Permanent Magnet Wind Generator Technologyfor Battery Charging Wind Energy Systems
Casper J. J. Labuschagne, Maarten J. Kamper
Electrical Machines LaboratoryDept of Electrical and Electronic Engineering
Stellenbosch University
September 2018
(Stellenbosch University) 1 / 39
Outline
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Wind Turbine Battery Charging System
3 Steady-State FE Simulation Method
4 Optimisation
5 Simulation Results
6 Optimisation Results
7 Conclusions
8 Extras
(Stellenbosch University) 2 / 39
Introduction
Introduction
(Stellenbosch University) 3 / 39
Introduction
Active Battery Charging System
I
V
Active
EZ
LC Load
synchronous
rectifier
Figure 1: Single line diagram of PM wind generator connected to active battery chargingsystem with actively synchronous rectifier.
(Stellenbosch University) 4 / 39
Introduction
Passive Battery Charging System
Load
EZ
I
V
Diode rectifier
Figure 2: Single line diagram of PM wind generator connected to passive batterycharging system with uncontrolled diode rectifier.
(Stellenbosch University) 5 / 39
Introduction
PMSG
Permanent magnetsynchronous generatorDirect-driveLow cogging torqueRelatively large internalsynchronous inductance
Figure 3: Cross section of theradial flux outer rotor PMSGconfiguration with surface mountedPMs
(Stellenbosch University) 6 / 39
Introduction
Passive Battery Charging System
Load
EZ Zext
I
V
Diode rectifier
Figure 4: Single line diagram of PM wind generator connected to passive batterycharging system with uncontrolled diode rectifier.
(Stellenbosch University) 7 / 39
Introduction
Passive Battery Charging System
Load
EZ Zext
I
V
αDiode rectifier
VI
E
Figure 5: Single line diagram of PM wind generator connected to passive batterycharging system with uncontrolled diode rectifier.
Static FEA method is proposed to achieve maximum power pointmatching for a turbine-specific design using an external inductance.
(Stellenbosch University) 8 / 39
Introduction
Active Battery Charging System
I
V
Active
EZ
LC Load
synchronous
rectifier
Figure 6: Single line diagram of PM wind generator connected to active battery chargingsystem with actively synchronous rectifier.
(Stellenbosch University) 9 / 39
Wind Turbine Battery Charging System
Wind Turbine Battery Charging System
(Stellenbosch University) 10 / 39
Wind Turbine Battery Charging System
Power Matching
0 100 200 300 400 500 6000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
13 m/s
12 m/s
11 m/s
10 m/s9 m/s
8 m/s
Turbine speed (r/min)
Powe
r(k
W)
Passive
Figure 7: Wind turbine power versus turbine speed curves with wind speed a parameter,and operating power curves for passive and active systems.
(Stellenbosch University) 11 / 39
Wind Turbine Battery Charging System
Power Matching
0 100 200 300 400 500 6000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
13 m/s
12 m/s
11 m/s
10 m/s9 m/s
8 m/s
Turbine speed (r/min)
Powe
r(k
W)
Passive
Optimum
Figure 7: Wind turbine power versus turbine speed curves with wind speed a parameter,and operating power curves for passive and active systems.
(Stellenbosch University) 11 / 39
Wind Turbine Battery Charging System
Power Matching
0 100 200 300 400 500 6000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
nc
13 m/s
12 m/s
11 m/s
10 m/s9 m/s
8 m/s
Turbine speed (r/min)
Powe
r(k
W)
Passive
Optimum
Figure 7: Wind turbine power versus turbine speed curves with wind speed a parameter,and operating power curves for passive and active systems.
(Stellenbosch University) 11 / 39
Wind Turbine Battery Charging System
Power Matching
0 100 200 300 400 500 6000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
nr
nc
13 m/s
12 m/s
11 m/s
10 m/s9 m/s
8 m/s
Turbine speed (r/min)
Powe
r(k
W)
Passive
Optimum
Figure 7: Wind turbine power versus turbine speed curves with wind speed a parameter,and operating power curves for passive and active systems.
