Design of Direct Driven Permanent Magnet Generator
Design of Direct Driven Permanent Magnet Generator
Design of Direct Driven Permanent Magnet Generator
net/publication/267855132
CITATIONS READS
237 2,311
1 author:
Anders Grauers
Chalmers University of Technology
25 PUBLICATIONS 700 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Anders Grauers on 25 February 2015.
Design of Direct-driven
Permanent-magnet Generators
for Wind Turbines
by
Anders Grauers
ISBN 91-7197-373-7
ISSN 0346-718X
Chalmers Bibliotek, Reproservice
Göteborg, 1996
3
Abstract
This thesis presents an investigation of how a direct-driven wind turbine
generator should be designed and how small and efficient such a
generator will be. Advantages and disadvantages of various types of
direct-driven wind turbine generators are discussed, and a radial-flux
permanent-magnet generator connected to a forced-commutated rectifier
is chosen for a detailed theoretical investigation. Further, a design
method is developed for the electromagnetic part of the chosen generator
type. The generator is optimized with a simplified cost function which,
besides including the cost of the active generator parts and the cost of the
structure, also includes the cost of the average losses. Therefore, a method
to calculate the average losses is derived. The design method is used to
investigate the optimization of a 500 kW generator, and the size, efficiency
and active weight of optimized generators from 30 kW to 3 MW are
presented. A result of the investigation is that the outer diameters of the
direct-driven generators are only slightly larger than the width of
conventional wind energy converter nacelles. A comparison of average
efficiency shows that direct-driven generators, including the losses in the
frequency converters, are more efficient than conventional wind energy
converter drive trains. Compared with other direct-driven generators, the
proposed generator type is small, mainly because of the forced-
commutated rectifier and because the generator is not required to produce
a pull-out torque higher than the rated torque.
Preface
The work presented in this thesis was carried out at the Department of
Electrical Power Engineering at Chalmers University of Technology. The
work was financed by NUTEK, partly under the Swedish wind energy
research program, partly as an EU Joule II project. The financial support
is gratefully acknowledged.
I would like to thank Dr Ola Carlson for interesting discussions about the
application of the low-speed generator in wind energy converters. Deborah
Fronko and Margot Bolinder both made an important contribution by
revizing my English. Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to Professor
Jorma Luomi for valuable help with the generator design and for
discussions on how to present the results from my project.
4
Table of Contents
Abstract 3
Preface 3
Table of Contents 4
List of Symbols 6
1 Introduction 11
1.1 Why Use Direct-driven Wind-turbine Generators 11
1.2 Differences Compared with Conventional Generators 12
1.3 Proposed Generator Types 12
1.3.1 Sector Induction Generator 12
1.3.2 Electrically Excited Synchronous Generator 13
1.3.3 Switched Reluctance Generator 14
1.3.4 Permanent-magnet Radial-flux Synchronous Generator 14
1.3.5 Axial-flux Generators 16
1.3.6 Transversal-flux Variable-speed Generator 17
1.4 Discussion of Earlier Research 19
1.5 Goal and Outline of the Thesis 19
2 Generator Specification and Cost Function 21
2.1 Specification 21
2.2 Generator Cost Function 23
2.2.1 Cost of Active Parts 24
2.2.2 Cost of Structure 24
2.2.3 Cost of Average Losses 24
2.2.4 Total Cost Function 26
3 Calculation Method for the Average Losses 27
3.1 Average Losses 27
3.2 Average Efficiency and Average Power 29
3.3 Determining Average Loss Factors 30
4 Generator Types 37
4.1 Electrical Excitation or Permanent Magnets 37
4.2 Direct Grid Connection or Frequency Converter 39
4.3 Surface Magnets or Flux Concentration 40
4.4 Slot Winding or Air Gap Winding 41
4.5 Radial-, Axial- and Transversal-flux Machines 42
4.6 Forced-commutated Rectifier or Diode Rectifier 44
4.6.1 Generator Model 45
4.6.2 Diode Rectifier 45
4.6.3 Forced-commutated Rectifier 46
4.6.4 Rectifier Comparison 48
4.7 Chosen Generator Type 51
4.7.1 Basic Generator Concept 51
4.7.2 Details of the Chosen Generator 51
4.7.3 Materials 52
5
List of Symbols
f Hz Frequency
fN Hz Rated frequency
gad – Factor for the additional losses
gC u – Factor for the copper losses
g Ft – Factor for the eddy current losses
g Hy – Factor for the hysteresis losses
gt – Factor for the turbine power
gµ – Factor for the windage and friction losses
hC u m Conductor height
hi m Insulation height (in the slots)
hm m Magnet height
hs m Stator slot height
hs1 m Tooth tip height 1
hs2 m Tooth tip height 2
hs3 m Slot height, excluding tooth tips
h yr m Rotor yoke height
hys m Stator yoke height
Hc A/m Coercivity of the magnets
i – Real interest rate
Ia A Armature current
IaN A Rated armature current
I(1) A Fundamental armature current
Js A/m 2 Current density in the armature winding
k Cu — Copper fill factor of the stranded wire
kdad — Average loss factor for additional losses
kdCu — Average loss factor for copper losses
kdFt — Average loss factor for eddy current losses
kdHy — Average loss factor for hysteresis losses
kdµ — Average loss factor for windage and friction losses
kFes — Fill factor for the stator iron
kFtd — Empirical eddy current loss factor for the teeth
kFtys — Empirical eddy current loss factor for the stator yoke
kHyd — Empirical hysteresis loss factor for the teeth
kHyys — Empirical hysteresis loss factor for the stator yoke
kN — Factor for the present value of future costs
kt — Average factor for the turbine power (capacity factor)
8
^
v ys A Mmf drop of the stator yoke
^
v A Mmf drop of the air gap
δ
VC u m3 Copper volume
V Fed m3 Stator teeth volume
V Feyr m3 Rotor yoke volume
V Feys m3 Stator yoke volume
VM m3 Magnet volume
w s/m Weibull distributed probabillity density of wind speeds
W m Winding pitch
xa m Per unit armature reactance
Xa m Armature reactance
Gear Generator
1:47 1500 rpm
Generator
32 rpm
Figure 1.1 500 kW drive trains of one conventional wind energy converter
(left) and one with a direct-driven generator (right).
1.2 Differences Compared with Conventional Generators
Theoretically, direct-driven wind turbine generators do not differ much
from other generator types. They can be designed and built in the same
way as other generators. The most important difference between
conventional and direct-driven wind turbine generators is that the low
speed of the direct-driven generator makes a very high rated torque
necessary. This is an important difference, since the size and the losses of
a low-speed generator depend on the rated torque rather than on the rated
power. A direct-driven generator for a 500 kW, 30 rpm wind turbine has
the same rated torque as a 50 MW, 3000 rpm steam-turbine generator.
Because of the high rated torque, direct-driven generators are usually
heavier and less efficient than conventional generators. To increase the
efficiency and reduce the weight of the active parts, direct-driven
generators are usually designed with a large diameter. To decrease the
weight of the rotor and stator yokes and to keep the end winding losses
small, direct-driven generators are also usually designed with a small
pole pitch.
b) a)
Stator
Rotor
b) a)
a) b)
Stator
Rotor
b) a)
a) b)
b) a)
Stator
Rotor
b) a)
a) b)
Figure 1.5 The radial-flux generator with flux concentration and ferrite
magnets. a) Tangential view and b) Axial view.
Two problems of the proposed design are mentioned in the papers. First,
the sub-harmonic flux waves from the fractional-slot winding are
considered a problem, because they may lead to additional losses. Second,
parallel paths in the winding should be avoided. The reason for this is that
the poles may generate unequal voltages leading to circulating currents
between the parallel coils.
Two small generator prototypes have been made. They showed that a
fractional-slot winding with only 0.75 slots per pole and phase can
generate an almost sinusoidal voltage from a very non-sinusoidal flux
wave form, and that the flux-concentration method can be used to achieve
high flux densities from low-energy magnets.
