Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
choosing proper pole/slot number combination [7] [8], the slot Hs0
Hs1
opening and tooth tip is carefully designed to reduce the Tw
Bs1
Hs2
cogging torque. Rs
Bs2
324
3: the stator diameter in the airgap side (DiaSGap), the motor In this design, non-oriented electrical steel with lamination
axial length (Length) and the magnet thickness (MagThck). factor of 0.95 is used for both machines. The lamination gauge
The stator slot fill factor, the stator winding current density, the is M19_29G from AK steel [13]. The flux densities in the
output power and the rated voltage are the design constraints. stator teeth, stator core and rotor core are specified to be
With the values of the design variables and the constraints around 1.4 T, 1.5 T and 1.5 T, respectively. The number of
determined, a design of SMPM is generated by running the turns, slot fill factor and current density will then give the tooth
flowchart. width, tooth length, stator and rotor back iron thickness, by
meeting the flux density specifications at the rated condition. A
DiaSGap typical copper slot fill factor of 40% is chosen for the
Length
ThichMag Inductance distributed winding machine and a higher slot fill factor of
about 65% [2] is chosen for the concentrated winding machine.
For comparison reasons, the current density for both motors is
Tooth Width
AirGap Flux chosen to be around 5 A/mm2, which is in the typical range for
Stator and Rotor
Yoke Thickness
Density 15 kW a SMPM motor.
Number of After all the geometry and electrical design parameters are
turns per
phase
calculated, the machine performance is calculated, including
the weight, volume and efficiency. Fig. 6 shows how the end
Back EMF
winding is modeled, where the coil is actually the total coils of
Output
one winding layer. The total length of the wire and the stator
Power winding resistance can be then calculated accordingly after the
end winding is defined.
Current
Current
Desnity
Slot Fill Factor
Design
Parameters
325
comparing the results. In the actual design process, the importance is attached to this index. The two objective
optimized design is also verified by FEA to confirm. The functions are defined in (2), where obj1 pays more attention to
accuracy of this design model for the conventional distributed the weight and volume and obj2 gives more importance to the
winding has been shown in [1] and typical results for the efficiency and torque per ampere.
concentrated winding motor are compared below: obj1 output = volume * 20000 + 2 * Weight + (1 Eff ) * 200
+ WtMagnet *5 TperA *5
Phase current waveform obj 2 output = volume *10000 + Weight + (1 Eff ) *1000
+ WtMagnet *5 TperA * 20 (2)
FEA Analytical model
40
30 B. Particle Swarm Optimization
20
The analytical model can now be used to optimize the values
current / A
10
0 of the airgap diameter and motor length according to the users
-10 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
defined objectives, such as weight or efficiency, with a given
-20
-30
performance requirement. As indicated in Figure 5, the number
-40 of turns per phase is obtained by solving phasor diagrams with
time / s numerical methods and it is difficult to get a solution in direct
(a) analytical form. Furthermore, this model is actually a hybrid
nonlinear model of continuous and discrete variables because
Torque waveform
the number of turns can only be integer and the wire size needs
86 FEA Analytical model to be one of the standard AWG sizes. The above reasons make
84 it impossible to calculate the gradient, which is essential in
Torque / Nm
82
80
traditional nonlinear optimizing techniques, such as the
78 Newton method [10], and the computational techniques are
76 therefore required. Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) is
74
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 proposed and applied in this design optimization and shows its
Time / s effectiveness in solving such problems as hybrid models.
