Physica C: Superconductivity and its applications 578 (2020) 1353739

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Physica C: Superconductivity and its applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/physc

Magnetic force and stiffness performances of Maglev system based on T

multi–surface arrangements with three-seeded bulk YBaCuO
superconductors
K. Ozturka, , M. Abdioglua,b, Z. Karaahmetc
⁎

a
Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Karadeniz Technical University, 61080, Trabzon, Turkey
b
Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Faculty of Education, Bayburt University, 69000, Bayburt, Turkey
c
Department of Renewable Energy Sources Technologies, Graduate School of Science, Karadeniz Technical University, 61080, Trabzon, Turkey

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: We have designed a multi–surface HTS (high temperature superconductor with three seeded bulk YBaCuO)
Maglev Maglev system by increasing the YBaCuO number while decreasing the PM number in HTS–PMG system to
Hts enhance the loading capacity and stability of the superconducting Maglev system while reducing the fabrication
Multi–surface cost. By this study, a detailed investigation on the magnetic levitation force, guidance force, magnetic stiffness
Levitation force
and cost analysis of the multi–surface HTS Maglev system has been carried out for the first time. In this study, it
Magnetic stiffness
is determined that the multi–surface YBaCuO–PMG arrangements are superior to the single–surface arrange­
ments with respect to the loading capacity and especially the movement stability of Maglev systems together.
Additionally, it is seen that the using of the multi–surface YBaCuO–PMG arrangement reduces the fabrication
cost of the Maglev systems as 42.0% for 1000 km magnetic rail while increasing of the levitation force efficiency
as 43.4% and this emphasizes the advantage of multi–surface arrangements to the classical single–surface ones.
The obtained results can contribute to the researchers working on Maglev and have a capability to increase the
usage potential of Maglev systems in commercial applications because of both the loading capacity and stability
of Maglev systems can be enhanced together with reducing the fabrication cost without any loss in levitation
performance.

1. Introduction Southwest Jiaotong University has developed a 45 m–long HTS–Maglev

The studies on high temperature superconducting (HTS) Maglev
systems have been significantly improved all over the world [1–8] since
the testing of first man–loaded Maglev vehicle in 2002 by the group of
Southwest Jiaotong University in China [1]. Many studies have been
performed up to now to increase the practical applicability of Maglev
systems and these studies have been focused on improving the super­
conducting properties of HTSs [9–12] and optimizing the HTS-PMG
arrangements by experimental [3,5], analytical [5,13] and numerical
[2,13,14] methods. A significant improvement on Maglev systems has
been achieved by the Maglev–Cobra team in Brazil [15,16]. They have
fabricated a vehicle moving on a 200 m guideway inside the campus of
the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro with 24 passengers in a
waggon. They have used a special design including primary and sec­
ondary parts of linear induction motor to compensate the total vehicle
weight due to variations caused by load changes. The group of
ring test line in 2013 named as Super–Maglev [17]. Although Maglev
systems eliminate the wheel–rail friction, the vehicle is still exposed to
the air friction depending on the velocity. Therefore, the researchers of
Super–Maglev group have improved the system and developed Magle­
v–Evacuated Tube Transport (HTS Maglev–ETT) system [18] to reduce
the air friction in addition to eliminate the wheel–rail friction. This
system can achieve a low pressure as 2.9 kPa in the tube and the ex­
periments showed that a maximum speed of 50 km/h was recorded on
the 6 m–diameter test guideway by reducing the air drag on the vehicle
at low air pressure. The closest works on Maglev systems to the com­
mercial applications are being done in Japan. The SCMaglev (super­
conducting maglev) is a magnetic levitation railway system developed
by Central Japan Railway Company (JR Central) and the Railway
Technical Research Institute. Kusada et al. have done a study on this
system and declared the system parameters [19] as maximum speed of
581 km/h was recorded in December 2003 and 603 km/h was achieved

