c
c 

 c c 
c
c


NOT TOO BIG, NOT TOO SMALL. THE ESSENtial air gap separating rotor from stator in
any electric motor or generator has several important influences on machine
performance-nevertheless, in any design discussion, few essential details get less
attention than the air gap.

Air offers much higher resistance to the passage of magnetic flux than the so-called
"magnetic materials." Such materials allow a far more intense field to pass through a
given space with a relatively lower driving potential (what we call magnetomotive force
or mmf). That force is measured in ampere-turns within the electrical circuit causing
the magnetization.

Naturally, then, we want to minimize the intervention of air into the magnetic field
path. Yet it can't be omitted. It can't be too small. Discontinuities or joints in the
magnetic core material are necessary also in a transformer or other "solid-state"
electromagnetic apparatus, but are kept small or in staggered locations, to minimize
their influence.

Special demands of motors and generators

The electric motor (or generator) presents the unique necessity for an air gap fully
separating a rotating magnetic structure from a stationary one. Not only must the
separation be complete; it must be large enough so that manufacturing tolerances will
not allow the separated components to come into damaging contact during machine
operation.

In most textbooks on electric machinery design and performance, the air gap is
considered a "given." Much attention is paid to calculation of losses and performance
involving air gap flux density and ampere-turns, reactances, excitation requirements,
and so on. But mention is almost never made of either the rationale for choosing air
gap size, or the range of sizes typically used in design.

One of the more popular texts, first published in 1936, offers only this advice:

". . . it is necessary (for low magnetizing current) to use small (but not too small) air
gap length. . . . The [air gap] must be so selected that the exciting current and
machine reactances conform to the performance desired. Reduced gaps may increase
motor noise and tooth-face losses. . . ."

According to another design textbook, "It is impossible at the present time to derive a
satisfactory equation, directly from theoretical considerations, for determining the
proper length of gap." This "empirical" (based on experience) equation is often
considered accurate enough:

Air gap, inch = 0.005 0.0003D 0.001 L 0.003V

in which D = rotor O.D., inches

L = core stack length, inches

and ?
 

     


As in the induction machine, of course, the increased gap means more rotor field
ampere-turns (and current) are required to drive the desired flux across that gap. That
increases both power usage and cost of the field winding, as well as the short-circuit
current the machine will supply to a fault on the power supply circuit.

In a d-c motor, armature reaction of the same sort takes place, the difference being
that the main field is stationary while the armature rotates. Again, achieving the
desired motor performance requires a relatively large air gap. Typical values in
industrial d-c motors range from 1/8 to 1/4 inch. (Contrast that with Figure 4.)

Obviously, with a given stator and rotor, decreasing the original air gap is impossible,
except in d-c machines, where pole shims can be used. Increasing the gap, however, is
possible by either boring out the stator or turning down the rotor. Regardless of the
reasons for doing so, either procedure presents problems for squirrel-cage machines.

The first is the tendency for adjacent laminations to "smear" together at the surface
during machining. That effectively short-circuits the interlaminar insulation, and can
escalate surface losses enough to bring the steel to red heat. Grinding, rather than
turning, is less likely to cause trouble.

However, machining the stator in any way risks damage to the slot wedges. That's not
a concern for a squirrel-cage rotor-where two other related problems may arise. If the
rotor contains a cast aluminum cage in partially open slots, the machining operation
may not only smear the laminations themselves, but also spread a film of aluminum
over the finished surface, forming an even more troublesome conductive layers.

How does the air gap influence locked-rotor current (and torque)? For gap values
within a range that's practical in view of the other limitations discussed here, the
answer is "not much."

The relationship is not simple. Several components of both stator and rotor reactance
are inversely proportional to the air gap, while other components are unaffected. But
the amount of change is highly variable depending upon slot dimensions and stator
winding configuration. In any event, an air gap variation of even 20% is unlikely to
make a significant change in locked-rotor performance.

"Increasing the air gap" often implies simply machining an existing rotor to a smaller
diameter. That decreases the rotor slot reactance (and, as we've seen, several other
consequences can be expected as well). If, however, a machine is designed and built
for a larger gap, the slot configuration-and the associated reactance-can remain
unchanged despite a smaller rotor diameter.

A common limit on measured air gap variation in an assembled motor is ±10% of the
average. However, close examination of that requirement reveals that it is not as
simple as it seems. To see why, consider some readings for a hypothetical machine.
Suppose the gap intended by design is 0.06 inch. Now suppose a series of
measurements yields these actual values:

0.050, 0.052, 0.061, and 0.064

What is the "average"? Adding all four readings together and dividing by 4, we get
0.059 (quite close to the design figure). The 10% variation allows readings to be
anywhere from 0.054 to 0.065. Two of the measurements fall below the minimum,
which is unacceptable.

