DOE OSTI2021
The original project proposal submitted from NovaTorque Inc (NovaTorque) in 2016 was to improve the existing motor with 95% efficiency by reducing the losses by 21% to achieve 96%. A few months after the proposal was submitted, NovaTorque lost funding and went out of business. The assets of NovaTorque were then acquired by Regal Beloit Corporation (“Regal Beloit” or “Regal”). When the NovaTorque proposal was selected, the project was transferred to Regal Beloit. Once we had production samples from the new Regal production line, they were tested at the Regal Beloit test lab in Wausau, WI. The original NovaTorque motor had an efficiency of 95%, but when the technology was transferred to Regal Beloit, there were multiple manufacturing improvements made, even though the basic electromagnetic design did not change. The test results in Wausau showed that the motors made at the Regal Beloit plant had an efficiency of 96%. Since the goal of the project was to reduce the losses by 21%, a new efficiency target of 96.8% became the project objective. In the first budget period, motors were tested to get the baseline performance. We then used FEA modeling with ANSYS Maxwell to model the existing motor to get correlation between the FEA simulations and the actual test results. Once the model was validated, we evaluated some changes that could be made to the stator to reduce the losses and improve efficiency without changing the rotor or stator housing, keeping the modifications easy to implement. The changes were primarily in the area of making the stator axially shorter and adding Soft Magnetic Composite (SMC) tooth tips. In the second budget period, we proceeded to design and build the new stator that was identified above and identified additional improvements in the process that included a stator machining modification and the use of rectangular wire. When we actually built the motor, the choice of rectangular wire turned out to be a problem. The wire was made by squishing round wire to get the rectangular shape, which caused work hardening, making the wire too stiff to make the desired coils. We shifted to annealed square wire which was better, but we still could not maintain the proper coil envelope. The result was that we had reduced cross section area for stator laminations. We also had to have a radial offset resulting in a radial misalignment between the stator and rotor because of the oversized coils. After the motor was completed, it was shipped to Texas A&M University for testing. With the loss of flux from these issues, the measured motor efficiency was only 96.3%. The primary focus of this motor was to make sure our FEA simulation model predicted the measured losses and overall efficiency, this we moved on to the FEA simulation. The FEA simulations of the motor “as built” with misalignments had good correlation with the test results, so the next step was to use that model to optimize the design of the motor for a final build. This time we considered changes to the stator and rotor and also minor changes to the housing diameter. In the third budget period, we did the detailed design and construction of the final prototypes. The final prototypes had a slight increase in the stator diameter to fit in a standard Regal Beloit housing. We shortened the stator and use more layers of wire in the coils. We also increased the cone angle of the rotor and stator from the original 110 degrees to 130 degrees to get some additional efficiency and optimized the stator cross section. The predicted efficiency from the FEA simulations was 96.9%. When completed, the motors were tested. We were a little short of reaching our target efficiency goal of 96.8%. We were only able to get to 96.7% efficiency. While it may be possible with additional iterations in designs and future builds to gain that additional 0.1%, we believe that we are close to the best we can achieve from a practical viewpoint, and additional iterations would be more work than the potential gains would be worth. No other motor in this class can even reach the 96% that we started with.
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