Design of a Magnetic Lead Screw for Wave Energy Conversion

Rasmus Koldborg Holm, Nick Ilsoe Berg and Morten Walkusch Peter Omand Rasmussen and Rico Hjerm Hansen

AbstractThis paper deals with the development of a magnetic lead screw (MLS) for wave energy conversion. Initially, a brief state-of-the-art regarding linear PM generators and magnetic lead screws is given, leading to an introduction of the magnetic lead screw and a presentation of the results from a nite element analysis used to nd the magnetic forces. Furthermore, the force per magnet surface area measure is presented as a better alternative to the force density measure, which is often used for linear magnetic devices. Based on this, the overall design of a 500 kN MLS is presented focusing on the bearing supports used to compensate for the magnetic attraction forces and the resulting deection of the rotor. Also, in order to avoid some of the production related disadvantages of using surface mounted magnets, an embedded magnet topology is proposed. To demonstrate the technology a scaled 17 kN MLS is presented together with experimental results. Index TermsEmbedded magnets, magnetic gears, magnetic nite element analysis, magnetic lead screw, permanent magnets, permanent magnet linear machines, wave energy.

I. I NTRODUCTION Recent years, the focus on wave energy as a source of renewable energy has increased greatly, which can be seen by the increasing number of physical test facilities for wave power extraction built by e.g. Wavestar R , Dexawave Blue Ocean Energy R , Pelamis Wave Power, AWS Ocean Energy, Seabased AB and Wave Dragon c . The potential of harvesting energy from ocean waves is enormous, but due to the lack of efcient and reliable Power Take-Off (PTO) systems, which is used for converting the large and slowly varying wave forces into electricity, the Wave Energy Converters (WECs) are still far from being commercially attractive. Today, many WEC concepts utilizes hydraulic PTOsystems, which benet from large force densities due to pressure levels of up to 350 bars (35 MN/m2 ). However, as stated in [1], these systems have poor efciencies of approx. 60 % in the best case when using conventional hydraulic components, but it suffers also from low bandwidths and the need for extra maintenance. Therefore, in the quest for better alternatives, focus has been brought to linear PM generators as those presented in [2][4], where force densities in the range of 270-340 kN/m3 should be possible to obtain, as shown by the work in [3]. Also, an alternative linear PM
This work was supported by Wavestar R and Sintex R , Denmark The authors Morten Walkusch (e-mail: mwalku07@student.aau.dk), Rasmus Koldborg Holm (e-mail: rholm07@student.aau.dk) and Nick Ils Berg (e-mail: nberg07@student.aau.dk) are all with the Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Aalborg University, Fibigerstrde 16 DK-9220 Aalborg East, Denmark. The work on this paper was supervised by Peter Omand Rasmussen (email: por@et.aau.dk) and Rico Hjerm Hansen (e-mail: rhh@et.aau.com) with the Department of Energy Technology, Aalborg University, Pontoppidanstrde 16 DK-9220 Aalborg East, Denmark.

generator exists in form of the Snapper , which is presented in [5]. Due to the simplicity of such linear PM generators, these are ideally suited for the PTO-systems in completely submerged WECs, such as those based on the Archimedes wave swing (AWS) principle described in [4]. However, because of the relatively small force densities compared to hydraulic actuators, the need for more powerful solutions still exists, in order to obtain satisfactory power-levels without having to increase the WEC sizes inappropriately according to the power to weight ratio found in [5]. Therefore, as a means to achieve larger force densities, inspiration can be drawn from rotary machines, where the magnetic coupling is known for torque densities in the range of 300-400 kNm/m3 , as stated in [6], which is several times greater than that of PM synchronous machines. Based on the previous facts, the focus in this paper is addressed on the magnetic lead screw (MLS), which is capable of converting linear motion into rotational motion and vice versa. Compared to the mechanical lead screw, the MLS has the advantage that there is no contact between the parts transferring the force, thereby reducing wear and frictional losses. As with ball screws, the MLS is by nature not self-locking, but in contradistinction it has a form of built-in overload protection that prevents it from being permanently damaged in case of exceeding its force/torque capability. Furthermore, in analogy to the magnetic coupling, the MLS potentially exhibits much larger force densities than linear PM generators, as shown by the work in [7], making the MLS interesting in regards to wave energy conversion. The MLS technology probably originates from the patent [8] from 1945, but was rst described in the patent [9] from 2008 using a related variation of the MLS in combination with a wave power application. However, extensive research and practical realization of the MLS has not yet been carried out, and thus the objective of this paper is to address the theoretic design and construction of an MLS intended for the PTO-system of the 500 kW Wavestar R WEC. In order to illustrate the MLS working principle, a simple proof-ofconcepts has been built, seen in Figure 1,
Bearing Translator Rotor

TM

Linear guide rail

Rubber with magnets

Fig. 1. Proof of concept. For video demonstration, please visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvhT9IVS7OY.