An obvious solution is machining, to enlarge the gap. Assume the possibility of an

increase by 0.006. We would then get this new set of measurements:

0.056, 0.058, 0.067, and 0.070

Ignored in most redesign or costing procedures, seemingly not a direct influence on

temperature or torque characteristics, the air gap in a motor or generator is
nevertheless clearly important to machine performance. It should not be overlooked.

By Richard L. Nailen, P.E., EA Engineering Editor

Can Rotor Bars be 'Too Long'?

Material cost, full-load slip, internal ventilation, acceleration characteristics, and

manufacturing methods all influence the length of squirrel-cage rotor bar extensions
between the core ends and the rings joining the bars together.

Those extensions are stressed by expansion and contraction of the rings under thermal
and centrifugal forces. Some authorities have claimed that the stress increases with
bar extension length, warning against making the extensions "too long."

Such a misunderstanding probably arises from the general knowledge that the
maximum stress caused by a given force increases as the distance of that force from
the stressed location. We multiply the effect of a force by using a longer lever arm.

In the rotor, however, the force is not a constant. Rather, the deflection of the bars--
the amount of end ring expansion--is the constant, and will be the same regardless of
extension length. The greater that length for a given deflection, the lower the force on
the bar associated with that deflection.

Therefore, within rather broad limits, the longer the extension, the lower the bar
bending stress caused by ring expansion.

That is true only if the bars can be treated as cantilever beams, subject only to purely
bending forces. When the extension length becomes quite short, that is no longer true,
and the relationship changes. In the extreme case (almost never encountered except
with some aluminum rotor cages) of zero extension length, no bending takes place.
Ring expansion subjects each bar to shearing stress only, in the plane of the core end,
which must be calculated differently.

Can the stiffness of the bar ends themselves exert enough restraining force to prevent
thermal or centrifugal ring expansion? No. Calculations show that this cannot happen
until extension length becomes extremely short. The rings can therefore be expected
to expand freely to the extent consistent with the temperature rise and centrifugal
force (normally a concern only in large, high-speed machines).

?


   

Ô

  

   
   


  
 



         
     


  
 
 
      

  !""#$%  
& 
'&
    

(   

     
  


$


   
    )  

    * 

 

 Ô 



 *Ô'   +      
 $,   (
  ' 
*Ô

 

 
    )  &&  '  
    


 #-.
    

    
  $


        


  
 
  
  

 
(  (
 '  (  


$ $$%  
   %/ 
     


           $ 0  
 

 
 
 ( 


 
  
   
   

 )  '
  
     %/ 
 

  

 
      $  ( 

  
 
  



1    



   2 
 

  
        

  
$

   
 (  (
      
 


  

 
    
$

 
& &   
 
 
   *Ô
 
(

'  
  *Ô )  $ 
& &
 

   
 $0  '&

&  
 *Ô  '



 (   
    
$/
 %/


    (
       $

¬  


  



Because of cost, structural integrity, and design flexibility, standard squirrel-cage

motors up to several hundred kilowatts in rating are universally manufactured with
die-cast aluminum rotor conductors. In larger sizes where that is impractical,
fabricated cages (made up of individual bars and end rings) use either aluminum or
copper and its alloys. Some manufacturers have standardized on one or the other, but
most will supply whichever one best suits the application.

Comparisons between copper and aluminum have emphasized differences in melting

point, specific heat, conductivity, and physical strength. However, most such
comparisons are seriously flawed. The differences between the two materials normally
render impossible any direct replacement of one by the other in the same large motor.

To achieve the same accelerating torque, locked-rotor current, efficiency, and safe stall
time, copper and aluminum rotor bars must have quite different shapes and areas.
Even the depth of current penetration at locked rotor (the "deep bar effect") differs
between the two materials (regardless of bar shape or size). Those variations affect
full-load speed, power factor, and stray load loss as well as temperature rise.

Among the many conflicting and misleading statements made in comparing copper and
aluminum rotors are these:

1. "Copper is 300% stronger than aluminum" (untrue; the difference ranges from 0%
to 40% depending upon the type of applied stress).

2. "Yield strength of...aluminum...[is] somewhat higher than copper" (the reverse is

true for the commonly used aluminum alloy).

