Optimal Design of a Coreless Axial Flux Permanent

Magnet Synchronous Generator for the Wind Power

Generation
-PhD Dissertation Defense-

29-01-2018

Junaid Ikram

Advisor: Prof Dr. Nasrullah Khan

Department of Electrical Engineering

CIIT Islamabad.

(1 / 40)
Contents

1 Research Background

2 Motivation for Research

3 Design and Optimization of Proposed Axial Flux Machine

4 Optimization of Axial Flux Machine with developed Analytical Method

5 Conclusion

(2 / 40)
Research Background

EE Machines

 Electrical machines are categorized into two types based on the field excitation system
i.e. Wound field machines and PM field machines.

 Synchronous machines (SM), Induction machines (IM), DC Machines are types Wound
field machines.

 SMs & IMs are the oldest poly phase machines that are widely used in industry.

 Two types of IMs i.e. SCIM & WRIM.

 However, IMs are less efficient as compared to the DC and SMs

 SMs have the benefits i.e. high efficiency, reduced weight and inertia as compared to DC
and IM.

 Furthermore SMs are also used most commonly for the generation of electrical power
due to its ability of supplying reactive power.

 However, EESMs are less efficient as compared to PMSMs due to rotor copper losses,
increased volume, carbon brushes, less robust due to the need of excitation system.

(3 / 40)
Research Background

PM Machines

 Permanent magnet machines (PMMs) are more efficient, have high torque and power
density. Furthermore, PMMs are more compact and robust as compare to EEMs.

 PMMs are classified according to the type of structure, flux direction, motion, winding
and core.

 The most prominent classification is according to the direction of flux

 PM Electrical machines classification based on direction of flux are radial flux (RF), axial
Flux (AF), and transverse flux (TF) machines, as shown below

RFPM Machines AFPM Machines TFPM Machines

(4 / 40)
Research Background

PM Machines

 Two types of Radial Flux PMMs i.e. Stator PM Machine & Rotor PM Machines

 Furthermore, two types of Rotor PMMs i.e. PMSMs & PMBLDC Machines

 PMSMs have sinusoidal back EMF and PMBLDC Machines have trapezoidal back EMF

 TFPMs have categorization based on the configurations of PMs, phases and winding.

 TF machines have disadvantages like high flux leakage, low power factor and
complicated structure

 Furthermore i.e. AF PM machines have higher torque density and also more suitable for
low speed wind power generation due to its disc shape structure.

 In addition, AF PM machines, are more efficient as compare to RF and TF machines.

(5 / 40)
Research Background

Advantages of AFPM Machines

 High Torque density in AFPM Machines as torque is proportional to D3 instead of D2L as in

radial flux topology

 Heat dissipation in Axial Flux structure is better than Radial Flux Structure

 Disc type machines are more suitable for low speed wind power generation application
since they can accommodate increased number of poles

 Furthermore, coreless AF machines Eliminates stator core losses due to the absence of
stator core and also eliminates rotor copper losses

 Balance force of attraction between Stator and Rotor in coreless AFMs

 Reduced Torque ripples and VTHD in coreless AFMs

(6 / 40)
Research Background
AF Machines

 Axial Flux Machine (AFM) configuration i.e. Single Rotor single Stator , Single Rotor
Double Stator , Double Rotor Single Stator and Multi Rotor Multi Stator , as shown
below.

 Coreless type DRSS AF machines, are more efficient due to the absence of the stator
core losses. Furthermore, these have reduced torque ripples, as compared to other AF
machine configurations.
Axial Flux Machines

Single Rotor Single Single Rotor Double Rotor Multi Rotor Multi
Stator Double Stator Single Stator Stator

Iron Stator Iron Stator Iron Stator Iron-less Iron Stator Iron-less
Core Core Core Stator Core Core Stator Core

Slotted Slot-less Slotted Slot-less Slotted Slot-less Slotted Slot-less

(7 / 40)
Research Background
AF Machines Flux path in coreless AFM
 Disc shaped winding
Rotor Back Iron
 Trapezoidal, rhomboidal, circular
N S
 2 layer concentrated winding.
B A A φ C C B B A A φ C C B  3 layer concentrated winding.
 3-layer wave winding.
N S
Rotor Back Iron
 Existing winding configuration in the coreless DRSS topology

 Major issues in using differe

nt winding configuration
(b)

(c) Torque ripples

(a)
Cogging torque
Winding configuration & Shapes
VTHD
(d)
Output torque

(8 / 40)
Research Background

 Existing magnet shapes in the coreless SSDR topology are as shown below.