978-1-4673-0141-1/12/$26.00 2012 IEEE

616

In the following, a short introduction to the Wavestar R WEC will be given in order to visualize the overall dimensions and requirements to the MLS. This is followed by the calculations of the magnetic forces using nite element analysis, leading to a discussion of the force density measure, which is often used to describe and compare linear magnet actuators. After this, a brief discussion of an embedded magnet concepts will be given, followed by a description of the mechanical design and construction of the MLS. A scaled demonstrator is build and tested, with the preliminary results presented in the end of this paper. II. T HE WAVESTAR R 500 KW WEC The Wavestar R WEC utilizes the so-called point absorber principle, where large oats are hinged to a stationary platform through a oat arm as illustrated in Fig. 2. Thus, when the oat arm rotates around the suspension point (O) due to the wave-oat interaction, the PTO-cylinder reciprocates back and forth, thereby performing work by subjecting the oat arm to a counter-acting torque. The present PTO-system connected to each of these oats is capable of producing an average power of 20-30 kW and a peak power of 200-300 kW as presented in [1].
(A) PTO-cylinder

however is constituted by helically shaped magnets as illustrated in Fig. 3. Thus, when the screw (rotor) is rotated one complete revolution, the nut (translator) will translate a certain distance dened by the lead , which in this case corresponds to the width of two magnetic poles.
Lead Helically shaped and radially magnetized magnets Pole width Magnet thickness

tPM

Magnetic nut (translator) Magnetic screw (rotor)

rrotor

Fig. 3.

Magnetic lead screw principle.

m 1.76 Min: .55 m 2 Max:

Two-float test section at Roshage, Denmark

cyl

Stationary platform Suspension point (O)

(B)

Float arm Float (5 m)

wave

8.66 m

In order to calculate the axial magnetic forces of the MLS, an axis symmetric nite element model has been made as illustrated in Fig. 4. The model consists of four NdFeB-magnets surface mounted on an inner- and outer steel, thereby linking the ux of each magnet on the innerand outer part, respectively. The length of this model (along the z-axis) thus corresponds to the lead , and by utilizing periodic boundary conditions in pairs on the top- and bottom face lines as shown in Fig. 4, the boundary values on matching pairs are forced equal, thereby eliminating endeffects in the model. On the inner- and outer vertical face lines of the steel yoke boundary, a Dirichlet boundary condition has been applied, which thus sets the magnetic potential to zero on these lines preventing the magnetic ux from crossing them.
Periodic BC5 Periodic BC4 Periodic BC3 Periodic BC6 Periodic BC7

2.6 m Min: 4.6 m : Max

R

Fig. 2.

Float and oat arm dimensions of the Wavestar

500 kW WEC.

Periodic BC2 Periodic BC1

Dirichlet BC

In order for the MLS to substitute the present hydraulic PTO-system, the overall requirements shown in Table I must be satised, which is found based on the specications of the present system and on dynamic simulations performed using the model presented in [10]. The force, stroke, velocity and acceleration is taken along the line (A)-(B) in Fig. 2 and represents the worst-case situation, in which the Wavestar R WEC should be able to extract energy.
TABLE I M AXIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO THE MLS.

Dirichlet BC

1020 Steel yoke Airgap

NdFeB 40 MGOe

rrotor

Force 500 kN

Stroke 2m

Velocity 0.9 m/s

Acceleration 1.0 m/s2

z r

Periodic BC7 Periodic BC6 Periodic BC5

III. T HE M AGNETIC L EAD S CREW As indicated by the name, the magnetic lead screw is based on the same principle as the mechanical lead screw, thereby consisting of a screw and a nut, where the thread
Periodic BC1 Periodic BC2 Periodic BC3 Periodic BC4

Fig. 4.

