=
+
=
(2.1)
where is a characteristic velocity inversely proportional to the track thickness d and electrical
16
conductivity ; I is the constant coil current; is the speed of the vehicle,
0
v
0
is the permeability
of free space, and
d
0
2
= (2.2)
It is found that increasing the levitation height and the length of the coil in the direction
of motion of the coil improves the ratio F
L
/F
D
but increasing the levitation height beyond 30 cm
is not considered practical as the left force diminishes with an increase in the levitation height.
The coil geometry does not have any influence on the force [32, 33, 43].
2.2.2. Null Flux Coil Suspension
The Japanese have succeeded in designing and testing several versions of EDS systems
based on the null flux concept. A model picture is shown in Figure 2.2. Two arrays of null flux
ground coils are mounted vertically on both guideway sidewalls. Both vertical suspension and
horizontal guidance forces are generated by the interaction between the on board superconductor
magnets (SCMs) and the null flux coils.
17
Figure 2.2: Null flux coil suspension
The figure "8" levitation coils are installed on the sidewalls of the guideway. When the
onboard superconducting magnets pass several centimeters below the center of these coils at a
high speed, an electric current is induced within the figure "8" coils, which act as electromagnets
for the time being. The electromagnets forces push and pull the superconducting magnet upwards
simultaneously, levitating the Maglev vehicle. The levitation coils facing each other are
connected under the guideway, constituting a loop. When a running Maglev vehicle displaces
laterally, an electric current is induced in the loop, resulting in repulsive forces acting on the
levitation coils of the side near the car and attractive force acting on the levitation coils of the
side farther apart from the car. Thus, a running car is always located at the center of the
guideway [http://www.rtri.or.jp].
A repulsive force and an attractive force induced between the magnets are used to propel
18
the vehicle (superconducting magnet). The propulsion coils located on the sidewalls on both
sides of the guideway are energized by a threephase alternating current from a substation,
creating a shifting magnetic field on the guideway. The onboard superconducting magnets are
attracted and pushed by the shifting field, propelling the Maglev vehicle.
FM built a null flux coil demonstration system with PM. Even the levitation works well
for this small demonstration system, it is not practical for a full size real system according to the
scale law. In theory, Null Flux Coil Suspension is a very good design; the draw back is SC is
needed. There are several research papers available on this topic [44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49].
2.3. LLNL System
Almost all the research conducted on early systems since 1960 was not related to PMS.
With the new permanent magnetic materials, high magnetic flux density can be achieved with
PM. Especially, with the Halbach array configuration, practical EDS Maglev without using SC
could be possible. Recently, LLNL has built a demonstration system using Halbach arrays,
which open a new way for the PMS Maglev.
Halbach arrays produce a strong spatially periodic magnetic field on one surface of the
arrays, while canceling the field on another surface. Two pictures of Halbach array are shown in
Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4. The Figure 2.4 is generated using Finial Element Analysis Method
(FEM) with remanent flux density Br= 1.29 Tesla, and magnetic permeability
r
=1.05
0
. Many
researches have explored the Halbach array and its broad applications [2, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,
19
56, 57, 58, 59, 60].
Figure 2.3: Four piece Halbach array
Figure 2.4: Four piece Halbach array magnet flux density, Br= 1.29 Tesla, r=1.05
0
(NdFeB
PM)
Halbach array EDS system, using highfield permanent magnets Halbach arrays on the
levitating cradle, moves above a "track" consisting of a closepacked array of shorted coils,
which are interleaved with special drive coils. Relative motion between the Halbach arrays and
the track coils induces currents in those coils. These currents levitate the cradle by interacting
with the horizontal component of the magnetic field. At rest no levitation occurs, however as
20
soon as the cradle is in motion the moving magnet array will induce currents in the conductor
array. At a speed greater than a few kilometers per hour, the levitation force will levitate the
cradle. Due to the inductive loading of the circuits, selfinductance plus the effect of mutual
inductance, the phase of the induced current is shifted by ninety degrees, thus maximizing the lift
force, while minimizing the drag force. As a result, in a highspeed state, the drag power can be
made to be a small fraction of the power required overcoming aerodynamic friction. In theory the
lift to drag ratio increases linearly with increasing speed, which can reach to 300:1 at typical
operation speeds.
The Halbach array levitation force is given by Equation 2.3 [1, 2, 3],
 
) 2 exp(
) ( 1
1
*
2
}
) sin(
) exp( 1 {
2
2 2 2
z k
L v k R
kL
w
M
M
kd B
K F
t rh
f z
+
>= <
, (2.3)
where k=2/ is the wave number, is the wavelength of the array, d
t
is the thickness of the
Halbach array. M is the number of magnet bars per wavelength in the array, B
rh
is the remanence
flux density of the permanent magnet material, z is the distance between track and the surface
of the array, v is the traveling speed of array, is the width of the magnet, L is the inductance
(self plus mutual) of a coil, R (ohms) is the coil resistance, and K
w
f
is a scale factor.
Figure 2.5 to Figure 2.8 are the pictures of LLNL Inductrack system main components
[134].
21
Figure 2.5: The cradle Figure 2.6: The cradle launch
Figure 2.7: The levitation track Figure 2.8: The deceleration track
22
LLNL s Inductrack is unique in the levitation using Halbach array. The detailed
discussions and calculations can be found in reference [1]. Its levitation and drag force are given
by
) 2 exp(
) ( 1
1
2
2
2 2
0
z k
L R kL
w B
F
z
+
>= <
[N] (2.4)
) 2 exp(
) ( 1
) (
2
2
2 2
0
z k
L R
L R
kL
w B
F
x
+
>= <
[N] (2.5)
B
0
is the peak strength of the magnetic field at the surface of the Halbach array, For the track
composed of closepacked shorted circuits in the form of rectangular window frames with a
transverse width, w (m.),
The lift to drag ratio is
(
= =
R
L v
R
L
Drag
Lift
2
(2.6)
The levitating efficiency: Newton of levitating force per watt of power dissipated in the
track. The average power, <P>, dissipated per circuit is given by the product v <F
x
>
(
=
R
L
K
2
[N/W] (2.7)
From Equation 2.7, increasing L will make any desired levitation efficiency with the
expense of the reducing the lifting force.
For velocities less than the critical speed, the drag force dominates. The drive coils must
provide a force to exceed this drag force F
x
23
1
2
2
2 2
+

.

\

=
R
KvL
N
R
w vB
F
C C
x
(2.8)
24
CHAPTER THREE: MAGNETIC FIELD ANALYSIS THEORY
3.1. Maxwell Equation
3.1.1. Basic Vector Concept
We represent a vector A
r
symbolically in terms of the vector addition of three mutually
perpendicular vectors as follows:
k A j A i A A
z y x
r r r r
+ + =
where , and are unit vectors in the x, y, z directions, , and are the magnitude
projections of the vector on the x, y and z axes, respectively.
i
r
j
r
k
r
x
A
y
A
z
A
A
r
The scalar product of the vectors A
r
and B
r
is denoted by B A
r r
. The quantity is by
definition a scalar having the magnitude
z z y y x x
B A B A B A B A + + =
r r
Note that A B B A
r r r r
= . The scalar product can also be represented as follows
25
cos AB B A =
r r
where A and B are the magnitudes of the vectors A
r
and B
r
, respectively, and is the angle
between the two vectors.
The vector product of two vectors B and A
r r
is denoted by B A
r r
and is defined as
) ( ) ( ) (
x y y x z x x z y z z y
z y x
z y x
B A B A k B A B A j B A B A i
B B B
A A A
k j i
B A
+ + =
=
r r r
r r r
r r
The vector product is a vector. The magnitude can be expressed by
sin AB B A =
r r
The direction of the vector B A
r r
is perpendicular to the plane of the vectors A
r
and B
r
,
which is given by the right hand rule convention.
The gradient of a scalar function S is a vector whose magnitude is the directional
derivative at the point and whose direction is the direction of the directional derivative at the
point.
Consider a scalar S, the value of which is dependent upon its position in space.
S=S(x,y,z)
The ascendant of S is defined as
z
S
k
y
S
j
x
S
i
r r r
This represents a vector which has a direction normal to the equiscalar surface at a given
26
point x, y, z and points in the direction of ascending values of S. The differential operation
indicated above is given a special symbol , defined by
z
S
k
y
S
j
x
S
i
r r r
The quantity will be referred to as the gradient of S (or grad S); i.e.,
Grad S S
If the vector A
r
is defined at each point x, y, z in a given region, then we say that a field
of A
r
exists.
) , , ( ) , , ( ) , , (
) , , (
z y x A k z y x A j z y x A i
z y x A A
z y x
r r r
r r
+ + =
=
which implies three functions of space.
The divergence of a vector is the limit of its surface integral per unit volume as the
volume enclosed by the surface goes to zero. The divergence of such a vector field (Div A
r
) is
defined as
Div A
r
A
r
the term on the right being an abbreviation of
z
A
y
A
x
A
z
y
x
Div A
r
is a scalar.
z
A
y
A
x
A
A
z
y
x
=
r
27
The integral of the divergence of a vector A
r
over a volume V is equal to the surface
integral of the normal component of the vector over the surface bounding S.
dS A n dV A
S V
=
r
r
r
The curl of a vector is the limit of the ratio of the integral of its cross product with the
outward drawn normal, over a closed surface, to the volume enclosed by the surface as the
volume goes to zero.
The line integral of a vector around a closed curve is equal to the integral of the normal
component of its curl over any surface bounded by the curve.
=
S C
da n A Curl dl A
r
r r
.
The curl of a vector field ) , , ( z y x A
r
is defined by
z y x
A A A
z y x
k j i
A
=
r r r
r
) ( ) ( ) (
x y z x y z
A
y
A
x
k A
x
A
z
j A
z
A
y
i
=
r r r
Thus, the curl of A
r
is a vector having the three components in Cartesian coordinates.
Laplacian operator is defined by
28
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
z
S
y
S
x
S
S
=
=
The curl of the gredient of any scalar field is zero
0 ) ( = S
The divergence of any curl is zero
0 ) ( = A
r
A A A
r r r
2
) ( ) ( =
3.1.2. Maxwell Equation
The base for electromagnetic analysis is the four Maxwell equations, which were derived
from earlier BiotSavart law, Faradays law and Gausss law. In differential form these equations
are given by (3.1) [51, 61, 111].
t
t
+ =
=
E
J H
H
E
0
0
(3.1)
0
0
0
=
=
H
E
where E is the electric field intensity, E J = electric current density,
A
r
2
(3.2)
A H
r
=
0
and in MQS systems, for convenience we make = A
r
. The only other requirement placed
on A
r
is that
A H
0
) ( = =
r
Using the identity
A A
r r
) ( ) ( =
the Poissons eqution is given by
J A
0
2
=
r
(3.3)
30
3.1.4. Magnet Scalar Potential
The vector potential A describes magnetic fields that possess curl wherever there is a
current density J. The curl of the magnetic induction is zero wherever the current density is zero.
When this is the case, the magnetic induction in such regions can be written as the gradient of a
scalar potential [51, 61, 111]:
0
0
=
=
=
) (B
H
H
However, the divergence of B is also zero,
0
2
0
= = B (3.4)
where is called the magnetic scalar potential, satisfies Laplaces equation.
3.2. Laplaces Equation
In Cartesian Coordinates coordinate system, Laplace's equation is
0
2
2
2
2
=
z x
Normally the separable variable method is used to solve the equations. The separable
solutions has the form
) ( ) ( z Z x X =
31
Substituting into Laplace's equation we obtain
0
2
2
2
2
=
X
z
Z
Z
x
X
K
z
Z
Z x
X
X
=
2
2
2
2
1 1
The form of the solution depends on the sign of the separation constant K. . The
solution is
2
= K
) cos sin ( ) (
2 1 2 1
z b z b e a e a
x x
+ + =
In general, we need to sum over all values of p to obtain the most general solution.
2
= K In this case the solution is
) cos sin ( ) (
2 1 2 1
x b x b e a e a
z z
+ + =
0 = K The solution is somewhat simpler in this case, with linear solutions for both X and Z.
3.3. FEM
3.3.1. Introduction of FEM
FEM, Finite element method, some times abbreviated as FEA for finite element analysis,
was introduced in 1950 and is a powerful tool for solving any field potential related engineering
problems using transform to an algebraic problem. In this research, FEM was used as a tool to
32
analyze the magnetic field. Here only related fundamental knowledge of FEM is briefly
introduced.
The finite element method (FEM) is one of the most popular numerical methods for
constructing approximate solutions to differential equations. The FEM is widely used by
scientists and engineers. Originally developed by aircraft structural engineers, the method stands
on solid mathematical footing for obtaining approximate solutions to variational boundary value
problems. The method subdivides a problem domain into element domains, and assembles the
contributions from each element to build a global approximation. A series linear algebraic
equation is used to solve the boundary value problem (BVP) for a linear partial differential
equation (PDE).
Once an appropriate BVP is formulated, there are two components involved in
performing a finite element analysis; the division of the problem domain into a set of sub
domains or finite elements, and the translation of the BVP into a series of linear algebraic
equations that can be easily solved by computer.
Some notations of the FEM are:
Each sub domain is called an element; the union of the elements is called a mesh. Over
each element, the solution (whether magnetic field, temperature, velocity, concentration, stresses,
etc.) is approximated by a set of functions associated with degrees of freedom (DOF). These
degrees of freedom are often geometrically associated with interior element points or element
vertices called nodes.
The resulting governing equations for elements are assembled into a global set of linear
equations.
33
There are several different means to develop the local finite element equations. The first
approach is to use physical reasoning (as in matrix structural analysis). The other approach to
developing the finite element equations is energy or virtual work method. These are usually
motivated by the presence of an energy function, such as the total potential energy F. Using a
calculus of variations, we may then consider stationary points of the functional (i.e. F = 0). The
disadvantage of this approach is that not all problems possess such a functional (as in non
conservative systems). The third approach involves variational methods. These are general
techniques in which integral statements of the governing equations are used. Examples of
variational methods include RayleighRitz, Galerkin, PetrovGalerkin, and LeastSquares, to
name a few.
The energy function approach is used widely in FEM for the temperatures, stresses, and
field analysis. Energy functional consists of all the energies associated with the particular finite
element model. The FEM obtains the correct solution for any finite element model by
minimizing the energy functional. The minimum of the functional is found by setting the
derivative of the functional with respect to the unknown grid point value to zero. The
fundamental equation of energy approach FEM is
F/p = 0
where p is the unknown grid point value to be calculated, which is potential for magnetic filed
analysis.
For magnetic systems, the energy functional E can be given by
34
dV A j A J
B
dV A j A d J B d H F
V
V
B A
+ + =
(
+ =
2
2
0 0
2
2
1
2
2
1
r r r
r r r r r
In problems with PMs
r r r
B H B H x H B
r r r r r r
+ = + + =
0 0 0
the functional is
dV A j A J
B B B
F
V
r
+ + =
2
2
2
1
2
r r r
r r
where
r
B
r
is the remanent magnetic flux density. is the angular frequency and is the electric
conductivity. The first term on the right side is the magnetic stored energy, the second is the
electric input energy and the third term is the losses due to induced currents. The energy
functional F is minimized when
0 =
A
F
The twodimensional sinusoidal time varying field can be described with the aid of the
magnetic vector potential
A j J
y
A
y x
A
x
r r
r r
+ =
)
1
( )
1
(
where the magnetic vector potential A
r
and excitation current density vector are directed out
or into the flat model along the z axis, i. e.,
J
r
z
A k A
r r r
=
35
z
J k J
r r r
=
The magnetic flux density vector has two components in the xy plane perpendicular to
A
r
and , J
r
x
A
j
y
A
i A B j B i B
z z
y x
= = + =
r r r r r r r r
for magnet static field 0 = .
J
y
A
y x
A
x
r
r r
=
)
1
( )
1
(
Minimization of the magnetic energy functional over each mesh leads to a matrix
equation, which has to solve for the magnetic vector potential A
r
.
m
l
n
Figure 3.1: A part of a typical 2D mesh
36
Figure 3.1 shows part of a typical mesh, and the coordinate system for 2 D problems.
Each mesh has at least three vertices (nodes). The number of nodes corresponding to each mesh
depends on the shape of the element and the shape function, which is used to model the potential
within the mesh. Usually linear or second order shape functions are used. Following the linear
shape function is used. The vector potential within each mesh is given by
y a x a a A
3 2 1
+ + =
 