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kozturk@ktu.edu.tr (K. Ozturk).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physc.2020.1353739
Received 13 May 2020; Received in revised form 1 July 2020; Accepted 10 August 2020
Available online 20 August 2020
0921-4534/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
K. Ozturk, et al.
in April 2015.
In the studies on Maglev systems, generally conventional [20,21]
and Halbach (five PMs with two poles) [3–4, 22–24] type permanent
magnetic guideway (PMG) arrangements are used. Although the Hal­
bach PMG is superior to the conventional PMG, there is only one in­
teracting surface between the PMG and the on–board HTS unit for both
conventional and Halbach PMGs. On the other hand, the passenger or
load carrying capacity and also the movement stability of Maglev sys­
tems are still not sufficient for commercial applications and these
properties can be increased by using HTS–PMG arrangements allowing
more than one interacting surfaces between the HTS and PMG. Re­
searchers have used multi–surface HTS–PMG interaction in flywheel
system [25,26] to improve magnetic stiffness in a superconducting
magnetic bearing system by increasing the permanent magnet (PM)
number (and so, increasing the cost of the unit PMG) and they have
observed an increment in the magnetic levitation force as 44.25% [26].
In fact, the magnetic levitation force, magnetic stiffness and guidance
force should be increased and also the fabrication cost should be de­
creased for improving technological applicability of Maglev systems. It
is clear that the main cost of Maglev transportation systems in real scale
applications is the cost of PMG that must be paved along thousands of
kilometres between the cities. Actually, the PMG array can be opti­
mized to give the same magnetic force. When 1 PM is removed from
each array and the length of a PM is taken as 40 mm, 25 × 106 fewer
PMs are needed for the per 1000 km of magnetic rail.
The average price of an N42 type (NdFeB compound) PM used in
Maglev systems with a magnetic field strength on the surface of 0.5 T is
€ 30. In this case, a PM which is subtracted from each PMG saves ap­
proximately € 750 million for each 1000 km magnetic rail. However,
the cost of one additional YBaCuO (HTS) to be placed in the cryostat in
Maglev systems to compensate the magnetic force is approximately €
480. In order to increase the commercial usage potential of super­
conducting Maglev systems, new HTS–PMG arrays are needed for de­
creasing the number of PM in PMG without any loss of lifting and
guiding forces. Therefore, as different from the literature, we have
designed and fabricated a superconducting multi–surface HTS
(YBaCuO)–Maglev system in this study, by decreasing the PM number
in PMG while increasing the YBaCuO number in HTS–PMG system. For
that, the arrangement of the HTS and PMG were set by considering to
attain maximum supercurrent density and trapped flux inside the
YBaCuO. A detailed experimental and numeric investigations were
performed in this study on the magnetic flux distribution of PMGs and
magnetic levitation, guidance forces and magnetic stiffness in addition
to the cost analysis of this new multi–surface HTS Maglev system.
2. Experimental details
In this study, the three–axes magnetic levitation force measurement
system [24] was modified to allow constructing multi–surface YBa­
CuO–PMG arrangements in addition to single surface arrangements as
seen in Fig. 1 and the detailed technical specifications of this system can
be found in [24]. The new cryostat, shown in the right part of the Fig. 1,
was designed to enable cooling of up to three HTS superconductors
above the PMG at the same time. Three–seeded rectangular prism
shaped YBaCuO superconductors (with dimensions of
65 mm × 34 mm × 14 mm) used in this study were provided by ATZ
GmbH, Germany. We have used three different HTS–PMG arrangements
to compare the magnetic force properties of single–surface and mul­
ti–surface HTS–Maglev system. Two of these arrangements have sin­
gle–surface and one of them has three–surface interaction between HTS
and PMG. In Fig. 1 and all of the text the single–surface means single
interaction surface and the multi–surface means three interaction sur­
faces between the HTS and PMG. The abbreviations of SS and MS in
Fig. 1 represent single–surface and multi–surface, respectively, while
1PM and 3PM indicate the PM number used in PMG, respectively. The
dimensions and surface magnetic flux densities of PMs used in PMG are
2
Physica C: Superconductivity and its applications 578 (2020) 1353739
40 mm × 30 mm × 30 mm and 0.53 T, respectively. The vertical
magnetic levitation force measurements were performed in different
cooling heights (CHs) of 5 mm, 25 mm and 75 mm while the lateral
guidance force measurements were performed in CH of 5 mm and
working height (WH) of 10 mm (detailed process is given in [21]). The
cooling height (CH) mentioned above means the vertical distance be­
tween the upper surface of the PMG and the bottom surface of the upper
HTS unit, while cooling procedure as shown in Fig. 1. The levitation
force measurements were also performed in field cooling (FC) regime to
investigate the flux trapping performances of different HTS–PMG in­
teractions. The magnetic stiffness measurements were done by making
minor cycles on levitation force curves to obtain minor loops at dif­
ferent vertical positions of z = 5, 9, 13 and 17 mm. The magnetic
stiffness measurements also were performed in different CHs of 25 mm
and 75 mm and detailed information about all measurement procedures
can be found in our previous studies [21,24].
3. Results and discussion
The magnetic flux density distribution of the PMGs used in Maglev
systems is an important parameter to clearly understand the effect of
different PMGs on the magnetic force properties. The magnetic field
distribution data of PMG is obtained by numerical modelling via
magnetostatic solution in COMSOL Multiphysics 3.5 to determine the
optimum size and positions of PMs in PMG and positions of the YBaCuO
samples before the experimental studies [20]. To determine the mag­
netic flux parameters of Bx and Bz in magnetic field source and free
space, Eq. (1) is used respectively, in which µ0 is the magnetic per­
meability of the free space. In modelling, the magnetization value of
each PM is taken as 11,324,904 A/m, for consistency with surface
magnetic flux density of used PM in experiments.
B = µ0 H + µ0 M , B = µ0 H (1)
Fig. 2 shows vertical (Bz) and lateral (Bx) magnetic flux density
distributions along the PMG, at the distance of 5 mm from the upper
and lateral surfaces of the PMG (the absolute values of magnetic flux
density data were taken in the graphs and the inset shows the magnetic
flux distribution of 1PM, also see Fig. 1). The red arrows and blue
contours in the inset figure at left bottom represent the magnetic flux
density and z-component of magnetic potential, respectively. As can be
seen in this figure, there are one major and two minor Bz peaks and two
major Bx peaks on the upper side of the PMG. Although the magnetic
flux density distribution is symmetric on the upper side of the PMG, it is
not symmetric on the right side. Moreover, the peak value of Bx is
bigger than that of Bz on the right side unlike the upper side, because on
the right side of the PMG both the upwardly and laterally directed PMs
make contribution to the Bx. By comparing the Fig. 2 with the inset (top
right part in the figure), it is seen that both the Bz and Bx peaks of PMG
(0.69 T and 0.66 T, respectively) are distinctly bigger than that of 1PM
(0.38 T and 0.35 T, respectively).
Change in vertical magnetic flux density distributions (ΔBz) between
z = 5 mm and z = 25 mm for 3PM and 1PM is given in Fig. 3. This
graph was obtained by subtracting the Bz values at z = 25 mm from the
values at z = 5 mm at each lateral position, x. The inset shows the
vertical magnetic flux density curves as a function of the vertical dis­
tance (Bz-z), from 5 mm to 25 mm for 3PM and 1PM at x = 0. It can be
seen from Fig.3 that, the ΔBz values of 3PM are bigger than that of 1PM
at all vertical positions and the maximum change in Bz at the centre of
the PMG is obtained as 0.40 T and 0.26 T, respectively for 3PM and
1PM. The slope of fitted lines of Bz-z curves in inset figure were cal­
culated as −19.9 T/m and −12.6 T/m, respectively for 3PM and 1PM.
The physical explanations of magnetic flux density distributions Bz, Bx
in Fig. 2 and ΔBz in Fig. 3 will be discussed later by linking to the
vertical levitation and lateral guidance force data of multi–surface
HTS–PMG arrangements.
K. Ozturk, et al. Physica C: Superconductivity and its applications 578 (2020) 1353739