(Stellenbosch University) 11 / 39
Wind Turbine Battery Charging System
System Requirements
Table 1: Wind generator operating points for passive battery charging system
nc nr
Wind speed 3 m/s 12 m/sTurbine speed 100 r/min 320 r/minPower 0 kW 4.2 kW
(Stellenbosch University) 12 / 39
Steady-State FE Simulation Method
Steady-State FE Simulation Method
(Stellenbosch University) 13 / 39
Steady-State FE Simulation Method
Steady-State FE Simulation Method
State of the PMSG? (α = ∆)
External Inductance Lext?
(Stellenbosch University) 14 / 39
Steady-State FE Simulation Method
Static FEA Iterations
q
dIs
Vs
(α 6= ∆)
1st Iteration
(Stellenbosch University) 15 / 39
Steady-State FE Simulation Method
Static FEA Iterations
q
dIs
Vs
(α 6= ∆)
1st Iteration
q
d
IsVs
(α 6= ∆)
2nd Iteration
(Stellenbosch University) 15 / 39
Steady-State FE Simulation Method
Static FEA Iterations
q
dIs
Vs
(α 6= ∆)
1st Iteration
q
d
IsVs
(α 6= ∆)
2nd Iteration
q
d
Is
Vs
(α ≈ ∆)
3rd Iteration
(Stellenbosch University) 15 / 39
Steady-State FE Simulation Method
External Inductance Calculation
External Inductance LextLext = L1 Lext = L2 Lext = L3
(Stellenbosch University) 16 / 39
Steady-State FE Simulation Method
External Inductance Calculation
y
f2(y)Pg(L1)
L1
Figure 8: Second degree polynomial obtained from curve fitting of the static FEAsolutions, and calculating Lext from the rated power Pg.
(Stellenbosch University) 17 / 39
Steady-State FE Simulation Method
External Inductance Calculation
y
f2(y)Pg(L1)
L1
Pg(L2)
L2
Figure 8: Second degree polynomial obtained from curve fitting of the static FEAsolutions, and calculating Lext from the rated power Pg.
(Stellenbosch University) 17 / 39
Steady-State FE Simulation Method
External Inductance Calculation
y
f2(y)Pg(L1)
L1
Pg(L2)
L2
Pg(L3)
L3
Figure 8: Second degree polynomial obtained from curve fitting of the static FEAsolutions, and calculating Lext from the rated power Pg.
(Stellenbosch University) 17 / 39
Steady-State FE Simulation Method
External Inductance Calculation
y
f2(y)Pg(L1)
L1
Pg(L2)
L2
Pg(L3)
L3
Figure 8: Second degree polynomial obtained from curve fitting of the static FEAsolutions, and calculating Lext from the rated power Pg.
(Stellenbosch University) 17 / 39
Steady-State FE Simulation Method
External Inductance Calculation
y
f2(y)Pg(L1)
L1
Pg(L2)
L2
Pg(L3)
L3Lext
4.2 kW
Figure 8: Second degree polynomial obtained from curve fitting of the static FEAsolutions, and calculating Lext from the rated power Pg.
(Stellenbosch University) 17 / 39
Steady-State FE Simulation Method
Static FEA method
Design for cut-in point. (1)Solve for Lext = L1. (3)Solve for Lext = L2. (3)Solve for Lext = L3. (3)Determine actual Lext.Solve PMSG. (3)Evaluate final performance.
(Stellenbosch University) 18 / 39
Optimisation
Optimisation
(Stellenbosch University) 19 / 39
Optimisation
Figure 9: Cross section of the double layernon-overlap winding PMSG indicating the relevantdimensions for design and optimisation.
X =
do
hrotor
hmag
θmag
hslot
wtooth
hstator
l
(1)
(Stellenbosch University) 20 / 39
Optimisation
Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II
Performance constraints
U =
Pgen
η
J
=
4.2kW≥ 90%
≤ 6A/mm2
Objective function
minimise F(X) =
Mactive(X)MPM (X)
(Stellenbosch University) 21 / 39
Simulation Results
Simulation Results
(Stellenbosch University) 22 / 39
Simulation Results
Simulation ResultsEffect of Lext on power point matchingEffect of number of polesEffect of generator sizeStatic FEA performance
(Stellenbosch University) 23 / 39
Simulation Results
Effect of Lext on Power Point Matching
0 100 200 300 400 500 6000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
13 m/s
12 m/s
11 m/s
10 m/s9 m/s
8 m/s
Turbine speed (r/min)
Powe
r(k
W)
Lext = 0 mH (G1)
Figure 10: Power matching of the 28/30 wind generator (G1 and G∗1) with Lext a
parameter.