 Major issues in using different

shapes of PM

Torque ripples
Cogging torque
VTHD
Output torque

Magnet Shapes

(9 / 40)
Contents

1 Research Background

2 Motivation for Research

3 Proposed Axial Flux Machines

4 Optimization of AFM using Analytical Method

5 Conclusion

(10 / 40)
Research Motivation

 To enhance the performance of the coreless AFPMSG by improving the following

performance parameters

 Minimization of VTHD

 Minimization of Torque Ripples

 Minimization of Cogging Torque

 Increased Output Torque

 Increased Output Power

 Increased Efficiency

(11 / 40)
Contents

1 Research Background

2 Motivation for Research

3 Proposed Axial Flux Machine

4 Optimization of AFM using Analytical Method

5 Conclusion

(12 / 40)
Proposed Axial Flux Machine
Exploded view for details (a) Conventional model (b) Proposed model
Topology
Rotor back iron
PM north

PM south

Height & Volume

are kept fixed Coil phase a
Coil phase b
Coil phase c
(a) (b)
Conventional vs Proposed Axial Flux Machine Half Model Proposed PM Shape
PM inner edge height
Hoa = X4
Wo
Hoe θoa
R
PM inner width Outer side of PM
PM length

Hia
Hir
θia
PM outer width Ht
Hie
PM outer edge height
PM outer width
Wi Inner side of PM
(a) (b)
(13 / 40)
Proposed Axial Flux Machine

Design Process

Rated power, Rated voltage,

Frequency, Synchronous speed, Power Induced voltage
factor, and Efficiency
Design Specifications Torque, Power
No. of Poles and Coils
Full-Load current
No. of coils per phase
Parameters Unit AFPMM
Magnetic pole thickness
Winding factor
Power W 1000
Rotor yoke thickness
Magnetic and electric loading
Speed rpm 1100
Conductor per coil
Voltage Vrms 50 Rotor outer and inner diameter
Current Density
Frequency Hz 110 Pole and coil pitch
Conductor cross sectional area
Flux per pole
Coil height
No. of turns per phase
Total stack length

(14 / 40)
Proposed Axial Flux Machine

Comparison between Conventional and Proposed model

Parameters of the conventional and proposed models

Parameters Conventional Model Proposed Model Parameters Conventional Model Proposed Model

Speed 1100 rpm Nph 396

Poles 12 Do/Di 152/84.6 mm
Magnet volum
Coils 9 6988 mm3
e
Air gap 1.5 mm Coil resistance 0.23 Ohms
Yoke height 5.5 mm Hie 10 mm 8.95 mm
Br 1.2 T Hoe 10 mm 7 mm
Lm 30 mm Wi 16.8 mm 18.3 mm
Coil height 15 mm Wo 28.6 mm 29.2 mm

(15 / 40)
Proposed Axial Flux Machine
Performance Analysis with Transient 3D FEA Comparison

Magnetic Flux Density Magnetic Flux Density

Contour Plot T Contour Plot T
1.80 0.60

1.35 1.45

0.90 0.30

0.45 0.15

0.0 0.0

(a)

Magnetic Flux Density Magnetic Flux Density

Contour Plot T Contour Plot T
1.80 0.60

1.35 1.45

0.90 0.30

0.45 0.15

0.0 0.0

(b)

Flux density distribution (a) Conventional model (b) Proposed model

(16 / 40)
 Proposed Axial Flux Machine

Performance Analysis with Transient 3D FEA Comparison

Conventional model Phase A Phase B Phase C 0.75 Conventional Model Proposed Model
75 Proposed model Phase A Phase B Phase C
0.50

Cogging Torque [Nm]

50

0.25
Back EMF [V]

25

0 0.00

-25 -0.25

-50 -0.50 Tpk2pk = 0.4

Tpk2pk = 1.4
-75
Vrms = 51.1 Vrms = 47.4 -0.75

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time [msec] Time [msec]

Conventional and Proposed model Back EMF Conventional and Proposed model Cogging torque

(17 / 40)
Proposed Axial Flux Machine

Performance Analysis of AFPMM with Transient 3D FEA

Conventional Model Proposed Model

-10

-8

Torque [Nm]
Tavg = 7.9 Tavg = 9.1
-6 Tripple = 5.5 % Tripple = 15.5 %
Torque output
-4

