Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Electrical Machines

Paper ID 1105

Sensitivity Analysis of Several Geometrical Parameters on Linear Switched Reluctance Motor Performance
J. G. Amoros 1, P. Andrada 2, L. Massagues 1, P. Iiguez 1 1 DEEEA Dept., University Rovira i Virgili Av. Pasos Catalans, 26, Tarragona, Spain 2 EPSEVG, DEE, GAECE, UPC Technical University of Catalonia E-mail jordi.garcia-amoros@urv.net
Abstract- This paper studies the sensitivity of several geometrical parameters on the performance of a linear switched reluctance motor (LSRM). The analysis is made in two dimensions using the Finite Element Method. The study shows the strong influence of the width of the stator pole (bp) and the width of the moving pole or translator pole (bs) on inductance and force profiles. The results of this study could be a useful tool for optimizing the geometry of a LSRM.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Various papers regarding the sensitivity of several geometrical parameters on rotating switched reluctance motors (SRM) have been published [1] [2]. The aim of this paper is to analyze in detail the sensitivity of a 4-phase linear switched reluctance motor (LSRM). The sensitivity study compares the inductance and force profile for different stator pole widths (bp) and translator pole widths (bs) (see Fig. 2). A method based on the lumped parameter magnetic circuit model allows us to obtain analytical expressions that connect geometrical parameters with the inductance and the force developed by the LSRM [3]. However, these expressions are not simple, and if saturation has to be taken into account, an iterative process is required. Therefore, finite element method (FEM) is the preferred method used in the study. In order to save computing time, the whole LSRM is broken down into the minimum repetition pattern that guarantees the same results as full LSRM. To do this, suitable boundary conditions must be established. The study uses a two-dimensional finite element solver [4]. Is well known that 2-D solvers are not particularly appropriate for accurately studying 3-D devices because the end effects are not taken account, but they can be used effectively to optimize lamination geometry.

is double sided. Fig. 1 shows one section of the LSRM and the piece being studied. The number of phases (m=4) and the stroke (PS=4mm) are design parameters, and let us obtain the primary pole pitch (Tp) and secondary pole pitch (Ts). The design parameters lp , ls and g are fixed. Fig. 2 shows a piece of one section of the LSRM that can be considered the minimum repetition, in which the geometrical parameters bp , cp , lp , bs , cs , ls , g are shown. The windings are placed in the stator, and are located in the inter-polar area (cpxlp). The translator does not have any current density. Assigning the boundary conditions is fundamental to solving the field problem (see Fig. 3). The first boundary condition is the homogeneous Dirichlet condition that generally equals the magnetic vector potential, A, at zero. This condition is equivalent to an external material with null magnetic permeability; and therefore any flux line can cross this boundary.

Fig. 1. One section of the whole LSRM

II. TWO DIMENSIONAL MODEL The whole LSRM was presented by Amoros J.G. et al. (2007) [5], and is formed by three identical sections, each one of which has 8 primary poles (Np), 6 secondary poles (Ns) and

Fig. 2. Main dimensions for the minimum study pattern

978-1-4244-1736-0/08/$25.00 2008 IEEE

Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Electrical Machines

Fig. 3. Boundary conditions for the minimum study pattern. Poles completely unaligned (x=0)

Fig 4. Triangle for feasible configurations and exploration area

The Neumann condition imposes a value to the normal derivative of A on the boundary. When this value is zero, it is equivalent to an external material with infinite magnetic permeability. Under these conditions (Fig. 3), the results for the piece of the LSRM are 6% less than the full LSRM. The cross section (Fig. 3) is meshed with a uniform mesh size of 0.25mm that gives 62,476 elements and 31,765 nodes. The distance S (see Fig. 2) between aligned and unaligned positions is given by:
S = (bs + cs ) / 2

(1)

The variable x showed in Fig. 2 equals x=0 when the poles are fully unaligned, and x=S, when the poles are completely aligned. Between these two positions we take equidistant points that are separated by x (x=S/32=0.25mm). . These equidistant positions are computed, giving 33 computations in total for each combination of bp and bs. III. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS With the aim of getting dimensionless variables, the poles widths are normalized for stator pole width, obtaining p and s defined as: p = b p / TP (2) (3) s = bs / TP The interval of variation for p and s is limited by the Lawrenson criterion [6] for feasible configurations. These physical constraints define a triangle given by:
p s p 2 / Ns p + s TS / TP

(4) (5) (6)

In order to obtain high resolution in the scanning area, the triangle is framed in a dotted rectangle (Fig 4). Each combination explored of p and s is represented by a dot in Fig 4. The normalized poles widths (p ,s) are increased in steps of 1/48, giving p a range from 1/3 to 2/3.