A mechanical damping system for the direct grid-connected generator is
discussed by Westlake et al. (1996). In conventional synchronous
generators, the damping is provided by damper windings in the rotor. The
direct-driven direct grid-connected wind turbine generator must have a
very small pole pitch if the diameter is not very large. The small pole pitch
makes the damper windings insufficient. Instead, a mechanical damping
of the stator, by means of a spring and a damper, can be used. The
mechanical damping system is shown to be sufficient, but it may be
difficult and expensive to construct for large generators.
Lampola et al. (1995a) present a 500 kW radial-flux permanent-magnet
generator. The generator is of the same design as the one in Figure 1.4 but
it is not designed for direct grid-connection. The generator has been
calculated in detail using the finite element method and time stepping.
The torque ripple, cogging torque and rotor losses are kept minor by using
1.5 slots per pole and phase. The permanent-magnet generator is
compared with a direct-driven induction generator by Lampola (1995b).
The induction generator is found to be larger, heavier and less efficient
than the permanent-magnet generator. In another paper (Lampola et al.
1996b) the influence of the rectifier on the generator rated power and
efficiency is investigated. It is shown that the rated power and efficiency
are lower if the generator is connected to a diode rectifier than if it is
supplied with sinusoidal voltages.
Rotor 1
Stator
b) b)
Rotor 2
a)
a) b)
a)
Stator 1
Rotor
b) b)
Stator 2
a)
a) b)
Figure 1.7 An axial-flux generator with double-sided stator and air gap
windings. a) Tangential view b) Radial view.
b) a)
Upper part
of the stator {
Rotor
{
Lower part
of the stator {
b) a)
a) b)
2.1 Specification
Only the quantities which significantly affect the generator performance
are included in the specification. A complete specification for the final
design of a generator will include many more detailed requirements. The
rated power used here is the mechanical power from the turbine, not the
electrical power to the grid. The reason for using mechanical power is
that generators designed for the same turbine should be compared with
each other, not with generators of the same output power at rated load.
The difference in generator efficiency is included as a cost of the losses.
The size of a generator depends to a very large extent on the required rated
torque. Consequently, the rated torque is one of the most important parts
of the specification. The rated torque differs for different wind turbines of
the same rated power, because of different turbine speeds. Data from 25
wind energy converters from Bindner et al. (1995) and Anon. (1994b) were
used to find the typical values of the rated torque for different sizes of wind
energy converters. A curve fit to the data was made to find an analytical
expression of the rated torque. The rated torque can be approximated as
P 1.23
TN = 71.1 Nm N (2.1)
1 kW
The rated torque determines the rated speed, which can be expressed as
P –0.23
nN = 134 rpm N (2.2)
1 kW
The empirical function (2.1) for the rated torque can be compared with the
one used by Veltman et al. (1994) and Søndergaard & Bindner (1995)
P 1.5
TN = k N (2.3)
1 kW
where k is approximately 13 Nm for a 500 kW turbine. Equation (2.3)
predicts a faster increase in rated torque as the turbine power increases
than Equation (2.1) does. The difference depends on the assumption that k
is a constant. In order for k to be a constant, the tip speed of the turbine
and the rated power per swept area has to be independent of the rated
power. However, the tip speed increases slightly and the rated power per
swept area also increases as the turbine power increases. In Figure 2.1
the rated torques for the 25 wind energy converters are plotted in a log-log
diagram together with the torque according to Equations (2.1) and (2.3). It
is obvious that Equation (2.3) can only be used to predict the rated torque
for generators with a rated power similar to the rated power for which k
has been determined.
Since the winding temperature is a limiting factor for the rated current,
the maximum allowed winding temperature is also vital to generator
performance. The generators designed in this thesis are made for class F
winding insulation. According to Det Norske Veritas wind energy
converter standard (Anon. 1992, Section 8, p. 11) the allowed temperature
rise for class F insulation is 90˚C and the thermal calculations are to be
made for an ambient temperature of 40˚C. Consequently, the maximum
temperature for the winding is 130˚C.
There are often technical demands that vary between different wind
energy converters. In some wind energy converters, the generator has to
be used as a start motor for the turbine, usually for stall-controlled
turbines. The required peak torque differs between turbines with different
control principles. Stall-controlled turbines need a high peak torque to
limit the turbine speed during wind gusts, while pitch-controlled turbines
do not have to use the generator to limit the speed and, therefore, do not
10000
Rated torque (kNm)
1000
100
10
1
10 100 1000 10000
Rated mechanical power (kW)
Rated torques of 25 wind energy converters
Rated torque according to Equation (2.1)
Rated torque according to Equation (2.3)
P 1.23
Rated torque TN = 71.1 Nm N
1 kW
PN –0.23
Rated speed nN = 134 rpm 1 kW
Cact = c Cu m Cu + c Fe m Fe + cm m m (2.4)
where m Cu , m Fe and m m are the weight of the copper, the active iron and
the permanent magnets, respectively. The used values of the specific costs
of the different materials cCu , c Fe and cm are given in Section 2.2.4.
1 dse a ltot a
2 dref + lref
Cstr = cstr (2.5)
where the constant c str is the cost of a reference structure with the
diameter dref and the length lref. The exponent a describes how fast the
cost increases with increasing diameter and length. The cost of a
structure of 2 m diameter and 1 m length is assumed to be 20 000 ECU
(i.e., dref = 2 m, lref = 1 m and cstr=20000). For small generators, the cost of
a structure of 1 m diameter and 0.5 m length is estimated to be 2500 ECU.
The exponent a is then 3.
Of course, this model is only approximate. The real cost function will be
much more complicated and include terms which depend on both
diameter and length as well as terms which are functions of other
variables than the outer dimensions. The real cost function will also be
discontinuous, for instance at the diameter above which the generator can
no longer be transported in one piece, but instead has to be mounted at the
wind energy converter site. Nevertheless, it will be shown in Section 6.3
that the exact shape of the cost function for the structure is not very
important for the optimization of the generator diameter and length.
Cd = PdAv cd (2.6)
The specific cost per kilowatt of average losses is the present value of all
the annual costs of one kilowatt losses during the economical lifetime of a
wind energy converter. The value of this specific cost of average losses
depends on several variables which are difficult to estimate, such as the
future price of electricity, the real interest rate, and the lifetime of the
wind energy converter. However, these problems are the same for any
type of long-term investment calculation. The specific cost of average
losses can be calculated as
c d = cel Ny kN (2.7)
where cel is the specific cost of electric energy (ECU/kWh), N y the number
of hours per year and kN is the factor for the present value of N WEC years
of losses. With the real interest rate i the factor for the present value is
NWEC
(1 + i) – 1
kN = NWEC (2.8)
i (1 + i)
In Table 2.2, examples of the specific cost of average losses are shown,
with various real-interest rates and electricity prices. The number of
years N WEC is assumed to be 20. Electricity produced in modern wind
turbines on good sites costs about 0.04 to 0.06 ECU/kWh. The real interest
rate is usually about 2-4 % for infrastructure investments, but private
companies often use higher rates. It can be seen that the variation in the
cost of losses is large, from 4000 to 8600 ECU. For the optimization, a
specific cost of average losses of 6000 ECU/kW is used.
Table 2.2 Examples of the specific cost of average losses cd for a wind
energy converter lifetime of 20 years.
c el 2% 4% 6%
Table 2.3 The cost function parameters and their nominal values.