=
+ + =
n m l k
k k k k
y c x b a A A
, ,
the matrix form values of A for the three nodes are given by
(
(
(
=
(
(
(
(
(
(
3
2
1
1
1
1
a
a
a
y x
y x
y x
A
A
A
n n
m m
l l
n
m
l
and
n n n
m m m
l l l
y x A
y x A
y x A
a
=
2
1
1
n n
m m
l l
y A
y A
y A
a
1
1
1
2
1
2
=
n n
m m
l l
A x
A x
A x
a
1
1
1
2
1
3
=
37
n n
m m
l l
l n l n
l m l m
y x
y x
y x
y y x x
y y x x
k j i
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
2
1
=
=
r r r
where is the surface area of a triangle with nodes n m l , , .
  
(
(
(
= + + =
=
n
m
l
n m l
n m l k
k k k k
A
A
A
N N N y c x b a A A
, ,

where for k = l, m, n ) 2 /( ) ( + + = y c x b a N
k k k k
the node point potentials A
k
can be calculated by minimizing the energy, for the single triangular
mesh case.
0 ]
2
[
2
=
dS A J
B
A
F
k
S
r r
this minimization leads to the magnetic vector potential can be approximated by the following
set of equations
      I A S =
where is the global coefficient matrix,   S   A is the matrix of nodal magnetic vector potentials
and is nodal currents (forcing functions) which are given by   I
 
(
(
(
+ + +
+ + +
+ + +
=
n n n n m n m n l n l n
n m n m m m m m l m l m
n l n l m l m l l l l l
c c b b c c b b c c b b
c c b b c c b b c c b b
c c b b c c b b c c b b
S
4
1
 