Fig. 1. Three axes magnetic levitation force measurement system (TAMFS) with single–surface and multi–surface arrangements.

Fig. 4 shows magnetic levitation force as a function of the vertical SS–1PM) in different CHs and the inset shows the levitation force in FC
distance between 1 permanent magnet (PM) and 1 HTS arrangement regime. The arrows 1 and 2 in the figure indicate the descending and
(named as single surface (SS) and henceforth it will be called as ascending parts of the levitation force curves, respectively.

Fig. 2. Vertical (Bz) and lateral (Bx) magnetic flux density distributions along the PMG, at the distance of 5 mm from the upper and lateral surfaces of the PMG,
obtained by COMSOL Multiphysics 3.5 package. The red arrows and blue contours in the inset figure at left bottom represent the magnetic flux density and z-
component of magnetic potential, respectively.

3
K. Ozturk, et al. Physica C: Superconductivity and its applications 578 (2020) 1353739

Fig. 3. Change in vertical magnetic flux density distributions (ΔBz) between z = 5 mm and z = 25 mm, obtained by COMSOL Multiphysics 3.5 package (The inset
shows the vertical magnetic flux density curves as a function of the vertical distance (Bz-z) for 3PM and 1 PM.).

Fig. 4. Levitation force as a function of the vertical distance for SS–1PM single–surface arrangement in different CHs. The inset shows the levitation force depending
on vertical distance curve in FC regime for SS–1PM arrangement.

It can be clearly seen in Fig. 4 that the levitation force increases with
increasing CH since the fact that the bigger CH, the less magnetic flux
trapping inside the YBaCuO and the more dominant Meissner effect
[20]. As can be seen in inset, the attractive force in ascending part of
the curve (arrow 1) indicates the flux trapping capability inside the
YBaCuO and this is compatible with the levitation force curve in
CH = 5 mm in Fig. 4. In this figure, the maximum repulsive levitation
force value at the closest distance of 5 mm between the PMG and HTS in
CH = 75 mm was obtained as 91.7 N while the maximum attractive
force value was obtained as −25.1 N in FC regime.
The levitation force as a function of the vertical distance for 3 PM
and 1 HTS arrangement (named as single–surface and henceforth it will
be called as SS–3PM) in different CHs is shown in Fig. 5. One can see
from this figure that the maximum repulsive levitation force value at
the closest distance of 5 mm between the PMG and HTS in CH = 75 mm
was obtained as 170.9 N while the maximum attractive force value was
obtained as −55.5 N in FC regime.
By using same number of PM (as given in Fig. 5) in the magnetic rail
of thousands of kilometres length, the levitation and guidance force
performances can be improved by adding extra YBaCuO into the on- Fig. 5. Levitation force as a function of the vertical distance for SS–3PM sin­
gle–surface arrangement in different CHs. The inset shows the levitation force
board side of Maglev system. This situation decreases the fabrication
depending on vertical distance curve in FC regime for SS–3PM arrangement.