2D axis symmetric nite element model of the MLS [11].

617

By using this model, the total magnetic force (stall force) for a given MLS length L can easily be found by multiplying with the factor L/, due to the linear dependence between the force and the length. The modeling does not account for end effects, as these will be small with a large L/ relationship. In Fig. 5, the result from performing the nite element analysis is shown by means of the absolute ux density and the ux lines, when the inner- and outer part are displaced vertically by the distance /4 with regard to each other. This is the position that gives largest axial magnetic force, and thus it is used to calculate the total MLS stall force by multiplying with L/.
Inner part (rotor)
1.90 : >2.0 1.80 : 1.90 1.70 : 1.80 1.60 : 1.70 1.50 : 1.60 1.40 : 1.50 1.30 : 1.40 1.20 : 1.30 1.10 : 1.20 1.00 : 1.10 0.90 : 1.00 0.80 : 0.90 0.70 : 0.80 0.60 : 0.70 0.50 : 0.60 0.40 : 0.50 0.30 : 0.40 0.20 : 0.30 0.10 : 0.20 0.00 : 0.10
Density Plot: |B| [T]

1000 900 800 700 Stall force [kN] 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Magnet thickness tPM [mm] 24 26 28 30 Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead = 10 mm = 20 mm = 30 mm = 40 mm = 50 mm

/4

Fig. 6. values.

Stall force as a function of magnet thickness for different lead

1000 900 800 700 Stall force [kN] Magnet thickness tPM = 2 mm Magnet thickness t Magnet thickness t Magnet thickness t Magnet thickness t 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Lead [mm] 35 40 45 50
PM PM PM PM

= 5 mm = 10 mm = 15 mm = 20 mm

Outer part (translator)

Fig. 5. Flux density plot when inner- and outer part are displaced /4 with regard to each other, which gives the largest (stall) force.

As indicated in Fig. 3 and 5, the rotor of length L is taken as the inner part and the translator as the outer part of the MLS, and in the following the parameters shown in Table II is used for the initial design but also unless otherwise specied in the gures.
TABLE II I NITIAL DESIGN PARAMETERS USED IN THE FINITE ELEMENT MODEL . Parameter Rotor diameter D Rotor length L Airgap length lg Magnet thickness tP M Magnet remanence Br Magnet coercivity Hc Energy product BHmax Value 320 mm 2000 mm 2 mm 5 mm 1.29 T 978 A/m 318 kJ/m3

Fig. 7.

Stall force as a function of lead for different magnet thicknesses.

30 28 Force per volume [MN/m3] (Solid lines) 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 50 95 140 185 230 275 320 365 Outside rotor diameter [mm] 410 455 Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead = 10 mm = 20 mm = 30 mm = 40 mm = 50 mm

0.3 0.28 Force per surface area (F/S) 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.02 0 500 Force per surface area [MN/m ] (Dashed lines)

Thus, by calculating the total stall force as a function of the magnet thickness tP M for different lead values , the graphs in Fig. 6 is obtained. These indicate that, by increasing the magnet thickness for a given lead, the stall force will only rise until a certain point, after which it stagnates due to the magnetic airgap between the yokes that increases linearly with the magnet thickness. The gure also shows the fact that the lead has a signicant inuence on the stall force. This is also clear from Fig. 7, where the lead giving the optimum stall force can be found for each magnet thickness. E.g., a stall force of approx. 510 kN is obtained when having a lead of 25 mm and magnet thickness of 5 mm.

Force per volume (F/V) 0.04

Fig. 8. The measures F/V and F/S as a function of the rotor diameter for different lead values, data obtained with constant tP M and lg .