Structure exponent a 3
c v c
w = v
()v
– A
A
e (3.2)
One way to calculate the average losses is to use Pd(v) from Equation (3.3)
directly in (3.1). But when the average losses are to be included in the
optimization of a generator design, this method is inefficient. The average
losses must be calculated by an integral for each new set of generator
variables that is used in the optimization procedure. To simplify the
generator optimization, the average losses can instead be calculated from
the different types of losses at rated load using average loss factors:
PdAv = PCuN kdCu + PHyN kdHy + PFtN kdFt + PµN kdµ + PadN kdad (3.4)
where k dCu , k dHy, k dFt , k dµ and k dad are the average loss factors for the
different types of losses. PCuN, P HyN, P FtN, P µN and P adN are the losses at
rated load.
The average loss factors are independent of how high the losses are at
rated load. If the losses at different wind speeds are expressed as the
losses at rated load multiplied by functions representing the dependence
on the wind speed, the average loss factors can be derived from Equation
(3.1). The different losses are then expressed as
By making a comparison with Equation (3.4) the average loss factors can
be identified. For instance, the average loss factor of the copper losses is
v out
kdCu = ∫ w(v) gCu(v) dv (3.11)
vin
It remains to define the functions gCu(v), gHy(v), gFt(v), gµ(v) and gad(v) in
order to calculate values of the average loss factors. These functions will
be different for different wind energy converters since they depend on how
the turbine and the generator are controlled. In Section 3.3 the average
loss factors are derived for one permanent-magnet generator type.
PAv = kt PN (3.13)
where PN is the rated mechanical power of the turbine and kt the average
factor for the turbine power. The average factor can be calculated by
expressing the turbine power as the power at rated load times a function
gt representing the wind speed dependence, i.e.,
f Ψ 2
gHy(v) = (3.18)
fN Ψ
N
The friction and windage losses are bearing friction losses, approximately
proportional to the rotational speed, and fan and windage losses,
approximately proportional to the cube of the rotational speed. The
g-function, therefore, can be expressed as
n n 3
gµ(v) = Cµ1 + Cµ2 n (3.19)
nN N
where Cµ1 + Cµ2 = 1 and nN is the speed at rated load. The parameter Cµ1
represents friction that is proportional to the speed and C µ2 represents
losses that are proportional to the cube of the speed. Here it is assumed
that C µ 1 = C µ 2 = 0.5. For a 50 kVA, four-pole, electrically excited
synchronous generator C µ1 is 0.28 and C µ2 is 0.72 (Grauers, 1994, p. 74).
The lower the generator speed is, the larger Cµ1 is and the lower Cµ2 is.
v n
vnN N
if v ≤ vnN
n(v) = (3.20)
nN if v > vnN
The frequency varies in the same way as the turbine speed, i.e.,
v f
vnN N
if v ≤ vnN
f(v) = (3.21)
fN if v > vnN
The core losses of the generator are determined by the flux linkage of the
generator armature. The rectifier is assumed to control the armature
voltage to keep the flux linkage constant
Ψ (v) = ΨN (3.22)
The current as a function of wind speed can be calculated from the
equation for the generator output power
√
0.5 Ia(v) 2 π f (v) La 2
cos(ϕ) = 1 – (3.25)
Uap(v)
In calculating the current as a function of wind speed, generator
efficiency is approximated as being constant. The electric power is
consequently proportional to the turbine power
where P aN is the armature power at rated load and v N is the rated wind
speed, here assumed to be 13 m/s. The power from the turbine Pt(v) is
1
Pt(v) = CP(v, n) 2 ρa At v3 (3.28)
where CP is the power coefficient of the turbine, ρa is the density of the air
and At is the area swept by the turbine. Equations (3.27) and (3.28) can be
used to express the armature power as
CP(v, n(v)) v 3
Pa(v) =
CP(vN, nN) vN PaN (3.29)
From (3.23) and (3.25) the current as a function of electrical power and
voltage can be found
√
{U √
Uap(v)4 – 1/9 [Pa(v) 2 π f(v) La]2 }
2
2 ap(v) –
I a (v) = (3.30)
[ 2 π f(v) La ]2
The way in which armature current changes with wind speed depends on
the generator design, since the armature inductance L a is not constant.
Therefore, the average loss factor for the copper losses will vary during
the optimization of a generator. If the variation of the average loss factor
is large, the loss factor has to be calculated for each new set of generator
variables used in the optimization. It will later be shown that the variation
in the average loss factor is small enough to be neglected.
The g-functions for the different types of losses can be calculated by means
of the above functions for the current, rotational speed and flux linkage as
functions of wind speed. In Figure 3.2 the g-functions for different types of
losses are plotted. It can be seen that all types of losses decrease from their
rated values when the wind speed decreases. The copper losses decrease
rapidly as the wind speed decreases because the current is almost
proportional to the power. The hysteresis losses are reduced because of the
reduced speed but the reduction is much smaller than for the copper
losses, since the flux of the generator remains constant. The eddy current
losses are reduced more than the hysteresis losses because they decrease
as the square of the frequency. The reduction of the friction and windage
losses is similar to that of the eddy current losses.
The average loss factors are calculated for three different sites with the
wind speed probability density approximated as a Weibull distribution.
The first site is a high wind speed site, the second site is a typical wind
energy converter site, and the third site is a low wind speed site. The
average factors for the turbine power are 0.35, 0.25 and 0.15 on the three
sites. The average loss factors for the different sites and the different types
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
5 10 15 20 25
Wind speed (m/s)
Figure 3.2 The g-functions for different types of losses from the cut-in to
the cut-out wind speed.
of losses are shown in Table 3.1. An armature reactance x a of 1 p.u. has
been used.
It is clear that copper losses cause rather low average losses. When the
generator is optimized for a wind energy converter, it will be more
important to keep the core losses low than to keep the copper losses low.
The average loss factors must be calculated for each new type of generator
and drive train because they can differ between different generator
designs and also the control of the generator affects the loss constants.
The average loss factor for the copper losses depends on the armature
reactance. In Figure 3.3 the value of the average loss factor for the copper
Table 3.1 The average loss factors for different types of losses at
different sites.
0.15
for copper losses
Average factor
0.1
0.05
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Armature reactance (p.u.)
Figure 3.3 The value of the average factor for the copper losses kdCu as a
function of generator reactance at the medium wind speed
site.
losses is shown as a function of armature reactance for the site with an
average wind speed of 6.8 m/s. The average loss factor decreases with
increasing reactance. For generators with high force density the
reactance is usually between 0.7 and 1.2 p.u. Consequently, it is
reasonable to use a reactance of value 1 p.u. when the average loss factor
for the copper losses is calculated.
In electrically excited generators, the flux linkage can be reduced at low
power to maximize the efficiency at each load, as described by Grauers
(1994, p. 90-91). If this control strategy is used, the average loss factor for
the copper losses will be higher than for this permanent-magnet
generator. The average loss factor for the core losses will instead be lower.
4 Generator Types
In this chapter a generator type suitable for direct-driven wind turbine
generators is chosen. First, some different generator types are discussed
briefly, and then the choice of rectifier is discussed more in detail. Finally,
the chosen generator type is presented.
It is very difficult to compare generator types completely; to find which is
the best for a given application. The aim of this chapter is solely to find a
generator type well suited to be a direct-driven wind turbine generator.
Pole shoe
1100 A
1100 A
1100 A
1100 A
1100 A Pole body 1100 A
Rotor yoke
120 mm 80 mm 50 mm
Figure 4.1 Electrical excitation for three pole pitches. No-load peak flux
density in the air gap 0.7 T, air gap 2 mm.
does not depend on the pole pitch. The mmf produced by a magnet is the
magnet height times the coercitivity of the permanent-magnet material.
Therefore, the magnet height can be constant as the pole pitch decreases.
In Figure 4.2 permanent magnet excitation is shown for three different
pole pitches. In comparison with Figure 4.1 it is clear that permanent
magnets are a better alternative than electrical excitation if the pole pitch
has to be small.
