Comparison Of Linear Synchronous And Induction Motors
Report Number: FTA-DC-26-7002.2004.01SAND2004-2734PUrban Maglev Technology Development ProgramColorado Maglev ProjectComparison of Linear Synchronousand Induction MotorsJune 2004
This page is intentionally left blank- ii -
Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGEPublic reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of thiscollection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 JeffersonDavis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank)2. REPORT DATE3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVEREDJune 2004Project Report, 20044. TITLE AND SUBTITLE5. FUNDING NUMBERSComparison of Linear Synchronous and Induction Motors6. AUTHOR(S)R.J. Kaye and Prof. Eisuke Masada7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)Sandia National Laboratories, P.O. Box 5800, Albuquerque, NM 87185-1182,Science University of Tokyo, 2651 Yamazaki, Noda-shi, 278-8510, Japan9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBERSAND2004 – 2734P10. SPONSORING/MONITORINGAGENCY REPORT NUMBERU.S. Department of TransportationFederal Transit Administration, Office of Technology,400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590FTA-DC-26-7002.2004.0111. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT12b. DISTRIBUTION CODEAvailable From: National Technical Information Service/NTIS, 5285 Port RoyalRoad, Springfield, Virginia, 22161. Phone 703.605.6000, Fax 703.605.6900,Email [orders@ntis.fedworld.gov]13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)A Propulsion Trade Study was conducted as part of the Colorado Maglev Project of FTA’s Urban Maglev TechnologyDevelopment Program to identify and evaluate prospective linear motor designs that could potentially meet the systemperformance requirements of the Colorado Dept. of Transportation (CDOT) Project, and be applicable to other urbanmaglev transit corridors. The study focused primarily on the performance of the linear induction motor (LIM)propulsion system of the Chubu HSST (CHSST) that had been selected as the baseline technology for that project.Potential near-term improvements and modifications to that propulsion system have been considered and appearfeasible. This report compares the relative advantages and disadvantages of that linear induction motor and maturelinear synchronous motor options for urban and suburban maglev transit systems.15. NUMBER OF PAGES14. SUBJECT TERMSlinear induction motor, linear synchronous motor, maglev, propulsion, urban transit2216. PRICE CODE17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATIONOF REPORT18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATIONOF THIS PAGE19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATIONOF ABSTRACTUnclassifiedUnclassifiedUnclassifiedNSN 7540-01-280-5500Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18298-10220. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACTStandard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)- iii -
1.1 NOTICEThis document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S.Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange.The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents oruse thereof.The United States Government does not endorse products ofmanufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solelybecause they are considered essential to the objective of this report.CDOT DisclaimerThe contents of this report reflect the views ofthe author(s), who is(are) responsible for thefacts and accuracy of the data presentedherein. The contents do not necessarily reflectthe official views of the Colorado Department ofTransportation or the Federal HighwayAdministration. This report does not constitutea standard, specification, or regulation.- iv -
METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORSENGLISH TO METRICLENGTHMETRIC TO ENGLISHLENGTH (APPROXIMATE)(APPROXIMATE)1 inch (in) 2.5 centimeters (cm)1 millimeter (mm) 0.04 inch (in)1 foot (ft) 30 centimeters (cm)1 centimeter (cm) 0.4 inch (in)1 yard (yd) 0.9 meter (m)1 meter (m) 3.3 feet (ft)1 mile (mi) 1.6 kilometers (km)1 meter (m) 1.1 yards (yd)1 kilometer (km) 0.6 mile (mi)AREA (APPROXIMATE)AREA (APPROXIMATE)222221 square foot (sq ft, ft ) 0.09 square meter (m )221 square centimeter (cm ) 0.16 square inch (sq in, in )1 square inch (sq in, in ) 6.5 square centimeters2(cm )1 square meter (m ) 1.2 square yards (sq yd,2yd )221 square yard (sq yd, yd ) 0.8 square meter (m )21 square kilometer (km ) 0.4 square mile (sq mi, mi )2210,000 square meters (m ) 1 hectare (ha) 2.5 acres1 square mile (sq mi, mi ) 2.6 square kilometers2(km )21 acre 0.4 hectare (he) 4,000 square meters (m )MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE)MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE)1 ounce (oz) 28 grams (gm)1 gram (gm) 0.036 ounce (oz)1 pound (lb) 0.45 kilogram (kg)1 kilogram (kg) 2.2 pounds (lb)1 short ton 2,000 0.9 tonne (t)pounds (lb)1 tonne (t) 1,000 kilograms (kg) 1.1 short tonsVOLUME (APPROXIMATE)VOLUME (APPROXIMATE)1 teaspoon (tsp) 5 milliliters (ml)1 milliliter (ml) 0.03 fluid ounce (fl oz)1 tablespoon (tbsp) 15 