(
(
(
=
1
1
1
3
J I
38
the above equation solve for the potential A
r
in a region containing the triangle with nodes l, m,
and n. For practical problems with K nodes, the preceding process is repeated for each element,
obtaining the matrix  with K rows and columns,  S   A and   I are column matrices containing
K rows of complex terms. And the boundary conditions are incorporated into calculations.
3.3.2. Finite Element Method Software Package
The ease of FEM implementation is supported by the availability of good software
packages available. Almost all software packages have three main components: preprocessor,
processor (solver), and postprocessor.
The steps involved in preprocessor module may include,
Define the problems computational in 2D or 3D, normally start with 2D for preliminary
design and analysis then moving to 3D.
Drawing the geometric outline of the models
Assign materials properties for each region of geometric models.
Connect the voltage or current source if there is any.
Assign the boundary and edge constrains for the geometric models
Discrete the region into elements, choose proper shape, size and generate the mesh. Lot
of software package has the ability to adaptively setting the size in different region. Normally
start with small number of cell for preliminary design and analysis then moving to high
resolution cell.
39
Using solver get the results, then do post processing.
3.4. Fourier Series
A periodic power signal x(t) with a period T
0
can be represented by an exponential
Fourier series of the form
0
0
)
0
2 (
2
0
2
0
0
0
)
0
2 (
0
1
) (
1
) (
; ) ( ) (
T
f
dt e t x
T
nf C
t e nf C t x
t nf j
T
T
x
t nf j
n
n
x
=
=
+ < < =
=
=
for real valued signal x(t) [62]
....) , 2 , 1 ( ; ) 2 sin( ) (
1
....) , 2 , 1 , 0 ( ; ) 2 cos( ) (
1
; ) 2 sin( 2 ) 2 cos( 2 ) (
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 1
0 0 0
=
=
=
=
+ < < + + =
=
=
=
=
n dt t nf t x
T
B
n dt t nf t x
T
A
t t nf B t nf A A t x
T
n
T
n
n
n
n
n
n n
For the real even signal the transform has only cosine components.
40
=
=
+ =
=
n
n
n
n
t nf A A t x
B
1
0 0
) 2 cos( 2 ) (
0
dt t nf t x
T
A
T
n
) 2 cos( ) (
1
0
0 0
0
=
For real odd signal the transform result has only sine components.
=
=
=
=
n
n
n
n
t nf B t x
A
1
0
) 2 sin( 2 ) (
0
dt t nf t x
T
B
T
n
) 2 sin( ) (
1
0
0 0
0
=
3.5. Magnetic Field Harmonic Analysis Theory
The Halbach array is used widely in particle accelerators, magnet bearings, linear motors,
and PMSM [56, 60], and has been used as the core component in Maglev designs [1, 3]. A
summary of the analysis and applications of Halbach array can be found in [55, 58].
The ideal linear Halbach array has sine and cosine magnetization in the vertical and
horizontal directions, respectively, resulting in no magnetic field on one side and an enhanced,
pure sinusoidal magnetic field on another side [131]. Figure 3.2 (a) illustrates an ideal Halbach
array. However, The ideal Halbach array is impractical to fabricate. Instead, an array of
41
rectangular or square permanent magnets is used. Practical (non ideal) Halbach arrays with four
and eight piece are shown at Figure 3.2 (b). The nonideal Halbach array is not able to generate
the zero magnetic field intensity on the canceled side and the pure sinusoidal magnetic field
intensity on the enhanced side.
(a)
(b)
Figure 3.2: Halbach array, (a). Ideal; (b). Practical four and eight piece
The purely sinusoidal magnetic field and zero magnetic field are desired for numerous
applications. For example, without a pure sinusoidal magnetic field in the linear synchronous
motor force ripples and noise may occur. The zero magnetic field is desired on the maglev trains
passenger side for minimal magnetic interference. Unfortunately, with the practical linear
Halbach array, the magnetic field does not have purely sinusoidal magnetic field on one side and
zero field on the opposite side. The quantitative analysis of the nonideal magnetic field is a
42
basic step to further investigate the nonzero and nonpurely sinusoidal field effect. Linear
Halbach array magnetic field calculations have been done by several authors using different
approaches. Single square PM generated magnetic flux density [57], the transfer relation [61]
with magnetic vector potential [59], magnetic scalar potential [58] and Fourier series [119, 120]
have been used. These results are not focused on the harmonic component of magnetic field. The
calculations, especially for detailed harmonic components, are either quite complex or not given
in detail.
Figure 3.3 shows the geometry of a permanent magnet sheet with a thickness of d
t
.
(0, 0 )
(0, d t )
X (H )
Z(V)
a
d
c
b
Figure 3.3. The geometry of a magnet sheet and coordinate definitions
For the ideal Halbach array, the magnetizations are given by
43
m
x
=m
0
sin (kx) (3.5)
m
z
= m
0
cos (kx) (3.6)
For magnet field with no transport currents
0 = H (3.7)
= H (3.8)
For a permanent magnet
M H B
0 0
+ = (3.9)
M H B = = , 0 (3.10)
,
2
M = (3.11)
where H is the magnetic field intensity, B is the magnetic flux density,
0
is the magnetic
permeability of free space, M is the magnetization vector, and
is called the magnetic scalar
potential. For materials which are magnetically linear, M=B
r
/
0
. B
r
is the remanence of PM.
Inside permanent magnet
z
m
y
m
x
m
z
y
x
= M
) cos(
0
kx k m = (3.12)
) cos(
2
kx mk = (3.13)
Outside permanent magnet
0
2
= (3.14)
Equation 3.13 and Equation 3.14 are solved using the boundary conditions. The
potentials are diminished at infinity and continue at the boundary. The flux density of the normal
44
component is also continuous. The potentials are given by Equation 3.15 [125,131].
0 =
canceled
) ( cos ) 1 (
0
kx e
k
m
kz
inside
= (3.15)
) ( cos ) 1 (
0
kx e e
k
m
kz kd
enhanced
t
=
With = H , the magnetic field intensities are given by
). ( cos ) 1 ( ) ( sin ) 1 (
) (
) (
0
0 0
kx e e m k kx e e m i
z
S
k
x
S
i
z
S
k
y
S
j
x
S
i
kz kd kz kd
enhenced
inside
canceled
t t
=
=
=
r r
r r
r r r
H
H
H
(3.16)
Suppose there is another ideal array with a different spatial period and wave number. Let
the k
n
=2n/l =n k. The new array has the following magnetization values,
m
xn
= m
n0
sin(k
n
x) (3.17)
m
zn
= m
n0
cos(k
n
x) (3.18)
For this new array, the magnetic potentials are given by
0 =
canceled
) ( cos ) 1 (
0
x k e
k
m
n
z k
n
n
inside
n
= (3.19)
45
) ( cos ) 1 (
0
x k e e
k
m
n
z k d k
n
n
enhanced
n t n
=
and the magnetic fields are given by
0 =
canceled
H
) (
z
S
k
y
S
j
x
S
i
inside
=
r r r
H (3.20)
) cos( ) 1 (
) ( sin ) 1 ( ) (
0
0
x k e e m k
x k e e m i
z
S
k
x
S
i
n
z k d k
n
n
z k d k
n enhanced
n t n
n t n
=
=
r
r
r
r
H
If there is a pair magnetization of m
x
and m
z
, these can be decomposed into the sine and
cosine pairs as follows,
= = =
i
n
i
n n
i
xn x
nkx f m x k f m m m ) sin( ) sin(
0 0
(3.21)
= = =
i
n
i
n n
i
zn z
nkx f m x k f m m m ) cos( ) cos(
0 0
(3.22)
+ = + =
i
zn
i
xn z x
m k m i m k m i m
r r r r
+ =
i
n n n n
x k f m k x k f m i )] cos( ) sin( [
0 0
r r
+ =
i
n n n
x k k x k i f m ))] cos( ) sin( ( [
0
r r
(3.23)
According to the superposition principle, the potentials are given by
0 =
canceled
46
) ( cos ) 1 (
0
nkx e
nk
f m
nkz n
i
inside
=
(3.24)
) ( cos ) 1 (
0
nkx e e
nk
f m
nkz nkd n
i
enhanced
t
=
and the magnetic field intensities are given by
{
}. ) ( cos ) 1 (
) sin( ) 1 (
) (
0
0
0
nkx e e f m k
nkx e e f m i
z
S
k
y
S
j
x
S
i
nkz nkd
n
nkz nkd
n
i
enhanced
inside
canceled
t
t
=
=
=
r
r
r r r
H
H
H
(3.25)
The key point is that if we can decompose the magnetization into vertical and horizontal
components. These two components can be grouped as sine and cosine pairs. The sine and cosine
components in each pair have the same amplitude and Fourier series frequency. The resulting
magnetic field will be the superposition of the enhanced and canceled fields of different
frequencies.
47
CHAPTER FOUR: HALBACH ARRAY FIELD ANALYSIS AND
GEOMETRY OPTIMIZATION
This chapter presents the four and eight piece Halbach array analysis and geometry
optimization for Maglev application with consideration of the nonideal array magnetic field
harmonics. The field analysis results, using scalar potential and Fourier series, are confirmed by
FEM. The geometric optimization is based on the maximization of the ratio of square of flux to
the unit area magnet weight.
4.1. Four Piece Halbach Array Analysis
4.1.1. Mathematic Modeling
For the practical fourpiece Halbach array, with =4d
4
, k
1
=2/, and thickness of d
t4
.
The magnetizations are shown in Figure 4.1. Let m
z4
(x) and m
x4
(x) be the vertical and horizontal
components of the magnetization respectively. The magnetizations can be written as
48
m
z
(x)= m
z4
(x)=m
0
(4x/l)*{ [ (xn l)  [x(2n1) l /2] ]} (4.1)
m
x
(x)= m
x4
(x)= m
0
(4x/l)*{ [ (xn l  l/4)
 [x(2n1) l /2 l/4)] ]}. (4.2)
(0, 0)
X
mz(x)
l=4d
(0, 0)
mx(x)
l=4d
X
(a)
(b)
Figure 4.1: The magnetization of fourpiece Halbach array, (a) vertical; (b) horizontal
The Fourier series of m
x4
(x) and m
z4
(x) are given by
{ } =
=
=
=
=
=
n
n
n
n
n x
x nf n
n n
n
t nf B x m
1
0
1
0 4 4
) 2 sin( ) cos( )
4
sin( )
2
sin(
4
) 2 sin( ) (
(4.3)
49
{ } . ) 2 cos( ) cos( )
4
cos( )
2
sin(
4
) 2 cos( ) (
1
0
1
0 4 4
=
=
=
=
=
=
n
n
n
n
n z
x nf n
n n
n
t nf A x m
(4.4)
From Equation 4.3 and Equation 4.4, together with previous chapter conclusion, it is easy
to see that the practical Halbach array is not an ideal Halbach array. Its magnetic field is not zero
on the canceled side and is not purely sinusoidal on the enhanced side. If we fix the vertical
components and find the theoretical horizontal components to form the ideal Halbach array, the
magnatization pairs are
{ } =
=
=
n
n
x
x nf n
n n
n
x m
1
0 4
) 2 sin( ) cos( )
4
cos( )
2
sin(
4
) (
(4.5)
{ } =
=
=
n
n
z
x nf n
n n
n
x m
1
0 4
) 2 cos( ) cos( )
4
cos( )
2
sin(
4
) (
, (4.6)
The waveforms of Equation 4.5 and Equation 4.6 are given by Figure 4.2.
50
(a) Vertical magnetization
(b) Horizontal magnetization
Figure 4.2: The theoretical paired horizontal magnetization (b) with fixed vertical magnetization
(a) to form one side magnet array for one period
The magnet with magnetization as Figure 4.2 (b) is impractical to fabricate. If we fix the
horizontal components and form the ideal Halbach array, the magnatization pairs are given by
Equation 4.7 and Equation 4.8, and the waveforms are given by Figure 4.3.
{ } =
=
=
n
n
x
t nf n
n n
n
x m
1
0 4
) 2 sin( ) cos( )
4
sin( )
2
sin(
4
) (
(4.7)
{ } . ) 2 cos( ) cos( )
4
sin( )
2
sin(
4
) (
1
0 4
=
=
=
n
n
z
x nf n
n n
n
x m
(4.8)
51
(a). Horizontal magnetization
(b). Vertical magnetization
Figure 4.3: The theoretical paired vertical magnetization (b) with fixed horizontal magnetization
(a) to form one side magnet array for one period
The magnet with magnetization as Figure 4.3 (b) is impractical to fabricate also.
From Equation 4.3 and Equation 4.4, 0
4 4
= =
n n
B A
4 4 n n
B A
, for n = 0, 2i; , for n=4i+1,
resulting magnetic field on enhanced side; and
4 4 n n
B A =
= , for n = 4i 1, resulting magnetic
field on canceled side, where is the n
4 n
A
th
harmonic amplitude of m , and is the n ) (x B
z 4 n
th
52
harmonic amplitude of . Let z be the distance from the observation point to the surface of
permanent manget. The field on the up (canceled) side will have the 3
) (x m
x
rd
, 7
th
, 11
th
, and 15
th
harmonics. The field intensity is given by
n
canceled
=
=
n
enhanced
=
+
{ ) sin( ) 1 (
1 4 0
).. 1 4 ...( 15 , 11 , 7 , 3
1 1
x nk e e A m i H
z nk d nk
n
i
r
} ) ( cos ) 1 (
1 4 0
1 1
x nk e e A m k
z nk d nk
n
+
r
(4.9)
The field on the bottom (enhanced) side will have the fundamental, 5
th
, 9
th
, and 13
th
harmonics. The magnetic field intensity is given by
{ ) ( sin ) 1 (
1 4 0
).. 1 4 ...( 13 , 9 , 5 , 1
1 1
x nk e e A m i H
z nk d nk
n
i
+ =
r
} ) cos( ) 1 (
1 4 0
1 1
x nk e e A m k
z nk d nk
n
r
. (4.10)
From Equation 4.3 and Equation 4.4, the coefficients up to the 15
th
harmonic are given in
Table 4.1. These harmonic pairs can be grouped into four different classes.
1. Both vertical and horizontal coefficients are positive which generate the desired
magnetic field, with a zero field on the canceled side and an enhanced field on other side. This
group includes the Fundamental frequency and the 9
th
harmonic.
2. Vertical coefficients are positive and horizontal coefficients are negative generating an
undesirable magnetic field with a canceled field on the enhanced side and an enhanced field on
the canceled side. This group includes the 3
rd
and the 11
th
harmonics.
3. Both vertical and horizontal coefficients are negative generating a magnetic field with
the canceled field on the canceled side and enhanced field on the enhanced side. This group
includes the 5
th
and 13
th
harmonics.
53
4. Vertical coefficients are negative and horizontal coefficients are positive generating the
undesirable mangetic field having a canceled field on the enhanced side and an enhanced field on
the canceled side. This group includes the 7
th
and the 15
th
harmonics.
Table 4.1. Coefficients of four piece practical Halbach array
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
V 0.9003 0.3001 0.1801 0.1286 0.1 0.0818 0.0693 0.06
H 0.9003 0.3001 0.1801 0.1286 0.1 0.0818 0.0693 0.06
4.1.2. Results Discussion and Comparison with FEM
The permanent magnet with B
r
over 1.3 Tesla is avaiable in the market. B
r
=1.29 Tesla is
used in the calculation.
Figure 4.4 through Figure 4.7 illustrate the fourpiece magnetic field flux density
harmonics for both vertical and horizontal components on the enhanced and canceled sides for
two distances (0.1d and 0.5d) with the square block case d d d
t
= =
4 4
.
54
Figure 4.4. Fourpiece array magnetic field harmonic components (Enhanced side) at distance
0.1 d for one period
Figure 4.5: Fourpiece array magnetic field harmonic components (Canceled side) at distance
0.1 d for one period
55
Figure 4.6: Fourpiece array magnetic field harmonics components (Enhanced side) at distance
0.5 d for one period
Figure 4.7: Fourpiece array magnetic field harmonics components (Canced side) at distant 0.5 d
for one period
56
The vertical and horizontal components of array magnetic field flux density have similar
characteristics, the higher order harmonic components will decrease faster as the distances
between the observation point and the magnet surface increases on both the enhanced and
canceled sides. Now, we will give an analysis for the horizontal component only. The vertical
component may be analyzed in a similar way.
Figure 4.8 and Figure 4.9 illustrate the total magnetic fields horizontal components on
the enhanced and on the canceled sides respectively, for four different distances ( 0.1d, 0.25d,
0.5d and 0.7d ).
Figure 4.8: The fourpiece array magnetic field (Horizontal component) on the enhanced side at
different distance for one period
57
Figure 4.9: The fourpiece array magnetic field (Horizontal component) on the canceled side at
different distance for one period
For the enhanced side with the increasing of the distance to the magnet surface, the total
magnetic field approaches a purely sinusoidal pattern as the higher order harmonics decrease
faster with the increase in the distance between the observation point and the magnet surface.
Beyond 0.5 d, the magnetic field intensity is almost purely sinusoidal. For Maglev at low speed
with low levitation height, the higher order magnetic field harmonics should be taken into
consideration.
Figure 4.10 and Figure 4.11 compare the total magnetic fields horizontal components of
the FEM and Fourier series results at 0.1 d for both the enhanced and canceled sides. The FEM
result has some sharp jumps at several points as illustrated in Figure 4.10 and Figure 4.11. The
largest one is located at position 65 on Figure 4.11. The reason is that the FEM mesh size is not
58
small enough (The total number of mesh is 8672). With new FEM software, the resolution can be
increased and the FEM results will eventually be same as the Fourier series result.
Figure 4.10: The magnet field comparison between FEM and Fourier Harmonic calculation for
the magnetic field Horiziontal component on enhanced side at 0.1 d for one period
59
Figure 4.11: The magnet field comparison between FEM and Fourier approach for the magnet
field Horizontal component at canceled side at 0.1 d for one period
The FEM and Fourier series results compare quite well considering that the Fourier series
calculation is based on an infinite length array and FEM uses one middle period of 10block
array (two and half period).
4.2. Eight Piece Halbach Array Analysis
4.2.1. Mathematic Modeling
The eightpiece magnet array is also used in Maglev design [2]. The magnetizations are
60
shown at Figure 4.12, and can be written as
m
z
(x)= m
z8
(8t/l)*{[(tn l)+
2
2
[tn l l/8]
2
2
[tn l 3l/8][tnl4l/8]
2
2
[tnl 
5l/8]+
2
2
[tnl 7l/8]]} (4.11)
m
x
(x)= m
x8
(8t/l)*{[
2
2
[tn l l/8]+ [tnl2l/8]+
2
2
[tn l 3l/8][tnl5l/8][tnl 6l/8]
2
2
[tnl 7l/8]]} (4.12)
61
(a)
(b)
Figure 4.12: The magnetization of eight piece Halbach array for one period; (a) vertical; (b)
horizontal
As with the four piece array, these magnetizations can be represented by Fourier series.
62
{ }
{ }
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
+ =
=
+
=
=
n
n
n
n
n x
n
n
n
n
n z
x nf n
n n n
n
x nf B x m
x nf n
n n n
n
x nf A x m
1
0
1
0 8 8
1
0
1
0 8 8
) 2 sin( ) cos( )
2
sin( )
8
3
sin( 2 )
8
sin( ) 2 2 (
2
) 2 sin( ) (
) 2 cos( ) cos( )
2
sin( )
8
cos( 2 )
8
3
cos( ) 2 2 (
2
) 2 cos( ) (
(4.13), (4.14)
n= 0, 2i, 8i+3, 8i3, 0
8 8
= =
n n
B A ; n= 8i+1,
8 8 n n
B A = ; n= 8i1, ;
8 8 n n
B A =
From Equation 4.13, the coefficients up to the 15
th
harmonic are given in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2. Coefficients of eight piece practical Halbach array
1 7 9 15
V 0.9745 0.1392 0.1083 0.065
H 0.9745 0.1392 0.1083 0.065
Let z be the distance from the observation point to the surface of permanent manget.
The field on the up (canceled) side will have the 7
th
, and 15
th
harmonics. The field is given by
{ ) ( sin ) 1 (
1 8 0
).. 1 8 ...( 15 , 7
1 1
x nk e e A m i H
z nk d nk
n
i n
canceled
=
=
r
} ) ( cos ) 1 (
1 8 0
1 1
x nk e e A m k
z nk d nk
n
+
r
(4.15)
The field on the bottom (enhanced) side will have the fundamental, and 9
th
harmonics.
63
The field is given by
{ ) sin( ) 1 (
1
1 1
8 0
).. 1 8 ,...( 9 , 1
x nk e e A m i H
z nk d nk
n
i n
enhanced
+ =
=
r
} ) ( cos ) 1 (
1
1 1
8 0
x nk e e A m k
z nk d nk
n
+
r
. (4.16)
4.2.2. Results Analysis
Figure 4.13 through Figure 4.16 illustrate the eight piece magnetic field flux density
harmonics for both vertical and horizontal components on the enhanced and canceled sides for
two distances (0.1d and 0.5d) with the square block case d d d
t
= =
8 8
.
Figure 4.13: The eight piece array magnetic field harmonic components (Enhanced side) at
distance 0.1 d for one period
64
Figure 4.14: The eight piece array magnetic field harmonic components (Canceled side) at
distance 0.1 d for one period
Figure 4.15: The eight piece array magnetic field harmonic components (Enhanced side) at
distance 0.5 d for one period
65
Figure 4.16: The eight piece array magnetic field harmonic components (Canced side) at
distance 0.5 d for one period
Figure 4.17: The eightpiece array magnet field Horizontal component on enhanced side at 0.1,
0.25, 0.5 and 0.7d for one period
66
Figure 4.18: The eightpiece array magnet field Horizontal component on canceled side at 0.1,
0.25, 0.5 and 0.7d for one period.
Same as the four piece array, for the enhanced side with the increasing of the distance to
the magnet surface, the total magnetic field approaches a pure sinusoidal pattern as the higher
order harmonics decrease faster with the increase in the distance between the observation point
and the magnet surface. Beyond 0.5 d, the magnetic field intensity is almost purely sinusoidal.
4.3. Four Piece Halbach Array and Eight Piece Halbach Array Comparison
Figure 4.19 and 4. 20 show the magnet field horizontal component of four and eight piece
array on both enhanced and canceled sides, at different to magnet surface distances 0.1, 0.25, 0.5
67
and 0.7d for one period with the square block case d d d
t
= =
4 4
and d d d
t
= =
8 8
Figure 4.19: The four and eight piece array magnet field Horizontal component on enhanced
side at 0.1, 0.25, 0.5 and 0.7d for one period.
Figure 4.20: The four and eight piece array magnet field Horizontal component on canceled side
at 0.1, 0.25, 0.5 and 0.7d for one period
68
Even the scales for four piece and eight piece array in x axis may be different for Figure
4.19, we can still get follwing conclusions. For enhanced side field, if both four and eight piece
arrays are built with same size square block permanent magnet module. The magnetic field flux
density of eight piece array is not greater than four piece array for all the to surface distance. The
eight piece generates high magnetic field at 0.5 d and 0.7d, and has more distortion and weaker
field at 0.25d and 0.1d than the four piece array.
The terms
z nk d nk
e e
t
14 4 14
) 1 ( and
z nk d nk
e e
t
18 8 18
) 1 ( of Equation 4.9, Equation 4.10,
Equation 4.15, and Equation 4.16 show the reason. For fundamental component with
, d d d d d
t t
= = = =
8 8 4 4
z nk
t
d nk
n
z nk
t
d nk
n
e e A e e A
14 14
4
18 18
8
) 1 ( ) 1 (
> (4.17)
with z>0.3775d
It is not true that the eight piece array is better than four piece array in all cases.
4.4. Halbach Array Geometry Optimization
There are several approaches to optimize the magnet array geometry, such as maximizing
the ratio of force to the magnet weight per spatial wavelength [120] or maximizing the average
pressure produced by the array over the weight of magnet [122]. In this thesis we maximize the
flux square over the magnet weight, which as indicated by [50] is a well posed problem with no
artificial constraints. The following assumptions are used in the subsequent analyses.
69
1) the magnet array is larger enough to consider as infinite in length;
2) the edge effect is not included in this research;
3) the optimization will focus on the enhanced side;
4) and optimization is based on 
al no
z
min
 , the high speed nominal levitation height.
As we showed in the previous analysis, the array magnetic field has harmonic
component. The optimization should take them into consideration. The approach we used is that
first we focus on the fundamental component, find the optimized geometry, then investigate the
harmonics effect under this optimized geometry.
The spatial harmonic component flux density amplitude at enhanced side for both four
and eight piece are given by
z
n nd
n r
z nk d nk
n r n
e e A B e e A B B
t
t
= =
4 4 1 1
2 2
4 4 4
) 1 ( ) 1 (
(4.18)
z
n nd
n r
z nk d nk
n r n
e e A B e e A B B
t
t
= =
8 8 1 1
2 2
8 8 8
) 1 ( ) 1 (
(4.19)
The optimization has several parameters that need to be determined. The magnetic
horizontal block length, the magnet vertical block length, the magnet thickness, the array magnet
wavelength. It is clear that due to the natural of Halbach array magnet the array horizontal and
vertical block length should be equal in order to minimize the high order magnetic field
harmonics.
The fundamental spatial component flux density amplitude at enhanced side for both four
and eight piece are given by
z
d
f
z k d k
r
e e K e e A B B
t
t
= =
4 4
2 2
4 14 14
) 1 ( ) 1 (
(4.20)
70
z
d
f
z k d k
r
e e K e e A B B
t
t
= =
8 8 1
2 2
8 18 18
) 1 ( ) 1 (
. (4.21)
It is obvious that the d
t
is desired to increase in order to maximize magnet field. But the
magnet weight and cost will be increased too. The optimization should be constrained by the per
unit area magnet weight. The array magnet thickness d
t
and the wavelength or the magnet
block length d , should be optimized to get the maximized fundamental spatial frequency flux
square over the per unit area magnet weight. The optimization index is given by
t mag
f
d
B
W
B
Opt
2
1
2
1
= = , (4.22)
where is the magnet density of unit thickness and unit area.
For both four and eight piece array, the fundamental spatial component equations are
given by.
z
d
t
f
z k d k
t
f
mag
f
e e
d
K
e e
d
K
W
B
Opt
t
t
=
= =
4
4
4
41 4 41
4
2
2
4
2
4
2 2
4
2
4
2
14
4
) 1 (
) 1 (
(4.23)
z
d
t
f
z k d k
t
f
mag
f
e e
d
K
e e
d
K
W
B
Opt
t
t
=
= =
8
8
8
81 8 81
4
2
2
8
2
8
2 2
8
2
2
18
8
) 1 (
) 1 (
, (4.24)
with
8 8
81
4 4
41
8
8
4
4
4
2
,
2
2
,
8
,
4 d
k
d
k d d
= = = = = = . The two parameters need
71
to be optimized are (or k, or d) and d
t
. For both four and eight piece array using one equation to
determine and d
t
.
z
d
t
fa
f
e e
d
K
Opt
t
4
2
2
) 1 ( . (4.25)
Let d
t
= a
1
*z, = a
2
*z, and a
1
/a
2
= a
3,
then
2 2
1
4
2
2
1
) 1 (
1
a a
a
e e
z a
Opt
= (4.26)
the Opt function can be plot as Figure 4.21, which has a maximized point.
72
Figure 4.21: The optimization index of rectangular array
The maximization point can be solved with partial differential equations
0
2 1
=
a
Opt
a
Opt
(4.27)
73
find the a and
1 2
a
)}
2
( * ) ( * ) 1 ( * 2 ) 1 ( * )
4
( * {
)}
2
( * ) ( * ) 1 (
2
) 1 (
1
{
2
2
1
2 2
4
2
2
2
2
4
1
4
2
2
2 2
1
2
2
2
1
4
1
2
1
2
1
2 2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
a
a
e e e e
a
e
a z
e
a
Opt
a
e e
a
e
a
z
e
a
Opt
a
a
a
a
a a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
solve them the results are
5
1
4
5
4
3
2
1
=
=
=
a
a
a
(4.28)
The optimized geometry is a function of levitation nominal height.
For four piece and eight piece case the optimized geometries are
al no
al no t
z d
z d
min 4
min 4
 