This comparison is made in a simplified way, not including the armature
reaction of stator currents. Still, it shows the main advantage of
permanent magnets over electrical excitation when using a small pole
pitch. For electrically excited generators the magnetic air gap is small
Stator yoke
Permanent magnet
Rotor yoke
120 mm 80 mm 50 mm
Figure 4.2 Permanent magnet excitation for three pole pitches, 120, 80
and 50 mm. No-load peak flux density in the air gap 0.7 T, air
gap 2 mm.
and, as a consequence, the armature reaction will be important if the pole
pitch is large. For rotors with surface-mounted permanent magnets, the
magnetic air gap is much larger since the permeability of the permanent
magnets is almost equal to that of air. Consequently, the armature
reaction is much smaller in a permanent magnet generator with surface
magnets than in electrically excited generators.
Even though the permanent magnets are very expensive, the losses of the
field winding make permanent-magnet excitation better than electrical
excitation for small pole pitches. Jöckel (1996) has shown that even
expensive NdFeB magnets (≈150 ECU/kg) lead to a lower total cost than
electrical magnetization does. Besides reducing losses, the permanent
magnets lead to a lighter design.
Induction generators are electrically excited, but in contrast to the
electrically excited synchronous generator the magnetizing current flows
in the stator winding. Although the design differs from the design of
electrically excited synchronous generators, induction generators also
suffer from the same negative effects as the pole pitch is reduced. The
magnetizing mmf is constant, but as the pole pitch is reduced a larger
part of the stator current will be needed to magnetize the air gap. This
effect causes the power factor to decrease as the pole pitch decreases. The
practical limit for the minimum pole pitch of induction machines with an
air gap of 2 mm is in the order of 100 mm. An other reason why induction
generators cannot be made with a small pole pitch even if the air gap can
be made small is that the stator winding should be made with at least two
slots per pole and phase to keep the space harmonics of the air gap flux
wave low. Two slots per pole and phase requires at least a 100 mm pole
pitch in a three phase generator.
Permanent magnets,
magnetization direction
Figure 4.3 Surface mounted NdFeB magnets (left) and ferrite magnets
with flux concentration (right).
magnets required will be large. Nevertheless, surface magnets lead to a
very simple rotor design with a low weight.
Flux concentration can be used to utilize cheap low-energy magnets and
still obtain a high air gap flux density. The magnets are then placed
inside the rotor and the flux is guided in magnetic circuits which are
narrower at the air gap than at the magnets. A common low-energy
magnet material is ferrite which has a remanent flux density of about
0.4 T.
A more complicated rotor is required for flux concentration than for
surface magnets and it would also normally be heavier, while the cost for
magnets can be much lower than for surface magnets. Today, NdFeB
magnets cost about 30 times more than ferrite magnets and their
maximum magnetic energy product is about 10 times higher than it is for
ferrite.
Figure 4.4 A conventional slot winding (left) and an air gap winding
(right).
wire. In windings made of copper bars with a large cross section, the eddy
current losses caused by the main flux may singnificantly increase the
winding temperature.
Several authors propose air gap windings instead of conventional slot
windings. Air gap windings have been proposed for large turbogenerators
by Davies (1971), for several small machines and also for direct-driven,
wind turbine generators by Honorati et al. (1991) and by Alatalo (1991).
Except for turbogenerators, which have a very large pole pitch, air gap
windings are used in combination with permanent magnet excitation.
Turbogenerators have a large air gap, in the order of 100 mm, even with a
conventional slot winding. Consequently, the air gap winding does not
necessarily increase the necessary magnetizing mmf. The windings are
also usually directly water-cooled. Still, there can be problems with air
gap windings in turbogenerators: The eddy current losses in the winding,
for example, have not been discussed by Davies (1971); since
turbogenerators generally have thick copper bars, these losses can be very
high.
In small electrical machines, the air gap winding can be very useful
because it simplifies the manufacturing of the machine. In these small
machines the windings can be easily glued to the stator, since the forces
are very small. The cooling of the winding is also effective because of thin
windings and the windings are made of thin wire, leading to low eddy
current losses.
In direct-driven wind-turbine generators, the air gap winding seems to
have some disadvantages. The winding is normally indirectly cooled in
generators of this size and, therefore, the decreased cooling surface
between the air gap winding and the stator yoke is a disadvantage. The air
gap is normally only a few millimetres in a slotted machine but in a
machine with air gap windings, the air gap will become several times
larger, leading to a large amount of permanent magnets. The eddy
current losses in the winding can also be a problem, but one that can be
avoided if the winding can be made of stranded wire.
Xa Ia Id
∼ —
E Ua
∼
—
∼
Ud
∼
∼
∼
Generator model Rectifier DC-link
Figure 4.5 The equivalent circuit of the generator used for a comparison
of rectifiers.
1
Active power (p.u.)
Dc voltage (p.u.)
0.8
0.6
0.4
Dc voltage
0.2 Active power
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Dc current (p.u.)
Figure 4.6 The dc voltage and active power of a diode rectifier fed by a
generator with an internal emf of 1 p.u. and a reactance of
0.5 p.u.
a) b) c)
Ep Ep
Ep
jXa Ia jXa Ia Ia jX a Ia
Ia
2
Active power (p.u.)
1.5
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4
Armature current (p.u.)
Figure 4.8 The active power of a generator with a reactance of 0.5 p.u.
connected to a forced-commutated rectifier. The rectifier keeps
the generator terminal voltage constant.
II1
1 II2
2 I3 I4 II5
5
I3I4
Armature current
0.8
0.6
Figure 4.11 Left: Axial view of the cooling of the stator iron core. An
external fan forces air through the cooling duct at the stator
core back.
4.7.3 Materials
The winding is made of stranded wire that has a copper fill factor of 0.8,
excluding the coil insulation. Each coil has an insulation that is 0.5 mm
thick. The slot is made 1 mm wider than the insulated coil. That extra
space is filled with resin during the impregnation, leading to a total
insulation thickness of 1 mm. The value of the total fill factor of the slot,
excluding the slot wedge, is 0.58 for a 40 mm high and 10 mm wide slot
with a two-layer winding.
The magnet material is NdFeB with a remanent magnet flux density of
1.22 T at room temperature. The remanent flux density at operating
temperature, i.e. below 120˚C, will be 1.1 T or higher. NdFeB is chosen
instead of SmCo because of its lower price and higher remanent flux
density.
The stator core is made of 0.5 mm thick, low-loss, electrical steel for large
generators. The losses at 50 Hz and 1.0 T are 1.20 W/kg and the fill factor
of the stator core is 0.97.
5 Design Method for a Permanent-magnet
Generator
In this chapter, an analytical design method is derived for the proposed
three-phase radial-flux generator with a forced-commutated rectifier. The
design variables are discussed in Section 5.1 and the design equations and
the thermal model in Section 5.2. In Section 5.3, the calculation method is
described. Finally, the analytical design method is compared with finite
element calculations and the sensitivity of the thermal model is discussed
in Section 5.4.
Many of the calculations are based on simplified models. The models have
been estimated to be sufficient for a preliminary generator design. If the
design method should be used for other purposes, needing higher
accuracy, the models can be changed to more detailed ones.
Some steps in the complete design of a generator have not been included.
Parts which can be considered as final adjustments and checks, are left
for the detailed design that has to be carried out before a generator is
manufactured. The steps remaining for the final design are: adjusting
the rated voltage to the desired level; rounding off the number of pole pairs
to the nearest integer value; and checking that the permanent magnets do
not risk irreversible demagnetization. The demagnetization calculations
can be included in the design method, but it has been found during this
investigation that the demagnetization is not a problem in this type of
generator, as long as the pole pitch is kept small.
hs
hs2 Js
bs1 δ
hs1 hm
hyr
bm
d
τp
Five of the basic variables are used directly as design variables: the air
gap diameter, the stator length, the slot height, the pole pitch and the
current density. The two remaining variables, the magnet height and the
tooth width, are defined as functions of the peak, no-load, air gap flux
density and the peak, no-load, teeth flux density, respectively. The reason
for using flux densities as design variables rather than geometrical
variables is that the optimum flux densities can be assumed to vary rather
little as the generator size changes.
