Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Performance Comparison Between Surface Mounted and Interior PM

    Uploaded by

    Oumaima JORAICHE
    10 views9 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    10 views9 pages

    Performance Comparison Between Surface Mounted and Interior PM

    Uploaded by

    Oumaima JORAICHE

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 9
    Politecnico di Torino Porto Institutional Repository [Article] Performance comparison between Surface Mounted and Interior PM motor drives for Electric Vehicle application Original Citation’ Pellegrino G.; Vagati A.; Guglielmi P; Boazzo B. (2012). Performance comparison between Surface Mounted and Interior PM motor drives for Electric Vehicle application. In: IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, vol. 59 n. 2, pp. 803-811. - ISSN 0278-0046 Availability This version is available at : http: //porto.polito. it/2418740/ since: May 2011 Publisher: IEEE Published version: DOI:10.1109/TIE.201 12151825 Terms of use: This article is made available under terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Article ("Public - All rights reserved") , as described at http: //porto.polito-it/verms_and_conditions. heal | Porto, the institutional repository of the Politecnico di Torino, is provided by the University Library and the IT-Services. The aim is to enable open access to all the world. Please share with us how| this access benefits you. Your story matters. (Article begins on next page) Performance comparison between Surface Mounted and Interior PM motor drives for Electric Vehicle application Gianmario Pellegrino, Member, IEEE, Alfredo Vagati, Fellow, IEEE, Paolo Guglielmi, Member, IEEE, and Barbara Boazzo Abstract — Electric Vehicles make use of permanent magnet synchronous traction motors for thelr high torque density and ‘A comparison between interior permanent magnet (PM) and surface mounted permanent maguet (SPM) motors is carried out, in ferms of performance at given inverter ratl ‘The results of the analysic, based on a simplified analytical model and confirmed by FE analysis, show that the two motors have similar rated power but that the SPM motor has barely no overload capability, independently of the available inverter current, Moreover the loss behavior of the two motors Is rather different in the various operating ranges with the SPM one better at low speed due to short end counections but penalized at high speed by the need of a significant de-exeitation current. ‘The analysis is validated through finite-clement simulation of two actual motor designs. Index Terms—Electric Vehicle, PM. Synchronous motors, PM motor drives, Constant-power speed range, Iron loss, High speed AC drives: 1 Ixtropuction fhe diffusion of Electric Vehicles (EV) in the urban context is only matter of time, since adoption of zero emission vehicles, either powered by chemical aecummlatars or fuel cells, is becoming mandatory, for the well known reasons. Indeed, this adoption will be gradual, also for the related need of infrastructures, but itis already accepted that EVs will represent the solution for urban mobility in the next fature. (On the other hand, the choice of the electric drive-train most suited to this application is still matter of discussions. The most used electric motors in this sense are up to now induction motors (IM) and permanent magnet (PM) synchronous motors [1]. The former are adopted for their ruggedness and availability, while the latter are generally chosen for their higher torque density and efficiency ‘Among PM motors, surface-mounted (SPM) and interior ‘PM (IPM) types are both considered [1-2], and an exhaustive comparison between the respective performances has not been made yet. In [3] a thorough comparison is carried out for a starter-generator. Most of the more recent research in this field has being devoted to motors with non overlapping ‘windings, either with SPMs [4-5] or IPMs [6-7], though such IPM machines are often very similar to SPM ones for magnets layout and for having rather a low saliency. Manuscript received December 20, 2010. Accepted for publication ‘Apal 6.2011 (Copyright (2) 2009 IEEE. Personal use ofthis material is permied However pemision to use this mts for any odhr puspnes must be sbisined fom the IEEE ty sending a sequest to puby Permissions ieee ore (© Pallegino, A. Vaguti, P. Guplicimi and B. Boaszo are with the Deparmeat of Hlectical Eanncenns Polaecaico di Toriae, 10129 Toca nly (emul. gunman pelegano@pohiost, aliedo vazatiGpokiost. paolo gualekni@ polio it, barbara boazzo@ polio) Moreover, itis recognized that concentrated windings reduce the saliency of any IPM machine and thus part of their specific advantages that are related to the reluctance torque ‘component [8]. For these reasons this paper focuses on the