 
5
4
=
=
(4.29)
and
al no
al no t
z d
z d
min 8
min 8
 
2
 
5
4
=
=
(4.30)
The index is indication of optimized factors, and the harmonic amplitude at this levitation
74
height with this optimized geometry
2 5
2
4 4
) 1 (
n n
n r n
e e A B B
=
(4.31)
2 5
2
8 8
) 1 (
n n
n r n
e e A B B
=
(4.32)
The actual value of optimized flux density
14
B 5078 . 0 = Tesla
54
B = 0.0192 Tesla
94
B = 0.0014 Tesla (4.33)
18
B = 0.5497 Tesla
98
B = 0.0016 Tesla
the largest one is the 4 piece 5
th
harmonic which is only 3.78% of the fundamental component.
For both four and eight piece, the fundamental spatial component equation has similar
format.
z
d
t
f
f
e e
d
K
Opt
t
=
4
4
4
4
2
2
4
2
4
4
) 1 (
(4.34)
z
d
t
f
f
e e
d
K
Opt
t
=
8
8
8
4
2
2
8
2
8
8
) 1 (
(4.35)
The ratio of the optimization factors is
8553 . 0
9745 . 0
9003 . 0
2
2
2
8
2
4
8
4
= = =
f
f
f
f
K
K
Opt
Opt
(4.36)
The optimization index of optimized the eight piece is about 15% larger than that of the
75
four piece.
To build the optimized array, two module types are needed for four piece array and three
module types are needed for the eightpiece array. To build the square block array, the four piece
array need only one module type and the eight piece array needs two module types. Due to these
fabrication and cost reasons, the square Halbach array may be preferred. The optimization index
has only one variable with d
t
= d.
z
d f
f
e e
d
K
Opt
=
4 2
2
4
2
4
4
) 1 (
(4.37)
z
d
f
f
e e
d
K
Opt
=
8 2 2
4
8
2
8
8
) 1 (
(4.38)
One example of with 0.1 meter levitation height case is given by Figure 4.22.
76
(a)
(b)
Figure 4.22: The optimization index of square block array; (a) eight piece array, (b) four piece
array.
77
The optimization can be performed for both four and eight piece array using one equation
to determine d.
z
d
e e
d
Opt
=
4
2
2
4
4
) 1 (
1
(4.39)
z
d
e e
d
Opt
=
8 2 2
4
8
8
) 1 (
1
(4.40)
The maximization can be performed by using same procedure as rectangular array used.
The results are
2
8
4
z
d
z d
=
=
(4.41)
for four piece and eight piece respectively.
The harmonic amplitude at this levitation height with optimized geometry are
2 2
4 4
) 1 (
n n
n r n
e e A B B
=
(4.42)
2 4
8 8
) 1 (
n n
n r n
e e A B B
=
(4.43)
The actual value of optimized flux density
14
B 5623 . 0 = Tesla
54
B = 0.0192 Tesla
94
B = 0.0014 Tesla (4.44)
78
18
B = 0.418 Tesla
98
B = 0.0016 Tesla
The largest harmonic is the four piece 5
th
harmonic, which is only 3.42% of the
fundamental component. The optimization indexes are given by
1 2
2
2
4 2
2
4
2
4
4
) 1 ( ) 1 (
4
= = e e
z
K
e e
d
K
Opt
f
z
d f
f
(4.45)
1 2
4
2
8
2 2
4
8
2
8
8
) 1 (
2
) 1 (
8
= = e e
z
K
e e
d
K
Opt
f
z
d
f
f
(4.46)
The ratio of optimization indexes is
9046 . 0
) 1 ( 2
) 1 (
2
4
2
8
2
2
2
4
8
4
=
e K
e K
Opt
Opt
f
f
f
f
(4.47)
The optimization index of eight piece is about 10% larger than that of four piece case.
4.5. Summary
For linear Halbach array magnetic field harmonics analysis, the Fourier series method is
accurate. Compared with FEM, a closed form for individual harmonic components can be found.
Moreover, the results are not constrained by the mesh size as in the FEM method. The results
show that the higher order harmonics will decrease faster as the harmonic order increases with a
corresponding increase in the distance between the observation point and the permanent magnet
surface. For Maglev applications, where the levitation height is small at low speeds, the higher
79
order magnetic field harmonic component effect may need been taken into consideration. With
increasing the speed, the higher order harmonics will decrease exponentially with increasing
distance between the observation point and the permanent magnet surface. The higher order
harmonic component effect can be neglected, as this distance is greater than 0.5 d.
For eight piece array the magnet field intensity is not always greater than four piece array
even with same size block magnet. The optimized geometry is dependent only on the nominal
levitation height. Eight piece is better than four piece array for optimized geometry for both
square and rectangular block array (rectangular block 15% less weight; square block 10% less
weight). For optimized geometry the largest high order magnetic field harmonic intensity is
about only 4 % of fundamental component, which may be neglected normally.
80
CHAPTER FIVE: DESIGN AND MODELING OF AN EDS MAGLEV
In this chapter, a novel active magnet array is introduced and investigated in a Maglev
configuration. The system configuration, static stability, and magnet array force analysis are
presented. The proposed passive EDS system uses Halbach array for selfregulation and
levitation, uses the active magnet array for stability and ride comfort control with independent
control of the vertical and lateral dynamics of the suspension system. It is selfregulation not
only in lateral, but also in roll, yaw, and pitch movement.
5.1. A Novel Maglev System
5.1.1. Introduction
Highspeed maglev projects, which are currently attracting attention, are German
Transrapid (air gap < 12 mm, the Japanese MLX (air gap > 80mm), and Swissmetro (air gap
20mm). The air gaps tolerances are less than 2.5 mm for Swissmetro and Transrapid and 6 mm
for MLX [42]. Forces such as gravity, lateral wind pressure, centrifugal forces on curves etc.,
81
except for gravity, may act unexpectedly and vary considerably in strength. With such small air
gaps, high speeds and unexpected forces, Vehicle control and stability must be addressed.
Various control and system configurations have been proposed [1, 2, 3, 35, 43]. There are several
potential control options for Maglev EDS system, such as passive coil, controlled coil, hydraulic
system, and dashpot to name a few [43]. The proposed system, with selfregulating force and
active magnet control arrays, is a new and suitable solution for the PMS EDS system.
The proposed system has separate levitation and guidance arrays in an orthogonal
arrangement. This configuration allows independent control of vertical and lateral dynamics of
the suspension system. With a symmetric configuration, the lateral arrays act as the null flux
system to keep the system in the equilibrium position. This configuration selfregulates in the
lateral, roll, pitch, and yaw directions.
5.1.2. Proposed System Configuration
The proposed system is shown in Figure 5.1
82
Levitaion Passive Arr
Levitaion Passive Array
PM
Front View
ay
l
Levitaion Active Array
Levitaion Coil
LPMSM Coi
Top View
LSM Track
Laterial Array ( Passive &
Active)
Figure 5.1: Proposed Maglev system drift
The system consists of levitation and guidance Halbach arrays and active magnet arrays,
which are used to selfregulate and control movement in the roll, pitch, yaw, and lateral
directions. The levitation and guidance arrays are arranged in an orthogonal configuration. The
levitation arrays in the front and rear of system provide selfregulation in the pitch direction. The
left and right levitation arrays provide selfregulation in the roll direction. The front and rear
lateral arrays provide selfregulation in the yaw direction, and the left and right lateral arrays
selfregulate both lateral and roll directions. As shown in next section, these selfregulations lead
to system being static stable in the roll, pitch, yaw, and lateral directions. The maglev system
control can be simplified due to these selfregulations. The vehicle travel speed is controlled
separately according to a desired trajectory. The simulation results, given in following section,
show the levitation height oscillations without any external disturbances and control. For
83
levitation and guidance control, active magnetic arrays are introduced to improve the
controllability of the vehicle in the levitation, lateral, roll, pitch, and yaw directions. With the
active magnet array, control is implemented electronically with the advantages in faster response
and easier implementation compared to mechanical and hydraulic systems. The linear permanent
magnet synchronous motor (LPMSM) using Halbach arrays is proposed for propulsion. The
LPMSM coil will be driven with threephase sine wave current.
The active magnet array, with similar characteristics to the Halbach array, has an
enhanced nearly sinusoidal magnetic field on one side (Figure 5.2). The active array may be built
with air or ferromagnetic core coils.
(a)
(b)
Figure 5.2: (a) Sketch of an active array; (b) The magnetic field of an active array using FEM.
84
The active magnetic arrays can be arranged in several different ways. Non aligned with
the passive array with the direct control and adjusting magnetic force by adjusting the active
array control current to enhance or decrease the magnetic force as shown by Figure 5.3 (a).
Aligned with the magnet array with the control and adjusting magnetic field by adjusting the
active array control current to enhance or decrease the magnetic force generated on the shared
coil of active and passive array as showed by Figure 5.3 (b). The lateral and levitation arrays can
be arranged with same ways. For the arrangement of aligned with the Halbach array with direct
control of the magnetic field by changing the active array coil current, Figure 5.3 (b), the total
magnetic flux density B can be controlled through changing the active array current, I
0
. If the
maximum controllable range of active array magnetic flux density B
rA
is 10% of the Halbach
array magnetic flux density B
rh
, the total magnetic force ranges from 0.83 to 1.2 times the force
due to B
rh
alone. We prefer the Figure 5.3 (a) or Figure 5.3 (b) to Figure 5.3 (c), the reason is that
they have the symmetry character between front and rear, which has an advantage in the dynamic
control. For. Figure 5.3 (a) or Figure 5.3 (b), the different is between the superposition of the
magnetic force directly and the superposition of magnetic flux density directly.
85
86
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 5.3: Possible array arrangement top view.
5.2. Six DOF Dynamics Modeling
5.2.1. Modeling and Stiffness Analysis
First let define some quantities as shown in Figure 5.4.
Figure 5.4: Bodyfixed and inertial coordinate systems
{
T
z y x =
1
}
}
}
}
Inertial Position
{
T
=
2
Inertial Orientation
{
T
w v u =
1
Bodyfixed Linear Velocity
{
T
r q p =
2
Bodyfixed Angular Velocity
87
88
}
}
{
T
z y x
F F F =
1
External Forces
{
T
N M K
M M M =
2
External Moments
The Halbach array levitation force is given by [1, 2, 3]
 
