This invention relates generally to the control of electric motors and more specifically to the control of linear Lorentz-Type actuator motors.
Lorentz-type motors exploit the basic principle that a charged particle moving in a magnetic field experiences a force in a direction perpendicular to the direction of movement. Stated mathematically: F=qvXB, where F is force, q is the charge of the charged particle, v is the instantaneous velocity of the particle, and B is the magnetic field. So, if a current is flowing through a wire and a magnetic field is applied in perpendicular direction, the wire experiences a force trying to move it sideways.
A simple configuration that harnesses this principle is a coil encircling a magnetic core made of permanent magnets. The coil, referred to as the actuator, is arranged to be capable of sliding back and forth along the length of the magnetic core or magnetic stator. In that configuration, flowing a current though the coil results in a force on the coil pushing it in one direction along the length of the magnetic core. Reversing the direction of current flow causes the coil to move in the opposite direction. The magnitude of the current determines the strength of the force. And the shape of the current waveform determines how the force changes over time. With such an arrangement, by applying an appropriate current waveform to the coil, one can make the coil move back and forth along the magnetic core in a controlled manner. The controlled movement of the actuator can, in turn, be used to perform work.
The subject of this application is the design and operation of a hub-mounted motor assembly so as to minimize torque ripple. The hub-mounted motor is a linear Lorentz-type actuator motor. Before discussing the design and operation of the hub-mounted motor assembly, a brief review of the linear Lorentz-type actuator motor will be presented. A more detailed discussion can be found in U.S. Ser. No. 12/590,495, entitled “Electric Motor,” and incorporated herein in its entirety by reference.
The Linear Lorentz-Type Actuator Motor
The linear Lorentz-type actuator motor is a rotary device 100 that is mounted inside a wheel on a vehicle, as illustrated in
Magnetic stator assembly 120 depicted in
Rotary device 100 also includes a plurality of shafts 130a, 130b, coupled to a bearing support structure 165. Electromagnetic actuators 110a, 110b slide along the shafts using, for example, linear bearings. Attached to each electromagnetic actuator 110a, 110b is a pair of followers 135a-d that interface with cam 105 to convert their linear motion to rotary motion of the cam. To reduce friction, followers 135a-d freely rotate so as to roll over the surfaces of cam 105 during the operating cycle. Followers 135a-d are attached to electromagnetic actuators 110a, 110b via, for example, the actuators' housings. As electromagnetic actuators 110a, 110b reciprocate, the force exerted by followers 135a-d on cam 105 drives cam 105 in rotary motion.
After coils 115a, 115b have reached their closest distance to each other and cam 105, in this case, has rotated ninety degrees, coils 115a, 115b begin to move away from each other and drive cam 105 to continue to rotate clockwise. As coils 115a, 115b move away from each other, inner followers 135b, 135d exert force on cam 105 by pushing outward on cam 105.
It is noted that cam 105 is shown in the figures as an oval shape, but it may have a more complex shape, such as, for example, a shape having an even number of lobes, as illustrated in
Analysis of Torque
The motor consists of circular disk with an outer cam and inner cam. Two cam followers linked to a coil can create a radial force on the cam. The force exerted by the cam followers in turn creates a torque on the disk.
The idealized equation for the Torque Tc(θ) generated by the cam follower is given by the following equation:
where Fc(θ) is the radial force generated by the cam follower, and Rc(θ) is the distance of the cam follower from the center of the disk. As noted above, in the motor, the force is generated from a current running in a coil and interacting with a magnetic field.
If the force is constant throughout a half stroke and the slope defining the position of the cam follower as a function of the wheel angle is also constant, that produces a torque that is constant throughout the cycle. The two dimensional shape of the cam would then be as depicted in
In FIG. (1), θ is the position (rotation) of the wheel in radians and the disk has four lobes. The cam follower exerts a vertical force as indicated by the arrow. The position of the cam in polar coordinates is given by the curve shown in
Although this cam profile easily lends itself to a drive signal that yields a constant torque, it presents two major drawbacks: the need to instantaneously change the coil velocity at the end of the cam motion and the need to instantaneously change the current that generates the force exerted by the cam.
The approximate equation giving the force required to accelerate and decelerate the coil is:
where Mc is the mass of the coil. At the extremes of the stroke motion, the term
is theoretically infinite, which means in practice that the coil would undergo an unacceptably high shock due to the abrupt deceleration and acceleration.