comparison between a SPM machine with concentrated ‘windings and an IPM machine with distibuted windings and four flux barriers per pole. As evidenced by Fig. 1, the selected machine types are at the opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of manufacturing complexity. Most of other combinations such as simpler IPM rotors and stators, including fractional slots ones, stay in between the two considered here. (PM) Example moter, having the came continuous tergue, power fad current (2,1, 1) The tro motors have the same stator diameter and sack length (SPM) Flow The paper follows the work presented in [9] where the SPM and IPM motor drives have been compared at given ‘vehicle specification and inverter size. Tt was shown that: + the continous power of SPM and IPM motors is practically the same, + The SPM motor is easier to manufacture, and has shorter end connections and then a bit shorter overall length. + The IPM motor has a very good overload capability, over the entire speed range, while the SPM motor has not, independently of the applied current. + High speed losses affect both the motors, due to PM losses for SPM and slat harmonic losses for IPM. In this paper the results of [9] are reviewed and farther aspects of the comparison are outlined. * The efficiency maps over the whole torque versus speed operation area. * The detail of the different losses of the two motors. + The different behavior at partial load A. Specifications of an EV drive In general, EVs require a constant-torque region at low speed and a constant-power region at high speed [10]. The ‘continuous torque at low speed is dictated by the maximum slope specified for hill climbing, while the continuous power determines the maxinmm cruising speed of the vehicle. Intermittent overload for short durations is required for vehicle accelerations at any speed. At overload, the motor is thermally safe at least for a couple of minutes while the inverter and battery maxinmm ratiags limit the output power: ive, the inverter current determines the maximum torque while in general it is the battery that limits the maximum power. The overload capability typical of the electric ‘motors is a great advantage with respect (0 internal combustion engine (ICE) driven vehicles and must be convenientty exploited in EVs ‘The characteristics of a traction drive for EV are sketched in a general form in Fig. 2; both rated (continuous line) and overload (dashed line) curves show constant torque and constant power zones. Quite often the obtained overload performance does not match Fig. 2 up to maximum speed due to voltage limitation. Nevertheless, overload is weleome at large speed too, either for accelerating or possibly to regenerate power. The overload feature is the key point of the comparison in [9]. Transient toraue " verter carer iit) aan J '* -continues torques, 2°" ated otorcurely,_wensert power f = ot rated power (max vehicle speed) I . 0008 pm) max speed (rar vtioe speed) gue? Example of schematic EV specication: ted Contes) verload (dathed) torque vrm speed characteristics, The power performance at base speed is not evidenced as cone of the strict specifications in Fig.2 and it is normally introduced only as a reference point. In other words, once the basic performance requirements (T;, Ti, Pi) are fulfilled, two drives can be comparable even if their power at base speed is not exactly the same. ‘Among the drive characteristics, efficiency has a particular importance, especially when the regenerative brakiag is exploited, like in urban cycle, For this type of workload a better efficiency of the motor drive can make the difference in terms of vehicle range. The efficiency comparison between two drives should sefer to a specific vehicle cycle. As a general basis for comparison, efficiency maps over the entire torque — speed region will be given for the two motors, so that different driving eycles may be evaluated case by case. Last, the quality of steel laminations plays a key role at ‘high speed for both machines. For this reason the same high speed steel grade will be adopted for the two motors and the effects of this choice will be discussed, TI MODELING oF THE SPM MOTOR DRIVE A. Power curve at continuous current i In Fig. 3 the vector flux-weakeaing trajectories at rated current 4; are shown for the SPM motor drive, In the ‘constant-iorque 2one (point A.) the current vector is in quadrature to the PM flux for maximum torque per Ampere (MPA) operation. At higher speed te current vector is rotated to reduce the flux linkage and keep the voltage within ‘the inverter limit. An ideal flat power curve is obtained if the ccurrent-dependent fx Za, ir equals the PM flux linkage A [11] that isthe situation shown in Fig. 3: Rem = Log" a where Ley is the SPM motor inductance. The corresponding power versus speed curve is reported