Design Article
Electric hub motor improves EV range: Part 2—Manufacturability and practical application
Roland Marbot, EZ Consulting
5/5/2011 5:35 PM EDT
Part 1 of this feature described this hub electric motor's basic technology.
To drive the vehicle at speeds faster than 45 km/h (28 mph), a different connecting scheme than shown in Part 1, page 3 of this article is required.
In each group, 16 switches are in series, introducing a series resistance of 3.2 Ω. The current flowing in each stack is (130 – 63) / 3.2 = 21A, generating a motor torque of 260 Nm.
The modulation of this torque can be done by:
- Powering only two wheels
- Powering only one of the two wire networks in each motor (red or green wires in motor cross section, Part 1)
- Powering only one of the two groups of six stacks
- PWM (pulse-width modulation)
This set up can be used up to 90 km/h (56 mph) . For faster speeds, three groups of four stacks have to be used (up to 135 km/h (84 mph)), then four groups of three stacks (up to 180 km/h (112 mph)).
This concept controls the motor torque at any speed, just by introducing switches between the battery and the coils. Losses are limited to joule effect in the switches (and the coils).
Optimizing energetic yield
Careful selection of the switches is key. In this exemple, they are dominant in the generation of the losses, and in the limitation of the torque.
The figure below shows the electric command circuit for all applications (motor and brake). This circuit has to be duplicated to power the two networks in each motor, (shown in Part 1); only one circuit has been drawn here to clarify the picture).
Electrical schematic for motor and generator usages (to be duplicated for each of the two wire networks in each motor.
This figure shows an internal combustion engine and an electrical generator used to charge the battery (hybrid electric vehicle in series; the electric motor is the only driving mechanical energy source).
Next: Torque performance
|
|
|
|
|
Navigate to related information
green_is_now
5/11/2011 3:16 PM EDT
series resistance is the limiting issue with this design.
Things helping this issue:
Larger slow, low RdsON devices can be used (compared to PWM optimized devices)
Things hurting this design:
Way to large a volt second bandwidth across "gears". So components will be large for the worst case.
also current bandwidth is large increasing component size and cost to be able to handle worst case.
Clever and interesting nun the less.
Sign in to Reply
roldan
5/13/2011 8:10 AM EDT
I agree that this design requires a larger number of power transistors. This increases the overall cost. But this replaces a mechanical gear box, plus differential, plus...
And I don't understand why power transistors should be larger than for other designs for similar power motors.
Sign in to Reply
green_is_now
5/17/2011 5:25 PM EDT
Because when you switch in and out transistors from series to // the voltage rating and the current ratings must be able to handle the worst case. So when in // voltage worst case...this sets the Rdson (higher voltage higher rdson).
Whne these are put in series then you will have excesive voltage drop compared to a series only design.When in sries the current is max (per xstr)and the die area must be larger.
But it may still be better considering all the benifits. Lots of semiconductor cost, again may be offset.
Sign in to Reply
roldan
5/18/2011 6:04 AM EDT
With brushless motors, you have to reverse the current as the rotor turns. The switch from series to parallel is done at the same time as this current inversion.
But you're right. As this design requires many transistors in series, each Rdson has to be as small as possible.
Sign in to Reply
green_is_now
5/19/2011 3:06 PM EDT
The subtlty is the rdson will be bigger for the worst case (parallel) requirement but will be an extra efficiency loss when in series times # in series.
Butt this idea has a bank account of efficiency and cost savings to draw down from in removing weight and mechanical transmission.
Just can't give up more than ~75% of these advsntages to be viable.
I think it has legs.
Sign in to Reply
WKetel
5/16/2011 6:04 PM EDT
Even if this design did require a greater bandwidth, the frequency is low enough that almost any transistor of adequate ratings can handle the job. But the big advantage is that it is still cheaper than actual gears, and the switching function is both cheaper than gears and not requiring mechanical shifting. So really it is quite elegant. It needs a few more wires, but that is certainly cheaper than gears and mechanical shifting, which would still require wires and power transistors, plus, the powered shifting mechanism would use much more power.
Sign in to Reply
roldan
5/17/2011 8:56 AM EDT
I am not convinced that this requires more wires. The torque and the power of the motor are proportional to the length of the wires. So, for the same power, you need same length. The difference is that you have to split the same wire length into different pieces, in order to connect them in series or in parallel.
Sign in to Reply
green_is_now
5/17/2011 5:27 PM EDT
I think he means interconnect wires, not all would be in circuit at all times just those to allow "gear chosen"
Sign in to Reply
green_is_now
5/17/2011 5:28 PM EDT
Yes the motor wire length would be the same for all "gears"
Sign in to Reply
green_is_now
5/17/2011 5:30 PM EDT
There is a dual design for the battery pack.
Sign in to Reply
graduatesoftware
6/25/2011 9:26 PM EDT
Refer to patent number: 7595574
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=q9rIAAAAEBAJ&dq=exro+technologies
When I investigated this in the past, the technology appeared to be quite sound and a great way to eliminate mechanical gear boxes. There are, of course, concerns over the cost of copper and magnets.
Also see the LaunchPoint motor (which uses Litz wire instead of PCB, but I think PCB is a good approach and there are others employing PCBs for stators and even rotors).
http://www.launchpnt.com/portfolio/aerospace/uav-electric-propulsion/
Sign in to Reply
graduatesoftware
6/25/2011 9:39 PM EDT
Incidentally, in reference to earlier comments related to unsprung mass, see the viewpoints from Protean Electric:
http://www.proteanelectric.com/img/files/protean-Services-1008121453598281250.pdf
http://ev.sae.org/article/9493
Sign in to Reply