milliliters (ml)1 liter (l) 2.1 pints (pt)1 fluid ounce (fl oz) 30 milliliters (ml)1 liter (l) 1.06 quarts (qt)1 cup (c) 0.24 liter (l)1 liter (l) 0.26 gallon (gal)1 pint (pt) 0.47 liter (l)1 quart (qt) 0.96 liter (l)1 gallon (gal) 3.8 liters (l)331 cubic meter (m ) 36 cubic feet (cu ft, ft )3331 cubic meter (m ) 1.3 cubic yards (cu yd, yd )1 cubic foot (cu ft, ft ) 0.03 cubic meter (m )331 cubic yard (cu yd, yd ) 0.76 cubic meter (m )TEMPERATURE (EXACT)3TEMPERATURE (EXACT)[(x-32)(5/9)] F y C[(9/5) y 32] C x FQUICK INCH - CENTIMETER LENGTH 3QUICK FAHRENHEIT - CELSIUS TEMPERATURE CONVERSION F -40 -22 -4 14 32 50 68 86 104 122 C -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 140 158 176 194 212 60 70 80 90 100 For more exact and or other conversion factors, see NIST Miscellaneous Publication 286, Units of Weights andUpdated 6/17/98Measures. Price 2.50 SD Catalog No. C13 10286-v-
This page is intentionally left blank- vi -
Urban Maglev Technology Development ProgramColorado Maglev ProjectComparison of Linear Synchronous and Induction MotorsFTA Project FTA-DC-26-7002.2004.01June 24, 2004Ronald J. KayeSandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87185-11821Prof. Eisuke MasadaScience University of Tokyo, Noda-shi, Chiba, Japan, 278-8510AbstractA Propulsion Trade Study was conducted as part of the Colorado Maglev Project of FTA’sUrban Maglev Technology Development Program to identify and evaluate prospective linearmotor designs that could potentially meet the system performance requirements of the ColoradoDept. of Transportation (CDOT) Project, and be applicable to other urban maglev transitcorridors. The study focused primarily on the performance of the linear induction motor (LIM)propulsion system of the Chubu HSST (CHSST) that had been selected as the baselinetechnology for that project. Potential near-term improvements and modifications to thatpropulsion system have been considered and appear feasible. This report compares therelative advantages and disadvantages of that linear induction motor and mature linearsynchronous motor options for urban and suburban maglev transit systems.1Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin Company, for the UnitedStates Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94-AL85000.-1-
This page is intentionally left blank-2-
TABLE OF CONTENTS1INTRODUCTION . 42SHORT-STATOR LINEAR INDUCTION MOTOR DRIVE. 4342.1Basic configuration .42.2Advantages .72.3Disadvantages .7LONG-STATOR LINEAR SYNCHRONOUS MOTOR DRIVE. 83.1Basic configuration .83.2Advantages .103.3Disadvantages .113.4Alternative LSM design.123.5Permanent magnet linear synchronous motor .13COMPARISON BETWEEN MOTOR DRIVES . 154.1Flexibility to variable and uncertain demand.154.2Reliability of operation.164.3Capital cost .164.4Operational cost .195CONCLUSION. 206REFERENCES . 21-3-
1INTRODUCTIONA Propulsion Trade Study was conducted as part of the Colorado Maglev Project of FTA’sUrban Maglev Technology Development Program to identify and evaluate prospective linearmotor designs that could potentially meet the system performance requirements of the ColoradoDept. of Transportation (CDOT) Project, and be applicable to other urban maglev transitcorridors.[1] The study focused primarily on the performance of the linear induction motor (LIM)propulsion system of the Chubu HSST (CHSST) that had been selected as the project baselinetechnology. Potential near-term improvements to that propulsion system have been consideredand reported.[2] These modifications have been reviewed by CHSST and Toyo Denki Inc., andtheir implementation appears feasible. This report compares the relative advantages anddisadvantages of the linear induction and linear synchronous motor options for urban andsuburban maglev transit systems.For maglev applications, two specific configurations of these linear motors are considered thathave been practically tested and applied: the short-stator linear induction motor and the longstator linear synchronous motor. Conversely, the long-stator linear induction motor utilizes anarmature winding in the guideway creating the traveling wave, and a short, reaction rail on thevehicle. This technique has been utilized for drives in factory transportation systems, howeverits performance as a public transportation system is inferior to the linear synchronous motor withsimilar structure. Likewise, the short-stator linear synchronous drive with an armature windingon the vehicle creating the traveling wave, and discrete field windings distributed along theguideway has a complicated guideway structure that is too difficult to negotiate with the routeprofile of a transportation system, and is economically impractical. The inductor-type linearsynchronous motor has also been considered by many researchers, but the increase of vehicleweight and complexity of the rail structure makes this system impractical for commercialsystems. The following discussion focuses on the comparison between the short-stator, linearinduction motor drive and the long-stator linear synchronous motor drive, in particular, the mostmature drives presently being installed and implemented for