(Stellenbosch University) 24 / 39
Simulation Results
Effect of Lext on Power Point Matching
0 100 200 300 400 500 6000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
13 m/s
12 m/s
11 m/s
10 m/s9 m/s
8 m/s
Turbine speed (r/min)
Powe
r(k
W)
Lext = 0 mH (G1)Lext = 2.84 mH (G1)
Figure 10: Power matching of the 28/30 wind generator (G1 and G∗1) with Lext a
parameter.
(Stellenbosch University) 24 / 39
Simulation Results
Effect of Lext on Power Point Matching
0 100 200 300 400 500 6000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
13 m/s
12 m/s
11 m/s
10 m/s9 m/s
8 m/s
Turbine speed (r/min)
Powe
r(k
W)
Lext = 3.86 mH (G∗1)
Lext = 2.84 mH (G1)Lext = 0 mH (G1)
Figure 10: Power matching of the 28/30 wind generator (G1 and G∗1) with Lext a
parameter.
(Stellenbosch University) 24 / 39
Simulation Results
Table 2: Static FEA results for 28/30 pole PMSG.
G1 G2 G∗1
Pg , kW 4.22 4.25 3.86fs, Hz 74.67 74.67 116.67Turns per winding, Ns 14 10 14Vrms 23.5 23.6 23.65J , A/mm2 4.67 3.29 4.37α 54.4◦ 54.4◦ 68.8◦
η, % 90.4 92.4 88.6Xs, p.u. 0.58 0.46 0.83Xext, p.u. 1.88 1.99 3.59Lext, mH 2.84 3.06 3.74Xext/Xs 3.26 4.33 4.32Outer Diameter, mm 384 384 384Axial Length, mm 70.55 100 70.55Mactive 22.08 32.1 22.7MP M 2.77 3.72 2.63
(Stellenbosch University) 25 / 39
Optimisation Results
Optimisation Results
(Stellenbosch University) 26 / 39
Optimisation Results
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 30
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PM Mass (kg)
Activ
eM
ass
(kg)
PassiveActive
Optimum
Figure 11: Pareto fronts of PM mass versus active mass of the PMSGs for the passiveand acive systems, with the chosen optimal design points indicated.
(Stellenbosch University) 27 / 39
Optimisation Results
Table 3: Design optimisation results and component ratios
Parameters Passive Active Pas:Act
Outer diameter, do (mm) 384 350 1:0.91Stator height, hrotor (mm) 6.8 4.74 1:0.70Magnet height, hmag (mm) 6.2 3 1:0.48Magnet pitch, θmag (%) 0.7 0.7 1:1Slot height, hslot (mm) 35.1 31.6 1:0.90Tooth width, wtooth (mm) 12 8 1:0.67Rotor height, hstator (mm) 5.8 4.125 1:0.71Axial length, l (mm) 70.55 50 1:0.71Active iron mass (kg) 14.24 6.41 1:0.45Copper mass (kg) 5.07 3.76 1:0.74PM mass (kg) 2.77 0.88 1:0.32Total active mass (kg) 22.08 11.05 1:0.50External reactance, Xext (p.u.) 1.88 -Current density, (A/mm2) 4.67 6.0Current angle, α (degrees) 54.4 0Rated power, Pg (kW) 4.22 4.26Efficiency, η (%) 90.4 90
(Stellenbosch University) 28 / 39
Optimisation Results
Figure 12: To scale representation of the optimised PMSGs in Table 3 for (a) passiveand (b) active systems.
(Stellenbosch University) 29 / 39
Conclusions
Conclusions
(Stellenbosch University) 30 / 39
Conclusions
Conclusions
Static FE Simulation MethodPassive charging systems have poor power matching with no externalinductance.The proposed method is accurate and not computationally expensive.For maximum power point matching using non-overlap windingmachines, Xext/Xs is about a factor 4.Higher frequency generators require a much reduced externalinductance, although slightly less efficiency.The proposed calculation method can be used excellently to do awind site specific design optimization of the system, maximizingannual wind energy harvesting and minimizing generator and externalinductance sizes.