The variables are summarized in Table 5.1. Seven variables are used as
design variables. These variables can be used to calculate generator
designs of different rated power and with different temperatures of the
windings. If a generator with a specified rated power and specified
winding temperature is designed, two of the design variables can no
longer be chosen freely. The stator length is adjusted to get the right rated
power of the generator and the current density is adjusted to get the right
winding temperature. The other five design variables can still be varied
freely.
The rated voltage and current are not included in the preliminary design.
It is assumed that the top and bottom conductor in the slots are connected
parallelly. Thus, the phase current is equal to the total current in a slot.
By adjusting the number of slots and the number of branches connected
parallelly and in series, the voltage level can be adjusted.
The pole pitch is used as a variable instead of the number of pole pairs.
Since there are no restrictions on the pole pitch, the number of pole pairs
is usually not an integer in the design calculations. For a generator
having a large number of pole pairs, this will simplify the numerical
optimization of the generator without introducing any significant errors.
Q = 2p m q (5.2)
The slot pitch is
τp
τ = m q (5.3)
The slot and the two-layer winding are shown in Figure 5.2. The slot is
described by its depth hs and its width bs. The slot width can be calculated
from the slot pitch and tooth width bd as
bs = τ – bd (5.4)
The slot opening bs1 is assumed to be 3 mm, the tooth tip height hs1 1 mm,
and the slot wedge height hs2 4 mm. The winding height is
bs
bCu
hi hi
hi
Stator core
h Cu Winding
hs3
hs Insulation
hs2 h Cu hi
2 hi
Slot wedge
hs1 bs1
bCu = bs – 2 hi (5.7)
respectively.
For a three-phase machine for which the magnet cost per torque should
be kept low, the ratio of magnet width to pole pitch should be between 0.6
and 0.9 (Lampola et al. 1996a). In the proposed generator the magnet
width is kept at 0.7 times the pole pitch, i.e.,
bm = 0.7 τp (5.8)
The winding is a full-pitch winding and, therefore, the winding pitch is
W = τp (5.9)
The end winding length is assumed to be
lb = 2 W (5.10)
The equivalent core length is approximated by
le = l + 2 δ (5.11)
The useful iron length is
lu = kFes l (5.12)
where kFes is the stator iron fill factor. The frequency at rated speed is
f = p nN (5.13)
where p is the number of pole pairs. The air gap should be small to
minimize the amount of permanent magnets needed. The mechanical
stiffness and the thermal expansion of the generator limits the minimum
air gap which can be used. In this thesis the relation
δ = 0.001 d (5.14)
is used. Because the slot opening is narrow compared with the air gap,
the Carter factor will be 1. The outer diameter of the stator and the
approximate total length of the stator, including the end windings, are
ltot = l + 3 W (5.16)
respectively. (Error found after the defence of the thesis: The total winding length is
overestimated, in equation 5.16 the total length is more likely to be approx. l tot = l + 2 W .
This error will lead to a small overestimation of the copper weight and copper losses)
5.2.2 Magnetic Circuit
The stator yoke thickness, the rotor yoke thickness, and the stator tooth
width are
^ b l
B
hys = δ0 m e (5.17)
^ l
2 B ys u
^ b l
B
hyr = δ0 ^ m e (5.18)
2 B l
yr
^ τ l
B δ0 e
bd = ^ (5.19)
Bd0 lu
^ the
^ is the no-load peak air gap flux density and B
respectively, where B δ0 d0
no-load peak teeth flux density.
The mmf:s of the iron core can be calculated from the magnetization
curves for the stator and rotor core materials, i.e., Hs(B) and Hr(B). In the
stator yoke the mmf needed for the magnetic flux between two poles can be
approximated as
π (hs + 0.5 hys)
v ys = c τp +
^ ^ )
H (B (5.20)
p s ys
where c takes into account the variation of the field strength in the yoke.
For the stator, c is assumed to be 0.5.
The mmf needed for the teeth can be expressed approximately as
^ ^ ) (h + 0.5 h ) + H (B
v d = Hs(B ^
d0 s3 s2 s δ) (0.5 hs2 + hs1 ) (5.21)
π (δ + hm + 0.5 hyr) ^
^
v yr = c τp – Hr(Byr) (5.22)
p
where c is assumed to be 0.5 for the rotor. Because h m is included in this
expression, the required magnet height has to be calculated by iteration.
The required magnet height can be calculated analytically by replacing hm
with 2 δ in equation (5.22). This causes an error in the order of 1 % in v^yr.
The mmf drops of the magnet and the air gap are
^
Bδ0
^
v m = hm (5.23)
µm µ0
^
B
v δ = δef δ 0
^ (5.24)
µ0
respectively. µ m is the relative permeability of the permanent magnet
material.
The sum of the mmf:s around the magnetic circuit of two poles is zero
^ – ^
2 Hc hm – v v yr – 2 ^
vd – 2 ^
vδ – 2 ^
vm = 0 (5.25)
ys
τp ≥ 4 ( hm + δ ) (5.28)
can model the RMS value of the fundamental flux density B δ(1) within
about 2 % of the values calculated with the finite element method.
Lb = 2 p q µ0 lb λb (5.31)
where λsl, λtl and λb are the specific permeance of the slot leakage, tooth-
tip leakage and end winding leakage, respectively. For the proposed
generator, with equal current in the upper and lower conductor in the
slots, the average specific permeance of the slot leakage for the two coil
sides in the slot can be expressed as (Richter 1951, p. 269-271)
2h 3h h h b
λsl = 3 bCu + 2 b i + bs1 + b –s2b ln b s (5.32)
s s s1 s s1 s1
λb = 0.25 (5.34)
The magnetizing inductance is used to calculate the required reactive
power. Therefore, the total inductance is important, including the flux
harmonics caused by the stator winding. The single-phase magnetizing
inductance, for the winding with one slot per pole and phase, can be
expressed as
Lm = p µ0 le λm (5.35)
There is no mutual inductance between the slot leakage and tooth tip
leakage inductances of the different phases, and the magnetic coupling
between the end winding inductances is included in the empirical
permeance coefficient λ b . The equivalent Y-phase inductance of the
armature, therefore, is
4
La =
3 Lm + Lsl + Ltl + Lb (5.37)
m Cu = ρCu V Cu (5.42)
(τ – bs1) + bd
VFed = lu Q bd hs3 + h + (τ – b ) h (5.45)
2 s2 s1 s1
Vm = 2 p l bm hm (5.49)
mm = ρm Vm (5.50)
where ρ Cu , ρ Fe and ρ m are the density of copper, iron and permanent-
magnets, respectively. The total weight of the active parts of the generator
is
5.2.5 Losses
The copper losses at a winding temperature of θCu can be calculated from
the resistivity of the copper ρ Cu (θ Cu ), the rms current density J s and the
copper volume V Cu:
Pµ = 0.005 PN (5.67)
The power of the external cooling fans, blowing air through the cooling
ducts at the outer surface of the stator yoke, are not included in this
calculation. The total losses at rated load can now be calculated as
The average losses can be calculated by using the average loss factors
derived in Chapter 3:
where vδ is the velocity of the flux wave in the air gap, given by
vδ = π d nN (5.71)
and k w(1) is the winding factor for the fundamental flux density wave.
Because the winding is a full-pitch winding, the winding factor k w(1) is 1.