4
K. Ozturk, et al. Physica C: Superconductivity and its applications 578 (2020) 1353739

Fig. 6. Levitation force as a function of the vertical distance for MS–3PM

multi–surface arrangement in different CHs. The inset shows the levitation force
depending on vertical distance curve in FC regime for MS–3PM arrangement.

cost and increases the practical usage potential of Maglev systems.

Additionally, the studies on single surface HTS–PMG arrangements in
literature, aimed to increase the levitation force, generally cause a de­
creasing in guidance force [27]. Therefore, the multi surface HTS–PMG
arrangements were used in this study to increase the levitation and
guidance forces simultaneously.
The levitation force as a function of the vertical distance for 3 PM
and 3 HTS arrangement (named as multi–surface and henceforth it will
be called as MS–3PM) in different CHs is shown in Fig. 6. The maximum
repulsive force in CH = 75 mm and maximum attractive force in FC
regime were obtained as 186.8 N and −122.7 N, respectively. It can be
seen in this figure that the levitation force increases as four times with
increasing CH from 5 mm to 25 mm and it is remarkable that the re­
pulsive part of levitation force in CH = 25 mm (205.8 N) is bigger than
in CH = 75 mm while the attractive part in CH = 25 mm was obtained
much more than one can expect in this CH (−33.2 N). This behaviour
Fig. 7. Comparison of the levitation forces as a function of the vertical distances
indicates the advantage of multi–surface HTS–PMG arrangements with
for different HTS–PMG arrangements in (a) CH = 75 mm and (b) CH = 25 mm.
regards to both bigger levitation and guidance forces concurrently. It
can be seen in Fig. 6 that while the distance between the HTS and PMG
decreasing (arrow 1), the levitation force curve in CH = 25 mm starts multi–surface HTS–PMG arrangements. In literature [3], the re­
to exceed the curve in CH = 75 mm at the vertical distance of 20 mm searchers obtained maximum levitation force, at the minimum vertical
and reaches to bigger maximum levitation force value at the minimum distance of 10 mm, as 150 N between the single surface one bulk
gap of 5 mm. This surprising behaviour, as different from the literature, YBaCuO and double pole Halbach PMG with 5–PMs in CH = 30 mm.
is a result of multi–surface structure of HTS-PMG arrangement causing However, in our study, we have obtained maximum levitation force of
an additional flux trapping inside the HTSs at both sides. This trapped 125 N (see Fig.7b) for multi–surface MS–3PM arrangement at the ver­
flux produces a restoring force, acting upwardly on the HTSs at both tical distance of 10 mm in CH = 25 mm. The multi–surface HTS-PMG
sides, while the vertical distance decreases from 20 mm to 5 mm and arrangement is superior to the classical single–surface arrangement in
this attractive force in the positive z-direction makes an extra con­ literature by taking into account that single–surface Halbach arrange­
tribution to the levitation force of whole system. ment includes 5–PMs while the multi–surface arrangement includes
The levitation force comparison of different HTS–PMG arrange­ only 3–PMs. Additionally, the levitation force measurement data for
ments is shown in Fig. 7 in CH = 75 mm and CH = 25 mm. It is seen in CH = 25 mm in our study has a potential to produce additional levi­
this figure that the maximum levitation force value of MS–3PM ar­ tation force as different from the study in literature (for CH = 30 mm).
rangement is bigger than that of SS–1PM and SS–3PM arrangements Fig. 8 shows the comparison of the guidance forces as a function of
both in CH = 75 mm and CH = 25 mm. In addition, a shoulder ap­ the lateral distances for different HTS–PMG arrangements. Although
peared at the vertical distance of 35 mm is different from conventional the maximum levitation force values of multi–surface MS–3PM ar­
levitation force behaviour and this indicates the dominance of Meissner rangement is slightly bigger than that of single–surface SS–3PM ar­
effect in CH = 75 mm for MS–3PM arrangement. This is an undesirable rangement, the lateral guidance force value of MS–3PM arrangement is
situation because of inducing instability in Maglev systems on the more than three times bigger than that of the single–surface arrange­
magnetic rail but this can be reduced by adjusting the CH. Although the ments (SS–1PM and SS–3PM). This situation indicates that the multi–­
maximum levitation forces of MS–3PM and SS–3PM arrangements are surface HTS–PMG arrangements are very useful to enhance both the
close to each other in CH = 75 mm, the levitation force of MS–3PM in loading capacity and especially the lateral stability of Maglev systems.
CH = 25 mm is significantly bigger than that of the other arrange­ In our former study [20], the maximum lateral levitation force at the
ments, indicating that the optimum cooling height is very important for lateral distance of 4 mm, was obtained as Fx = −25 N between the