The range for s is from 1/3 to 1. The total number of computed problems is 17x33x33=18,573 which means a strong computational effort. For each computed problem the current density (J) is a constant value. The first sensitivity analysis investigates the influence of s on the force (Fx) and inductance (L), for a given configuration with a ratio of p=0.5 (see Fig 4). The computed problems of static force for each s are presented in Fig. 5, where, for clarity, only five of the thirty three profiles are showed. From these results we must obtain a parameter that evaluates the goodness of each static force characteristic. There are several parameters that can do this, e.g. peak force, rise or down slope, average force etc. We take the average force to evaluate the influence of the geometrical parameter s. The average force is calculated for each profile from the integration of static force profiles. The average force for a fixed value of p=0.5 is plotted in Fig. 5. The average force reaches maximum for s[0.417,0.5], as is shown in Fig. 5. Therefore, we can conclude that for p=0.5 there is an interval for s that optimizes the average force. For the inductance study, Fig. 5 shows the influence of s on the profiles of inductance versus position for a given p=0.5. In order to evaluate the inductance profiles, the inductance ratio (La/Lu) between alignment and unalignment is taken as parameter independent of position. The inductance ratio is shown in Fig. 5. The optimal values of s that maximize the inductance ratio (La/Lu) are given by s[0.333,0.417]. The intervals that optimize average force and inductance ratio overlap when s=0.417. Therefore, in this case the geometry of LSRM can be optimized for both parameters, for the average force and for the inductance ratio, but this cannot always be achieved. Thus we can conclude that the optimal pole widths are obtained for p=0.5 and s=0.417. Although this point is outside the physical constraints defined in (4), (5) and (6), this does not imply that the configuration is not possible. The symmetrical triangle generated about (4), and softly shaded in Fig 4, represents the configurations with wider bp and narrower inter-polar area, meaning larger cooper losses and therefore a non practical design.

Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Electrical Machines The second sensitivity analysis investigates the influence of p on the force (Fx) and inductance (L) of a fixed secondary normalized width (s=0.5). Fig. 6 shows several static force profiles as well as the average force. In this case, the static force is dramatically reduced when p increases, because of the wide primary pole reduces space for copper. Therefore, for a fixed current density, the reduction in the current and force is in direct proportion to the increase in bp. Small values of bp produce a wide dead zone that reduces the slope and therefore the average force. Summarizing, for s=0.5 the optimal range of values for p are given by p[0.4,0.52]. As before, the inductance profiles and inductance ratio are shown in Fig. 6, where no optimal is reached.

Fig. 5. Sensitivity of force and inductance profiles, fixing p=0.5

Fig. 6. Sensitivity of force and inductance profiles, fixing s=0.5

Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Electrical Machines The optimum poles shape has to satisfy various opposing requirements. On the one hand, wide primary poles increase the aligned inductance and inductance ratio, which is good for motor performance. On the other hand, high efficiency designs needs maximum copper area, thus narrow primary poles have to be chosen. In order to get a full description of the average force and inductance ratio, Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 show the complete analysis made for each dot painted in Fig 4. The contour lines are represented on the p-s plane of average force (Fig. 7) as well as the area closed by the physical constraints (4), (5) and (6) (see Fig 4). As it can be seen, the maximum average force lies near the line given by (4). For the sensitivity of inductance ratio curves (see Fig. 8) no maximum is achieved near the triangular area and therefore it can not be optimized for this parameter. Fig. 9 shows better the contour lines of average force than those roughly displayed on the p-s plane of Fig. 7. It also shows conditions (4)-(5)-(6). The optimum values for s and p are clearly showed in Fig. 9 in light color. Numerically the optimal values can be defined through a bounded square within the ellipse, p[0.42, 0.52] and s[0.42, 0.52], although any inner point of the contour line (691.5N) can be considered an optimal configuration.