-2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Performance Comparison
Time [msec]
Parameter Unit Conventional model Proposed model
back EMF Vrms 51.1 47.4
Fundamental harmonics of back EMF % 92.6 94.8
THD % 1.9 1.4
Cogging Torque Tpk2pk Nm 1.40 0.4
Torque Tavg Nm 9.1 7.9
Torque Ripples % 15.5 5.5

(18 / 40)
Proposed Axial Flux Machine

Optimization
Objective functions
 Minimize VTHD and Cogging torque
Design Variables Design variables X3= Pole width
0 < X1 > 8 Pole pitch
Coil phase a
0 < X2 > 14
0.45 < X3 > 0.8
1 < X4 > 4
Constraint
Back EMF >=51 Vrms

S N S
N N
Magnet
(b)
X4
Magnet

Rotor Back Iron

Outer overhang (X2) Inner overhang (X1)

(a) (c)
Design variables: (a) asymmetric PM overhang (b) top view (c) cross-sectional view.

(19 / 40)
Proposed Axial Flux Machine
Optimal Design Process

Start

Determine the objective functions

and design variables

Design of experiment
(Latin hyper cube sampling)

Adjustment of trapezoid height for

constant volume Adjust the design variables

3D – FEA performance analysis

Approximate the model by Kriging

analysis

Search the optimal value using

Genetic algorithm No

Satisfy the Target ?

Yes
End

(20 / 40)
Proposed Axial Flux Machine

Optimized Model 3D FEA Results

Magnetic Flux Density Magnetic Flux Density 75 Phase A Phase B Phase C

Contour Plot T Contour Plot T

1.78 0.52
50

Back EMF [V]

1.39 25
1.335

0
0.89 0.26

-25

0.445 0.13
-50

0.0 0.0
-75 Vrms = 51.2
(a) (b)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time [msec]
Flux density distribution of the optimized model
Back EMF

(21 / 40)
Proposed Axial Flux Machine

3D FEA Results Comparison

Proposed Model Optimized Model Proposed Model Optimized Model

0.2 -10
Cogging torque [Nm]

0.1 -8

Torque [Nm]
Tavg = 7.9 Tavg = 9.35
Tripple = 5.5 % Tripple = 4.06 %
0.0 -6

-0.1 -4

-0.2 -2

Tpk2pk = 0.36 Tpk2pk = 0.4

-0.3 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time [msec] Time [msec]

Cogging torque comparison Output torque comparison

(22 / 40)
 Proposed Axial Flux Machine

3D FEA Results Comparison

Comparison of Design Parameters

Proposed Model Optimized Model

Parameter Units Proposed model Optimized model
1000
X1 mm N/A 4.13
Output Power [W]

800 X2 mm N/A 0.9

Pavg = 854.5 Pavg = 1010.3
X3 mm 0.8 0.75
600 X4 mm 3 1.21
Hie mm 8.95 8
400
Hia mm 1.05 0.26
Hoe mm 7 7.05
200
Total machine height mm 49 45.5
0
PM volume mm3 6988 6988
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time [msec]

Output Power Comparison

(23 / 40)
Proposed Axial Flux Machine

Comparison between Proposed and Optimized model

Parameter Units Proposed model Optimized model

Back EMF Vrms 47.4 51.2
Output Power W 854.5 1010.3
Current Arms 6.497 7.06
Copper Losses W 87.37 103.2
Iron Losses W 17 7
Efficiency % 89.1 90.2
Torque Ripples % 5.512 4.06
Average Torque Nm 7.9 9.35
Cogging Torque Tpk2pk Nm 0.4 0.36

Comparison of performance parameters

(24 / 40)
Contents

1 Research Background

2 Motivation for Research

3 Proposed Axial Flux Machine

4 Optimization of AFM using Analytical Method

5 Conclusion

(25 / 40)
Optimization of AFM using Analytical Method
Constraints
Developed 2-D analytical Method
 Infinite permeability of the back iron
 Constant recoil permeability of the magnet

Rotor Back Iron

Rotor back iron
N S

B A A φ C C B B A A φ C C B

Coil phase a

N S
Coil phase b
Rotor Back Iron
Coil phase c

Linear representation of AF machine

PM South PM North

Back iron Back iron

Region IV Region I
hm N S (air space)
(upper magnets)

τm
L Region III
L
(air space) τm
Region II
y hm N S (lower magnets)
y
Back iron Back iron

x
x
AFM representation with lower & upper PMs
(26 / 40)
Optimization of AFM using Analytical Method