Instantaneously changing the current also presents technical challenges, given that the current flows through a coil with a significant inductance. A linear approximation of the voltage required to change the current in the coil is given by:
where Vc(t) is the voltage required across the coil as a function of the required change in coil current Ic(t), Rc is the coil resistance, Lc is the coil inductance and Vemf(t) is the back electromotive force generated by the coil as it moves through a changing magnetic field. Here again, given the discontinuity in the current the voltage across the coil would tend to infinity.
One partial solution is to change the cam profile such that its second derivative is finite and continuous at all points, i.e., it has a third order derivative. One example of such a cam profile would be a sinusoidal shape. In such a case, the cam profile would be given by the equation:
Rc(θ)=RO+Ac·sin(n1·θ) Eq. 4
where R0 is the circle around which the cam evolves (mean position), Ac is the cam amplitude and n1 is the number of lobes or number of strokes per revolution. The cam profile then looks like what is shown in
In this case the force to be generated by the coil is given by:
However, the derivative of the cam position Rc(θ) is null at the end of the strokes, hence the required force would also diverge to infinity. This remains true for any cam profile. If there is only one cam, the corollary is that it would not be self-starting if the initial position occurs when the cam follower is at the end of a stroke.
Using multiple cams such that their null points are spaced apart circumvents the problem. In the simplest example, there would be two cams on a disk, each on opposite side.
A wheel which implements this approach is shown in
The disc 1635 includes two cams, one on either side of the disc 1635. In this example, each cam of the device is in the form of a grove that includes an inner surface 1605a and an outer surface 1605b. Coupled to electromagnetic actuators 1510a and 1510b are two pairs of followers 1625a, 1625b, the different followers of each pair interfacing with a respective surface 1605a, 1605b of the cam. Electromagnetic actuators 1610a and 1610b are similarly coupled to followers. As the coils move towards each other, one of the followers of each electromagnetic actuator 1510a, 1510b exerts force on the inner surface 1605a of the cam. As the coils move away from each other, the other follower exerts force on the outer surface 1605b of the cam.
Minimizing Torque Ripple
Returning to the description of the technique for minimizing torque ripple, we direct the reader's attention to an example using two four lobe cams, which is illustrated in
Note that the profiles are not mirror images but are in quadrature and that they consist of the same basic profile Rc(x) but “shifted” with respect to each other. Assuming that nc is the number of lobes in the cam, i.e. the number of times that a basic function Rc(x) is repeated within one full circle, and that the derivative of the cam profile is given by Ψc(nc·θ), the equation for the torque provided by the summation of the torques Φ(θ) of the individual cams would be:
T=Φ(nc·θ)+Φ(nc·θ+Δ) Eq. 6
T=Fc(nc·θ)·Ψ(nc·θ)+Fc(nc·θ+Δ)·Ψ(nc·θ+Δ) Eq. 7
And typically Δ corresponds to one quarter of a lobe, i.e.
This leads to the following question: what is the family of functions Φ(θ)=Fc(θ)·Ψc(θ) such that total torque is constant (i.e., ripple free) when at least two out-of-phase cams and actuators are used. This equation implies that the function Φ(θ) has a periodicity of 2·Δ:
Φ(θ)=T−Φ(θ+Δ) Eq. 8
Φ(θ+Δ)=T−Φ(θ+2·Δ) Eq. 9
Substituting:
Φ(θ)=T−(T−Φ(θ+2·Δ))=Φ(θ+2·Δ) Eq. 10
Which is as required, i.e. the function Φ(θ) is periodic, with a period that is double that of the period of one full cam cycle. This still leaves the ensemble of functions quite large. For reasons of symmetry, it is reasonable to require that:
Φ(θ)=Φ(−θ) Eq. 11
And we can also assume that the cam reaches its extremum at θ=0 and θ=Δ. Hence, the class of functions Φ(θ) that we are seeking has the following properties:
We also know that the function Φ(θ) is the product of two other functions, Fc(θ) and Ψ(θ), where Ψ(θ) must have a first order derivative, such that the cam profile given by:
Rc(θ)=∫Ψ(θ)dθ Eq. 12
Intuitively it would also be desirable that the functions Fc(θ), Rc(θ) and Ψ(θ) have the same symmetry. Therefore one reasonable question to ask is would there be a function such that Fc(θ) and Ψ(θ) are the same function? In this case:
T=Ψ2(nc·θ)+Ψ2(nc·θ+Δ) Eq. 13
which is the basic equation of a right triangle.