Fig. 9. Contour lines of average force. Lawrenson criterion.

The previous studies have looked for a constant high level of saturation (J=15 A/mm2). The latest study investigates the influence of the current density on the average force and the inductance ratio, for four levels of current density. (J=5A/mm2, J=10A/mm2, J=15A/mm2, J=20A/mm2). As can be seen, the optimal region goes up, increasing the value p proportionally to the current density increase. (see Fig. 10 and Fig. 11). The optimal region is partially located in (4), (5) and (6), for the average force in all cases. This means that an optimal configuration can be achieved for the average force. This does not occur for the inductance ratio. Only for low current density (J=5A/mm2) can an optimal region be achieved for the inductance ratio.

Fig. 7. Average force vs. s and p . Fx,avg=f(s p),

Fig. 10. Contour lines of average force for several current density values

Fig. 8. Inductance ratio vs. s and p . La/Lu=f(s p),

Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Electrical Machines

TABLE I SUMMARIZED OPTIMUM INTERVALS FOR AVERAGE FORCE

p J=5A/mm
2

s [0.417 , 0.583] [0.417 , 0.542] [0.375 , 0.542] [0.375 , 0.583]

[0.333 , 0.417] [0.375 , 0.500] [0.417 , 0.542] [0.458 , 0.542]

J=10A/mm2 J=15A/mm
2

J=20A/mm2

From the results presented it can be seen that this sensitivity analysis can give guidelines to improve the design procedures of the LSRM.
Fig. 11. Contour lines of inductance ratio for several current density values

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This study has been done with the support of Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation under the projects number ENE2005-06934 and DPI2006-09880.

IV. CONCLUSIONS This paper reports a detailed analysis of sensitivity carried out on a 4-phase LSRM. The analysis was done on a piece of an LSRM and therefore computational time is saved in proportion to the reduction of the area. This simplification does not affect appreciably the results that we would have obtained had we considered the whole LSRM. The study shows the strong influence of the width of the stator pole (bp) and the width of translator pole (bs) on inductance and force profiles as well as the average force and inductance ratio. The current density is also considered for the sensitivity analysis on the average force and inductance ratio. The best parameter to estimate the optimum geometry is the average force since optimum values are always reached. The optimum lies near the line s=0.5 for all current densities. For the case J=5A/mm2 the primarys wide pole is narrow and is situated under p0.4167. For high current density values (1020A/mm2) a general rule for the optimum is ps=0.5, although there are many points shown in the bright areas in Fig. 10. The following table summarizes the optimal intervals for p and s that have been obtained from Fig. 10.

REFERENCES
[1] [2] Arumugam R. Lindsay J. F., Sensitivity of pole arc/pole pitch ratio on switched reluctance motor performance, IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting. 1988, vol.1, pp.50 - 54 Murthy S. S., Singh B., Sharma V. K., Finite element analysis to achieve optimum geometry of switched reluctance motor, TENCON '98. IEEE Region 10th International Conference on Global Connectivity in Energy, Computer, Communication and Control , vol.2, No., pp.414-418. 1998 R. Krishnan, Switched Reluctance Motor Drives. CRC Press 2001, pp.138-167. D.C. Meeker, Finite Element Magnetics Method. Version 4.0.1 (03Dec2006 Build). http://femm.foster-miller.net Amoros J. G., Andrada P., Massagus L., Iiguez P., Motor lineal de reluctancia conmutada de doble cara para aplicaciones de elevada densidad de fuerza, (In Spanish) Book of Abstracts XCLEEE 2007 X Portuguese Spanish Congress in Electrical Engineering, pp. 3.43-3.46, 5-7 July 2007, Madeira Island, Portugal. Lawrenson P. J, Stephenson J. M., Blenkinsop P. T., Corda J., Fulton N. N., Variable-speed switched reluctance motors, IEE Proceedings-B electric power applications. vol.127 (No.4) July 1980, pp. 253-265.

[3] [4] [5]

[6]