618

As presented in [2][4], the linear PM machines are characterized by means of the force density, which is calculated as the ratio between the linear stall force and the outer volume of the machine. The force density is also used in [7] regarding the proposed MLS, but as discussed in the following, this measure may not be suitable for linear actuators such as the MLS and the linear PM machine. In the MLS, the magnetic force F between the rotor and translator is proportional to the surface area S = D L of the magnets, and therefore it is proportional to the rotors length L and diameter D. The volume V , however, is proportional to the rotors length and its diameter squared, and thus the force density measure F/V will not be constant for different rotor diameters, making this measure inappropriate for comparison. Instead, the ratio between the magnetic force and the surface area of the magnets F/S should be used when comparing the MLS and linear PM machines, which is also frequently used for electrical machines and known as the shear force. This measure would not favor a very long and small-diameter linear actuator as the force per volume measure F/V would, this is illustrated graphically in Fig. 8, where the two measures F/V and F/S are plotted as a function of the rotor diameter for different lead values. From the gure it is clear that for a given lead, the force per surface area measure F/S is approx. constant within the plotted range of rotor diameters, which is not the case for the force per volume measure F/V that gives a very large force density for small rotor diameters. Due to the close resemblance between the MLS and the magnetic coupling, it should be possible to compare the performance of these, even though the coupling is characterized by the torque density similarly to other rotary machines. However, when using the force per surface area measure, it is easy to calculate an equivalent torque density for the MLS, as this simply corresponds to twice the force per surface area 2 F/S. This can be veried by converting the MLS into a magnetic coupling as illustrated in Fig. 9, where the length L of the MLS rotor is used to form the perimeter of the coupling described by the equivalent diameter Deq . Similarly, the MLS rotor diameter D is used to calculate the equivalent length Leq of the coupling, and thus the equivalent torque eq corresponding to the stall force F can be found by means of the radius req . Hence, the equivalent torque density eq /Veq can be can found as follows: eq F req = 2 Veq Leq Deq 4 (1)

Leq =

req =

Deq 2

L D Deq = L

Fig. 9.

Principle of converting the MLS into a magnetic coupling.

IV. 500 KN M AGNETIC L EAD S CREW The 500 kN MLS proposed for the Wavestar R WEC is shown in Fig. 10, where the main components are the rotor, the translator and the generator housing. The magnetic thread of the rotor is constituted by magnets surface mounted on a steel yoke, and the rotor is supported at both ends by means of a special bearing support, making the rotor capable of both rotational- and translational movement with regard to the translator. The translator is build around a nonmagnetic stainless steel sleeve, where the magnetic thread is placed around. A outer steel yoke surrounding the magnetic thread, is ensuring that the translator has enough strength to withstand the static and dynamic forces acting on the MLS. The only contact between the rotor and translator is thus through the bearing supports that slides on the stainless steel sleeve on the inside of the translator. In order to convert the rotor rotation into electricity, the rotor is coupled to a PM generator through a shaft, and to absorb the axial forces produced by the MLS during operation, two axial thrust bearings are mounted before the generator in the generator housing.
Thrust bearings

Non-magnetic sleeve Translator Rotor

Shaft coupling Bearing supports

PM generator

Fig. 10.

3D CAD-model of the 500 kN MLS.

where Veq is the equivalent volume of the MLS when converted into a magnetic coupling. Next, by substituting Deq = L/, Leq = D and req = Deq /2 into this equation and rearranging, the following expression is obtained:
L F 2 eq = Veq D 4

L2 2

F 2F =2 DL S

(2)

Therefore, by using the largest force per surface area of approx. 250 kN/m2 from Fig. 8, the equivalent torque density of the MLS is approx. 500 kNm/m3 , which is of same order of magnitude as the values presented in [6] for the magnetic coupling, which also takes the yoke section into account.

A. Magnet Concepts Previously, the magnetic thread on the MLS has been formed by surface mounted magnets on both rotor and translator, which is a simple design and therefore an ideal starting point in the design. However, to avoid some of the production related disadvantages of the surface mounted magnet design, the magnetic thread could be realized by means of embedded magnets enclosed by corresponding steel/iron segments, as illustrated in Fig. 11. In this design, the magnets are placed in such a way that their magnetization direction is aligned with the yoke, thereby causing the ux from the magnets to be concentrated towards each of the steel segments, which thus serves the purpose of conducting the ux through the airgap. Hence, because the ux in this case is not carried by the yoke as opposed to the surface mounted magnet design, the yoke should be made of a nonmagnetic material such as stainless steel, in order to avoid

619

short circuiting of the ux and to ensure a satisfactorily structural stiffness at the same time.
Demagnetization (NdFeB Air)

Embedded magnets Stainless steel yoke

2.85 : 3.00 2.70 : 2.85 2.55 : 2.70 2.40 : 2.55 2.25 : 2.40 2.10 : 2.25 1.95 : 2.10 1.80 : 1.95 1.65 : 1.80 1.50 : 1.65 1.35 : 1.50 1.20 : 1.35 1.05 : 1.20 0.90 : 1.05 0.75 : 0.90 0.60 : 0.75 0.45 : 0.60 0.30 : 0.45 0.15 : 0.30 0.00 : 0.15
Density Plot: |B| [T]

Steel ring segments

Fig. 11. yoke.

