This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

# Study of Double Cage Induction Motors with Different Rotor Bar Materials

**K. N. Gyftakis, D. Athanasopoulos, J. Kappatou
**

Abstract -- This paper consists a study of the influence of specific design parameters on the double-cage induction motor behavior. The study is carried out using FEM analysis. Three double rotor bar induction motors have been simulated and their electromagnetic characteristics are compared to each other. The differences in the three motors' design are: the first one has a single rotor cage and the other two have double rotor cage with different materials for the upper and inner rotor bars. The simulations performed, offer an insight and comparison between the three motors electromagnetic variables and behavior under the same speed operation, as well as under the same applied mechanical load. Index Terms--Bar material, Design, Double-cage, FEM analysis, Induction motors.

Φ

he induction motors in which each rotor slot has two conducting bars are characterized by higher starting torque, lower starting current and normal efficiency at nominal speed, compared to the standard NEMA's class A induction motors [1]. The upper rotor bar contributes during the starting of the motor because the magnetic flux does not penetrate deep into the rotor core, due to increased leakage flux, and also because of the skin effect. Upper and inner rotor bars contribute at nominal speed both, because of the low slip frequency and also because of the strongly magnetized rotor body. Due to the above characteristics, common double cage induction motors applications are: conveyors, crushers, stirrers, compressors, loaded pumps, etc [2], [3]. Despite their higher manufacturing cost, these motors give solution in applications, where the motor needs to start loaded and continue to carry the load at nominal speed. This is an advantage compared to the standard NEMA class A induction motor, which is characterized by difficult starting due to the increased starting stator current [2]. Double bar induction motors can be divided into two large categories, depending on the construction of the rotor cage. If both, the upper and the deep bar, are from the same material, they are short-circuited to the same end-ring and the rotor has one cage, similar to the standard class A induction motor. On the other hand, if the two bars are from different materials, then the upper bars are short-circuited independently from the deep bars and the rotor is manufactured with two cages. Usually, when two different conducting materials are implemented into the rotor, the material of the greatest resistivity, forms the outer cage, in order to improve the motor's starting behavior. The middle area of the rotor slot between the upper and the deep rotor bars can be of iron or dielectric material and it is a subject of interest and research [4].

Φ This work was supported by the research program: "K. Karatheodoris 2010", of the Research Committee of the University of Patras, Greece.

T

I.

INTRODUCTION

Several works have been published in the literature concerning double cage induction motors. In [5] the authors have presented a numerical method for the estimation of double cage induction motor parameters from standard manufacturer data. In the same work, it is also indicated that the leakage flux of the inner cage is always greater than the one of the upper cage. Furthermore, through the appropriate design of the rotor slots, the skin effect can be used to benefit for high starting torque or high breakdown torque in double cage induction motors [6]. On the other hand, it has been shown in previous publications that the outer cage of double cage induction motors is vulnerable to failure due to its structure and applications [3], [7], [8]. Also, because the manufacturing cost is increased with the double cage structure [1], special care should be given through the design process of these motors concerning not only their electromagnetic characteristics but also their general behavior (thermal, vibrations, etc) and reliability. This can be achieved, as mentioned in [9], with oversized rotor bars and good quality magnetic plates. In this paper, the dependence of the electromagnetic characteristics of double cage inductions motors, on the specific manufacturer design options is studied. For this purpose, three different induction motor models have been created and studied with FEM analysis. The stator of the three models has been kept intact, as well as the number and shape of rotors bars. In the first model, both the upper and inner rotor bars are from aluminum, whereas in the other two the upper bar is from aluminum and the inner bar from copper. Moreover, what differs in the last two models is the middle slot area, between aluminum and cooper, which is considered as iron for the first and dielectric for the second. In sections III-V, the three models will be examined under FEM AC time-harmonic analysis, whereas in section VI they will be examined under FEM transient analysis which takes the rotor movement into account, in order to extract both their spatial and time-dependent electromagnetic characteristics. In all simulations, FEM analysis will take into account the non-linear magnetic B-H characteristic of the rotor and stator iron core, which was extracted from the manufacturers data. II.

THE MODELS' DESIGN

In Fig. 1, the three models are presented. One may observe in Fig. 1-a that the rotor bar is consisted by a single material, which is in this case aluminum. In Fig. 1-b and Fig. 1-c the other two models are presented. In these models the upper and inner rotor bars are independent and from different materials. The upper bar is from aluminum whereas the inner from copper. Moreover, the middle bar area between upper and inner bars is considered to be air for the case presented in Fig. 1-b model and iron for the case of Fig. 1-c model. The number of rotor slots for all models is 28 and the rotors are considered un-skewed.