) 2 exp(
) ( 1
1
*
2
}
) sin(
) exp( 1 {
2
2 2 2
z k
L v k R
kL
w
M
M
kd B
K F
h rh
f z
+
>= <
, (5.1)
where k=2/ is the wave number, is the wavelength of the array, d
h
is the thickness of the
Halbach array. M is the number of magnet bars per wavelength in the array, B
rh
is the remanence
of the permanent magnet material, z is the distance between track and the surface of the array, v
is the traveling speed of vehicle, and K
f
is a scale factor.
The following assumptions are used in the subsequent analyses.
1) The displacement from equilibrium is small.;
2) The forces generated by the magnetic arrays are even within every single Halbach
array;
3) The couplings among arrays are neglected;
4) The vehicle and track are rigid bodies;
5) The center of mass is in the vehicles geometric center along xy directions;
6) Only Equation (5.1) is used as the magnetic force.
Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.6 show the magnet array arrangements. F
1LevitationH,
F
2LevitationH
,
F
3LevitationH
and F
4LevitationH
are the forces generated by the four levitation arrays. These forces are
equal to F
bLevitationH
in the equilibrium position, = mg, where m is the mass of the
vehicle. The coordinate system is defined as Figure 5.5 with x as traveling and y as lateral
direction.
H n bLevitatio
F
X
F
F
1Levitaion
Y
F
F
3Levitaion
4Levitaion
2Levitaion
Top View
(a)
X
F
F
1Lateral
Y
F
F
4Lateral
3Lateral
2Lateral
Top View
(b)
Figure 5.5: (a) Levitation array arrangements, (b) Lateral array arrangements
F
1LateralH,
F
2LateralH
, F
3LateralH,
and F
4LateralH
are the forces generated by the four lateral
arrays in the equilibrium position, which are equal to F
bLateralH
.
Driving Force
89
F
travling
= F
x
Levitation Force
F
levitation
=F
z
= Mg [F
1LevitationH
+
F
2LevitationH
+ F
3LevitationH
+ F
4LevitationH
]
Lateral force
F
laterial
=F
y
= F
1LateralH
 F
2LateralH
+ F
3LateralH
 F
4LateralH
External Moments
M
K
=[F
1LevitationH

F
2LevitationH
+ F
3LevitationH
 F
4LevitationH
]* L
y
M
M
= [F
1LevitationH

F
2LevitationH
+ F
3LevitationH
+ F
4LevitationH
]* L
x
M
N
= [F
1LateralH
 F
2LateralH
 F
3LateralH
+ F
4LateralH
]* L
xla
Above analysis is based on the equilibrium position. Following the system static stiffens
is analyzed for lateral, roll, pitch, and yaw directions.
5.2.1.1. Lateral
Consider the vehicle is in a nonequilibrium position with displacement y. The offset is
y for array 1 and 3, and y for array 2 and 4 laterally. The lateral arrays will generate the
lateral restoration force,
H 4 H 2 H 3 H 1 H lateral lateral lateral lateral Lateral
F F F F F + + =
 
kL
w
M
M
kd B rh
2
}
) sin(
) exp( 1 {
2
2 2 2
=
90
)] ) ( 2 exp( ) ) ( 2 [exp(
) ( 1
1
0 0
2
y y k y y k
L R
+
+
y k F
bLateral
H
8
. (5.2)
The lateral stiffness is
k F
y
F
bLateral
ubLateral
H
H
8
) (
=
, (5.3)
which is always positive, meaning that the lateral restoration force will always increase as the
lateral displacement increases.
5.2.1.2. Roll
The roll restoration moment is contributed by both levitation array and guidance arrays. If
the levitation array pair has displacement of z on the lift (y axis) side for array 2 and 4, and z
on the right (+y axis) side for array 1 and 3, L
y
is the distance between center of each levitation
array to the center of the vehicle in y direction, the roll angle z / L
y
. The restoration
moment, generated by levitation arrays, is given by
) ( *
H 4 H 2 H 3 H 1 H _ Leviation Leviation Leviation Leviation y Levitation roll
F F F F L T + >= <
with
91
 
) ) ( 2 exp(
) ( 1
1
2
}
) sin(
) exp( 1 {
2
2
2 2
H 4 H 2 H lub
z z k
L R kL
w
M
M
kd B
F F F
rh
Leviation Leviation Leviation
+
+
=
+ >= <
 
2 2
H
) ( 2 2 1 * 2
y x n bLevitatio
kL kL F + (5.4)
 
) ) ( 2 exp(
) ( 1
1
2
}
) sin(
) exp( 1 {
2
2
2 2
H 3 H 1 H
z z k
L R kL
w
M
M
kd B
F F F
rh
Leviation Leviation on rubLeviati
+
=
+ >= <
 
2 2
H
) ( 2 2 1 * 2
y y bLeviation
kL kL F + + (5.5)
2
H H _
4 * 2
y n bLevitatio Levitation roll
kL F T >= < (5.6)
the lateral array will generated restore force, the related position change is y L
z
sin()= L
z
where L
z
is the lateral array center to the center of the vehicle in the z direction.
 
 
2 2
H
0
2
2 2
H 3 H 1 H
) ( 2 2 1 * 2
) ) ( 2 exp(
) ( 1
1
2
}
) sin(
) exp( 1 {
2
z z bLateral
rh
ublateral ublateral rubLateral
kL kL F
y y k
L R kL
w
M
M
kd B
F F F
+ +
+
=
> < + > >=< <
(5.7)
 
) ) ( 2 exp(
) ( 1
1
2
}
) sin(
) exp( 1 {
2
0
2
2 2
H 4 H 2 H lub
y y k
L R kL
w
M
M
kd B
F F F
rh
ublateral ublateral Lateral
+
+
=
> < + > >=< <
92
 
2 2
H
) ( 2 2 1 * 2
z z bLateral
kL kL F + (5.8)
2
H _
8
z ylateral lateral roll
kL F T >= < (5.9)
The roll stiffness is
, 8 8
) (
2 2
H
y n bLevitatio z ylateral
roll
kL F kL F
T
+ =
> <
(5.7)
which is always positive, meaning that the roll restoring moment always increases as the roll
displacement increases.
5.2.1.3. Pitch
X
bb
Mg
Mg
F
F
F
F
fb
fub
bub
Y
Z
Figure 5.6: Levitation array arrangements analysis coordinator
If the levitation array pair is in a nonequilibrium position with displacement z for front
array 1 and 2, z for array 3 and 4; and L
x
is the distance between center of each levitation array
and the center of the vehicle in x direction; the pitch angle z / L
x
. If is very small, we can
93
neglect the higher order items.
 
 
2 2
H
2
2 2
H 2 H 1 H
) ( 2 2 1 * 2
) ) ( 2 exp(
) ( 1
1
2
}
) sin(
) exp( 1 {
2
x x n bLevitatio
rh
Leviation Leviation on fubLeviati
kL kL F
z z k
L R kL
w
M
M
kd B
F F F
+
+
+
=
+ >= <
(5.11)
 
 
2 2
H
2
2 2
H 4 H 3 H
) ( 2 2 1 * 2
) ) ( 2 exp(
) ( 1
1
2
}
) sin(
) exp( 1 {
2
x x n bLevitatio
rh
Leviation Leviation on bubLeviati
kL kL F
z z k
L R kL
w
M
M
kd B
F F F
+ +
+
=
+ >= <
(5.12)
F
fubLevitationH
+F
bubLevitationH
>= Mg, if is very small, and neglected the high order, then
F
fubLevitationH
+ F
bubLevitationH
= Mg
Where F
fubLevitationH
, F
bubLevitationH
are the front and rear levitation array group generated
force under unbalanced position.
2
H H
* 8
x n bLevitatio pitch
kL F T >= < (5.13)
The pitch stiffness
2
H
H
* 8
) (
x n bLevitatio
pitch
kL F
T
=
> <
(5.14)
which is always positive, meaning that the pitch restoration moment always increases as the
pitch displacement increases.
94
5.2.1.4. Yaw
The yaw restore moment is generated by lateral arrays. Supposing the lateral array pairs
are in nonequilibrium position with displacement of +y for front array 1 and 2, and y for rear
array 3 and 4. L
xla
is the distance between the centers of lateral array to the center of vehicle in x
direction. The yaw angle is y / L
xla
.
 
 
2 2
H
0
2
2 2
H 4 H 1
) ( 2 2 1 * 2
) ) ( 2 exp(
) ( 1
1
2
}
) sin(
) exp( 1 {
+
+
+
=
> >=< <
x x bLateral
rh
ublateral ublateral
kL kL F
y y k
L R kL
w
M
M
kd B
F F
(5.15)
 
) ) ( 2 exp(
) ( 1
1
2
}
) sin(
) exp( 1 {
0
2
2 2
H 3 H 2
y y k
L R kL
w
M
M
kd B
F F
rh
ublateral ublateral
+
=
> >=< <
 
2 2
H
) ( 2 2 1 * 2 + +
x x bLateral
kL kL F (5.16)
>= < k L F T
x bLateral lateral yaw
2
H H _
* 8 (5.17)
The yaw stiffness
k L F
T
xla bLateral
lateral yaw 2
H
H _
* 8
) (
=
> <
(5.18)
is always positive, meaning that the yaw restore moment always increases as the yaw
displacement increases.
95
The above analyses and calculations are based on separated pitch angle = z / L
x
, the
roll angle = z / L
y
, yaw angle = y / L
xla
, and lateral displacement y. These displacements
are very small in real system, and coupling can be neglected in real situations. The above
analyses and calculations are valid in combined cases. Because all stiffness parameters in lateral,
roll, pitch, and yaw are positive, and there is no coupling among them, the system is stable in
equilibrium position [110] or statically stable [123].
5.2.2. Six DOF Dynamic Force Modeling
The above force and stability analyses are focused on individual DOF of 6 DOF at static
state. For a complete system dynamic analysis, a simulation with all 6 DOF is required.
The following assumptions are used in the subsequent analyses.
1) The displacement from equilibrium is small;
2) The forces generated by the magnetic arrays are even within every single Halbach
array;
3) The couplings among arrays are neglected;
4) The vehicle and track are rigid bodies;
5) The center of mass is in the vehicles geometric center along xy directions;
6) The propulsion force and motion are independent of the other five DOF;
7) The propulsion and levitation motions are decoupled from the other 4 DOF. The
levitation height, traveling position and speed can be measured and used for
96
controlling the other 4 DOF;
8) Equation (5.1) is used as the only magnetic force.
For vehicle fixed coordinate and track reference coordinate have same origin. This origin
is chosen as the mass center of vehicle. The levitation and lateral array magnet positions are
given in Table5.1.
Table 5.1. Magnet array balance position
x y z
1 L
xHLev
L
yHLev
L
zHLev
2 L
xHLev
L
yHLev
L
zHLev
3 L
xHLev
L
yHLev
L
zHLev
Levitation
Array
4 L
xHLev
L
yHLav
L
zHLev
1 L
xHLat
L
yHLat
L
zHLat
2 L
xHLat
L
yHLat
L
zHLat
3 L
xHLat
L
yHLat
L
zHLat
Halbach
Array
Lateral
Array
4 L
xHLat
L
yHLat
L
zHLat
If vehicle with small rotational angle displacement roll, pitch, yaw, (, , ), and
translation displacement surge (traveling), sway (lateral), heave (levitation), (x
t
, y
t
, z
t
), the
distance of each magnetic array to the track will change accordingly due to these rotational and
translational displacements. The magnetic force is the function of the distance between the
magnet and track coils with considering both the original distance and the effect of the offset.
For levitation array, in z direction, simply adding offset. For guidance array, in y direction, the
array 1 and array 3, adding the offset; array 2 and array 4, subtracting the offset. The offset is the
difference of the new position and original position.
The new position due to the rotational motion can be calculated with Equation 5. 19. The
97
translation displacements are taken into consideration directly.
V
i_ref
=[DCM]
T
V
b_ref
(5.19)
V
b_ref
=[DCM] V
i_ref
where DCM is Direction Cosine Matrix (DCM)
(
(
(
=
(
(
(
+ +
+ +
=
=
33 23 13
32 22 12
31 21 11
cos cos sin cos sin
cos sin sin cos sin sin sin sin cos cos sin cos
cos sin cos sin sin sin sin cos sin cos cos cos
) ( ] [
1
dcm dcm dcm
dcm dcm dcm
dcm dcm dcm
DCM
T
2
J
(5.20)
With above new distance of each magnetic array to the track, the magnetic force at
unbalance position equation for each magnetic array can be calculated using Equation (5.1). For
small displacement the force equations are given by following equations.
 
 
2
H
2
2 2
H
) 2 ( 2 2 1 *
) ) ( 2 exp(
) ( 1
1
2
}
) sin(
) exp( 1 {
z k z k F
z z k
L R kL
w
M
M
kd B
F
n bLevitatio
rh
on ubLevitati
+
+
+
>= <
(5.21)
  )  ( 2 1 *
0 H H 1 t yHLev xHLev n bLevitatio on ubLevitati
z Z L L k F F + + > < (5.22)
  )  ( 2 1 *
0 H H 2 t yHLev xHLev n bLevitatio on ubLevitati
z Z L L k F F + > < (5.23)
  ) ( 2 1 *
0 H H 3 t yHLev xHLev n bLevitatio on ubLevitati
z Z L L k F F + + > < (5.24)
  ) ( 2 1 *
0 4 t yHLev xHLev n bLevitatio on ubLevitati
z Z L L k F F + > <
H H
(5.25)
98
  ) ( 2 1 ( *
0 H H 1
Y y L L k F F
t zHLat xHLat bLateral ublateral
+ + > < (5.26)
  ) ( 2 1 ( *
0 H H 2
Y y L L k F F
t zHLat xHLat bLateral ublateral
+ > < (5.27)
  ) ( 2 1 ( *
0 H H 3
Y y L L k F F
t zHLat xHLat bLateral ublateral
+ + > < (5.28)
  ) ( 2 1 ( *
0 H H 4
Y y L L k F F
t zHLat xHLat bLateral ublateral
+ > < (5.29)
Where z is translational offset, Z
0
is static distance, y is translational offset, and (Y
0
is static distance.
Due to the rotation motion, the moments generated by magnet forces are not resulted
from single type of magnetic array. The transformation to body reference frame with DCM is
needed.
ref i ref b
F DCM F
_ _
] [
r r
= (5.30)
The levitation array generates levitation force F
Levzi,
which has z competent only in initial
reference frame. In order to calculate the moment in body reference frame, the force needs to be
transformed to body reference frame. As indicated by Equation 5.31, the levitation force
generated by levitation array has all three components (F
zLevxb
, F
zLevyb
, and F
zLevzb
) in body
reference frame.
99
(
(
(
(
(
(
+ +
+ +
=
(
(
(
Levzi
zLevzb
zLevyb
zLevxb
F
F
F
F
0
0
cos cos cos sin sin cos sin cos sin cos sin sin
sin cos sin sin sin cos cos sin sin cos sin cos
sin sin cos cos cos
(
(
(
=
) cos (cos
) sin (cos
) sin (
z
z
z
F k
F j
F i
r
r
r
(5.31)
For guidance array the guidance force, the F
Latyi
, is in initial frame with y competent only,
and has all three components in body reference frame (F
yLatxb
, F
yLatyb
, and F
yLatzb
).
(
(
(
(
(
(
+ +
+ +
=
(
(
(
0
0
cos cos cos sin sin cos sin cos sin cos sin sin
sin cos sin sin sin cos cos sin sin cos sin cos
sin sin cos cos cos
Latyi
yLatzb
yLatyb
yLatxb
F
F
F
F
(
(
(
+
+ =
Latyi
Latyi
Latyi
F ) cos sin sin cos sin ( k
F ) sin sin sin cos (cos j
F sin cos i
r
r
r
(5.32)
Follwing above procedures for all the four levitation and four guidance arrays, the force
and moment equations are given by
F
y
= (F
1ublateralH
 F
2ublateralH
+ F
3ublateralH
 F
4ublateralH
) ) sin sin sin cos (cos +  [F
1ubLevitationH
+
F
2ubLevitationH
+ F
3ubLevitationH
+ F
4ubLevitationH
] sin cos + Mg sin cos
100
F
z
= Mg [F cos cos
1ubLevitationH
+
F
2ubLevitationH
+ F
3ubLevitationH
+ F
4ubLevitationH
] cos cos +
[F
1ublateralH
 F
2ublateralH
+ F
3ublateralH
 F
4ublateralH
] ( ) cos sin sin cos sin +
M
K
=[F
1uLevitationH
+
F
2uLevitationH
 F
3uLevitationH
+ F
4uLevitationH
] cos cos
) cos
* L
y
+ [ F
1ublateralH
+
F
2ublateralH
 F
3ublateralH
+ F
4ublateralH
] ( sin sin cos sin + * L
ylat
+[F
1ubLevitationH
+
F
2ubLevitationH
 F
3ubLevitationH
+ F
4ubLevitationH
] sin cos
) sin
*L
z
+[ F
1ublateralH
+ F
2ublateralH
 F
3ublateralH