Embedded magnets and steel segments on stainless steel rotor

Fig. 13. Flux density plot and demagnetization effects when using embedded magnets.

Compared to the surface mounted magnet design, this design has the advantage that the steel segments could be manufactured as complete rings having the specied lead. Therefore, when the rings are placed around the yoke, these would be xed radially, and by designing the rings in such a way that the magnets are locked between the rings, the result would be a more robust structure being easier to assemble. However, when using embedded magnets in the MLS, it has been found that the shape of magnets and steel segments has a large effect on the size of the stall force that is possible to obtain. Therefore, different topologies of embedded magnets have been investigated using nite element analysis, where the two idealized designs (A) and (B) in Fig. 12 has been modeled, analyzed and compared for different values of the design parameters ai and bi .
Steel Stainless steel Magnet north pole Magnet south pole

B. Structural Modeling Because of the magnetic attraction force between the rotor and translator, the existence of a even small eccentricity of the rotor will cause the magnetic attraction force to be nonuniformly distributed around the perimeter of the rotor. Due to this magnetic attraction force, the deection of the rotor would at some point result in physical contact between the rotor and the stainless steel sleeve, eventually leading to a break down of the MLS. To avoid this, the bearing supports mounted on both ends of the rotor has a larger outer diameter than that of the rotor, meaning that only the bearings are sliding on the stainless steel sleeve. To ensure that the rotor magnets does not get in contact with the stainless steel sleeve during operation of the MLS, the deection of the rotor is calculated. The deection is caused by e.g. the weight of the rotor itself, from shaft whirl due to eccentricity and from the magnetic attraction force between the rotor and translator, the latter being the main contributor. Because of the eccentricity, the airgap around the rotor perimeter varies, which would cause a larger magnetic attraction where the rotor is closer to the translator. The eccentricity force is calculated using 2D nite element analysis, where the rotor and translator perimeter is discretized into sub-elements, each having a different but constant airgap. The attraction force is then calculated for each sub-element separately and afterwards summarized to a total attraction force, which can be seen in Fig 14. The resulting deection of the rotor is calculated by modeling the rotor as a simply supported beam having a uniformly distributed load, and thus the deection can be seen as a function of the eccentricity for different rotor diameters by the dashed lines in Fig. 14. These show that the benet from increasing the stiffness by means of a larger rotor diameter overcomes the resulting negative inuence from the increasing attraction force on the deection. For the 500 kN MLS, the rotor is designed with a diameter of 320 mm and an expected maximum eccentricity of 0.5 mm, thereby causing a deection of 0.8 mm due to the attraction force, which is considered acceptable in regards to the physical airgap on 1.5 mm.

a5 a3 a4 a1 . b2 a2 wPM (A) wPM b3

b4

b1 .

tyoke

tyoke (B)

Fig. 12.

Two different embedded magnet topologies.

Based on the analysis, it was found that design (B) was more advantageous than design (A) in regards to obtaining the same stall force as with the surface mounted magnet design, by at the same time using approx. the same amount of magnets. The reason for not being able to achieve a larger stall force to magnet mass ratio is that demagnetization of the magnets must be taken into account when using embedded magnets, due the heavy ux concentration in the steel teeth as shown in Fig. 13. This was done by changing the material in the model from NdFeB to air in the part of the magnets having a negative ux density, which approx. corresponds to the demagnetization point of the utilized 40 MGOe magnets.

