DOE-RCT-0003641 Final Technical Report

Abstract

This program studied novel concepts for an Axial Flux Reluctance Machine to capture energy from marine hydrokinetic sources and compared their attributes to a Radial Flux Reluctance Machine which was designed under a prior Department of Energy program for the same application. Detailed electromagnetic and mechanical analyses were performed to determine the validity of the concept and to provide a direct comparison with the existing conventional Radial Flux Switched Reluctance Machine designed during the Advanced Wave Energy Conversion Project, DE-EE0003641. The alternate design changed the machine topology so that the flux that is switched flows axially rather than radially and the poles themselves are long radially, as opposed to the radial flux machine that has pole pieces that are long axially. It appeared possible to build an axial flux machine that should be considerably more compact than the radial machine. In an “apples to apples” comparison, the same rules with regard to generating magnetic force and the fundamental limitations of flux density hold, so that at the heart of the machine the same torque equations hold. The differences are in the mechanical configuration that limits or enhances the change of permeance with rotor position, in the amount of permeable ironmore » required to channel the flux via the pole pieces to the air-gaps, and in the sizing and complexity of the electrical winding. Accordingly it was anticipated that the magnetic component weight would be similar but that better use of space would result in a shorter machine with accompanying reduction in housing and support structure. For the comparison the pole count was kept the same at 28 though it was also expected that the radial tapering of the slots between pole pieces would permit a higher pole count machine, enabling the generation of greater power at a given speed in some future design. The baseline Radial Flux Machine design was established during the previous DOE program. Its characteristics were tabulated for use in comparing to the Axial Flux Machine. Three basic conceptual designs for the Axial Flux Machine were considered: (1) a machine with a single coil at the inner diameter of the machine, (2) a machine with a single coil at the outside diameter of the machine, and (3) a machine with a coil around each tooth. Slight variations of these basic configurations were considered during the study. Analysis was performed on these configurations to determine the best candidate design to advance to preliminary design, based on size, weight, performance, cost and manufacturability. The configuration selected as the most promising was the multi-pole machine with a coil around each tooth. This configuration provided the least complexity with respect to the mechanical configuration and manufacturing, which would yield the highest reliability and lowest cost machine of the three options. A preliminary design was performed on this selected configuration. For this first ever axial design of the multi rotor configuration the 'apples to apples' comparison was based on using the same length of rotor pole as the axial length of rotor pole in the radial machine and making the mean radius of the rotor in the axial machine the same as the air gap radius in the radial machine. The tooth to slot ratio at the mean radius of the axial machine was the same as the tooth to slot ratio of the radial machine. The comparison between the original radial flux machine and the new axial flux machine indicates that for the same torque, the axial flux machine diameter will be 27% greater, but it will have 30% of the length, and 76% of the weight. Based on these results, it is concluded that an axial flux reluctance machine presents a viable option for large generators to be used for the capture of wave energy. In the analysis of Task 4, below, it is pointed out that our selection of dimensional similarity for the 'apples to apples' comparison did not produce an optimum axial flux design. There is torque capability to spare, implying we could reduce the magnetic structure, but the winding area, constrained by the pole separation at the inner pole radius has a higher resistance than desirable, implying we need more room for copper. The recommendation is to proceed via one cycle of optimization and review to correct this unbalance and then proceed to a detailed design phase to produce manufacturing drawings, followed by the construction of a prototype to test the performance of the machine against predicted results.« less