978-1-4673-0142-8/12/$26.00 ©2012 IEEE

1450

1. for simplicity reason to as: model A. 2. inner bar from copper an nd iron between them. 1-b and finally corresponds to Fig. EHAVIOR III. b) Upper bar from aluminum. b) model B and c) model C.Furthermore. inner bar from copper an nd air between them. compared to model A. The three simulated motors. a) Single alu uminum rotor bars. The stator circuits form a delta wound and the phase resista ance was measured in the laboratory through DC current inje ection. 1-c. where model A g. THE MOTORS STARTING BE c c) Fig. there is not any current flowing through the middle bar area. which does not ction in the models B and C. provoking significant current displaceme ent inside the bars towards their surface. 3 the current density 1451 . c) Upper bar from aluminum. The skin effect is pre esent in all cases. d amplitude Furthermore. contribute to the torque produc since it is not made from condu ucting material. will be referred The three models. At the same tim me. In Fig. The models are fed by symmetrical sinusoidal 3-phas se 380V and 50Hz system. the magnetic flux distribu ution for the three models at starting. The magnetic flux distribution at starting for a) model A. a) a a) b) b b) c) Fig. model B to Fig model C to Fig. ns. B and C from now. 2. It is obvious that the p less into magnetic flux lines in models B and C penetrate the rotor core. the stator is designed acco ording to a real 4pole single-cage induction motor and has h been kept the same for all models with 36 stator slots. in Fig. 1-a. ars is presented for the three along the depth of the rotor ba models. is presented.

This small difference presented in the motors startin ng behavior occurs from the fact that. Models B and C present lower total ba ar resistance. b) model B and c) model C. Model A is characterized by greater power or every speed. the electromagnetic torque e has been slightly reduced in models B and C.6 b) 1452 . Mod del A is characterized by the greatest starting and pull-out to orque as well as the greatest stability area. h for speed greater than 1350rpm. 3. input and outp put power are presented respectively. The present remark is of great value if one considers tha at for applications such as the pumps. 1450rpm and 2950r rpm). On the other hand. have both greater input pow wer for speed greater than 1200rpm and greater output power p for speed greater than 1300rpm. th he leakage flux is greater compared to model A as seen befo ore in Fig. The starting behavior of models B and C.f. as well as lower st tator current. the motors are comp pared under specific speed values (eg. ame for the three The stator current is practically the sa models. wherea as model C 3. its input factor and greater efficiency fo power is greater than the others o for speed less than 1200rpm and the same stands for f its output power for speed less than 1300rpm. f torque and stator In TABLE I. the motors' power factor.05 76. TORQUE AND CUR RRENT VERSUS SPEED CHARACTE ERISTICS a) b) The electromagnetic torque and stator current amplitude ors are presented respectively versus speed for the three moto in Fig. has no e model A and at the same significant difference than the time. The current density amplitude along the dep pth of the rotor bars at starting for: a) model A. This does not happen and the differ rence between the starting torque of the three models is small.26 75. although in models B and a C the total bars resistance is lower due to the copper.IV.2%. one may observe that the model A presents significantly lower electromag gnetic torque than the other two models. 2. The model l B has 5. As.3 55. c) Fig. one can see the values of current amplitude for the three simulated models at starting.d. a consequence their electrom magnetic torque at starting was expected to be significantly less than model's A.e.4-c. for the same speed valu ues they are characterized by importantly greater output pow wer.69 Sta ator current (A) 56. Also. compared to model A.1 56. 4-b. Models B and a C. Furthermore. Also. TABLE I TORQUE AND STATOR CURRENT AMPLITUDE FO OR THE 3 MODELS a) Model A B C Torque (Nm) 79. 4-a and Fig. than model A. efficiency. in Fig.3% less starting torque than the model A.