620

200 175 Attraction force [kN] (Solid lines) 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Eccentricity [mm] 0.8 1 Physical airgap D = 200 mm D = 300 mm D = 400 mm D = 500 mm

4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Deflection [mm] (Dashed lines)

D. Final Design The nal design of the 500 kN MLS was determined based on several factors such as magnetic nite element analysis, as well as analytical- and nite element analysis of the eigenfrequencies, fatigue, deection and buckling of the rotor and shaft, together with fatigue and power loss of the axial thrust bearings. The main parameters of the nal design are listed in Table III, which were found based on an optimization algorithm, where the objective was to maximize the power per magnet mass.
TABLE III F INAL PARAMETERS OF THE 500 KN MLS. Parameter Stall force Magnet mass Magnet thickness Magnetic airgap Lead Stroke Rotor diameter Rotor length Yoke thickness Sleeve thickness Translator outer diameter Translator length Shaft diameter Shaft length Value 500 kN 280 kg 6 mm 2 mm 44 mm 2000 mm 278 mm 2000 mm 23 mm 0,5 mm 350 mm 4700 mm 130 mm 2150 mm

Fig. 14. Attraction force [Solid lines] and deection [Dashed lines] as a function of eccentricity for different rotor diameters, when using the parameters in Table III with the MLS unloaded.

C. Bearing Supports Because the rotor should be able to rotate at a high speed and translate at a low speed, the demands for the selected bearing solution is very high. The design criteria aims at low friction between bearings and sleeve, ne tolerances to maintain the initial airgap and low wear on moving parts. A dry sliding bearing solution has been chosen due to its simplicity compared to hydrostatic- and hydrodynamic lubrication. The hydrostatic lubrication would require a complicated bearing solution due the supply of oil for the lubrication, whereas hydrodynamic lubrication would be ineffective because the direction of rotation often changes, thereby causing the lubrication lm to vanish when the rotational speed is zero. The dry sliding bearing is made by a non-magnetic graphite material, which is mounted on the outside of a bearing housing. By using a set of roller bearings connected to the rotor shaft and mounted in the bearings housing, any rotation at the sliding surface is avoided, where the conguration can be seen in Fig. 15. The translational friction force caused by the magnetic attraction between the rotor and translator has been calculated to 3.8 kN with a coefcient of friction of 0.1 between the graphite and the stainless steel sleeve. This corresponds to less than 1 % of the maximum stall force.
Magnetic thread Rotor

V. D EMONSTRATOR A downscaled model of the MLS has been constructed, where a stall force of 17 kN has been chosen, due to the size of the test stand available. The main objective of the demonstrator is to investigate the static and dynamic performance of the MLS including the stall force. Furthermore the specied bearing solution for the full scale model is tested by constructing the demonstrator with the same bearing solution. Because of the complexity of realizing the embedded magnets, and due to the relatively small quantity needed for the demonstrator, the production cost of the magnets would undermine the benets from having custommade magnets. Therefore, the demonstrator is designed with standard surface mounted disc magnets embedded in a non-magnetic stainless steel retainer, which also results in a relatively simple assembly process compared to the embedded magnet design. The downscaled rotor including magnets and bearing supports is shown in Fig. 17, and Fig. 18 where the rotor is lowered down the translator of the demonstrator. Also in Table IV, the main parameters for the 17 kN MLS are shown and in Fig. 16 the demonstrator is shown mounted in the hydraulic test bench.

Non-magnetic stainless steel sleeve Translator

Stainless steel yoke Stainless Sliding steel retainer bearing

Roller bearings

Fig. 15.

Cut-through of the rotor and translator.

Fig. 16. The demonstrator mounted in the test setup. For video demonstration please visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpdjjCJkOwA

621

Stainless steel retainer

Disc magnets

Steel yoke

Fig. 19.

3D model used to calculate stall force.

Symmetry Stainless steel retainer Airgap lair = 1,5 mm

z r

NdFeB 45 MGOe

Dirichlet BC

Fig. 17. Magnet retainer for the Fig. 18. translator part translator

Assembly of rotor and Fig. 20.

Steel yoke

tsleeve = 0,5 mm

Close-up of the 3D model used to calculate stall force.