5
K. Ozturk, et al. Physica C: Superconductivity and its applications 578 (2020) 1353739

Fig. 8. Comparison of the guidance forces as a function of the lateral distances for different HTS–PMG arrangements.

single surface one bulk YBaCuO and conventional PMG with three PMs volume, V, of the induced supercurrent inside the bulk HTS is related to
while the lateral force value for multi–surface MS–3PM arrangement the penetration depth, x*. The penetration depth, x* is proportional to
with three PMs was obtained as Fx = −58.9 N in CH = 5 mm and the Bz linearly according to the Eq. (6) [29].
WH = 10 mm.
Bz Bp
It can be seen in Fig. 2 that, as different from the studies in litera­ x* = +a (0 < x * < a)
ture, the multi–surface arrangements have magnetic flux density con­ µ0 J (6)
tributions come from both sides of the PMG (right and left). In addition,
Where, Bp is the applied magnetic flux density that can penetrate the
it is known that the supercurrent density, J in the a–b plane is three
bulk HTS entirely and the parameter a is the radius of the bulk HTS.
times bigger than that along the c–axis [3]. In the multi–surface ar­
Therefore, it is clear that the parameter V and so the levitation force
rangement, the HTSs on the sides lie in as a–b plane is parallel to the
increases with increasing Bz.
side surface of the PMG (magnetic pole of the PMs at the sides is normal
In literature, the maximum levitation force value in ZFC is generally
to the a–b plane of the HTS) similar to that the HTS on the upper part
bigger than in CH = 30 mm or CH = 25 mm as an amount of 15–20%
lies in as the a–b is parallel to the upper surface of the PMG. Therefore,
[3, 21]. However, as can be seen in Fig. 6, the maximum levitation force
the additional HTSs on the right and left sides make a real contribution
value in CH = 25 mm is slightly bigger than in CH = 75 mm for
to the levitation force and especially to the guidance force. On the other
multi–surface HTS–PMG arrangement. The reaching of maximum le­
hand, while the HTS unit moves from its original position to the posi­
vitation force in CH = 25 mm to that in CH = 75 mm is a result of the
tive x–direction (see Fig. 2), the PM on the right side of the PMG mostly
additional induced Jy supercurrents, inside the HTSs in right and left
pulls the HTS at right side and the PM on the left side of the PMG pushes
sides, being dominant character in smaller cooling heights, due to the
the HTS at the left side to its initial position in addition to the attractive
external magnetic flux density gradient Eq. (5) and see Fig. 3) and
force comes from upper HTS. This behaviour causes a very big attrac­
additional volume, V, of the induced supercurrent inside the bulk HTS
tive guidance force for multi–surface arrangement (more than three
(according to Eqs. (2) and (6). Additionally, the exceeding of maximum
times bigger than the other arrangements) as can be seen in Fig. 8
levitation force in CH = 25 mm (205.8 N) to that in CH = 75 mm
which is a desired situation in Maglev systems for movement stability.
(186.8 N) in Fig. 6 can be attributed to the additional flux trapping
The magnetic levitation (Fz) and guidance (Fx) forces are given as
inside the HTSs at both sides at CH = 25 mm as explained before. Also,
the Eqs. (2) and (3), respectively and according to the Ampere's Law,
it can be seen in Fig. 3 that the bigger ΔBz and bigger slope of mul­
the induced current in the y–direction, Jy is defined as Eq. (4) [3,28].
ti–surface arrangement than that of the single–surface explains the
Since the dominant supercurrents flow in ab-plane as Jy, the Eq. (4) can
bigger induced supercurrent inside the HTS and so levitation force
be reduced to Eq. (5) [29,30]. In below, µ0 is the magnetic permeability
values of multi–surface arrangements.
of the free space, Bx and Bz are the x and z–components of the external
The magnetic stiffness is an important parameter for Maglev and
magnetic flux density, respectively and V represents the volume of the
other bearing systems since the bigger stiffness value indicates the
induced supercurrent inside the bulk HTS.
stability of the vehicle. Therefore, the vertical magnetic stiffness of
Fz = Jy Bx dV different HTS–PMG arrangements was investigated in different CHs of
V (2) 75 mm and 25 mm as can be seen in Fig. 9. The magnetic stiffness is
defined as
Fx = Jy Bz dV
V (3) kz = Fz/ z (Nmm 1) (7)

where kz is the vertical magnetic stiffness, Fz is the levitation force and z

µ0 J = ×B (4)
is the levitation gap [21,31]. It is seen in Fig. 9 that the magnetic
dBz stiffness increases with decreasing vertical distance between HTS and
µ 0 Jy = PMG due to the physical fact that the force in unit minor vertical dis­
dx (5)
placement increases more rapidly at the close distances than the far
It is clear from the above equations that the vertical and lateral levi­ distances and as mathematically, the levitation force curve gets steeper
tation forces depend on the Bz and Bx, respectively and the gradient of with decreasing vertical distance as can be seen in Fig. 7 as comply with
the magnetic field (dBz/dx). Also, according to the Bean model, the Eq. (7).