PSO is an evolutionary computation technique that was
(b)
Figure 7: FEA result of the motor with concentrated winding designed by the developed in 1995 by Kennedy and Eberhart [11] [12]. The
analytical model (a) Phase current waveform at rated condition (b) Output algorithm can be as summarized as follows:
torque waveform at rated condition Define the solution space: select the parameters that need
to be optimized. Here, the parameters are DiaSGap,
Notice that the analytical design model only considers the Length and MagThck
fundamental thus the resulting torque is a constant. However, Define a fitness function, which is the objective function
the average torque by the FEA and the analytical design model defined above
agrees with each other as shown in Fig. 7(b). The current Initialize Random Swarm Location and Velocities
waveform in Fig. 7(a) shows the high accuracy of predicting Systematically fly the particles through the solution
the phase current by the analytical design model, which space: The following steps are performed on each particle
indicates good accuracy of the efficiency calculation. individually:
o Evaluate particle fitness: compare to global best
III. MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION WITH PARTICLE SWARM gbest and personal best pbest
o Update the particles velocity according to the
A. Objective Function relative values of pbest and gbest, using the following
Before the optimization algorithm is run, the objective expression:
function needs to be defined. To account for various
requirements in the permanent magnet motor design, the vn = * vn + c1rand () *( pbest ,n xn ) + c2 rand () *( gbest ,n xn )
objective functions used here have five performance indexes,
namely: volume (m3), weight (kg), efficiency, weight of the o Move the particle: The velocity is applied for a
magnets (kg) and the torque per ampere at the rated condition given time-step t, which is usually chosen to be 1,
(Nm/Arms). For the machines to be designed, the weight, and the position is updated to
volume, efficiency, torque/ampere and magnet weight have
typical range of around 20-50 kg, 0.002-0.005 m3, 0.5-1, 2-5 xn = xn + t * vn
Nm/Arms and 0.5-2 kg, respectively. Each term in the
objective function is first normalized to be about the same Repeat process starting at step 4. In this way the particle
magnitude, and then the weighting factors or coefficients moves for discrete time intervals until the termination
before each index are further tuned to represent how much criteria are met.
326
Mtk
Mtk
Mtk
One typical result of running PSO with obj1 for the overall performance than the distributed winding one. However,
concentrated winding machine appears in Fig. 8. As the the opposite is true where a higher efficiency and torque per
number of iteration increases, the 6 particles start randomly in ampere are desired. These results are a helpful guide for the
solution space and travels in the solution space. After 100 designer to understand and make decisions on winding choices
iterations all 6 particles converge to the correct optimal and trade offs.
solution. Table 2 shows the detailed machine design information of all
the Design 1 for each winding type and objective function.
IV. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS TABLE 2 CW AND DW OPTIMIZED DESIGN
Both distributed and concentrated winding type machines
have the same rated condition to be 15 kW, 60 Hz, 1800 rpm
Obj1, CW Obj1, DW Obj2, CW Obj2, DW
and an excitation voltage of 480 V (line to line). The
DiaSGap (mm) 82.7 83.3 84.8 77.1
distributed winding motors have 24 slots and double layer, full
Length (mm) 82.3 88.1 139.9 148.1
pitch winding. The concentrated winding motors have 6 slots
MagThck (mm) 5.76 7.56 7.63 5.62
and double layer winding with 120 electrical degree coil pitch.
Stator outer
For comparison reasons, the airgap length for both winding 220.1 235.0 198.9 203.3
diameter (mm)
types is 1 mm. NdFeB with a residual flux density of 1.23 T
and relative permeability of 1.01 is used as the rotor magnet Number of turns
208 218 158 154
material. The magnet pole coverage are both 0.83 and parallel per phase
magnetization is used. No skew is applied to the magnet. Winding Factor 0.866 0.9659 0.866 0.9659
PSO is run for both winding type machines with obj1 and Tooth width (mm) 27.0 7.19 28.8 6.25
obj2, respectively. The optimized solution for each type lies in Slot opening(mm) 3 1 3 1
a region and the particles converge to one of the solution points Phase
0.33 0.42 0.39 0.31
in the region. Columns under Design 1 and Design 2 in Table 1 resistance()
are two typical PSO results for each winding type and Synchronous
7.31 6.82 6.23 6.41
objective function. Table 1 shows that while values of each of Reactance()
the objective functions fall within a close range, the differences Armature Leakage
3.37 2.30 3.18 1.92
between the concentrated and distributed winding are clear. Reactance()
When more importance is given to weight and volume as in
obj1, the concentrated winding motor has a significantly better
327
Comparing the CW and DW design in Table 2, it is observed Electromechanics, at the University of Illinois, Urbana
that the CW motor have much smaller outer diameter for both Champaign, is gratefully acknowledged.