The generator phase voltage is at rated speed controlled by the forced-
commutated rectifier to be equal to the no-load phase emf
UapN = Ep (5.72)
The rated rms phase current is
√
I 2πf L 2
cos(ϕN) = 1 – (1)2 U N a (5.76)
apN
The rated mechanical shaft power can now be calculated from the
electrical output power and the losses, i.e.,
By using the average factor for the turbine power, derived in Chapter 3,
the average input power can be calculated as
PAv = PN kt (5.79)
The average efficiency is
PlossAv
ηAv = 1 – P (5.80)
Av
The armature reactance is in this thesis expressed in per unit. The per
unit base values used are
End shield
Stator yoke
Endwinding
Internal air
Lower coil side
Tooth
Permanent-
magnet
Rotor yoke
Figure 5.3 The thermal model based on one slot pitch, one rotor pole, one
coil, internal air and end shield.
losses in the top-layer coil sides. The magnet losses are assumed to be
distributed homogenously in the magnets, while additional losses are
assumed to be located in the tooth tip. The temperature rise of the cooling
air along the cooling ducts at the outer surface of the stator yoke is
included in the thermal model as an equivalent thermal resistance.
Because the major part of the losses is cooled at the outer surface of the
stator yoke, the maximum winding temperature is the end winding
temperature.
v s = ^I aN
^ (5.84)
To avoid demagnetization of the magnets, the stator must not generate a
^ than
higher peak flux density B s
^ – B
^ < B
Bs δ0 min (5.85)
Equation (5.85), however, does not take the risk of local demagnetization
into account. The flux density may locally be lower than B min because of,
for instance, flux leakage at the magnet ends. The minimum flux density
should be checked in the final design by a finite element calculation.
The risk of demagnetization at a short circuit at the generator terminals
is discussed by Slemon (1992). For a generator with sinusoidally
distributed windings there is no risk of demagnetization if the ratio
between leakage inductance and magnetizing inductance is
Lσ 8 sin(0.5 αM)
Lm > – 1 (5.86)
Bmin (δ + hm/µm)
π 1 –
Br hm/µm
where α M is the magnet angle. For a generator with large resistance, the
factor 8 can be changed to 4. The proposed type of generator does not have
a sinusoidally distributed winding. Equation (5.86) is still used as an
indication of the risk of demagnetization during short circuit. Since the
minimum flux density here is zero and the magnet angle is 126˚, the
expression becomes
Lσ
Lm > 1.27 (5.87)
Because of the small pole pitch and the large air gap, demagnetization is
generally not a problem in the proposed type of generator. This was
verified by checking that the peak flux density generated by the stator
winding is below the value in Equation (5.85) and that the leakage
inductance to magnetizing inductance ratio is larger than described by
Equation (5.87).
If there is a risk of irreversible demagnetization, the risk can be
eliminated by increasing the air gap and at the same time increasing the
magnet height in such a way that the air gap flux density is unchanged.
Then, the stator will generate lower flux density at rated current and the
magnetizing inductance will be reduced. The reduced magnetizing
inductance will also increase the possible peak power. Of course, the price
for this change is increased cost for the magnets.
Variable Value
40
30
20
10
0
A B C D E F G
Ratings: Geometry:
Average eff. ηAv 94.9 % Cost of active part Cact 24200 ECU
Rated load
Average
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Losses (kW)
Friction and windage losses Hysteresis losses
Figure 6.1 The losses of the optimized 500 kW generator at rated load and
average losses.
6.1.2 Optimized Generators for 50 Hz and 200 % Peak Power
In Table 6.2, the different generator designs are compared with the
reference generator. To make the comparison more complete, a 50 Hz
generator without any required peak power is also included in the
comparison. The generators are compared regarding average efficiency,
active weight and size. The generator size is, here, expressed as the
volume of the rotor.
The comparison shows that a demand for 200 % peak power leads to about
a 25 % larger rotor volume than for the reference generator, while the
Average eff.(1 ηAv 93.4 % Cost of active part Cact 22700 ECU
Because the average factor for the copper losses is only 0.14 while the
average factors for the core losses are about 0.50–0.60, a generator
optimized with the average losses in the cost function can be expected to
have high copper losses at rated load compared with the core losses. If the
losses at rated load are used in the cost function, instead of the average
losses, the optimum generator will have lower copper losses and higher
core losses. The effect of using average losses in the cost function, instead
of the losses at rated load, was tested by changing the cost function for the
optimization. To make sure that the generator is comparable with the
reference generator, the diameter was fixed at 2.15 m and the cost of the
losses at rated load was adjusted until the average efficiency was 94.9 %,
as it is for the reference generator. Data of a 500 kW generator, optimized
using the losses at rated load in the cost function, are shown in Table 6.4.
The differences between this generator and the reference generator are
rather small. The current density is 12 % lower, the slot 7 % higher and
the stator 11 % longer than for the reference generator. The efficiency at
rated load is 0.5 percent units higher. The cost of the active parts of the
generator has increased slightly along with the cost of the structure.
Table 6.4 Data of a 500 kW generator optimized with the losses at rated
load in the cost function.
A: Rated load
A: Average
B: Rated load
B: Average
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Losses (kW)
Friction and windage losses Hysteresis losses
Figure 6.2 The losses of two generators with equal average efficiency:
Generator A: Reference generator;
Generator B: Optimized using the cost of the losses at rated
load.
96
95
Efficiency (%)
94
93
92 Optimized using the losses at rated load
91 Optimized using the average losses
90
100 200 300 400 500
Input power (kW)
Figure 6.3 Efficiency curves of two generators. One is optimized with the
losses at rated load in the cost function and one with the
average losses. Both generators have equal average efficiency.
The generator optimized regarding average losses will be smaller and
have a slightly lower total cost than if the losses at rated load are used.
However, one reason to design a generator with high efficiency at rated
load, even if the average efficiency is not improved, would be because the
cooling system might be made simpler and cheaper.
Table 6.5 The influence of the design variables on the generator. The
design variables are changed one by one while the rest have
their optimum values. The changes are expressed in percent.
τp = 0.9 τpOpt +0 –5 +1 +9 +3 –2 +0
τp = 1.1 τpOpt +0 +5 –1 –6 –2 +3 +0
hs = 0.9 hsOpt +4 –3 +3 –2 +1 –1 +0
hs = 1.1 hsOpt –3 +4 –2 +2 –0 +2 +0
^ ^ +12 +6 +11 +4 +6 –4 +3
Bδ = 0.9 BδOpt
^ ^ –5 –0 –6 +2 –2 +15 +3
Bδ = 1.1 BδOpt
^ ^ +6 +5 +6 –1 +3 –1 +2
Bd = 0.9 BdOpt
^ ^ –4 –2 –5 +2 –2 +14 +3
Bd = 1.1 BdOpt
ΘCuN = +7 +6 –14 +7 –5 +7 +1
0.9 ΘCuNOpt
ΘCuN = –5 –5 +13 –5 +5 –5 +0
1.1 ΘCuNOpt
Cost of losses
100 %
10 %
0 2 4 6 8 10
Average losses (kW)
Cost of Average Air gap Active Air gap Magnet Teeth Magnet
magnets efficiency diameter weight flux height flux weight
density density
(%) (m) (kg) (T) (mm) (T) (kg)
Changed cost Average Air gap Active Stator Current Reac- Winding
parameter efficiency diameter weight length density tance temp.
(%) (m) (kg) (m) (A/mm2) (p.u.) (˚C)
The cost of the active part, the cost of the losses and the cost of the
structure were calculated as functions of air gap diameter. The generator
was optimized for each fixed value of the diameter. The results are shown
in Figure 6.6.
The losses, and consequently the cost of the losses, decreases rapidly as
the diameter increases from 1 to 2 m. As was shown in Section 6.2, the
core losses are rather diameter-independent. The reason the losses
decrease with increasing air gap diameter is that the active parts of the
windings are reduced. At small diameters, when the stator is rather
50000
Cost of structure
40000
Cost (ECU)
20000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Air gap diameter (m)
Figure 6.6 The three parts of the cost function as functions of air gap
diameter. The generator is optimized for each value of the air
gap diameter.
long, this phenomenon reduces the losses as the diameter increases. At
large diameters, the stator is short and the end windings become more
important. While the active part of the winding decrease with increasing
diameter the amount of end windings increases. If the air gap diameter is
between 3 and 5 m, the total losses are almost independent of the
diameter. For diameters larger than 5 m the losses increase slightly with
increasing diameter.