(Stellenbosch University) 31 / 39
Conclusions
Conclusions
Optimal DesignThe passive system’s generator active mass is almost twice that of theactive system’s generator active mass.The active system generator also outperforms the passive systemgenerator in terms of PM mass, where it is found that the activesystem generator’s PM mass is three times less.The passive system PMSG is more expensive to manufacture and thewind tower structure will most likely also be more expensive. Alsorequires large Lext.The active system requires an LC filter and an expensive rectifier withcomplex position-sensorless control.
(Stellenbosch University) 32 / 39
Thank you
Thank you.
Contact: Casper LabuschagneE-mail: [email protected]
(Stellenbosch University) 33 / 39
Extras
Effect of Number of Poles
(a) (b)
Figure 13: Different pole-slot configurations for PMSG where (a) 28/30 pole-slotcombination and (b) 56/60 pole-slot combination.
(Stellenbosch University) 34 / 39
Extras
Table 4: Static FEA results for 28/30 pole PMSG and 56/60 pole PMSGs.
G1 G2 G∗1 G3 G4
Pg , kW 4.22 4.25 3.86 4.20 4.25fs, Hz 74.67 74.67 116.67 149.33 149.33Turns per winding, Ns 14 10 14 7 5Vrms 23.5 23.6 23.65 24.0 24.0J , A/mm2 4.67 3.29 4.37 4.58 3.15α 54.4◦ 54.4◦ 68.8◦ 54.6◦ 54.7◦
η, % 90.4 92.4 88.6 89.62 90.46Xs, p.u. 0.58 0.46 0.83 0.571 0.449Xext, p.u. 1.88 1.99 3.59 1.87 1.96Lext, mH 2.84 3.06 3.74 1.47 1.61Xext/Xs 3.26 4.33 4.32 3.27 4.37Outer Diameter, mm 384 384 384 384 384Axial Length, mm 70.55 100 70.55 70.55 100Mactive 22.08 32.1 22.7 22.08 32.1MP M 2.77 3.72 2.63 2.77 3.72
(Stellenbosch University) 35 / 39
Extras
Table 4: Static FEA results for 28/30 pole PMSG and 56/60 pole PMSGs.
G1 G2 G∗1 G3 G4
Pg , kW 4.22 4.25 3.86 4.20 4.25fs, Hz 74.67 74.67 116.67 149.33 149.33Turns per winding, Ns 14 10 14 7 5Vrms 23.5 23.6 23.65 24.0 24.0J , A/mm2 4.67 3.29 4.37 4.58 3.15α 54.4◦ 54.4◦ 68.8◦ 54.6◦ 54.7◦
η, % 90.4 92.4 88.6 89.62 90.46Xs, p.u. 0.58 0.46 0.83 0.571 0.449Xext, p.u. 1.88 1.99 3.59 1.87 1.96Lext, mH 2.84 3.06 3.74 1.47 1.61Xext/Xs 3.26 4.33 4.32 3.27 4.37Outer Diameter, mm 384 384 384 384 384Axial Length, mm 70.55 100 70.55 70.55 100Mactive 22.08 32.1 22.7 22.08 32.1MP M 2.77 3.72 2.63 2.77 3.72
(Stellenbosch University) 35 / 39
Extras
Effect of Generator Size
Geometric dimensions held constant.
Axial Length
(Stellenbosch University) 36 / 39
Extras
Table 5: Static FEA results for 28/30 pole PMSG and 56/60 pole PMSGs.
G1 G2 G∗1 G3 G4
Pg , kW 4.22 4.25 3.86 4.20 4.25fs, Hz 74.67 74.67 116.67 149.33 149.33Turns per winding, Ns 14 10 14 7 5Vrms 23.5 23.6 23.65 24.0 24.0J , A/mm2 4.67 3.29 4.37 4.58 3.15α 54.4◦ 54.4◦ 68.8◦ 54.6◦ 54.7◦
η, % 90.4 92.4 88.6 89.62 90.46Xs, p.u. 0.58 0.46 0.83 0.571 0.449Xext, p.u. 1.88 1.99 3.59 1.87 1.96Lext, mH 2.84 3.06 3.74 1.47 1.61Xext/Xs 3.26 4.33 4.32 3.27 4.37Outer Diameter, mm 384 384 384 384 384Axial Length, mm 70.55 100 70.55 70.55 100Mactive 22.08 32.1 22.7 22.08 32.1MP M 2.77 3.72 2.63 2.77 3.72
(Stellenbosch University) 37 / 39
Extras
Table 5: Static FEA results for 28/30 pole PMSG and 56/60 pole PMSGs.