6
K. Ozturk, et al.
Fig. 9. Vertical magnetic stiffness comparison of different HTS–PMG arrange­
ments in (a) CH = 75 mm and (b) CH = 25 mm.
One can clearly see from Fig. 9 that the vertical magnetic stiffness
values of multi–surface (MS–3PM) arrangement are bigger than that of
the single surface ones at all vertical distances and in both CHs of
75 mm and 25 mm as consistent with the levitation and guidance force
values. The maximum vertical stiffness value in CH = 75 mm and at the
minimum levitation gap of 5 mm was obtained with MS–3PM as
32.1 N/mm and this value is clearly bigger than that of obtained in
literature. The researchers obtained 26 N/mm stiffness value [32], with
seven YBaCuO samples of 30 mm in diameter and 15 mm in thickness,
at the vertical distance of 5 mm above the double pole single–surface
Halbach PMG with five PMs and in our previous study [21], we ob­
tained 33 N/mm stiffness value between one multi–seeded YBaCuO
superconductor and Halbach PMG in single–surface arrangement.
Therefore, it is clear that the multi–surface HTS–PMG arrangements
(with only three PMs) are superior to the conventional single–surface
Halbach type arrangements (with 5 PMs) in respect of magnetic stiff­
ness.
4. Cost analysis
The fabrication cost is a crucial issue that must be taken into ac­
count for increasing the usage potential of Maglev systems in com­
mercial applications. Therefore, we have performed the cost analysis of
multi–surface and single–surface HTS–PMG arrangements as can be
seen in Table 1. While making the comparison in this table, the prices of
7
Physica C: Superconductivity and its applications 578 (2020) 1353739
PMs with different cross–section area of 20 mm × 20 mm,
30 mm × 30 mm and 35 mm × 35 mm were taken as € 20, € 30 and €
35, respectively. Additionally, the price of the multi-seeded YBaCuO
was taken as € 480. The small cryostat used in this study (see Fig. 1)
was fabricated as handmade with 6013 series Aluminium material and
the approximate fabrication cost of it is € 200. The length of each
magnet was taken as 40 mm while calculating the cost of PMG for
1000 km magnetic rail. However, it should be taken into account that
the magnet prices fall down in high number of purchases and both the
magnet and HTS prices can be changed due to the fluctuations in ma­
terial prices depending on worldwide trade. The rows (h) and (i) were
respectively calculated by dividing row (c) to row (g) and row (d) to
row (g). The levitation force efficiency for 1000 km array, including the
fabrication cost, increased by using multi–surface arrangements, as can
be seen in the row (h) in the Table 1 and the multi–surface arrange­
ments showed 2.6% higher efficiency than that of the single–surface
Halbach and 4.0% than that of the conventional PMG–HTS arrange­
ment in ZFC regime. However, under the field cooling condition, it must
be pointed out that the multi–surface arrangement showed 43.4%
higher efficiency (in row (i)) in CH = 25 mm and CH = 30 mm than
that of Halbach PMG–HTS arrangement in ref. [3]. As known, the
maximum levitation force at the minimum vertical gap increases with
increasing cooling height. Therefore, the maximum levitation force
value given as 125 N in Table 1 (row (d)) for Multi–Surface arrange­
ment with 3 PMs in CH = 25 mm would be reached to the maximum
value in literature (150 N) in CH = 30 mm [3] for Halbach arrange­
ment with 5 PMs. It is very important to note that using of the mul­
ti–surface arrangements reduces the fabrication cost of the Maglev
systems as € 1.63 billion (in the ratio of 42.0%) for 1000 km magnetic
rail without any reduction in levitation force (see row (g)), indicating
the advantage of multi–surface arrangements in real–scale applications
of Maglev systems. The increment in levitation force efficiency as
43.4% in CH = 25 mm and CH = 30 mm (using the data in row (i) in
Table 1) indicates the advantage of multi–surface arrangements to the
classical single–surface ones (Halbach and conventional PMGs) because
of the fact that the Maglev systems generally move at small working gap
of 20–30 mm in the real applications.
5. Conclusions
In this study, we have designed a multi–surface HTS–Maglev system