transportation, which are the LIMdriven, Chubu HSST and LSM-driven Transrapid maglev systems. Both of these systems useiron-core propulsion motors with relatively small (10-15 mm) propulsion air gaps, andelectromagnetic-type (EMS) levitation.2SHORT-STATOR LINEAR INDUCTION MOTOR DRIVE2.1 Basic configurationThe LIM was developed and is utilized for the Chubu HSST (Maglev) and Linear Metro (Subwaysupported by the conventional wheels-rail system) for urban transport in Japan. [3,4,5,6] It isalso used by Bombardier Transportation in the driverless Advanced Rapid Transit (ART) systemto access New York's JFK International Airport. Similar systems are operating in Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia, and on the SkyTrain Millennium Line, in Vancouver, Canada. There also is, or hasbeen, limited scale applications with the Birmingham Maglev (United Kingdom), Otis PeopleMover, H-Bahn Dortmund (Germany), and the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries People Mover(Hiroshima, Japan).The basic system construction of the short-stator linear induction motor (LIM) drive is shown inFigures 1-4. Figure 1 shows the Chubu HSST maglev vehicles that are being installed on theTobu Kyuryo Line in Nagoya, Japan as part of a 9 km urban transit line. Four propulsion--4-
levitation modules are located on each side of each vehicle that wrap around the guidewaylevitation-reaction rail. Each vehicle module contains a LIM motor above the aluminum reactionrail and four levitation magnets that pull the vehicle up to the steel section of the guideway rail.Figure 3 shows a side-view cross-section of the LIM with the 3-phase primary windingembedded in the LIM core on the vehicle and the guideway’s aluminum sheet and steel thatform the secondary circuit of the motor.Figure 1: HSST Linimo maglev vehicles for the Tobu Kyuryo Line in Nagoya, JapanLIMGuidewayReaction andlevitation railLevitation magnetCoil on iron coreFigure 2: Close-up of propulsion/levitation module for LIM.-5-
zPrimary winding and core on vehicleBackiron in guidewaySecondary conductorFigure 3: Side-view, cross-section of single-sided LIM components.Utility GridPower le FrequencyPower ConverterShort Stator of LIMAC – DCPowerConverter orTransformerConducting SheetPassive Reaction Rail on GroundBack-IronFigure 4: Block diagram of the power circuit for the LIM.The power feeder shown in Figure 4 is a solid rail carrying DC power (or AC single-phase) suchas is currently used in conventional railways. The power collectors are the vehicle’s sliding orwheel contacts to the power feeder. Sliding collectors have been operated up to 130 kph at theCHSST Nagoya test track, though testing facilities for higher speed operation exists at theRailway Technical Research Institute (RTRI) Test Track in Kokubunji, Tokyo. Wheeledcollectors have been tested up to 200 kph at the RTRI for the DC linear motor car project.The on-board power converter conditions the input DC or AC power from the power feeder tothe appropriate variable-voltage, variable-frequency, multi-phase power needed for LIMoperation. The converter also contains input and output filters. This equipment is widely usedin conventional high-speed urban railways. The linear induction motor as shown is a singlesided structure that generates a non-uniform normal force, side force, and rotational momentson the LIM. Its operation is less efficient compared to conventional rotary induction motorsbecause of the large air gap between the on-board stator and guideway rail resulting in a highleakage flux. This motor has been used in public transportation by the HSST and Linear MetroSubway in Japan. A double-sided LIM with stator windings and cores on both sides of theguideway reaction rail was developed and tested, but the geometry is very difficult to implementwith a small clearance gap.Finally, the passive reaction rail in the guideway consists of an aluminum or copper platebacked by iron. It is structurally very simple, and can be integrated with the levitation rail as isthe case with the HSST. The rail’s performance and durability has been tested thoroughly forthe development of the HSST maglev system and the steel-wheel Linear Metro subway incooperation with the Japanese Ministry of Transportation.-6-
2.2 AdvantagesA significant advantage of the LIM drive is that the on-board power conditioning system andconstruction is very similar to that used in conventional urban and high speed electric railwayvehicles. This is important from several perspectives. Many of the power conditioningequipment system sections and components are common, and there exists a significantdatabase of practical experience and design with manufacturers and line operators. The basictechnology has been well established, and the technical step to move from rotary inductionmotor drives for steel-wheel vehicles to LIM propulsion is not large. The incentive for thistransition to LIM propulsion is the all-weather capability to negotiate tight curves and steepgrades, and meet precise stopping requirements with high deceleration that is not possible withpower-driven steel-wheels. From the perspective of the public