was rather intriguing, but for use in an e-bike the numbers of capacitors maybe so high it will be capacitors in exchange for less batteries? It seems electricity gets stored in capacitors so to unload with each time controller switch power on/off. This gives a boost in voltage and will return more rpm for the motor, correct?

Can a step up converter be used combined with field weakening to get even more rpm from a battery with maxed capacity reached - in situations where you can not add more batteries to up the voltage?
 
Miles said:
onloop said:
Can field weakening work the opposite way?
Only for motors which have a salient rotor structure.


Hm. At the fear of showing my true color and look stupid I must ask.
I didn't understand your reply Miles. Salient rotor structure = ?

I tried to look it up but I guess this is just to technical for me to grasp. :oops: :cry:
What makes this salient rotor different from a typical electrical motor?

salient.GIF


step-motor-intro-FIG-07_half.png



Would a salient rotor structure be suitable for e-bikes? If you could have different settings in the controller for torque or high speed (more rpm) it seems like that would be a good thing. If at all possible to use field weakening both ways in the same controller.

What is the downside to using salient rotors for e-bikes? What will be lost, low end torque or high speed?
 
onloop said:
What would be cool is a constantly variable KV motor. Using field weakening theory. It can deliver more torque OR top speed based on load. It is completely automatic. Or maybe a torque button / speed button. Simply set the top and bottom limits that is should vary between.

There used to be sort of a thing like that for scooters. A mechanical wire shift would change the KV so it would act almost like a 2 speed gear. Not sure if it worked well enough cos it didn't catch on for a wider use. Might be obsolete now.
 
A salient pole is one that has a defined shaped (salient = projecting), or put another way the airgap and reluctance of the motor depends on rotor position. Squirrel cage induction motors are an example of non-salient rotors, although they may have salient stators if each lobe is not connected to the next.
 
macribs said:
I didn't understand your reply Miles. Salient rotor structure = ?
Every rotor structure has what is known as its saliency ratio. This is the ratio of the inductance on the q-axis (quadrature axis) to that on the d-axis (direct axis).

If you take the case of a rotor with surface mounted PMs and an isotropic (uniform) back-iron, the ratio is close to 1 and it is effectively non-salient. There is no reluctance torque component and it's not really suitable for field weakening operation. Of course, there's no need for the back-iron to be isotropic as the flux in the back-iron is maximum in the inter-polar area but the effective airgap for this case would be large....

For the case of surface mounted but inset magnets, the iron between the magnets would take the saliency ratio away from 1 and introduce a potential reluctance torque component. The same goes for the many different IPM structures, where the magnets are buried within the rotor iron.
 
? I always thought salient motors (for better term) ran based on elektromagnets attracting the iron stator (so no magnets necessary).

And as far as field weakening goes, isnt what actually happens is that when advancing the current you effectively rotate the windings
impedance voltage such that more voltage is available for back-emf ? No saliency necessary for this.

Also, I dont think youre actually weakening the flux from the permanent magnets, it's way stronger than anything you can do with the windings. I have a 10kW scooter motor here that is rated for 100 A. I once calculated I would need 700 A to match the field of the permanent magnets...
 
Lebowski said:
? I always thought salient motors (for better term) ran based on elektromagnets attracting the iron stator (so no magnets necessary).
That's effectively what the reluctance torque component is, above. No? As far as I know you can design for the whole gamut between "magnet" torque and reluctance torque.
 
Miles said:
Lebowski said:
? I always thought salient motors (for better term) ran based on elektromagnets attracting the iron stator (so no magnets necessary).
That's effectively what the reluctance torque component is, above. No? As far as I know you can design for the whole gamut between "magnet" torque and reluctance torque.
ah, i'm confusing terms, my bad (sipping limoncello here ... :D )
 
onloop said:
in terms of getting from POINT A - TO - POINT B sometimes higher speed might be advantageous over high efficiency

I got there faster & by using more power, So in terms of travelling that is more efficient!.... Time can not be recharged, batteries can be.

So in other words maybe using power inefficiently is ok only if the result is more efficient travel. Thoughts!

That's the whole point of cars. So it is applicable to human needs and our other definitions of efficiency
 
macribs said:
While field weakening will give you efficiency hit I am fairly sure I read in another thread that it is possible to dial in the controller when field weakening should occur. That way your controller/motor run in normal mode most of the time and switches to field weakening when targeted setting is reached.

I think the Sevcon work that way.

I remember that Burti made a programmable timing advance circuit that also had a map for modifying the timing according to the RPM ( dymanic timing advance we should call it i guess..)


Burtie Timing advance tool:
http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=19054

Doc
 
Doctorbass said:
macribs said:
While field weakening will give you efficiency hit I am fairly sure I read in another thread that it is possible to dial in the controller when field weakening should occur. That way your controller/motor run in normal mode most of the time and switches to field weakening when targeted setting is reached.

I think the Sevcon work that way.

I remember that Burti made a programmable timing advance circuit that also had a map for modifying the timing according to the RPM ( dymanic timing advance we should call it i guess..)


Burtie Timing advance tool:
http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=19054

Doc
Field weakening is only useful past the base speed, where the voltage of the motor is equal to the voltage applied from the controller. It is not (and should not) be used below that speed.

Timing advance, however, is useful for efficiency, but it's a band-aid for proper current regulation.
 
Since the OP has had his thread so hijacked already, here we go again.

The paper referenced by Miles on YASA design needs clarification. Table III referencing rotor eddy current losses does not show one important variable, the effect of the number of magnetic poles that the motor could have/should have, etc. The eddy current losses would be expected to be less if the face area of the magnets is less. Thus, if you increase the number of poles by a factor of two or more, the eddy current losses would also decrease. Of course, this is only a FEMM calculation and I cannot see how it could be actually measured with a magnetic probe in any kind of setup. Then, if the magnets (assuming they are rectangular, long axis radially) are then placed as two square magnets, there is another factor of two to consider to mitigate rotor eddy current losses. What is not considered is to use a second level of rotor magnets to couple the back side and improve the back iron issue.

Credit to halycon_m for stating that dynamic timing advance is critical to efficiency. Active shaping of the driving waveform is another important issue. Getting a definitive understanding of any controller design is not easy. No one wants to really discuss the limitations of their design. Maybe someone would like to suggest a LIST of things that every controller design should state to be absolutely clear what anyone is actually buying.
kenkad
 
Back
Top