The cost of the active part of the generator is more diameter-dependent
than the cost of the losses. If the generator diameter is decreased, the
amount of active material is increased. Since the generator cost function
will keep the optimum stator short, the increased cost depends mostly on
increasing slot height and increasing flux density. Increasing flux
density leads to high magnet weight. Under a diameter of 2 m, the cost of
the active material increases rapidly and, therefore, the diameter cannot
be much less than 1.5 m for this 500 kW generator.
At large diameters, over 2 m, the stator is short and the cost of the
structure is determined mainly by the diameter. Consequently, the cost of
the structure increase along with the diameter. For small diameters,
under 1.5 m, the stator is long and, thus, the cost of the structure is
determined mainly by the stator length. Therefore, the cost of the
structure increase as the diameter is decreased below 1.5 m. A large
diameter has to be avoided because of transportation and manufacturing
problems and a small diameter has to be avoided because a long generator
structure is difficult to manufacture.
If only the cost of the active parts and the cost of the losses are considered,
the optimum diameter would be more than 6 m. If the cost of the structure
is included in the optimization, the optimum diameter is decreased
drastically, to about 2 m. The reason is easily seen in Figure 6.6; the cost
of the losses and the cost of active materials are rather diameter-
independent for diameters above 2.5 m.
The optimum generator diameter is not very sensitive to changes in the
shape of the cost function for the structure. The reason is a significant
increase in the cost of the active material and the cost of the losses as the
diameter decreases below 1.75 m, in combination with a very slow
decrease in those costs as the diameter increases beyond 2.5 m. As a
consequence, the optimum diameter is likely to be within 1.75–2.5 m.
95
Efficiency (%)
94
93
92 Average efficiency
90
30 100 300 1000 3000
Rated power (kW)
4
Diameter and length (m)
0
30 100 300 1000 3000
Rated power (kW)
Figure 7.2 The air gap diameter and stator length of the direct-driven
generators.
0.2 m for the 30 kW generator and 1.1 m for the 3 MW generator. The
length-to-diameter ratio increases as the rated power increases, but even
the 3 MW generator has a length-to-diameter ratio of less than one third.
The weight of the generator is usually not a problem for the wind energy
converter during operation. Forces on the wind energy converter tower,
for instance, are determined almost exclusively by the forces from the
turbine, not by the generator weight. Nevertheless, the weight can be
important for the erection of the wind energy converter. A heavy generator
demands a larger crane or that the machinery be lifted in several parts.
Since the mechanical part of the generator has not been designed, only the
active weight is calculated. The weight of the generator structure is
expected to be much higher than the active weight. The active weight
increases slightly less than linearly with the rated power, see Figure 7.3.
The figures are 210 kg for a 30 kW generator, 1700 kg for a 300 kW
generator and 14000 kg for a 3 MW generator.
Since it was not included in the design method, the risk of
demagnetization of the magnets was also checked. The larger generators
have a lower minimum flux density in the magnets than the smaller
ones, but none of the generators risks irreversible demagnetization of the
permanent magnets.
15000
Active weight (kg)
10000
5000
0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Rated power (kW)
50
Force density (kN/m^2)
40
30
20
10
0
30 100 300 1000 3000
Rated power (kW)
Figure 7.4 The force density in the air gap of the optimized generators
130
Temperature (degree C)
110 Magnets
100
90
80
70
30 100 300 1000 3000
Rated power (kW)
1.1
Reactance (p.u.)
0.9
0.8
0.1
Pole pitch and slot height (m)
Pole pitch
0.08
Slot height
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
30 100 300 1000 3000
Rated power (kW)
Figure 7.7 The slot height and pole pitch of the optimized generators.
loading, reactance and winding temperature as the rated power
increases. The increased force density, however, is not a necessary
consequence of increased generator size; it is caused by the optimization.
200
Losses
150 Active parts
Cost (kECU)
Structure
100
50
0
0 1000 2000 3000
Rated power (kW)
Figure 7.8 The cost of active parts, cost of losses and cost of structure
for the generators as a function of rated power.
Copper and iron weight (kg)
10000
Iron weight
Copper weight
5000
0
0 1000 2000 3000
Rated power (kW)
Figure 7.9 The weight of the iron core and winding as a function of
rated power.
1000
Magnet weight (kg)
500
0
0 1000 2000 3000
Rated power (kW)
0
30 100 300 1000 3000
Rated power (kW)
7.2 Comparisons
Direct-driven generators have to be more cost effective than conventional
systems with a gear and a four- or six-pole generator in order to be
interesting. The main question is whether or not a direct-driven generator
can bring down the cost of the produced energy. This comparison is not
made regarding the total cost, however, since the cost function is too
approximate for that purpose. Instead, the generator systems are
compared regarding weight, efficiency and size.
The cost function used for the optimization is approximate, but it is shown
that the efficiency, active weight and size of an optimized generator do not
change much even if the cost function is changed a great deal. If the
efficiency is increased, the active weight of the generator increases. The
diameter of the generator has a practical lower limit because the stator
length, the losses and the active weight increase rapidly as the diameter
is decreased below a certain diameter. An increase in diameter, above the
practical lower limit, increases the efficiency and reduces the active
weight only slightly. Therefore, the optimum diameter can be expected to
be close to the practical lower limit.
and since the magnetizing mmf of one pole is IR and the flux passes the
air gap twice, the pole flux (excluding the leakage flux) becomes
IR µ0 le τp
ΦRR = (A.4)
2 (δ ef + hm)
R-phase pole flux S-phase pole flux
caused by IR (ΦRR) caused by IR (–1/3 ΦRR)
+R –T +S –R +T –S
δ +hm
τp
Figure A.1 The flux of the different phases caused by a current in the
R-phase.
where Ψ SR is the flux linkage of the S-phase caused by the current in the
R-phase. Figure A.1 shows the pole flux linking to phase S to be minus
one third of the pole flux linking to phase R. Consequently, the mutual
inductance of the phases will be
ΨR = LRR IR + M IS + M IT (A.8)
Since the neutral point of the Y-connected windings is not connected, the
sum of the three phase currents is always zero. Therefore,
IS + IT = –IR (A.9)
The flux linkage of phase R can with Equations (A.8) and (A.9) be written
ΨR = (LRR – M ) IR (A.10)
Using Equation (A.7), the equivalent Y-phase inductance can be
expressed as
Basic Theory
Three-dimensional heat flow can be approximately modelled by a lumped-
parameter thermal circuit (Perez and Kassakian, 1979). The generator is
divided into rectangular elements, like the one in Figure B.1, and they are
represented by the simplified network models in Figure B.2. The total
thermal resistances through the body in the x, y and z-directions are
lx ly lz
Rx = Ry = Rz = (B.1)
ly lz λ lx lz λ lx ly λ
where lx, ly and lz are the lengths of the body in x, y and z directions and λ
iy
ly TAv Pd λ
iz
ix
lz
lx
1/2 Ry
TAv Pd T z2
-1/6 Ry
Rz
1/2
-1/6 Rx
z
R
6/
-1
T x1 1/2 Rx 1/2 Rx T x2
1/2 Ry
Rz
1/2
T z1 Ty1
The generator outer surface of the stator core is cooled by air forced
through circumferential cooling channels. The temperature increase of
the cooling air is included in the model, as an equivalent thermal
resistance. The temperature increase of the cooling air depends on the
heat flow P c, the volumetric flow q vc, the density ρ c and the specific heat
capacitivity kthc of the cooling air. The temperature rise of the cooling air
is
Pc
∆θc = (B.2)
qvc ρc kthc
This extra temperature rise will occur in the parts of the stator close to an
outlet of the stator cooling channels. In the model, the cooling air at the
stator yoke is assumed to have this temperature rise. The model then
represents the warmest part of the stator. The magnet temperature is,
therefore, overestimated by about 0.5 ∆ θ c . The error of the magnet
temperature is in the order of 5˚C.