F
4ublateralH
] sin sin cos (cos + L
zlat
M
M
= [F
1uLevitationH
+
F
2uLevitationH
 F
3uLevitationH
 F
4uLevitationH
] cos
) cos
cos * L
x
+ [ F
1ublateralH
+
F
2ublateralH
 F
3ublateralH
 F
4ublateralH
] ( sin sin cos sin + * L
ylat
[F
1uLevitationH
+F
2uLevitationH
 F
3uLevitationH
+ F
4uLevitationH
] sin * L
x
 [ F
1ublateralH
+ F
2ublateralH
 F
3ublateralH

F
4ublateralH
] (cos ) cos * L
zlat
M
N
= [F
1uLateralH
 F
2uLateralH
 F
3uLateralH
+ F
4LateralH
] ) sin sin sin cos (cos + * L
xla
+
[F
1ubLevitationH
+
F
2ubLevitationH
 F
3ubLevitationH
 F
4ubLevitationH
] sin cos * L
x
[F
1ubLevitationH
+
F
2ubLevitationH
 F
3ubLevitationH
+ F
4ubLevitationH
] sin * L
y
+ [F
1uLateralH
+F
2uLateralH
 F
3uLateralH
+
F
4LateralH
] (cos ) sin * L
yla
(5.33) (5.37)
where L
x
is the distance between center of each levitation array and the center of the vehicle in x
direction; L
y
is the distance between center of each levitation array to the center of the vehicle in
y direction; L
z
is the distance between center of the levitation array and center of vehicle in the z
direction; L
xla
is the distance between the center of lateral array to the center of vehicle in x
direction. L
yla
is the distance between the center of lateral array to the center of vehicle in y
101
direction; L
zla
is the distance between center of the lateral array and center of vehicle in the z
direction.
102
CHAPTER SIX: MAGLEV DYNAMIC SIMULATION AND CONTROL
The stability analysis and dynamic simulation of a Halbach array Maglev EDS system with the
novel active array are presented in this chapter. The simulations are conducted under different
conditions, such as with and without control and with and without mass center offset. The
analysis and simulation results show that the system is marginally stable in levitation, lateral,
roll, pitch and yaw directions. Unlike ordinary vehicles, the offset of the mass center of vehicle
has a strong effect on the dynamics of the Maglev system due to the uniqueness of the magnetic
force. The mass center offset causes oscillations in all directions at the take off stage. In order to
guarantee the Maglev system dynamic stability, the active damping and LQR control were
developed. The simulation verified the effectiveness of the proposed control designs.
6.1. Six DOF Dynamic Analysis Theory
The equations of motion for rigid body, expressed in the bodyfixed reference coordinate
system, can be written as [65, 66, 126, 137]
RB RB RB
C M = + ) ( & . (6.1)
103
where M
RB
is a matrix of inertial and mass terms and C
RB
is a matrix of centrifugal and Coriolis
terms. They are given by
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
=
zz yz zx G G
yz yy xy G G
xz xy xx G G
G G
G G
G G
I q I p I mx my
r I I p I mx mz
r I q I I my mz
mx my m
mx mz m
my mz m
. .
. .
. .
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
RB
M
and
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
+
+
+ +
+
+
+
=
p I q I p I q I p I q I q my p mx r my r mx
r I p I r I p I p I r I q mz p mx r mz q mx
r I q I r I q I r I q I p mz p my q my r mz
q my p mx q mz mu p mz mv
r my mu p mx r mz p my mw
r mx mv q mx mw q my r mz
v
yz zx yy xx xy xx G G G G
zx zz xy yz zx xx G G G G
yz zz yy yz xy xz G G G G
G G G G
G G G G
G G G G
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
) (
RB
C
(6.2)
104
}
}
{
T
r q p w v u =
{
K z y x RB
M F F F =
is the vector of translational and rotational velocities of the vehicle
with respect to the vehicle bodyfixed reference frame.
is the vector that represents all external forces and
moments applied to the carriage.
T
N M
M M
Equation 6.1 consists of two parts, translational and rotational, which can be rewritten as
) ) ( (
.
2
.
2
.
2 1 2
.
1 G G
r v v r v v v v + + + =m F
(6.3)
) ( ) (
1 2
.
1 2 2
.
2
v v v r v I v v I
G o o
+ + + = m M
(6.4)
where I
0
is the inertial tensor as defined at the origin of the bodyfixed coordinate system, and r
G
is the vector from origin of the bodyfixed frame to the body center of gravity, and is defined as:
105
 
T
G G G
z y x =
G
r . (6.5)
The Equation 6.3 and Equation 6.4 can be expanded as:
)] ( ) ( ) ( [ F
2 2
x
q pr z r pq y r q x wq vr u m
G G G
& & & + + + + + = (6.6)
)] ( ) ( ) ( [ F
2 2
Y
r qp x p qr z p r y ur wp v m
G G G
& & & + + + + + = (6.7)
)] ( ) ( ) ( [ F
2 2
Z
p rq y q rp x q p z vp uq w m
G G G
& & & + + + + + = (6.8)
)] ur wp v ( z ) vp uq w ( y [ m
I ) q pr ( I ) q r ( I ) pq r ( qr ) I I ( p I
G G
xy yz xz yy zz xx
+ + +
+ + + + =
& &
& & &
2 2
K
M
(6.9)
)] vp uq w ( x ) wq vr u ( z [ m
I ) r qp ( I ) r p ( I ) qr p ( rp ) I I ( q I
G G
yz zx xy zz xx yy
+ + +
+ + + + =
& &
& & &
2 2
M
M
(6.10)
)] wq vr u ( y ) ur wp v ( x [ m
I ) p rq ( I ) p q ( I ) rp q ( pq ) I I ( r I
G G
zx xy yz xx yy zz
+ + +
+ + + + =
& &
& & &
2 2
N
M
(6.11)
If the vehicle is symmetric around both the xz and yz planes, it is implied that I
xy
= I
xz
=
I
zy
=0. This reduces the rigid body inertia tensor to:
(
(
(
=
zz
yy
xx
I
I
I
0 0
0 0
0 0
o
I . (6.12)
The Equation 6.6 to Equation 6.11 can be rewritten as
)] ( ) ( ) ( [ F
2 2
x
q pr z r pq y r q x wq vr u m
G G G
& & & + + + + + = (6.13)
)] ( ) ( ) ( [ F
2 2
Y
r qp x p qr z p r y ur wp v m
G G G
& & & + + + + + = (6.14)
)] ( ) ( ) ( [ F
2 2
Z
p rq y q rp x q p z vp uq w m
G G G
& & & + + + + + = (6.15)
)] ( ) ( [ ) ( M
K
ur wp v z vp uq w y m qr I I p I
G G yy zz xx
+ + + + = & & & (6.16)
)] ( ) ( [ ) ( M
M
vp uq w x wq vr u z m rp I I q I
G G zz xx yy
+ + + + = & & & (6.17)
)] ( ) ( [ ) ( M
N
wq vr u y ur wp v x m pq I I r I
G G xx yy zz
+ + + + = & & & (6.18)
If the center of mass of the vehicle is at the origin of the bodyfixed reference frame,
x
G
=y
G
= z
G
=0, and the vehicle fixed coordinate frame and track reference coordinate have same
origin.
The equations Equation 6.13 to Equation 6.18 are further simplified as
] [ F
x
wq vr u m + = & (6.19)
] [ F
Y
ur wp v m + = & (6.20)
] [ F
Z
vp uq w m + = & (6.21)
qr I I p I
yy zz xx
) ( M
K
+ = & (6.22)
rp I I q I
zz xx yy
) ( M
M
+ = & (6.23)
pq I I r I
xx yy zz
) ( M
N
+ = & (6.24)
With these six equations, Equation 6.19 to Equation 6.24, we can simulate the
translational and rotational dynamics using the Simulink
106
(Bodyfixed linear velocity) and { }
T
r q p =
2
=
(
(
(
(
w
v
u
z
y
x
) (
1
.
.
.
2
J
(Bodyfixed angular velocity).
2
+
+
sin cos
sin sin cos
cos sin cos
2
J = &
cos
sin
0
cos 0
tan sin 1
)
2
+
=
(
(
(
(
) (
q p
r
q
p
2
(
,
1 1 1
) ( J
2
= & (6.25)
where (Inertial Position) and {
T
z y x =
1
} { }
T
= (Inertial Orientation) are the
final dynamic simulation results.
(
(
(
+
+
=
cos cos sin
cos sin sin cos sin sin cos sin cos
cos sin cos sin sin sin sin cos cos
) (
1 2
J
J
1
(
2
) is an orthogonal matrix, J
1
1
(
2
) = J
1
T
(
2
)=[DCM]
The coordinate transform relates rotational velocities between bodyfixed and inertial
reference coordinates by:
2 2 2
) ( (6.26)
and
(
(
(
(
cos
cos
sin
tan cos
(
2
J (6.27)
(
(
(
(
(
+
=
(
(
(
(
(
cos
sin
cos
cos
sin cos
cos tan sin tan
.
.
.
q r
r r q
r
2
J (6.28)
107
(
(
(
(
(
+
+
=
(
(
(
(
(
=
(
(
(
+
+ +
=
(
(
(
(
(
cos sin sin cos cos cos cos sin
sin sin cos cos sin cos sin cos
cos sin
, . , . ..
.
, . ..
, . , . .. , . ..
. . .. ..
.
.
.
r
q
p
(6.30)
6.2. Levitation, Lateral Dynamic and Control
6.2.1. Levitation Dynamic and Control
It is clearly indicated that a repulsively levitated vehicle has the vertical oscillations. The
maglev may be directly analyzed with classical linear vibration theory used in aircraft dynamic
analysis [95, 120].
For the vehicle levitated above the track coils, the magnetic levitation force F is a
function of the distance between the magnetic array and levitation coils, d. The force can be
expanded in a Taylor series in the perturbed small displacement variables about the equilibrium
nominal position.
108
) (  ) ( ) (
0 0
0
d d
d
F
d F d F
d d
+ =
=
(6.32)
and , m is the mass of the vehicle, and g is the gravity acceleration rate of earth. mg d F = ) (
0
 
) 2 exp(
) ( 1
1
*
2
}
) sin(
) exp( 1 {
2
2 2 2
z k
L v k R kL
w
M
M
kd B
K F
h r
f L
+
>= <
) 2 1 )( (
0
d k d F = (6.33)
from the equation of motion
d k mg d k d F d m = =
2 2 ) (
0
(6.34)
for oscillatory motion the frequency is given by solve above equation
t j
e
/ 4 2 g kg = = (6.35)
2
= f
Figure 6.1 and Figure 6.2 show the simulation result with , 13 . 0 m = the frequency is
about 5 Hz, which agrees with the calculation result, 4.89 Hz.
Using Simulink
= z t f
n L
2 ) (
. If 1 0 > > , under damped exponentially decaying motion; If 1 = ,
critically damped exponentially decaying motion; If 1 > , over damped exponentially decaying
motion. Figure 6.3 to Figure 6.5 show the simulation results under different damping ratio.
111
Figure 6.3: Levitation simulation (a) disturbance force, (b) traveling speed, (c) levitation height
(with damping ratio = 0.1)
Figure 6.4: Levitation simulation, (a) disturbance force; (b) traveling speed; (c) levitation height
(with damping ratio = 1, critical damping)
112
Figure 6.5: Levitation simulation, (a) disturbance force; (b) traveling speed; (c) levitation height
(with damping ratio = 2)
These simulation results show that the damping control is quite effective for eliminating
levitation oscillation. The active array damping control current can be derived according to the
coil character. Let us suppose that the active array magnetic coil block current i and the coil
magnetic flux density B has a relationship
B=B(i) (6.37)
The active array damping control force can be generated by control the active
control current i
) (t f
L
113
 
=
=
+
=
z
i B z v K
z k
L v k R kL
w
M
M
kd i B
K t f
n
fa
h
f L
2
) ( * ) , (
) 2 exp(
) ( 1
1
*
2
}
) sin(
) exp( 1 { ) (
) (
2
2
2 2 2
(6.38)
where
 
) 2 exp(
) ( 1
1
*
2
}
) sin(
) exp( 1 {
) , (
2
2 2
z k
L v k R kL
w
M
M
kd
K z v K
h
f fa
+
=
(6.39)
) , (
2
) (
2
z v K
z
i B
fa
n
(6.40)
)
) , (
2
(
1
z v K
z
B i
fa
n
(6.41)
The infinite length solenoid flux density with N turn and current I is given by
NI B
0
= (6.42)
To make things simple, it is reasonable to assume that the control current i and magnetic
flux density B of the active control array block has a relationship
B = B(i) = k
fac
I (6.43)
The Equation 6.41 can be simplified to
) , (
2
z v K k
z
i
fa fac
n
(6.44)
114
6.2.2. Lateral Dynamic and Control
For the vehicle at the equilibrium nominal position, the magnetic guidance force F is
balanced by the force generated by both sides of the arrays on the vehicle. These forces are a
function of the distance d between the magnetic array and track coils at a giving traveling speed.
The force can be expanded into a Taylor series of the perturbed displacement variables about the
equilibrium nominal position with neglecting the higher order terms.
) ( 
)) ( ) ( (
) ( ) ( ) (
0
24 13
0 24 0 13
0
d d
d
d F d F
d F d F d F
d d
+ =
=
(6.45)
 