in Fig. 4 (continuous line) af tajectory ofthe Fux vector teaectery ofthe / ‘current vector / ° A Figure 3. Vector diagram of the SPM motor at rated current (i) and at the no-load cuent amplitude needed at maxima speed (i) PY= Pin Qc, rated current (i) ho load current ngh ~~ at maximum seed speed / mex speed Figure 4. Peront power versus aped ofthe SPM motor trated current sd no-load eurent. maximum speed (i). At high speed, the power factor tends to one, since the flux and current vectors tend to be in quadrature co each other (Fig. 3, vectors in position C,). Thus the power asymptotically tends to the limit value: pa @ Wwhete Vis the maximum phase voltage amplimde. In Fig 4 the per-unit continuous power is plotted: if power losses ae disregarded the output power curve bas nearly the shape of the power factor. Therefore at base speed (point A;) the pu. power is nearly 0.7 (Fig. 4) as the power fictor is (the ‘current leads the flux vector by 45 degrees in Fig. 3. In Fig. 3, hn is representative ofthe dus amplitude to be respected at maximum speed, to cope withthe voltage limit haw ° Ann is given by (3), where the resistive drop has been disregarded, Because of the voltage limit, also at partial load and no-load the flux amplitude must be limited, at high speed, by means of a de-magnetizing current. In particular the worst-case de-magnetizing current 4 is represented in Fig. 3 and its amplitude is: (3 ° load is a general drawback of this kind of motors, because it implies more copper losses. Most of the time the drive is at partial load in the speed range above the base speed. In such cases only a stall paztof the motor euzrent is actually giving torque while the most of Joule tosses are spent just for lx ‘weakening, as will be evidenced in section V. As said P; = Pia isthe continuous power, determined by the maximum vehicle speed specification. Thus, the motor rated current f; must match the power dissipation allowed by the motor cooling, while the PM flux Ay nzust be maximized for obtaining an optimal torque to current ratio. As a consequence, the only parameter left to satisfy (1) is the motor inductance Lj, which must be properly designed at that sim. This generally implies the adoption of a fractional number of slots per pole per phase, as it will be discussed in the following [5] B. Power curve at overload current io. In Fig. 5 the vector diagram at overload is shown, with reference to 4 current is that is 173% of the continuous current i) (ie. 3 times the Joule losses). At low speed, the power factor is quite low and the voltage limit is met very soon, because of the larger flux amplitude. From the constant torque working point (Ay in Fig. 5) the current is rotated until the flux vector is aligned to the g axis (By in Fig. 5), which represents the maximum torque per voltage (MTPV) flu condition [11]. To increase the speed further, the flux is kept along the g axis by reducing the i, component only, with the igcurrent equal to the characteristic current f; (1). The MTPV flux amplitude (5) is proportional to the torque current component iy Ramer 2 hq = Log igre ©) that is reduced proportionally tothe speed (6) because of the consiamt voltage F: Duce 0 Ur, 6) a As for the q-current, the torque also varies inversely with speed (7) and consequently the power results to be constant ‘with speed (8), and equal to the Pin, valve (2). a Puree ) ‘The condition (1) has been substituted in (8) MTPV trajectory WureVirajectony ee RHE ofthe current vecior By u ‘Vector diagram ofthe SPM motor at overload eusrent gues rated current (,) speed / max speed Figure 6 Perunt power vera speed ofthe SPM moor at sted current (Gand 173% cveroad curent (0) Once the MIPV limit is reached the output power is clamped 10 Pon, according to (8), independently of the available current overload. In other words, the 173% overload current i produces an overload torque below the base speed. as represented in Fig. 6, but the power overload vanishes as the speed increases beyond that point. IL. IPMscor0R Dawe A. Power curve at rated current i: The torque of the IPM motor show both PM flux and anisotropy terme: T=30-[Am ig ~Lal€-D-te o were & = Ly ‘Ly is the saliency ratio. For MTPA operation /z is negative (Fig. 7) with an MTPA phase angle that varies ffom motor to motor. For fix weakening the current vector is rotated from the MTPA angle towards the MTPYV locus, if any. As for the SPM, when the relationship (10) is tue, the fix vector at rated current is driven towards zero and the MTPV locus is aot met (Fig. 7), while it is met at overload euteat 0) Since 2, mainly depends on the airgap length, the Ay value that fulfills (10) depends on the rotor anisotropy: the larger the anisotropy is, the lower Ay is. In the SPM ease there is a unique inductance value that depends on the stator

    You might also like