Other claims are valid but insignificant. For example, during heating and cooling, an
aluminum bar does expand lengthwise in the slot more than copper. But the difference
is slight; the problem has always existed for copper, and is controlled by various
manufacturing techniques equally usable for aluminum.

As in other electrical apparatus, such as switchgear, aluminum can function as well as

copper in many motor applications. Depending upon the specific performance
requirements, either version can provide long service life.

Torsional Vibration & Oscillation in Electric Motors

Specifiers, suppliers, and operators are all familiar with the problem of rotating
machine vibration.. Causes such as unbalance and misalignment are well known.

However, most vibration technology deals with linear vibration--movement of a back-

and-forth nature. Torsional vibration (the twisting and untwisting of shafts) is less well
understood. Measurement methods are more complex. Limits are not standardized. Yet
uncontrolled torsional vibration can quickly cause catastrophic equipment failure.

Just as with liner vibration and the so-called "critical speed" problem, a concern in
rotating systems is torsional resonance--a coincidence between some exciting force
and a natural response frequency. Such resonance can greatly amplify an otherwise
harmless vibration.

Several vibration sources exist. During acceleration, induction motors exhibit torque
oscillations at line frequency. Synchronous motors, starting as induction machines,
behave similarly, except that the non-uniform rotor magnetic field exaggerates the
effect. Oscillations may far exceed the full-load torque.

A second source of trouble is the driven machine itself. Reciprocating compressors, log
chippers, and some grinding mills and crusher generate steady-state torque pulsations
at various frequencies--and of destructive magnitudes even without resonance.

Finally, some electronic inverters generate oscillating motor torques at frequencies

dependent upon speed.
As with other forms of resonance, destructive forces are minimized by changing the
rotating system response frequency; by adding energy-absorbing damping; or both.
Although inertia changes are sometimes possible, the more usual choice is an
elastomeric coupling between motor and driven machine. That changes system
stiffness as well as adding damping.

Torsional vibration is evaluated by measuring the variation in angular twist in a shaft,

in magnitude and frequency. One method uses either shaft-mounted strain gages or
encoder/resolver devices. Another involves scanning with a strobe light, to show the
varying position of a fixed point on the shaft. Several variations of that method are
possible.

Whatever the method, accurate results are difficult to obtain, and require careful
analysis of the results, whereas linear vibration readings are easily taken and easily
interpreted.

The Importance of 'Slot Combination' in A-C Motor Design

Since the earliest years of a-c machinery, motor designers have struggled with
prediction of -- and cures for -- electromagnetic noise, vibration, and torque anomalies
arising from the interaction between stator and rotor slots. The number of stator slots,
N1, is chosen mainly for flexibility in winding configuration. Heat dissipation is also a
concern. Ideally, N1 is evenly divisible by the product of phases and poles.

To minimize noise, vibration, and torque irregularities, the number of rotor slots N2
must then avoid relationships with N1 which theory or experience indicate will produce
objectionable harmonic force waves in the magnetic field of the machine. Many
published guidelines, some of them contradictory, have appeared over the past
century.

For example, designers often contend that N1 should always be larger than N2, and
that the two numbers should be separated by at least 15 percent, but no more than 25
to 30 percent. Others claim that N2 should always be an even number, not divisible by
the number of poles.

Complying with all the rules is seldom possible. Even when an N1 and N2 combination
does produce a frequency that excites stator core resonance, the effect may not be
objectionable because of structural damping in the assembly. That will vary with motor
construction. Thus, a slot combination successful in one frame size, for one
manufacturer, may be unacceptable elsewhere.

Wound-rotor motors pose special problems because, unlike the squirrel-cage, the rotor
must contain a balanced polyphase winding. Synchronous machines, in which damper
winding configuration cannot be greatly varied, also may require values of N1 not used
for induction machines.

Slotting used at one polarity may not suit two or more speeds. Service shops asked to
convert a single-speed motor to a two-speed rating can seldom assure that the slot
combination will not cause operating problems at one speed or the other.
In large machines, when stator core diameters exceed the available sheet steel width,
each lamination circle is made up of segments. That further restricts N1 (best chosen
to be integrally divisible by the number of segments) and therefore N2 as well.

At higher motor voltages, particularly above 4000, thicker insulation dictates fewer
(and larger) stator slots. If N2 remains smaller than N1, the rotor cage bars may
become unacceptably large. In both stator and rotor, heat transfer areas relative to
heat-producing conductor material will decrease, and the designer is likely to make N2
larger than N1 -- at the price of higher stray load loss.


'
 


     
 


+$   
     
( 

  
    
$