Here the components in quadrature can be viewed as the sides of a right triangle, such that one is a sine of an angle and the other one the cosine of the angle:
In conclusion, if the shape of the cam is a sine function, its derivative is a cosine function, its derivative is a sine function, and if the current waveform is also a sine function then the two components in quadrature sum up to a constant torque with no ripple.
In principle, there is an infinite number of functions Fc(θ), Rc(θ) and Ψ(θ) leading to a constant torque. In practice, the choice is rather limited, given that we must have:
And when both Φ(θ) and Ψ(θ) tend to zero, the ratio must also converge to zero. We also require to a first order derivative. It becomes a non-trivial exercise to find other functions besides the sinusoidal type function to meet these criteria, and they typically end up very close to a trigonometric function. However, in the modern day of microprocessor based digital control where computation time is a prime consideration such alternate functions might have a benefit.
One of the simplest examples of an alternate approach would be to use piece-wise quadratic functions for Φ1(θ) and Ψ1(θ), as given in this MathCAD recursive representation, omitting for the time being the number of lobes in the equations:
where Φ1(θ) is shown in
where Ψ1(θ) is shown in
The resulting force profile F1 calculated from the ratio of Φ1 to Ψ1 is outlined in
Finally, the CAM profile R1 is computed from the integral of Ψ1 and compared to a trigonometric function in
Although difficult to prove, it is to be expected that all CAM shapes and force profiles that are well behaved in terms of symmetry and smoothness would all be very close in shape to trigonometric functions. Only two CAMs in quadrature were analyzed here, the same approach could be used for other even numbers of CAMS.
In actual practice, although it is easy to generate a CAM with a precise triangular function, it is more difficult to generate a force profile that is a sinusoidal. For an idealized Lorentz force actuator assuming a constant magnetic induction B, this would translate in generating an exact current profile with a sinusoidal function. However, in practice the magnetic induction B is not constant and depends on the geometry of the permanent magnets used to generate the field. Furthermore, the field generated by magnets depends on the temperature and is also influenced by the current flowing in the motor coil. All of these effects must be carefully modeled to generate a current that truly minimizes ripple.
A typical control system is depicted in
From a wheel rotary encoder 506, the angular and radial position of the coil and cam follower are calculated. From the cam follower position, the desired force to be generated by the coil is calculated from a function Fc(θ). The desired current required to produce this force is equal to the current in the coil times the magnetic induction. Since the magnetic induction B is not exactly uniform, it has to be estimated from model 502 using the motor temperature, coil current, and relative position of the coil with respect to the permanent magnets.
The desired current is converted to a pulse modulation width. This is done in two steps. First from the model of the coil dynamics, a voltage required across the coil to obtain the desired current in the coil is calculated. Then, a model of the power electronics is required to calculate the switching duty cycle based on the desired voltage, the supply voltage, the actual current in the coil and the voltage across the coil.
So far the control is all feed forward model based. However, the models have a certain level of inaccuracy, so feedback is used to correct between the desired current and measured current.
An alternative approach to generating the desired force profile is by measuring the force that is generated and directly controlling that force using a feedback control on current, as summarized in
Other embodiments are within the following claims.
This application claims the benefit or priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/524,089, filed Aug. 16, 2011, the entire disclosure of which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
1886040 | Moodyman | Nov 1932 | A |
4618808 | Ish-Shalom | Oct 1986 | A |
4684834 | Hartman, Sr. | Aug 1987 | A |
5276372 | Hammer | Jan 1994 | A |
5345206 | Morcos | Sep 1994 | A |
6278204 | Frenette | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6294891 | McConnell | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6575078 | Wright et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
7950356 | Hyde | May 2011 | B2 |
20070120432 | Vaden et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20080067968 | Binnard | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20090090334 | Hyde et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090091196 | Cooper | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20110108339 | Hunter | May 2011 | A1 |
20130093265 | Hunter et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
101388589 | Mar 2009 | CN |
1098429 | May 2001 | EP |
2344223 | May 2000 | GB |
Entry |
---|
International Search Report and Written Opinion issued by the European Patent Office as the International Searching Authority in corresponding International Application No. PCT/US12/51131, mailed Sep. 4, 2013 (14 pgs.). |
European Search Report issued on EP12807528, dated Oct. 16, 2015 (7 pages). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130093265 A1 | Apr 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61524089 | Aug 2011 | US |