The even rank harmonics are indicative of the airgap asymmetry in space. The power factor has increased for both models B and C. 20% respectively than the model A.84 4213 0. Furthermore. have slightly increased in models B and C compared to model A. TABLE II ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR THE 3 MODELS AT 1470RPM d) models Speed (rpm) Torque (Nm) Stator Current (A) Output Power (W) Cosφ Efficiency A 1470 27. the analysis results of the three models at the same speed 1470rpm.61 5717 0. At the same time. ELECTROMAGNETIC CHARACTERISTICS AT 1470RPM c) In the following TABLE II. e) Input power and f) Output power for the three motors. harmonic rank numbers indicative of the saturation. for a specific relative position between rotor and stator.74 0. Moreover. The relative position of the rotor and stator are the same and as a consequence the even rank harmonics do not present any difference between the three models. are presented.36 10.94 B 1470 38.72 0. Characteristics versus speed: a) Electromagnetic torque. the stator MMF harmonics such as 5. The electromagnetic torque as well as the mechanical output power of model B is 40% greater than the model A. 15 etc have increased about 4dB in the models B and C compared to model A. at the cost of lower efficiency and increased stator current. in the middle of the air-gap and for speed 1470rpm. The results indicate that for fixed speed.63 0. d) Efficiency. whereas for the model C it is 35. 5. In order to be more precise and accurate in order to compare the three models. whereas for model B it is 48.92 C 1470 37. but on the other hand their efficiency has decreased.3%. is presented for the three simulated models. double-cage induction motors present much greater output power than double bar single cage motors. c) Power factor. b) Stator current amplitude. but this is easily explained if one thinks that the stator current is increased in models B and C (Table II).7% and for model C it is 48. The model A presents THD equal to 44.73 5902 0. such as 3 and 9. f) Fig. model B draws 21. their THD has been calculated as an amplitude ratio.92 e) In Fig.38 8.V. the spatial harmonic content of the radial component of the magnetic flux density. 4. 1453 .15 10. it is important to make one more step and examine the motors behavior under the same load operation. compared to the model A. In order to compare the spatial harmonic index of the three models. 7 etc as well as the rotor MMF harmonics such as 13.7%.1%.4% more stator current and model C.

3 magnetic torque versus time is Also. Two cases are a examined. The 1454 b) ) . 7. c) Fig. The electromagnetic torque oscillat tions are similar for the three models because the load torque e is low. b) Model B and c) Model C. in Fig. SIMULATION UNDER THE SAM ME LOAD ll be simulated and In this paragraph. The analysis. the electrom presented for all models for ap pplied load 60Nm. The presented results have been hed steady-state. b) model B and c) Fig. The spatial harmonic index of the radial com mponent of the magnetic flux density for the: a) Model A. a) VI. for applied mechanical load 30Nm.applied mechanical load has been chosen to be: firstly 30Nm and secondly 60Nm. 5. 6. 6. a) a) b) ) b) c) or a) model A. takes ic characteristic of into account the non-linear B-H magneti the stator and rotor iron core. The electromagnetic torque fo model C. extracted after the models reach In Fig. also for these cases. Model A and B present similar torque oscillation while Model C presents about 6% greater elect tromagnetic torque pulsation. the three models wil compared while operating under th he same applied mechanical load. the electromagn netic torque versus time is presented for all models for r applied load 30Nm.

The 3rd har rmonic. Model C is characterized by y greater leakage rotor flux because of the iron area betwe een the upper and inner rotor bars. when the applied load torque is 30Nm.5 60 11. for applied mechanical load 60Nm. 8 the speed versus time is presented for the two cases examined.7 TABLE E IV ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR APPLIED ME ECHANICAL LOAD 60NM FOR THE 3 MODE ELS a) models Speed (rpm) Torque (Nm) Stator Current (A) Output Power (W) Cosφ Efficiency (%) A 1423. one may obser rve in Fig.3%. In Table IV.3 C 1478 30 6 4641 0.836 6 85.4%. the spat tial harmonic content of the radial component of the air-g gap magnetic flux density is presented for the three mode els.74 91. in Fig. model C. for applied load equal to models B and C operate at greater speed d and draw greater stator current than the model A. Same as the 1455 a) . The electromagnetic torque for a) model A.8-b.previous case (30Nm). the model A is characterized by the greater power factor. which leads to improve ed efficiency.6 B 1446. which is 15% greater than the model m C. in Fig. the analysis resu ults for the case of applied load torque 30Nm and 60N Nm are presented respectively. the efficiency of model C is much greater than the model A (about 6. it is 60 Nm. The model A presents THD equal to 43% wh hereas for model B it proved to be 49.89 77. its po ower factor will be less than model B.6 9084 0. 9.4 4 30 5. the applied load torque is 30Nm. As a consequence. it is obvious that the effici iency of the model B is greater than the other two mode els. which indicates the saturation. both the In Table III. the sta ator current of the models B and C is greater than the mod del A. The difference between factor and the efficiency of models B and C can be explained. The model C presents 26% greater stator current than n the model A. 8. torque equal to 30Nm and b) load torque equal to 60 Finally. MODE ELS Moreover.75 72. Furthermore.9 75.5 8940 0. In Fig.1%). models Speed (rpm) Torque (Nm) Stator Current (A) Output Power (W) Cosφ Efficiency (%) A 1470.6 6 60 11. 8-b. On the other hand. whereas in Fig.66 4617 0. The speed versus time for the three models for the case of: a) load 0Nm. 8-a). In Table III and IV. that the model C operates at a middle speed value between the other two models. the model C tends to operate at speed sim milar to the model B (Fig. model's B power factor is greater than b the power the model A about 3.76 4646 0.3 60 14. Furthermore. has the greatest valu ue in model A. o 30Nm.6 B 1480 30 5. It is clear that the model B operates at t greater speed for the same applied mechanical load comp pared to the other two models. as the mechanic cal load decreases. 7.5 C 1428. But.1% and for model C it is 43.87 81.3 b) Fig. 8-a a. Moreover r.5 8970 0. TABLE E III ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR APPLIED ME ECHANICAL LOAD 30NM FOR THE 3 c) A b) model B and c) Fig.