Developed 2-D analytical Method

Magnetization vector of PM

General Solution of the Laplacian’s Equations

M Br  n y
 n y
0
m
I  III  
n 1,3,5,...
( D1e
p
 D2e p
) cos( npx )
 p   n y
 n y
II  IV  
p
 D4e ) cos( npx )
p
2 ( D3e p

m m n 1,3,5,...
 0 x
2 2
Boundary Conditions


 H xI ( x, y ) y 0  H xIII ( x, y ) y 0  0

 H ( x, y ) y  L  H xIV ( x, y ) y  L  0
 xII

 ByI ( x, y ) y  L  hm  ByII ( x, y ) y  L  hm

 H ( x, y ) y  L  h  H xII ( x, y ) y  L  h
 xI m m

Br sin(n  p 2)
Mn  2 p
0 n  p 2 
 ByIII ( x, y ) y  L  hm  ByIV ( x, y ) y  L  hm

 H ( x, y ) y  L  h  H xIV ( x, y ) y  L  h
 xIII m m

(27 / 40)
Optimization of AFM using Analytical Method

Developed 2-D analytical Method

Coefficients Components of the magnetic Field

 I
M n p sinh  n hm  p  BxI  0 H xI   0
D1   x
2n
 sin  n hm  p 
M n p sinh  n hm  p   0 M n  sinh  n y  p  sin  n x  p 
D2  n 1,3,5,...
2n

M n p sinh  n ( L  hm )  p   I
D3 
ByI  0 H yI   0
2n e
n L  p y
 sin  n hm  p 
M n p sinh  n ( L  hm )  p 
 0 M n  cosh  n y  p  cos  n x  p 
D4    n L  p
n 1,3,5,...
2n e

(28 / 40)
 Optimization of AFM using Analytical Method

Characteristic Analysis Air Gap Region Magnetic flux density

(a) axial component (b) Circumferential component
0.50 0.50
Due to lower PMs Due to lower PMs
y=13 mm y=13 mm
y=19 mm y=19 mm
y=25 mm y=25 mm
Due to upper PMs Due to upper PMs
y=13 mm y= 13 mm
0.25
y=19 mm y= 19 mm
y=25mm y= 25 mm

Bx (T)
By (T)

0.00 0.25

-0.25

-0.50 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Distance (mm) Distance (mm)

(a) (b)

(29 / 40)
 Optimization of AFM using Analytical Method

Characteristic Analysis Magnet Region Magnetic flux density

(a) axial component (b) Circumferential component
0.75
Due to lower PMs Due to lower PMs
y=2 mm y=2.0 mm
y=6.0 mm y=6.0 mm
0.8 y=10.0 mm
y=10.0 mm
Due to upper PMs
y=28 mm Due to upper PMs
y=32 mm y=28 mm
0.4 y=36 mm y=32 mm
0.50
y=36 mm

Bx (T)
By (T)

0.0

-0.4 0.25

-0.8

0.00
0 25 50 75 10 20 30 40
Distance (mm) Distance (mm)
(a) (b)

(30 / 40)
Optimization of AFM using Analytical Method

Net Magnetic flux density in the air gap region

Characteristic Analysis
0.50 Resultant Flux Density
1 R2 y2
Beff 
( R2  R1 )( y2  y1 ) R1
 y1
K w B ( R, y )dRdy
0.25

Beff [T]
fTph
Eb  6 ( R22  R12 ) Beff 0.00

p
Back EMF
-0.25
Inital Model
50 2-D Analytical Method
-0.50
3-D FEM
25
Eb [V]

0 75 150 225 300

Electrical Angle [deg.]
0

-25
Comparison between Analytical method and FEA
-50
Parameters Units 2-D Analytical Method 3-D FEA
back EMF Vpeak 65.7 65.3
0 75 150 225 300 VTHD % 2.5 3.15
Electrical Angle [deg.]
(31 / 40)
Optimization of AFM using Analytical Method

Characteristic Analysis Comparison between Analytical method and FEA

Parameters Units 2-D Analytical Method 3-D FEA

back EMF Vpeak 65.7 65.3
VTHD % 2.5 3.15

Effect on VTHD with the design variable

VTHD (%) 4

1
0
11
10 15
9 13 14
8 11 12
hm (mm) 7 9 10
7 8 d (mm)
6 6

(32 / 40)
Optimization of AFM using Analytical Method

Optimization
Start

Design Variables

2-D analytical method

Back Iron

Objective function
N S
Initial variables
 Minimize VTHD d - 13.23 mm Determine the objective functions
Constraint L hm - 10 mm and design variables
●●● Coil
 Eb > 65 Vpeak
Adjust the
Design variables τp Optimized variables
design variables
 6mm < d< 15 mm d - 6.76 mm Search the optimal value using
 6 mm < hm < 11 mm d hm - 8.8 mm genetic and direct search algorithm
y hm N S
Back Iron
x
No
Satisfy the Target ?

