Evaluation and Comparison of Electric Propulsion Motors for Submarines by Joel P
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Evaluation and Comparison of Electric Propulsion Motors for Submarines by Joel P. Harbour B.S., Electrical Engineering University of Wyoming, 1991 Submitted to the Departments of Ocean Engineering and Electrical Engineering in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degrees of NAVAL ENGINEER and MASTER of SCIENCE in ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING and COMPUTER SCIENCE at the MASSACHISETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY May 2001 c) 2001 Joel P. Harbour. All rights --eserved The author hereby grants to Massachusetts Institute of Technology permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of thg1jesis documen.4n whole or in part. Signature of A uthor ............ ........... ... .......................................... Denart ennts of 'cean Engineering and Electrical Engineering 11 May 2001 Certified by ................ ................... James L. Kirtley Jr. Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering T----Tbesis Supervisor Certified by................ .................. Clifford A. Whitcomb Assoc ate Professor of Ocean Engineering Thesiq, pervisor Accepted by ..... ........................ Arthur U. smith Chairman, Committee on ate Students DePartment of Electrical EngineeringwA-1 16r uter Science Accepted by ................... Henr-ik- Sch-midt MASSACHUSETTS INSTIT TEhaifm-iao6 ieote on Graduate Students OF TECHNOLOGY Depa- ent'6f Ocean Engineering JUL 11 ?i BARKER LIBRARIES Evaluation and Comparison of Electric Propulsion Motors for Submarines by Joel P. Harbour Submitted to the Departments of Ocean Engineering and Electrical Engineering on 11 May 2001, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degrees of NAVAL ENGINEER and MASTER of SCIENCE in ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING and COMPUTER SCIENCE Abstract The Navy has announced its conviction to make its warships run on electric power through the decision to make its newest line of destroyers propelled with an electric propulsion system [1]. Sev- eral ship construction firms and electric motor manufacturers are thus striving to develop enabling technology, including high power density motors [2]. The purpose of this thesis is to evaluate some of the proposed motor designs for use in a submarine. Permanent magnet, superconducting synchronous and hoinopolar motors are modeled using computer programs. The application of these motors is optimized for submarine propulsion. The use of reduction gearing was not considered. Therefore, only low speed propulsion motors are evaluated. The permanent magnet motor utilized is the classic surface mounted magnet design scaled up to 21 MW with formed, rather than wound, coils. The superconducting synchronous motor utilized is loosely based on a design by American Superconductor [3] and uses equations developed from the doctoral research by James L. Kirtley [4]. The homopolar motor utilized is based on a novel design proposed by General Atomics [5]. For each motor concept, a repetitive optimization algorithm is used in which the design param- eters of each motor are randomly generated and the motor attributes are evaluated. The attributes of the resulting motor, such as weight, volume and efficiency, are compared to a database of stored motor designs. If the new design's attributes dominate a previous design, it is included in the database and the dominated design is discarded. After several cycles the optimum motor designs are converged upon. The structure of this algorithm is based on the Novice Design Assistant developed at MIT by J.A. Moses et al. [6]. Thesis Supervisor: James L. Kirtley Jr. Title: Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering Thesis Supervisor: Clifford A. Whitcomb Title: Associate Professor of Ocean Engineering 2 Biographical note The author graduated from the University of Wyoming in December of 1991 with a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering. In his junior year of college he was selected for the Nuclear Propulsion Officer Candidate (NUPOC) program and later received his commission at the navy's Officer Candidate School in Newport, RI. on 01 MAY 1992. He completed the navy's rigorous Nuclear Power School in Orlando, Florida and Prototype Training in Charleston, SC. Following Submarine Officer Basic School, he reported to his first sea command on a Nuclear Powered Ballistic Submarine out of Bangor, WA. He served as Sonar Officer, Reactor Controls Assistant, Main Propulsion Assistant, Strategic Missile Officer and Tactical Systems Officer on the USS Nevada (SSBN 733 (GOLD)) from OCT 1993 to DEC 1997. While serving on the Nevada he completed seven deterrent patrols, completed his Submarine Warfare qualifications, qualified Engineer for Naval Nuclear Propulsion plants and completed his Strategic Weapons Officer (SD2) qualifications. He was then selected for lateral transfer to the Engineering Duty Officer community and graduate studies at MIT. He reported to MIT in June of 1998 for a three year tour of full time graduate work in the Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering (13A) program of the Ocean Engineering Department and a second master's degree in the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department. 