The temperature rise of the cooling air is included in the thermal model
by introducing the equivalent thermal resistance of the cooling duct
1
Req = (B.3)
qvc ρc kthc
which represents the heating of the cooling air. The total volumetric
cooling air flow depends on the number of cooling circuits and the flow in
each circuit. It is assumed that the cooling channel length τAir should be
2 m. The number of cooling circuits has not been restricted to an integer
number. Instead, it is defined as
π dse
NAir = (B.4)
τAir
The volumetric flow in each cooling channel is determined by the stator
length l, the height of the cooling channel hAir and the cooling air velocity
vAir as
R1 R2
R3 R4
I I
R5 R5 R6 R6
R7 R8
R9 Pa Pb R10
R3 R4
R11
R19 Pc Pd R20
R12 R13
R11
R11
R12 R13
III III
R14 R14 R15 R16 R16 R15
R17 R18 VI
R12
R19 Pc Pd R20
R13
R11
R21
R22
R23
R24
One rotor pole
Pe
R24 R25
R26
R27
R28
VII
Figure B.3 The detailed model of the rotor and stator and the model of the
radial and circumferential heat flow in the coil in the slots
Two end shields
IV
R29 R29
R29 R29
V
R30
One coil
R35 R36 R37 R36 R35 R35 R36 R37 R36 R35
VI
R32 R30 R32
R31 R31
VII
Figure B.4 The detailed model of the axial heat flow in the coil in the slots
and the complete model of the end windings and the end
shields.
1 hs1 + hs2
R0 = R21 =
q vc ρ c k thc lu (0.5 τ + 0.5 bd) λFe
1 1
R1 = R22 =
3 l bd α1 l (τ – b s1) α 2
1 1 hm1
R2 = R23 = +
3 l bs α1 l bm α2 l bm λGRP
0.5 hys 0.5 hm
R3 = R24 =
lu bd λFe l bm λm
0.5 hys 1
R4 = R25 = – R24
lu bs λFe 3
0.5 bd hm0
R5 = R26 =
lu hys λFe l bm λglue
0.5 bs hyr
R6 = R27 =
lu hys λFe l τp λ Fe
1 1
R7 = – R5 R28 =
3 l τp α 5
1 1
R8 = – R6 R29 =
3 π (0.5 d + hs + hys)2 α3
1 1
R9 = – R3 R30 = – R31
3 3
1 0.5 l
R10 = – R4 R31 =
3 hCu bCu kCu λCu
hi 0.5 lb
R11 = R32 =
l bCu λi hCu bCu kCu λCu
0.5 (hCu + 2 hi) 1
R12 = R33 = – R32
lu bd λFe 3
0.5 hCu 1
R13 = R34 = – R36
l b Cu λ coil 3
0.5 bd 1
R14 = R35 = 2
lu (hCu + 2 hi) λFe lb bCu α4
hi 0.5 hCu
R15 = R36 =
l h Cu λ i lb bCu λCoil
0.5 bCu 1
R16 = R37 = – R39
l h Cu λ coil 3
1 1
R17 = – R14 R38 = 2
3 lb hCu α4
1 0.5 bCu
R18 = – R16 R39 =
3 lb hCu λCoil
1
R19 = – R12
3
1
R20 = – R13
3
The heat transfer coefficient at the tooth tip α2 is assumed to be lower than
at the stator yoke back, because the rotor surface velocity is less than
15 m/s. The air flow in the air gap is assumed to be turbulent because of
the rough rotor surface and, therefore, only the thermal resistances of the
convective heat transfer at the tooth tip and at magnet surfaces are
included in the model. The heat transfer coefficients at the end shields α3,
the end windings α 4 and the inner surface of the rotor yoke α 5 are all
assumed to be equal.
The rotor pole model is simple and is mainly included to show that the
temperature rise of the magnets should not be a problem. It includes
losses in the magnets and cooling through the magnet and rotor yoke to
the internal air of the generator. In addition, the thermal resistances of
The value of the thermal resistance R21 is derived assuming that the tooth
tip is rectangular instead of trapezoidal. It is assumed that the end
windings overlap so that only half of their outer surface is used for
cooling. Therefore, R35 and R38 include the factor 2.
From the detailed models for the different parts described above, a
simplified thermal model of the complete generator can be derived. The
simplified model is derived by connecting Q parallel models for a stator
slot pitch, Q parallel models of a coil, 2 p parallel models of a rotor pole
and the model for the internal air and the two end shields.
The symmetry between the two end windings and end shields is used to
reduce the model. Since the core losses are smaller than the copper losses
and the temperature rise inside the stator iron is not so large, the core
losses are moved in the thermal network to allow simplifications. The
losses P1, P2, P3 and P9 are all moved to the other side of R9, R10, R19 and
R19, respectively. By doing so, the number of nodes and thermal
resistances can be decreased but the temperature rise of the iron core will
be slightly overestimated. The same simplification is used for the magnet
losses, thus, R25 is neglected. Since the aim of the model is only to show
that the temperature in the magnets can be low enough, it is justified to
overestimate the temperature rise of the magnets slightly. The thermal
resistances ending at the slot wedge are excluded.
X
R50
R51 R52
R53
P1 P2
R54 R55
R56
XI
Q stator slots
P3 P4 R57
R58
R59
R56
XII
P9 P10
R60
2 p rotor poles
P11
R61
XIII
Figure B.5 Simplified thermal network for the stator and rotor.
Two end shields
X
R62
XI
R63
P7
Q coils
R64 R65
R63
XII
XIII
Figure B.6 Simplified thermal network for the end windings and end
shields.
Table B.3 Thermal resistances of the simplified model.
The final thermal model is shown in Figure B.7 and the losses used in it
are given in Table B.4. The thermal model has twelve nodes, plus the
ambient temperature, and eighteen thermal resistances. The
temperature rise problem is formulated as a matrix equation. The vector
of temperature rises is evaluated by multiplying the loss vector by the
inverse of the thermal conductance matrix.
References:
Luke G. E. 1923. "The Cooling of Electric Machines". Transactions of the
AIEE 42, p. 636–652.
Perez I.J., Kassakian J.G., 1979. "A Stationary Thermal Model for
Smooth Air-gap Rotating Electric Machines". Electric Machines and
Electromechanics 3, 1979, p. 258-303.
0 Ambient air
R50
R51 R52
1 2
R53 R62
R54 R55
3 R63
5
R56 4 R57 6 8
R58 R59 R65 7 R64
9
R56 10 R63
R60
R61
11
Table B.4 The nodes and the losses of the simplified thermal model.
Table C.1 The different losses of the induction generators and their
efficiencies.
Rated No-load Stator Rotor Efficiency Average Average
power losses copper copper at rated losses efficiency
losses losses load
(kW) (p.u.) (p.u.) (p.u.) (%) (p.u.) (%)
Gear Efficiency
The gear losses can be divided into (Shipley, 1991):
• No-load losses which are independent of load (Include
friction and windage losses);
• Gear mesh losses, which are a constant percentage of the
active power.
Since the gear mesh losses are a constant percentage of the power, their
average factor will be equal to the average factor for the active power. The
average factor for the gear mesh losses is 0.25 and for the no-load losses it
is 0.77. In Table C.2, the losses and the average efficiencies of the different
gear sizes are shown.
Table C.2 The different gear losses and the gear efficiencies.
Rated No-load Gear mesh Efficiency at Average Average
power losses losses rated load losses efficiency
(kW) (p.u.) (p.u.) (%) (p.u.) (%)
References