TABLE IV S PECIFICATIONS OF THE 17 K N MLS DEMONSTRATOR . Parameter Stall force Magnet diameter Magnet thickness Number of magnets Total magnet mass Magnetic airgap Lead Stroke Rotor diameter Rotor length Translator outer diameter Translator length Value 17 kN 8 mm 5 mm 4340 8.5 kg 1.5 mm 20 mm 400 mm 105 mm 410 mm 142 mm 1078 mm

and diameter of the MLS, the extent of the eddy currents in the magnets and the stainless steel retainer between them will be limited and therefore not accounted for. However, in the sleeve part of the translators stainless steel retainer, the eddy current can expand over a greater area and are thus only limited by each others paths. Hence, the eddy current loss in the sleeve is estimated analytically using the following expression for the eddy current losses PV e in an area of width we and volume Ve [12]: PV e =
2 2 Ve 2 f 2 w e Ba 6

(3)

A. Stall Force In order to calculate the stall force of the demonstrator, a 3D nite element model is developed such that the 3D effects of the disc magnets can be accounted for. The model is developed using the commercial program Opera 14R1, and thus the part encircled by the dashed line is modeled by means of symmetry as illustrated in Fig. 19, thereby reducing the size of 3D nite element model signicantly. The stall force is afterwards tested in the hydraulic test bench, which revealed a deviation of only 2.3% between the calculated and meassured stall force, the results are presented in Figure 21 for the rotor placed in the middle of the translator and at the end of the translator. B. Eddy Current Losses Because the magnetic thread on the 17 kN MLS is made by disc magnets distanced from each other by a small gap as shown in Fig. 19, the magnetic eld experienced by the magnets and stainless steel retainer are varying when the rotor is rotating. Since both the magnets and the stainless steel retainer are conducting materials, eddy currents will be present and will result in losses. As the distances between the magnets are relatively small compared with the total length

where Ba is the ux density amplitude that changes with the frequency f and is the material resistivity, the depth of the volume used in the calculations are equal to tsleeve shown in Figure 20. In Figure 22 the ux density amplitude is shown when the rotor is rotated one half period, the area that connes the eddy current path is estimated by means of the rectangle shown in the gure. The placement of the
20 18 Cylinder force Fcyl [kN] 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Relative displacement xrel [mm] 6 7

Middle position [Fstall =16.6 kN] End position [Fstall =16.3 kN]

Fig. 21. Meassured force as a function of relative diplacement between translator and rotor.

622

magnets under the sleeve are symbolized by the shaded areas in the gure. Even though Equation 3 is derived for thin and oblong laminations, it is used to give a conservative estimate for the order of magnitude of the eddy current losses. The eddy current losses in the sleeve are calculated to 110 W at maximum speed, which is less than two percent of the rated peak level of 6.8 kW for the MLS prototype.
20 Magnet 18 16 14 Height (along z axis) [mm] 12 10 Magnet 8 6 4 2 Magnet 0 0 2 4 6 8 Length (along axis) [mm] 9.5 Magnet 0.12 0.1 0.26

TABLE V E XPERIMENTAL RESULTS FOR THE 17 K N DEMONSTRATOR

Exp. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 v [m/s] 0, 05 0, 05 0, 05 0, 07 0, 07 0, 10 0, 10 Fcyl [kN] 3, 1 6, 1 8, 1 3, 9 9, 9 5, 4 12, 4 Pin [W] 154 305 407 273 698 537 1240 Pout [W] 93 175 181 171 336 344 580 exp 60 % 57 % 44 % 62 % 48 % 64 % 47 % MLS 75 % 82 % 78 % 78 % 80 % 78 % 75 %

VI. C ONCLUSION & F UTURE W ORK

0.24 0.22

we
Stainless steel sleeve

0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14

he

0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0

The design of a 500 kN magnetic lead screw (MLS) for wave energy conversion has been presented in this paper. The magnetic forces was calculated using nite element analysis and the structural design was described focusing on the bearing supports and an alternative realization of magnet thread using embedded magnets. Also, a discussion of the force density measure led to the conclusion that the force per magnet surface area measure should be used instead, when comparing linear electric actuators. As a 17 kN MLS demonstrator has been constructed, the design of this was briey presented, including 3D FEM calculations of the stall force and a estimation of the eddy current losses due to the magnet design for the demonstrator. Preliminary test of the demonstrator, revealed a efciency of almost 82 %, which was nearly constant when the load of the MLS was varried. Future work therefore includes test of the demonstrator at higher velocity levels, and a more thorough investigation of the losses present in the demonstrator with the aim of improving the efciency.

Ba [T]

Fig. 22. Flux density plot showing the ux density amplitude when the rotor is rotated one half period. The area used to calculate the eddy current losses in the stainless steel retainer is marked by a rectangle.