McClay. (Email: kosgyftak@upatras. ICEM 2010. Wiedenbrug. No. Kappatou was born in Argostoli. their manufacturing cost will be greater than model A. pp. Teska and S. BIOGRAPHIES Konstantinos N. 23-24. 2493-2500. E-mail: joya@ece. No..A. Vol.gr) Joya C. 2010. 2010. member of IEEE PES and Magnetics Society.S. B. H. Greece. Fax: +30 2610/997362. on Energy Conversion. S. On the other hand. 5617950.J. He is a senior undergraduate student at the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. IX. and this is considered as promising future work. Pedra and F. Saidel. He is a PhD candidate in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. For both models B and C. He is an IEEE member. "The Induction Machines design handbook".I. 19th International Conference on Electrical Machines. Greece. he pursues his diploma thesis focusing on FEM design and electromagnetic analysis of double-cage induction motors. “Optimization of the Geometry of Closed Rotor Slots for Cage Induction Motors”. when 30Nm mechanical load is applied. Boldea and S. in May 1984. M. 2004. He received the diploma in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the University of Patras. the optimization of the design of models B and C could lead to even better characteristics. "Introduction to AC machine design". pp 310-317. Patras. “Assessment and Optimization of Induction Electric Motors Aiming Energy Efficiency in Industrial Applications”. She is Assistant Professor in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department of the University of Patras. 3 different models of double cage induction motors have been studied using FEM analysis. faults diagnosis in electrical machines. 1456 Powered by TCPDF (www. J. Alves. Motors and generators.C. b) Model B and c) Model C.Proceedings . on Industry Applications. I. University of Patras. His research activities are in FEM design. “Estimation of Induction Motor DoubleCage Model Parameters From Manufacturer Data”.B.A. 2nd edition.gr) Dimitrios Athanasopoulos was born in Patras.A. 6-8 Sep. member of the HELIEV (Hellenic Institute of Electric Vehicles) and finally member of the Technical Chamber of Greece. power electronics. 3. Kim. Corcoles.1% greater efficiency than the model A.VIII. University of Wisconsin. 19. Handbook of electric motors. Greece. Gyftakis was born in Patras. 2nd Edition 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group. MG 1-2006. Greece. 9. modeling and design using FEM. Nasar. Marcel Dekker. Since the models B and C have two different rotor cages.upatras.tcpdf. Tel: +30 2610/996413. ECCE 2010 . Greece in 2010. art. Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons LTD. Say. M.G. pp. Yang. than the model A. Patras. 2010 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition. (E-mail: athanas_3@yahoo. Toliyat. E. VII. depending on the specific application criteria. Greece and the PhD from the same University in 1991 in the field of Electrical machines and Power Electronics. The simulation results under the same mechanical load for the three motors indicated that: for high load operation model B presented 2% greater efficiency than the model A. [1] REFERENCES [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] b) [7] [8] [9] J.E. May/June 1996 T. The spatial harmonic index of the radial component of the magnetic flux density for the: a) Model A. Rome. “Evaluation of the Detectability of Broken Rotor Bars for Double Squirrel Cage Rotor Induction Motors”. S.A. 2004. LLC. Han. She received the diploma in Electrical Engineering from the University of Patras. "The performance and design of alternating current machines".org) . the advantage of greater efficiency came at the cost of lower power factor and slightly greater stator current. Italy. 2006. fault diagnosis and optimization of electrical machines.S. Greece in November 1989. Currently. London. NEMA standards pub. J. ] M. June 2004. 32. CONCLUSION In this paper. the comparison between their characteristics reveals that the use of different materials for the upper and inner rotor bars presents several advantages compared to a single aluminum double bar induction motor.B. Her teaching and research activities are in electrical machines. while for low load operation the model C was characterized by 6. Electrical and Computer Engineering Department. Park. Lipo. (University of Patras. G. Lee. M. no. Ramos and S. IEEE Trans. Vol. IEEE Trans. Wisconsin Power Electronics Research Center. The comparison of the 3 motors for the same speed operation showed that: the models B and C present much greater output power as well as greater power factor and almost the same efficiency. 1955. Williamson and C. 26500 RionPatras. University of Patras. 2.gr) c) Fig. Finally. Kliman.