by increasing the HTS number while decreasing the PM number in
HTS–PMG system and made a detailed investigation on the magnetic
levitation force, guidance force, magnetic stiffness and cost analysis of
this new multi–surface HTS Maglev system. We have used three dif­
ferent HTS–PMG arrangements to compare the magnetic force proper­
ties of single–surface and multi–surface HTS–Maglev system. Two of
these arrangements have single–surface (SS–1PM and SS–3PM) and one
of them (MS–3PM) has three–surface HTS–PMG interaction. It was
determined that the maximum levitation force value of the multi–sur­
face MS–3PM arrangement is bigger than that of the single surface
SS–1PM and SS–3PM arrangements both in CH = 75 mm and
CH = 25 mm. The maximum levitation forces of MS–3PM and SS–3PM
arrangements are close to each other in CH = 75 mm, while the levi­
tation force of MS–3PM in CH = 25 mm is significantly bigger than that
of the other arrangements and this situation indicates that the optimum
cooling height is very important for multi–surface HTS–PMG arrange­
ments. Additionally, it is determined that the lateral guidance force
value of the MS–3PM arrangement is more than three times bigger than
that of the single–surface arrangements while the maximum levitation
force values of the multi–surface MS–3PM arrangement are slightly
bigger than that of the single–surface SS–3PM arrangement in
CH = 75 mm. This situation indicates the advantage of multi–surface to
the single–surface HTS–PMG arrangements to enhance the loading ca­
pacity and especially the movement stability of Maglev systems to­
gether. In addition, obtained bigger magnetic stiffness values of the
K. Ozturk, et al.
Table. 1
Cost performance comparison of single–surface and multi–surface HTS–PMG arrangements.
Halbach PMG–HTS arrangement
with 5 PMs [3]
a) PMG cross–sectional area of unit array, SPMG (mm2) 4500
b) Number of onboard YBaCuO as HTS for unit array 1 1
c) Maximum Levitation Force at the vertical gap of 10 mm for one 178
PMG-arrangement in ZFC regime ((Fz)max in N unit)
d) Maximum Levitation Force at the vertical gap of 10 mm in CH of 150 (CH = 30 mm)
25 and 30 mm ((Fz)max in N unit)
e) Cost of unit PMG with only PMs (Euro) 155
f) Cost of PMG–HTS arrangement for unit array (Euro) 635
g) Fabrication cost of PMG–HTS arrangement for 1000 km magnetic 3.88 × 109
rail (Euro)
h) (Fz)max (in ZFC)/HTS–PMG cost, namely ratio of (c)/(g), (N/Euro) 4.59 × 10−8
for 1000 km array
i) (Fz)max (in CH of 25 and 30 mm)/HTS–PMG cost, namely ratio of 3.87 × 10−8
(d)/(g), (N/Euro) for 1000 km array
MS–3PM arrangement than those of the single–surface arrangements
indicate the stability advantage of the multi–surface HTS–PMG ar­
rangements. It is also determined that using of the multi–surface ar­
rangement reduces the fabrication cost of the Maglev systems as 42.0%
for 1000 km magnetic rail without any reduction in levitation force.
The increment in levitation force efficiency as 43.4% (in CH = 25 mm)
indicates the advantage of multi–surface arrangements to the classical
single–surface ones because of the fact that the Maglev systems move at
the working gap of 20–30 mm in the real applications. It can be con­
cluded from this study that both the loading capacity and stability of
Maglev systems can be enhanced and the fabrication cost can be de­
creased by using multi–surface HTS–PMG arrangements.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
K. Ozturk: Visualization, Data curation, Conceptualization,
Methodology, Software, Writing - original draft. M. Abdioglu: Data
curation, Data curation, Writing - original draft. Z. Karaahmet: Data
curation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ­
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Scientific and Technological
Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK – Turkey), with project no.
118F426.
References
[1] J. Wang, S. Wang, Y. Zeng, H. Huang, F. Luo, Z. Xu, Q. Tang, G. Lin, C. Zhang,
Z. Ren, G. Zhao, D. Zhu, S. Wang, H. Jiang, M. Zhu, C. Deng, P. Hu, C. Li, F. Liu,
J. Lian, X. Wang, L. Wang, X. Shen, X. Dong, Physica C 378–381 (2002) 809–814.