3 For my wife Tara Who has always been there for support throughout my naval career and my children Megan Cassandra and Ethan 4 Acknowledgments My thanks go to the United Sates Navy for allowing me the opportunity to attend postgraduate school at M.I.T. these past three years. I would also like to acknowledge the assistance provided by the many people who helped make this thesis possible: First, my thesis advisor, Professor James L. Kirtley Jr., who allowed me the opportunity to research and explore the field of electric propulsion and also provided constant encouragement and assistance; my academic advisor and thesis reader, LCDR (retired) Cliff Whitcomb, who provided the motivation, guidance and feedback instrumental to my academic work and this thesis; my Commanding Officer, CAPT R. S. McCord, for his tireless pursuit to ensure that all of our academic theories had practical merit and for allowing me to attend the many professional symposiums where I learned a great deal about the possibilities; my design project sponsors, CDR(retired) Tim Arcano of NAVSEA 05U6 and RADM(sel) Paul Sullivan PMS 450, for their guidance and funding, and because a great deal of the knowledge and resources utilized in this thesis originated from their design project tasking; the numerous technical and professional advisors listed in the bibliography, for their much appreciated input and guidance. To all of you, thank you. 5 Contents 1 Introduction 15 1.1 Why Electric Propulsion? ..... .......... ......... ......... 15 1.1.1 Reduction Gearing Approaching Limitations ............. ..... 15 1.1.2 Installed Reactor Power Under Utilized ..................... 16 1.1.3 Off Design Point Thrbine Efficiency Low ..................... 17 1.1.4 Engine Room Arrangement ................ ............ 17 1.2 Candidate Electric Propulsion Motors ................... ....... 18 1.3 Future Benefits of Electric Propulsion .. ........................ 18 2 Baseline Submarine 20 2.1 Submarine Design Summary ........ ........................ 20 3 Relevant Electric Motor Attributes 25 3.1 Specific Navy Needs .................................... 25 3.2 Attribute Selection ............ ........................ 26 3.2.1 Weight (Buoyancy and Balance) ............. ............ 26 3.2.2 Length and Diameter ........ ....................... 27 3.2.3 Efficiency . ...... ...... ...... .... ............... 27 3.2.4 Harmonics ...................................... 27 3.2.5 Converter ...................................... 28 3.2.6 Reliability ...................................... 28 3.2.7 Degradation .... .............. .............. ..... 28 3.2.8 Torque .......... .............. .............. .. 29 6 3.2.9 R isk . .... ..... ..... ..... ... ....... ........ 2 9 4 Optimization Routine 30 4.1 Multi-Attribute Dominance ............... 30 4.2 Parameter Selection ..... ....... ...... 31 4.3 Overall Measure of Effectiveness (OMOE) ... ... 31 5 Surface Mount Permanent Magnet Motor (SMPM) 34 5.1 Design Overview ..... ........ .. ..... 34 5.2 Design Parameters .. ...... ..... 35 5.3 Constraints ... ...... ..... .... 37 5.4 Generate Geometry ... ...... ..... 38 5.5 Winding Factors .... ...... ..... 38 5.6 Magnetic Fields ... .... .... .... 41 5.7 Flux Linkage and Internal Voltage ..... 42 5.8 Estimation of End Turn Lengths ..... .. 42 5.9 Synchronous Reactance and Resistance . 43 5.10 Minimum Characteristics ... ..... .. 46 5.10.1 Minimum current for given power. .... 46 5.10.2 Maximum power for given terminal vo [t age .. 48 5.11 Parameters at rated power ... .... ... 49 5.12 Losses ... ..... ...... ..... .. 49 5.12.1 Windage Loss ....... ...... 49 5.12.2 Ferromagnetic Losses ...... ... 50 5.12.3 Joule Heating ....... ...... .... 50 5.12.4 Heat Removal ...... ....... 50 5.13 Weights and cost ..... ..... .... 51 5.14 Verification ..... ...... ..... .. 52 5 .15 R esu lts ...... ........ ........ ....... ........ ...... 52 . 6 Superconducting Synchronous Motor (SCM) 53 6.1 Background . ........ ......... 53 6.2 Design Parameters ..... ......... 55 6.3 Constraints ......... ..... .... 56 6.4 Generate Geometry ..... ..... ... 57 6.5 Estimate End Turn Lengths ......... 59 6.6 Field and Armature Currents . ..... ... ............... 59 6.7 Winding Factors .. .... ... ..... .. ....... ...... 60 6.8 Magnetic Fields ....... ......... ... ........ .... 60 6.9 Mutual Inductance ... .. ......... ............. .. 61 6.10 Internal Voltage ......