C. Test As shown in Fig. 16 the 17 kN demonstrator is mounted in a hydraulic test bench, which makes it possible to move the translator with a constant speed reference. By varying the load resistance of the PMSM, and measuring both the mechancial input power and electrical output power dissipated in the power resistors, the overall efciency exp can be found as seen in Tab. V. By investigating the different test results, it can be seen that the overall efciency is highly dominated by the PMSM efciency. Therefore in order to isolate the losses caused by only the MLS itself, the efciency of the PMSM is accounted for, which result in the efciency M LS seen in Tab. V. As can be seen from the results, the efciency of the MLS is almost constant when both the axial force and velocity is varied.

623

R EFERENCES
[1] R. H. Hansen, T. O. Andersen, and H. C. Pedersen, Model Based Design of Efcient Power Take-Off Systems for Wave Energy Converters, The Twelfth Scandinavian International Conference on Fluid Power, May 2011. [2] J. Wang, G. W. Jewell, and D. Howe, A General Framework for the Analysis and Design of Tubular Linear Permanent Magnet Machines, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 19862000, May 1999. [3] N. Bianchi, S. Bolognani, D. D. Corte, and F. Tonel, Tubular Linear Permanent Magnet Motors: An Overall Comparison, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 466475, April 2003. [4] H. Polinder, M. E. C. Damen, and F. Gardner, Linear PM Generator System for Wave Energy Conversion in the AWS, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, pp. 583589, September 2004. TM [5] E. Spooner and J. Grimwade, Snapper : An Efcient and Compact Direct Electric Power Take-Off Device for Wave Energy Converters. [6] P. O. Rasmussen, T. O. Andersen, F. T. Jrgensen, and O. Nielsen, Development of a High-Performance Magnetic Gear, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 764770, May/June 2005. [7] J. Wang, K. Atallah, and W. Wang, Analysis of a Magnetic Screw for High Force Density Linear Electromagnetic Actuators, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 47, no. 10, pp. 44774480, October 2011. [8] H. T. Faus, Magnetic Transmission. US Patent No. 2,371,511, March 1945. [9] E. Agamloh, A. Wallace, P. M. Wallace, M. Dittrich, A. von Jouanne, and K. Rhinefrank, Methods and Apparatus For Power Generation. US Patent No. 2008/0309088 A1, December 2008. [10] R. H. Hansen and M. M. Kramer, Modelling and Control of the Wavestar Prototype, The 9th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference: EWTEC 2011, September 2011. [11] (2012) Finite element method magnetics. David Meeker. [Online]. Available: http://www.femm.info/wiki/HomePage [12] L. W. Matsch and J. D. Morgan, Electromagnetic and Electromechanical Machines, third edition ed. JohnWiley and Sons, 1987.

VII. B IOGRAPHIES
Rasmus Koldborg Holm was born in 1986. He received the B.Sc. degree in Mechanical Engineering from Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark in 2010. He is currently working on the masters thesis project Design of a Magnetic Lead Screw for Wave Energy Conversion at Aalborg University. Morten Walkusch was born in 1985, and in 2010 he received the B.Sc. degree in Mechanical Engineering from Aalborg University, Denmark. He is currently working on the masters thesis project Design of a Magnetic Lead Screw for Wave Energy Conversion at Aalborg University. Nick Ilsoe Berg was born in 1987 and nished his B.Sc. degree in Mechanical Engineering from Aalborg University in 2010. He is currently working on the masters thesis project Design of a Magnetic Lead Screw for Wave Energy Conversion at Aalborg University. Peter Omand Rasmussen was born in Aarhus, Denmark, in 1971. He received the M.Sc.E.E. and Ph.D. degrees from Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark, in 1995 and 2001, respectively. In 1998, he became Assistant Professor, and in 2002, he became an Associate Professor at Aalborg University. His research areas are the design and control of switched reluctance, permanent-magnet machines and magnetic gears. Rico Hjerm Hansen was born in Denmark in 1984. He received the M.Sc.E.E. degree from Aalborg University, Aalborg,Denmark, in 2008. Currently he is employed at Wave Star A/S as an industrial Ph.D. fellow, where his research areas are discrete hydraulic systems and design and control of power take-off systems for wave energy.

624
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)