G1 G2 G∗1 G3 G4
Pg , kW 4.22 4.25 3.86 4.20 4.25fs, Hz 74.67 74.67 116.67 149.33 149.33Turns per winding, Ns 14 10 14 7 5Vrms 23.5 23.6 23.65 24.0 24.0J , A/mm2 4.67 3.29 4.37 4.58 3.15α 54.4◦ 54.4◦ 68.8◦ 54.6◦ 54.7◦
η, % 90.4 92.4 88.6 89.62 90.46Xs, p.u. 0.58 0.46 0.83 0.571 0.449Xext, p.u. 1.88 1.99 3.59 1.87 1.96Lext, mH 2.84 3.06 3.74 1.47 1.61Xext/Xs 3.26 4.33 4.32 3.27 4.37Outer Diameter, mm 384 384 384 384 384Axial Length, mm 70.55 100 70.55 70.55 100Mactive 22.08 32.1 22.7 22.08 32.1MP M 2.77 3.72 2.63 2.77 3.72
(Stellenbosch University) 37 / 39
Extras
Table 5: Static FEA results for 28/30 pole PMSG and 56/60 pole PMSGs.
G1 G2 G∗1 G3 G4
Pg , kW 4.22 4.25 3.86 4.20 4.25fs, Hz 74.67 74.67 116.67 149.33 149.33Turns per winding, Ns 14 10 14 7 5Vrms 23.5 23.6 23.65 24.0 24.0J , A/mm2 4.67 3.29 4.37 4.58 3.15α 54.4◦ 54.4◦ 68.8◦ 54.6◦ 54.7◦
η, % 90.4 92.4 88.6 89.62 90.46Xs, p.u. 0.58 0.46 0.83 0.571 0.449Xext, p.u. 1.88 1.99 3.59 1.87 1.96Lext, mH 2.84 3.06 3.74 1.47 1.61Xext/Xs 3.26 4.33 4.32 3.27 4.37Outer Diameter, mm 384 384 384 384 384Axial Length, mm 70.55 100 70.55 70.55 100Mactive 22.08 32.1 22.7 22.08 32.1MP M 2.77 3.72 2.63 2.77 3.72
(Stellenbosch University) 37 / 39
Extras
Table 5: Static FEA results for 28/30 pole PMSG and 56/60 pole PMSGs.
G1 G2 G∗1 G3 G4
Pg , kW 4.22 4.25 3.86 4.20 4.25fs, Hz 74.67 74.67 116.67 149.33 149.33Turns per winding, Ns 14 10 14 7 5Vrms 23.5 23.6 23.65 24.0 24.0J , A/mm2 4.67 3.29 4.37 4.58 3.15α 54.4◦ 54.4◦ 68.8◦ 54.6◦ 54.7◦
η, % 90.4 92.4 88.6 89.62 90.46Xs, p.u. 0.58 0.46 0.83 0.571 0.449Xext, p.u. 1.88 1.99 3.59 1.87 1.96Lext, mH 2.84 3.06 3.74 1.47 1.61Xext/Xs 3.26 4.33 4.32 3.27 4.37Outer Diameter, mm 384 384 384 384 384Axial Length, mm 70.55 100 70.55 70.55 100Mactive 22.08 32.1 22.7 22.08 32.1MP M 2.77 3.72 2.63 2.77 3.72
(Stellenbosch University) 37 / 39
Extras
Static FEA Performance
Table 6: General performance of the static FEA simulations
G1 G3
Mesh Elements 17731 18241FEA iterations 13 13Total simulation time, s 28.8 33.7
(Stellenbosch University) 38 / 39
Extras
Static FEA Performance
Table 6: General performance of the static FEA simulations
G1 G3
Mesh Elements 17731 18241FEA iterations 13 13Total simulation time, s 28.8 33.7
(Stellenbosch University) 38 / 39
Extras
Verification
0 5 10 15 20100
125
150
Mechanical rotation (deg)
Torq
ue(N
m)
TransientStatic
Figure 14: Developed torque versus mechanical rotation obtained from transient(ANSYS Maxwell) and static (SEMFEM) solutions.
(Stellenbosch University) 39 / 39