)] 2 [exp(
) ( 1
1
*
2
}
) sin(
) exp( 1 {
2
) ( ) (
0
2
2 2 2
0 24 0 13
kd
L v k R kL
w
M
M
kd B
K
d F d F
lat h r
f
+
=
=
(6.46)
substitute Equation 6.46 into Equation 6.45
 
))] ( 2 exp( )) ( 2 [exp(
) ( 1
1
*
2
}
) sin(
) exp( 1 {
2 ) (
0 0
2
2 2 2
d d k d d k
L v k R
kL
w
M
M
kd B
K d F
lat h r
f
+
+
=
d d kF = ) ( 4
0 13
(6.47)
where F
13
and F
24
are the lateral forces generated by guidance array 1, 3 and array 2, 4
respectively.
Similar to the levitation case, from the equation of motion
d d kF d m =
) ( 4
0 13
(6.48)
115
For oscillatory motion e the frequency is given by solve above equation
t j
m
d kF ) ( 4
0 13
= (6.49)
The frequency is not simple as levitation natural frequency. It is a function of the
magnetic force, which is a function of traveling speed.
Figure 6.6: Lateral dynamic simulation, (a) disturbance force; (b) traveling speed; (c) lateral
position
116
Figure 6.7: Lateral dynamic simulation, (a) disturbance force; (b) traveling speed; (c) lateral
position (Zoom in)
The natural frequency of lateral is about 8 Hz.
With same procedure, similar as the levitation damping control, the damping control can
be added for lateral motion. Figure 6.8 through Figure 6.11 show the simulation results with
different damping ratios (under damping, critical damping, over damping).
117
Figure 6.8: Lateral simulation, (a) disturbance force (b) traveling speed (c) lateral position (with
damping ratio = 0.01)
Figure 6.9: Lateral simulation, (a) disturbance force (b) traveling speed (c) lateral position (with
damping ratio = 0.1)
118
Figure 6.10: Lateral simulation, (a) disturbance force; (b) traveling speed; (c) lateral position
(with damping ratio = 1, critical damping)
Figure 6.11: Lateral simulation, (a) disturbance force; (b) traveling speed; (c) lateral position
(with damping ratio = 2)
119
6.2.3. Levitation and Lateral Dynamic Simulation Under Different Speed
As indicated by previous section, the speed has effect on the dynamic oscillation. The
Figure 6.12 through Figure 6.14 show the simulation results with different travailing speeds.
Figure 6.12: Levitation and lateral simulation final speed 65 m/s (a) disturbance force, (b)
traveling speed, (c) lateral position, (d) lateral position (Zoom in), (e) levitation position, (f)
levitation position (Zoom in)
The levitation oscillation frequency is about 5 Hz, and lateral oscillation frequency is
about 8.6 Hz.
120
Figure 6.13: Levitation and lateral simulation final speed 32 m/s (a) disturbance force, (b)
traveling speed, (c) lateral position, (d) lateral position (Zoom in), (e) levitation position, (f)
levitation position (Zoom in)
The levitation oscillation frequency is about 5 Hz, and lateral oscillation frequency is
about 8 Hz.
121
Figure 6.14: Levitation and lateral simulation final speed 24 m/s (a) disturbance force, (b)
traveling speed, (c) lateral position, (d) lateral position (Zoom in), (e) levitation position, (f)
levitation position (Zoom in)
The levitation oscillation frequency is about 5 Hz, and lateral oscillation frequency is
about 8 Hz.
The above simulation results show for the given vehicle the levitation oscillation
frequency is almost constant for different traveling speed. But lateral oscillation frequency is
changed with different traveling speed. The oscillation frequency will increase a little bit under
the higher speed.
122
6.3. Six DOF Dynamic Simulation
Together with the dynamic equations, Equation 6.2 and Equation 6.3, and force, moment
equations, Equation 5.33 to Equation 5.37, the translational and rotational dynamics of vehicle
simulation under disturbances was performed using the Simulink
+
+
+
+
=
+
+
+
+
+
+
=
*
2
*
*
2
*
*
4
3
Figure 6.25 through Figure 6.36 show the dynamic simulation results with vehicles mass
center offset
uneven
x =0.001m,
uneven
y =0.002m, and
uneven
x = 0.054m, =0.02m under
final speed 24m/s and 64m/s demonstrating the vehicle dynamics with mass center offset.
uneven
y
Figure 6.25: The translational position (
uneven
x = 0.001m,
uneven
y =0.002m, 24m/s)
131
Figure 6.26: Translational velocity (
uneven
x = 0.001m,
uneven
y =0.002m, 24m/s)
Figure 6.27: Rotational Euler angle (
uneven
x = 0.001m,
uneven
y =0.002m, 24m/s)
132
Figure 6.28: The translational position (
uneven
x = 0.054m,
uneven
y =0.02m, 24m/s)
Figure 6.29: Translational velocity (
uneven
x = 0.054m,
uneven
y =0.02m, 24m/s)
133
Figure 6.30: Rotational speed (
uneven
x = 0.054m and
uneven
y =0.02m, 24m/s)
Figure 6.31: The translational position (
uneven
x = 0.001m,
uneven
y =0.002m, 64m/s)
134
Figure 6.32: Translational velocity (
uneven
x = 0.001m,
uneven
y =0.002m, 64m/s)
Figure 6.33: Rotational speed (
uneven
x = 0.001m,
uneven
y =0.002m, 64m/s)
135
Figure 6.34: The translational position (
uneven
x = 0.054m,
uneven
y =0.02m, 64m/s)
Figure 6.35: Translational velocity (
uneven
x = 0.054m,
uneven
y =0.02m, 64m/s)
136
Figure 6.36: Rotational speed (
uneven
x = 0.054m,
uneven
y =0.02m, 64m/s)
Comparing with the non mass center offset case, the Maglev system has small
oscillations even without the external disturbances in roll, pitch, yaw, lateral, and levitation
directions. Larger mass center offset leads stronger oscillations in translational motion sway
(lateral, y), heave (levitation, z), and rotational motion roll , pitch , and yaw . The larger is
the acceleration rate, the larger is the oscillation amplitude.
6.4. Optimized Damping Control and Simulation
As we have seen the vehicle dynamic damping is not large enough to damp the
oscillations in translational motion sway (lateral, y), heave (levitation, z), and rotational motion
137
roll , pitch , and yaw , a control mechanism is desired to add damping. The system has
independent propulsion control system, which is not considered in this report. For small
displacements around the nominal position, the high order terms are negligible compared to the
principal terms [32]. The simplified vehicle dynamics are given by [32, 77, 78, 136]
0
0
..
0
RB
RB M = a (6.50)
where { }
T
N M K z y RB
M M M F F =
0
(
(
(
(
(
(
=
zz
yy
xx
I
I
I
m
m
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 RB
M
T
z y a ] , , , , [
0
=
Substituting the passive Halbach array only forces and moments into Equation 6.50, with
neglecting the high order terms we get equations.
T
xlat bLateral x n bLevitatio y n bLevitatio bLateral
RB
k L F kL F kL F z mgk y k F ] 8 8 8 2 8 [
2
H
2
H
2
H H
0
=
=
(6.51)
0 0 0
0
..
0 a K a
st
= = MRB (6.52)
where
138
(
(
(
(
(
(
=
k L F
kL F
kL F
mgk
k F
K
xlat bLateral
x n bLevitatio
y n bLevitatio
bLateral
st
2
H
2
H
2
H
H
0
8 0 0 0 0
0 8 0 0 0
0 0 8 0 0
0 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 8
where z is the vehicle displacement from equilibrium position in levitation direction, and y is
the vehicle displacement laterally from equilibrium position.
From Equation 6.52, it is clear that the dynamic has no damping terms. This confirmed
the simulation results of oscillation in these five DOF. A control mechanism is needed to
stabilize the system. The system equation with control is given by
0 0
0
0
..
0 = + + u a K a
st
RB M (6.53)
where u is the control input with are give as
] [
u u u u u u
z y
= (6.54)
The control mechanism proposed in this paper is to add damping control for these five
DOF.
For the system configuration of Figure 5.1, the control forces are generated by four
levitation and four guidance active arrays, which are named as F
1LevitationA
, F
2LevitationA
, F
3LevitationA
,
F
4LevitationA,
F
1LateralA
, F
2LateralA
, F
3LateralA
, and F
4LateralA.
Comparing the equation with desired
damping and control function and using the force and moment at equilibrium equation. The
control force equations are given as
139
= + + + =
= + =
z K u
y K u
z z
y y
) (
) (
nA 4Levitatio nA 3Levitatio nA 2Levitatio nA 1Levitatio
4LateralA 3LateralA 2LateralA 1LateralA
F F F F
F F F F
= + =
= + =
= + + =
K L u
K L u
K L u
xlat
x
y
) ( *
) ( *
) ( *
4LateralA 3LateralA 2LateralA 1LateralA
nA 4Levitatio nA 3Levitatio nA 2Levitatio nA 1Levitatio
nA 4Levitatio nA 3Levitatio nA 2Levitatio nA 1Levitatio
F F F F
F F F F
F F F F
(6.55)(6.59)
where is the damping control factors. The Equation 6.55 to {
T
z y d
K K K K K K
= }
Equation 6.59 can be grouped into
nA 4Levitatio nA 3Levitatio nA 2Levitatio nA 1Levitatio
F F F F + + + =
z
u
) ( *
) ( *
nA 4Levitatio nA 3Levitatio nA 2Levitatio nA 1Levitatio
nA 4Levitatio nA 3Levitatio nA 2Levitatio nA 1Levitatio
F F F F
F F F F
+ =
+ + =
x
y
L u
L u
(6.60)(6.62)
and
) (
4LateralA 3LateralA 2LateralA 1LateralA
F F F F + =
y
u
) ( *
4LateralA 3LateralA 2LateralA 1LateralA
F F F F + =
xlat
L u
(6.63)(6.64)
These are two groups of equations with more variables than the equations. To solve these
equations some constraints can be introduced given the practical situation to get optimized
solutions. For example, to minimize the sum of control forces square by (min{ }), or to
minimize the number of the devices by min{control force number}.
2
F
140
Vehicle
Dynamics &
Measurement
Damping
Control
Optimazation
Calculate
Desird
Damping
Control
Control
Active
Array
y
z
a
a
a
F
F
T
T
T
ya
za
a
a
a
F
F
T
T
T
ya
za
Figure 6.37: Closed loop damping control block diagram
Following we use both options to illustrate the effectiveness of the active array damping
control design. First one, minimizing number of the device by min{control force number}. From
Equation 6.60 to Equation 6.62 with 0 =
nA 1Levitatio
F , we get
) (
2
1
) (
2
1
) (
2
1
x y
y
z
x
z
L
u
L
u
L
u
u
L
u
u
=
=
+ =
nA 4Levitatio
nA 3Levitatio
nA 2Levitatio
F
F
F
(6.65)(6.67)
From Equation 6.63 to Equation 6.64 with 0 = =
4LateralA 2LateralA
F F , we get
) (
2
1
(
2
1
xlat
y
y
xlat
ctl
L
u
u
u
L
u
=
+ =
3LateralA
1LateralA
F
) F
(6.68)(6.69)
141
The simulation results given by Figure 6.38 and Figure 6.39, which show the
effectiveness of the active damping control and optimized design.
The second approach of minimizing the mean square of control forces by (min{
2
F })
can be solved with Lagrange multiplier optimization method [126]. For Equation 6.60 through
Equation 6.62, The Lagrangian is given by
) (
) (
) (
3
2
1
x
y
z
L
u
L
u
u
Lag
+ +
+ + +
+ + + +
+ + + =
nA 4Levitatio nA 3Levitatio nA 2Levitatio nA 1Levitatio
nA 4Levitatio nA 3Levitatio nA 2Levitatio nA 1Levitatio
nA 4Levitatio nA 3Levitatio nA 2Levitatio nA 1Levitatio
nA 4Levitatio
2
nA 3Levitatio
2
nA 2Levitatio
2
nA 1Levitatio
2
F F F F
F F F F
F F F F
F F F F
(6.70)
The solutions are given as.
x y
z
L
u
L
u
u
4 4 4 2
3 2 1
+ =
+
=
nA 1Levitatio
F
x y
z
L
u
L
u
u
4 4 4 2
3 2 1
=
+ +
=
nA 2Levitatio
F (6.71)(6.74)
x y
z
L
u
L
u
u
4 4 4 2
3 2 1
+ + =
=
nA 3Levitatio
F
142
x y
z
L
u
L
u
u
4 4 4 2
3 2 1
+ =
+
=
nA 4Levitatio
F
For Equation 6.63 through Equation 6.64, The Lagrangian is given by
) (
) (
2
1
xLat
y
L
u
u
Lag
+ +
+ +
+ + + =
4LateralA 3LateralA 2LateralA 1LateralA
4LateralA 3LateralA 2LateralA 1LateralA
4LateralA
2
3LateralA
2
2LateralA
2
1LateralA
2
F F F F
F F F F
F F F F
(6.75)
The solutions are given as.
xLat
y
L
u u
4 4 2
2 1
=
+
=
1LateralA
F
xLat
y
L
u u
4 4 2
2 1
+ =
+
=
2LateralA
F
xLat
y
L
u u
4 4 2
2 1
+ =
=
3LateralA
F (6.76)(6.79)
xLat
y
L
u u
4 4 2
2 1
=
+
=
4LateralA
F
There are only 5 active arrays being used with the first approach. The force needed for
each active array will be smaller for the second approach. No matter which optimization
approach is used, the results will satisfy the Equation 6.55 through Equation 6.59 and simulation
results are exactly same under same damping factors
K K K
z
, , ,
K and K
y
, .
The simulation results are given by Figure 6.38 and Figure 6.39, which show the
143
effectiveness of the design.
Figure 6.38: The position simulation final with speed 24 m/s (a) disturbance force (b) traveling
(c) lateral (d) levitation
Figure 6.39: The Euler angles simulation final speed 24 m/s (a) disturbance force (b) roll angle
(c) pitch angle (d) yaw angle
144
The damping control has the advantage of simple and the requirement for implementation
is not very challenging, which results in only the time different for damping out oscillation due
to the damping ratio inaccurate, and has no effect on the stability.
If more accurate control is needed, we recommend the LQR control, which is one kind of
optimized control and widely used in missile and airplane control.
6.5. Optimized LQR Control and Simulation
LQR is a linear optimal control with quadratic performance indices [132, 133]. The
advantages of linear optimal control are [132].
1. Nearly all linear optimal control problems have readily computable solutions.
2. Linear optimal control results may be applied to nonlinear systems operating on a
small signal basis. It is quite suitable for the Maglev system stability control due to
the natural of the Maglev small displacement in translational motion sway (lateral, y),
heave (levitation, z), and rotational motion roll , pitch and yaw .
3. Linear optimal control designs where the plant states are measurable turn out to
possess a number of properties, other than simply optimality of a quadratic index.
These properties include good gain margin and phase margin, and good tolerance of
nonlinearities. Hence, linear optimal design methods are in some ways applicable to
nonlinear systems.
For system
145
Bu Ax x + =
.
(6.80)
where x=state vector( n vector), u=control vector (r vector), A=constant matrix (n by n matrix),
B=constant matrix (n by r matrix).
The performance index is given by
+ =
0
* *
) ( dt Ru u Qx x J (6.81)
where is the complex conjugate of the transpose of matrix
*
x x and the control vector is given
by
u(t)= Kx(t) (6.82)
where Q is the weighting matrix on the states (n by n), R is a positive scalar and yields a matrix
of optimal gains K for the state feedback. The optimization of the cost function gives the optimal
control signal u. The optimal configuration is shown in Figure 6.40.
X=Ax+Bu
K
.
x
u
Figure 6.40: Linear Quadratic Optimal Control Block Diagram
146
K =R
1
B
*
P (6.83)
where is the unique positive definite solution of the algebraic Riccati equation ,
T
P P =
0
* 1 *
= + +
Q P B PBP PA P A (6.84)
The weighting matrix Q =I and R =1 are presented in this paper to demonstrate the
effectiveness of the design.
The Equation 6.53 consists of five independent second order systems for translational
motion sway (lateral, y), heave (levitation, z), and rotational motion roll , pitch , and yaw .
The controller can be designed separately according the LQR optimized control theory.
Following we will give the design one by one
Let define , , Y x y = 1
.
2 Y x y = k F K
bLateral y st H 0
8 = . The lateral system equation is given
by
y y y y
y u B x A x + =
.
(6.85)
where
] [ 2
1
.
y
y
y x x x =
(
(
=
0
1 0
0
m
K
A y st
y
(
(
=
m
B
y
1
0
substituting these into Equation 6.81 we get equation
147
0
1 0
0 1
)
1
( )
1
(
)
1
( )
1
(
2
22
2
22 12
2
22 12
2 2
12
2
12 22
0
11 12
0
12 11
22
0
12
0
=
(
+
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
+
(
(
p
m
p p
m
p p
m
p
m
p p
m
K
p p
m
K
p p
p
m
K
p
m
K
y st
y st
y st y st
(6.86)
solving it and select the positive values, the results are given as
) ) 1 1 ( 2 1 ( ) 2 1 (
) ) 1 1 )(( ) 1 1 ( 2 1 ( ) )
1
((
) 1 1 (
2
0 12 22
0
2
0
2
0 22
0
12
2
11
2
0 12
+ + = + =
+ + + + = + =
+ =
y st
y st y st y st
y st
y st
K m m p m p
K K K m p
m
K
p
m
p
K m p
(6.87)
substituting these into Equation 6.98, we get the optimized control gain matrix K,
 