Design variables Yes

End

Optimal design process

(33 / 40)
Optimization of AFM using Analytical Method

Optimization
Magnetic Flux Density Magnetic Flux Density
Contour Plot T Contour Plot T

2.4
2.4

1.8
1.8

1.2
1.2

0.6
0.6

0.0
0.0

(a) (b)

Flux density distribution comparison

(34 / 40)
Optimization of AFM using Analytical Method

Optimization Belt harmonics comparison

1.0
Optimized Model
2-D Analytical Method Initial Model
50 3-D FEM
Optimized Model
0.8

Amplitude of the components

25

0.6 0.008
Eb [V]

0
0.004

0.4 0
-25 5 7

-50 0.2

-75 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
0 75 150 225 300
Electrical Angle [deg.] Harmonic order n

Back EMF

(35 / 40)
 Optimization of AFM using Analytical Method

Optimization

-10
Optimized Model Initial Model
Performance Comparison
-8
Parameters Units Initial Model Optimized Model
Interpolar separation mm 13.23 6.76714
Height of magnet mm 10.0 8.81239
Torque (Nm)

-6
mm
Tavg = 7.74 Height of machine 46 43.62
Tavg = 6.9 Tripple = 36%
-4 Tripple = 45% back EMF V 65.3 65.4
VTHD % 3.15 1.5
Torque Nm 6.9 7.74
-2 Torque ripple (Tpk2pk) % 45 36

0
0.0000 0.0025 0.0050 0.0075 0.0100 0.0125

Time (sec)
Torque Comparison

(36 / 40)
Contents

1 Research Background

2 Motivation for Research

3 Proposed Axial Flux Machine

4 Optimization of AFM using Analytical Method

5 Conclusion

(37 / 40)
Conclusions
 AFPM machine using arc shaped trapezoidal PMs is proposed which possesses the advantages of reduced
torque ripples and cogging torque.

 A reduction in the cogging torque was observed due to the increase effective air gap with the arc shaped
trapezoidal magnets

 Optimization of the AFPM machine is made in order to further reduce torque ripple and cogging torque
and to improve output torque to make it compatible with AFPM Machines with Trapezoidal shaped
magnets.

 Optimized model of AFPM machine gives increased output torque and power as compared to the basic
model

 Furthermore, Optimization of AFPM machine is made in order to reduce the optimization time with the
analytical method.

 A reduction in VTHD and torque ripple along with increased output torque was observed as the result of
the optimization made using the analytical method.

(38 / 40)
Publications

International Journals

1. Junaid Ikram, Nasrullah Khan, Salman Khaliq and Byung il Kwon, "Reduction of Torque Ripple in an Axial Flux Generator
Using Arc Shaped Trapezoidal Magnets in an Asymmetric Overhang Configuration" Journal of Magnetics, 2016.
2. Junaid Ikram, Nasrullah Khan, Qudsia Junaid, Salman Khaliq, Byung il Kwon, “Analysis and Optimization of the Axial Flux
Permanent Magnet Synchronous Generator using an Analytical Method”, Journal of Magnetics, Accepted.
3. Junaid Ikram, Nasrullah Khan, Byung il Kwon, “Improved Model of the Iron Loss for the Permanent Magnet Synchronous
motors”, Journal of international conference on electric machine and system, 2012.

International Conferences

1. Junaid Ikram, Qudsia Junaid, Byung il Kwon, “Improved Model of the Iron Loss for the Permanent Magnet Synchronous
Motors”, ICEMS, Incheon Korea, October 10-13, 2010.
2. Qudsia Junaid, Junaid Ikram, You Yong-min and Byung-il Kwon, “Analytical Analysis and Optimization of the Double
Sided AFPMSG”, CEFC, 2010, Chicago, USA, May 11-13, 2010.

(39 / 40)
E-mail : junaidikram@comsats.edu.pk

(40 / 40)