[2] Jr. D.H.N. Dias, E.S. Motta, G.G. Sotelo, R. de Andrade, R.M. Stephan, L. Kuehn,
O. de Haas, L. Schultz, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 19 (3) (2009) 2120–2123.
[3] Z. Deng, J. Wang, J. Zheng, Y. Zhang, S. Wang, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 26 (6pp)
(2013) 025001.
[4] Z. Deng, M. Izumi, M. Miki, K. Tsuzuki, B. Felder, W. Liu, J. Zheng, S. Wang,
J. Wang, U. Floegel-Delor, F.N. Werfel, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 22 (2) (2012)
Physica C: Superconductivity and its applications 578 (2020) 1353739
Conventional PMG–HTS with Multi–Surface HTS–PMG
3 PMs [20] arrangement with 3 PMs
1200 2700
3
68 106
– 125 (CH = 25 mm)
60 90
540 1530
1.50 × 109 2.25 × 109
4.53 × 10−8 4.71 × 10−8
– 5.55 × 10−8
680021010pp.
[5] K. Ozturk, S.B. Guner, M. Abdioglu, M. Demirci, S. Celik, A. Cansiz, J. Alloys Comp.
805 (2019) 1208–1216.
[6] M. Abdioglu, K. Ozturk, S.B. Guner, S. Celik, T. Kucukomeroglu, Physica C 565
(6pp) (2019) 1353519.
[7] H. Liao, J. Zheng, L. Jin, H. Huang, Z. Deng, Y. Shi, D. Zhou, D.A. Cardwell,
Supercond. Sci. Technol. 31 (9pp) (2018) 035010.
[8] L. Schultz, O. de Haas, P. Verges, C. Beyer, S. Röhlig, H. Olsen, L. Kühn, D. Berger,
U. Noteboom, U. Funk, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 15 (2) (2005) 2301–2305.
[9] Y. Shi, J.H. Durrell, A.R. Dennis, K. Huang, D.K. Namburi, D. Zhou., D.A. Cardwell,
Supercond. Sci. Technol. 30 (8pp) (2017) 015003.
[10] S.B. Guner, S. Celik, M. Tomakin, J. Alloys Comp. 705 (2017) 247–252.
[11] F.N. Werfel, U. Floegel-Delor, T. Riedel, B. Goebel, R. Rothfeld, P. Schirrmeister,
D. Wippich, Physica C 484 (2013) 6–11.
[12] D.X. Fischer, R. Prokopec, J. Emhofer, M. Eisterer, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 31
(2018) 0440068pp.
[13] M.D. Ainslie, H. Fujishiro, Supercond. Sci. Technol 28 (20pp) (2015) 053002.
[14] A. Patel, S.C. Hopkins, A. Baskys, V. Kalitka, A. Molodyk, B.A. Glowacki, Supercond.
Sci. Technol. 28 (10pp) (2015) 115007.
[15] G.G. Sotelo, R.A.H. de Oliveira, F.S. Costa, D.H.N. Dias, R. de Andrade, Jr., and R.M.
Stephan, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., 25 (3) 3601005 (5pp).
[16] D.H.N. Dias, E.S. Motta, G.G. Sotelo, R. de Andrade Jr, Supercond. Sci. Technol 23
(6pp) (2010) 075013.
[17] Z. Deng, W. Zhang, J. Zheng, Y. Ren, D. Jiang, X. Zheng, J. Zhang, P. Gao, Q. Lin,
B. Song, C. Deng, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 26 (6) (2016) 36024088pp.
[18] Z. Deng, W. Zhang, J. Zheng, B. Wang, Y. Ren, X. Zheng, J. Zhang, IEEE Trans. Appl.
Supercond. 27 (6) (2017) 36020088pp.
[19] S. Kusada, M. Igarashi, K. Nemoto, T. Okutomi, S. Hirano, K. Kuwano, T. Tominaga,
M. Terai, T. Kuriyama, K. Tasaki, T. Tosaka, K. Marukawa, S. Hanai, T. Yamashita,
Y. Yanase, H. Nakao, M. Yamaji, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 17 (2) (2007)
2111–2116.
[20] K. Ozturk, M. Kabaer, M. Abdioglu, A. Patel, A. Cansiz, J. Alloys Comp. 689 (2016)
1076–1082.
[21] K. Ozturk, E. Sahin, M. Abdioglu, M. Kabaer, S. Celik, E. Yanmaz,
T. Kucukomeroglu, J. Alloys Comp. 643 (2015) 201–206.
[22] Z. Deng, J. Wang, J. Zheng, H. Jing, Y. Lu, G. Ma, L. Liu, W. Liu, Y. Zhang, S. Wang,
Supercond. Sci. Technol. 21 (9pp) (2008) 115018.
[23] K. Halbach, J. Appl. Phys. 57 (1985) 3605–3608.
[24] M. Abdioglu, K. Ozturk, H. Gedikli, M. Ekici, A. Cansiz, J. Alloys Comp. 630 (2015)
260–265.
[25] S. Basaran, S. Sivrioglu, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 30 (12pp) (2017) 035008.
[26] S. Sivrioglu, S. Basaran, A.S. Yildiz, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 26 (8) (2016)
36032066pp.
[27] W. Liu, J. Wang, S. Wang, Q. Lin, D. Jiang, G. Ma, J. Zheng, IEEE Trans. Appl.
Supercond. 20 (3) (2010) 915–919.
[28] O.V. Vakaliuk, M.D. Ainslie, B. Halbedel, Supercond. Sci. Technol 31 (2018)
0840039pp.
[29] C.P. Bean, Rev. Mod. Phys. 36 (1) (1964) 31.
[30] C. Navau, N. Del-Valle, A. Sanchez, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond 23 (1) (2013)
820102323 pp.
[31] W. Yang, Y. Liu, Z. Wen, X. Chen, Y. Duan, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 21 (7pp)
(2008) 015014.
[32] Y. Lu, Y. Ge, M. Liu, J. Wang, J. Supercond. Nov. Magn 24 (2011) 1787–1791.