consumer, the transition providesimprovement in service and ride quality, and meets their expectations of safety and reliability fortransit systems.The LIM utilizes a very simple reaction rail track, hot-rail power pickup on the vehicle, andpassive guideway rails which simplifies the track switches. The reaction rail can be installeddiscretely along the track, if needed. Vehicles with different design and performanceparameters are easily adaptable without changes to the guideway within the guideway load(electrical and mechanical) limits. The guideway can provide small radius horizontal andvertical curves, and a bending switch similar to monorail is applicable. The simple, passiveguideway system has been shown to be as safe and reliable as a conventional rail track.A LIM-driven transit system has a great degree of flexibility to respond to variable or uncertaindemand. This includes adjusting the number and size of vehicles on a short-term or long-termbasis. In the short term, the ability to add and move vehicles provides rapid response capabilityfor the operator to volatile demand and the recovery from any off-normal shutdown or scheduledeviation. In the long-term, if additional power is needed to accommodate an upgrade in thesystem capacity, the impact to the guideway is almost negligible with the addition of way-sidepower electrification and conditioning equipment. To meet operational requirements, the blockcontrol can be easily adjusted with little, if any, modification to the civil structures.2.3 DisadvantagesIn general, the energy efficiency of the LIM is lower than the rotary induction motor and theLSM. With the rotary induction motor the air gap between the stator winding and the rotor ismuch smaller (few millimeters) since the gap does not vary which resulting in greater efficiency.Air gaps of 10-15 mm are used for LIM drives due to clearance requirements with a varying gapfrom the vehicle suspension. The on-board LIM primary winding provides all the power thatgenerates the gap field and the induced currents in the reaction rail. As such, with the larger airgap, the efficiency is lower than the LSM which uses electro or permanent magnets for the fieldwinding. The weight and size of the on-board power conditioning equipment must also be largeras must the size of the wayside power systems. This increase in weight is what limits theoperational speed capability of the LIM-driven system to 200 – 250 kph since the weight penaltymakes higher spee
disadvantages of the linear induction and linear synchronous motor options for urban and suburban maglev transit systems. For maglev applications, two specific configurations of these linear motors are considered that have been practically tested and applied: the short-stator linear induction motor and the long-stator linear synchronous motor.
Synchronous Classroom User Guide Page 2 of 11 System and Equipment Set Up Synchronous Classroom PetroSkills uses WebEx Training Center as our Synchronous Classroom. Before attending a Synchronous course your computer needs to be properly set
SYNCHRONOUS RELUCTANCE MOTOR (SyRM) (or) SYNREL MOTOR The PM synchronous motor operates as a synchronous reluctance motor, if the magnets are left out or demagnetized .i.e. the synchronous reluctance motors do not have any field winding or permanent magnet on the rotor. The rotor has salien
SKF Linear Motion linear rail INA Linear SKF Linear Motion Star Linear Thomson Linear linear sysTems Bishop-Wisecarver INA Linear Pacific Bearing Thomson Linear mecHanical acTuaTors Duff-Norton Joyce/Dayton Nook Industries Precision mecHanical comPonenTs PIC Design Stock Drive Product
2 Dyneo Synchronous motors combining reluctance and permanent magnets Dyneo Synchronous motors combining reluctance and permanent magnets - 5729 en - 2020.03 / a This catalogue presents the synchronous motors combining reluctance and permanent magnets of the Dyneo range,
COVID-19 has forced a learning model on us that is neither on-campus and synchronous nor online and asynchronous. Instead, it is an online synchronous class that attempts to replicate the on-campus synchronous experience. My MITx experience was invaluable in helping me realize how hard this transition would be.
SYNCHRONOUS MOTORS About Kollmorgen Kollmorgen is a Danaher company, and is recognized worldwide as the leading manufacturer of synchronous motors. Over 40 years ago, Kollmorgen developed and patented their synchronous motor
1 II. Synchronous Generators Synchronous machines. are principally used as . alternating current (AC) generators. They supply the electric power used by all sectors of modern societies: industrial, commercial, agricultural, and domestic. Synchronous generators. usually operate together (or in parallel), forming a
Introduction 1 Part I Ancient Greek Criticism 7 Classical Literary Criticism: Intellectual and Political Backgrounds 9 1 Plato (428–ca. 347 bc)19 2 Aristotle (384–322 bc)41 Part II The Traditions of Rhetoric 63 3 Greek Rhetoric 65 Protagoras, Gorgias, Antiphon, Lysias, Isocrates, Plato, Aristotle 4 The Hellenistic Period and Roman Rhetoric 80 Rhetorica, Cicero, Quintilian Part III Greek .