designs under obj1 and obj2, which leads to less use of stator
REFERENCES
steel and thus less weight and volume. This is due to the higher
slot fill factor. The short end winding, another advantage of the [1] Y. Duan, R. G. Harley and T. G. Habetler, "Multi-objective Design
Optimization of Surface Mount Permanent Magnet Machine with Particle
CW, helps to reduce the phase resistance. This effect is Swarm Intelligence", IEEE SIS 2008, St. Louis, pp. 1-5, September 2008.
observed in Table 2 under obj2 when the efficiency is put high [2] F. Magnussen, P. Thelin and C. Sadarangani, Performance evaluation of
attention. Though the CW has a lower winding factor, the CW permanent magnet synchronous machines with concentrated and
distributed windings including the effect of field-weakening, 2nd IEE
design is only slightly worse (less than 1% of efficiency) than International Conference on Power Electronics, Machines and Drives,
the DW. Edinburgh, UK, Vol.2. pp. 679-85, 2004
The comparison results show that the CW designs have [3] A. M. El-Refaie, T. M. Jahns and D. W. Novotny, Analysis of Surface
Permanent Magnet Machines with Fractional-Slot Concentrated
superior performance in terms of weight and volume. In Windings, IEEE Tran. Energy Conversion, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 34-43,
addition, the lower phase resistance helps to diminish the Mar. 2006
negative impact of the relatively low winding factor. These [4] Z. Q. Zhu, Improved analytical model for predicting the magnetic field
distribution in brushless permanent-magnet machines, IEEE Tran.
PSO optimization results agree with the physics reasoning Magn., Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 229-238, Jan. 2002.
behind the analytical equations. The result also shows that the [5] J. Robinson and Y. Rahmat-Samii, Particle Swarm Optimization in
particle swarm intelligence is able to correctly understand the Electromagnetics, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol.
52, No. 2, pp. 397 407, February 2004G. Eason, B. Noble, and I.N.
underlying physical behavior of the objective system in the Sneddon, On certain integrals of Lipschitz-Hankel type involving
searching process and find the best solution. products of Bessel functions, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, vol. A247,
pp. 529-551, April 1955.
[6] W. Ouyang, D. Zarko and T.A. Lipo, Permanent Magnet Machine
V. CONCLUSION Design Practice and Optimization, 2006 IEEE conference on Industrial
Applications, Glasgow, UK, pp. 1905 1911, 2006.
An analytical model is developed for a SMPM motor with [7] Zhu, Z.Q., Howe, D., Influence of design parameters on cogging torque
in permanent magnet machines, IEEE Transactions on Energy
either distributed or concentrated stator windings and PSO is Conversion, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp. 920-925, Dec. 2000
applied to optimize the design of each motor. The optimized [8] Jahns, T.M., Soong, W.L., Pulsating torque minimization techniques for
designs with the two winding types are compared permanent magnet AC motor drives-a review, IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, Vol. 43, Iss. 2, pp. 791-794, April 1996
quantitatively for certain objective functions, which can be [9] Z.Q. Zhu, D. Howe, Instantaneous Magnetic Field Distribution in
defined by the designer according to the application. This tool Brushless Permanent Magnet dc Motors, Part II: Armature-Reaction
provides optimized designs of a SMPM motor with both types Field, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 136 142,
January 1993
of windings in minutes on an ordinary desktop computer, [10] Bazaraa, Mokhtar S. and Shetty, C. M., Nonlinear programming: Theory
which saves significant time and energy for the machine and algorithms, John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-78610-1.
designer, compared to using FEA for every choice of [11] J. Robinson and Y. Rahmat-Samii, Particle Swarm Optimization in
Electromagnetics, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol.
parameter. 52, No. 2, pp. 397 407, February 2004.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT [12] Y. del Valle, G.K. Venayagamoorthy, S. Mohagheghi, J.-C Hernandez
and R.G Harley, Particle Swarm Optimization: Basic Concepts, Variants
Financial support for this work from the Office of Naval and Applications in Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary
Computation, Vol. 12, Issue 2, Apr. 2008.
Research and Grainger Center for Electric Machinery and [13] AK Steel, Product Data Bulletin, Selection of Electrical Steels for
Magnetic Cores, 2000
328