(
+ + + =
(
=
=
) 1 1 ( 2 1 1 1
1
1
0
2
0
2
0 22 12
22 12
12 11
* 1
y st y st
K m K p p
m
p p
p p
m
P B R K
(6.88)
and the optimized control is
148
.
2
0
2
0
.
2
0
2
0
) 1 1 ( 2 1 ] 1 1 [
) 1 1 ( 2 1 1 1
Y K m Y K
Y Y K m K
Kx u
y st y st
T
y st y st
y
+ + + + =
(
+ + + =
=
(6.89)
similarly, we can get the optimized control for . , , ,
u and u u u
z
.
2
0
2
0
) 1 1 ( 2 1 ] 1 1 [ Z K m Z K u
y st y st z
+ + + + = (6.90)
.
2
0
2
0
) 1 1 ( 2 1 ] 1 1 [
+ + + + =
st xx st
K I K u (6.91)
.
2
0
2
0
) 1 1 ( 2 1 ] 1 1 [
+ + + + =
st yy st l
K I K u (6.92)
.
2
0
2
0
) 1 1 ( 2 1 ] 1 1 [
+ + + + =
st zz st
K I K u (6.93)
where , , , and
.
mgk K
z st
2
0
=
k L
xlat bLateral
2
H
2
H 0
8
y n bLevitatio st
kL F K =
2
H 0
8
x n bLevitatio st
kL F K =
F K
st 0
8 =
With same procedure as the optimized damping control to minimize number of the device using
equations Equation 6.65 through Equation 6.69, with 0 =
nA 1Levitatio
F and 0 = =
4LateralA 2LateralA
F F ,
or to minimize the mean square of control forces using Equation 6.71 through Equation 6.74 and
Equation 6.76 through Equation 6.79, the force and moment are implemented by optimized
approach and the simulation results are showed in Figure 6.41 through Figure 6. 43.
149
Figure 6.41: With LQR control, the position simulation final with speed 24 m/s (a) disturbance
force (b) traveling (c) lateral (d) levitation
Figure 6.42: With LQR control, the velocity simulation with final speed 24 m/s (a) disturbance
force (b) traveling (c) lateral (d) levitation
150
Figure 6.43: With LQR control, the Euler angles simulation final speed 24 m/s (a) disturbance
force (b) roll angle (c) pitch angle (d) yaw angle
The damping control and LQR control simulation results for mass center offset case are
showed in Figure 6.44 through Figure 6.49, and Figure 6.50 through 6.55 respectively.
151
Figure 6.44: With damping control, the translational position (
uneven
x = 0.001m,
uneven
y =0.002m, 24m/s) (a) disturbance force (b) traveling (c) lateral (d) levitation
Figure 6.45: With damping control, the translational velocity (
uneven
x = 0.001m,
uneven
y =0.002m, 24m/s) (b) traveling (c) lateral (d) levitation
152
Figure 6.46: With damping control, the Euler angles (
uneven
x = 0.001m,
uneven
y =0.002m,
24m/s) (a) disturbance force (b) roll (c) pitch (d) yaw
Figure 6.47: With damping control, the translational position (
uneven
x = 0.054m,
uneven
y =0.02m, 24m/s) (a) disturbance force (b) traveling (c) lateral (d) levitation
153
Figure 6.48: With damping control, the translational velocity (
uneven
x = 0.054m,
uneven
y =0.02m, 24m/s) (b) traveling (c) lateral (d) levitation
Figure 6.49: With damping control, the Euler angles (
uneven
x = 0.054m,
uneven
y =0.02m,
24m/s) (a) disturbance force (b) roll (c) pitch (d) yaw
154
Figure 6.50: With LQR control, the translational position (
uneven
x = 0.001m,
uneven
y =0.002m,
24m/s) (a) disturbance force (b) traveling (c) lateral (d) levitation
Figure 6.51: With LQR control, the translational velocity (
uneven
x = 0.001m,
uneven
y =0.002m,
24m/s) (b) traveling (c) lateral (d) levitation
155
Figure 6.52: With LQR control, the Euler angles (
uneven
x = 0.001m,
uneven
y =0.002m, 24m/s)
(a) disturbance force (b) roll angle (c) pitch angle (d) yaw angle
Figure 6.53: With LQR control, the translational position (
uneven
x = 0.054m,
uneven
y =0.02m,
24m/s) (a) disturbance force (b) traveling (c) lateral (d) levitation
156
Figure 6.54: With LQR control, the translational velocity (
uneven
x = 0.054m,
uneven
y =0.02m,
24m/s) (b) traveling (c) lateral (d) levitation
Figure 6.55: With LQR control, the Euler angles (
uneven
x = 0.054m,
uneven
y =0.02m, 24m/s)
(a) disturbance force (b) roll angle (c) pitch angle (d) yaw angle
157
The simulation results show that this marginally stable system has oscillations in
levitation, lateral, roll, pitch and yaw directions under disturbances even without mass center
offset. With mass center offset the dynamics have oscillations even without external
disturbances, which has a big effect on the vehicle take off dynamics. The active array damping
control and LQR control are designed. The simulation results confirmed that the active array
control could provide the required dynamic control for levitation, lateral, roll, pitch, and yaw
directions. With the active control, the Maglev system is dynamically stable. The analysis and
simulation results will be used as the guidance for further theory and experimental research.
158
Table 6.1 The Maglev simulation system parameters
The peak strength of the magnetic field at
eh surface of the Halbach array
B
0
=0.9 Tesla
The array wave length =0.13 Meter
The Magnet array width w=0.1 Meter
The coil resistance of each turn R=1.5 m
The coil inductance of each turn L=2.6 H
The mass of the vehicle M=9.3 kg
The mass center to levitation array center
distance in X direction
L
x
=0.27 Meter
The mass center to levitation array center
distance in Y direction
L
y
=0.1 Meter
The mass center to levitation array center
distance in Z direction
L
z
=0.1 Meter
Levitation coil center position in Z
direction
L
zcoil
=0.095d
t
Meter
The distance between the levitation coil
center to levitation array surface in Z
direction
0.005 Meter
The mass center to lateral array center
distance in X direction
L
xla
=0.17 Meter
The mass center to lateral array center
distance in Y direction
L
yla
=0.2 Meter
The mass center to lateral array center
distance in Z direction
L
zla
=0
Lateral coil center position in Y direction L
ycoil
=0.19d
t
Meter
The distance between the lateral coil
center to the surface of lateral array in Y
direction
0.01 Meter
The thickness of the Halbach array d
t
Meter
159
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION
In this research, a new Halbach array EDS Maglev system with novel active array control
mechanism has been investigated. The system uses Halbach arrays for selfregulation and
levitation and uses active magnet arrays for stability and ride comfort control, with independent
control of multiple levitation and guidance active arrays. The system is selfregulated in the
lateral, roll, pitch, and yaw directions. The Maglev system control can be simplified due to these
selfregulations. The system configuration, static and dynamic stability, and optimized control
were investigated. The dynamic analysis and simulation results showed the system to be
marginally stable and a control mechanism is necessary. With mass center offset the system was
found to have oscillations even without external disturbances, which has an effect on the vehicle
take off dynamics. The optimized damping and LQR control is introduced and designed. The
simulation confirmed the effectiveness of the MIMO control designs. A Fourier series and FEM
analysis approach with Maxwell equations were utilized to analyze Halbach array magnetic field
harmonics. The FEM and Fourier series results match quite well. Based on the magentic filed
analysis, the optimized geometry of Halbach array was disscused.
Although this analysis was focused on a Halbach array EDS system, the techniques and
results developed in this research can be utilized for further research and other applications. For
example, the active magnet array may be used in magnet bearings and in other Maglev system;
160
Magnetic field and geometry analysis results may be applied to design and analyze other
Halbach array related applications. With six DOF modeling and dynamic simulation, we have
the analytical capability to predict the detailed behavior of a given design before it is tested in the
field. The full six DOF Maglev dynamic analysis results give us a better understanding of how
various factors may influence the stability of an EDS system over its entire speed range.
Based on the work done in this dissertation, there are several directions in which the
continued research on Halbach array Maglev system may proceed. The future research may be as
how to design and implement the active array in practical and optimized way. The propulsion for
Maglev needs to be investigated to find the optimized propulsion system. All the propulsion
related issues such as design, stability analysis, control, and coupling between propulsion with
other five DOF need to be investigated. The Halbach array geometry optimization was based on
the nominal levitation height for space launch assistant Maglev, the optimized geometry may
need some modification. So far, the control design was based on ideal cases assuming that the
states are measurable and without taking the noise into consideration, further research may be
based on the current research and also include noise. The Maglev stability is a fundamental topic,
as mentioned in the introduction; even Earnshaw theorys suitability for Maglev applications is
raised [40]. The negative damping is another interesting topic [37], especially for the symmetric
guidance array. There are many open areas in Maglev research. For engineering, the research is
only a beginning stage. It will be very helpful to cooperate the theoretical research with practical
engineering system. The field experiments are highly desired to verify and contribute to the
theory analysis.
161
APPENDIX
HALBACH ARRAY LEVITATION FORCE
One of the most important equations in this thesis is the levitation force equation. The
derivation was given in [1].
As the Halbach array moves above the coils, the magnetic field cuts through the upper
conductors of the coil, the timevariation in magnetic field acts as a voltage source in each closed
loop of wire. The effective circuit of this wire is an inductor L and resistor R in series. The
standard circuit theory applies.
) cos( ))' sin( (
0 0
t t RI
dt
dI
L V = = + = (A.1)
where V is the induced voltage, I is the induced current, L is the inductance (self plus mutual) of
a circuit, and R is its resistance, and
0
is the peak flux linked by the circuit. Equation A.1 can be
rewritten as
) cos(
0
t
L
I
L
R
dt
dI
= + (A.2)
162
The steadystate solution of Equation A.2 is:
  ) cos( ) ( ) sin(
) ( 1
1
) (
2
0
t L R t
L R L
t I
+
(
+
= (A.3)
where excitation frequency of the circuit is = k v and k = 2 / , v is the array velocity, and
is the array wavelength.
The approximation Halbach array magnetic field flux densities are given as
( ) ) exp( ) sin(
) sin(
) exp( 1 z k kx
M
M
kd B B
r x
= (A.4)
( ) ) exp( ) cos(
) sin(
) exp( 1 z k kx
M
M
kd B B
r z
= (A.5)
where z is the distance between the magnet array to the coil, d is the thickness of the Halbach
array. M is the number of magnet bars per wavelength in the array, and B
r
is the remanence of the
permanent magnet material,.
The approximation induced flux is given by
( )
 
( )
k
kx z k w
M
M
kd B
k
kh kx z k w
M
M
kd B
r
r
) sin( ) 2 exp( ) sin(
) exp( 1
) exp( 1 ) sin( ) 2 exp( ) sin(
) exp( 1
=
(A.6)
where h is the distance between the lower and upper legs of the coil.
( ) ) 2 exp(
) sin(
) exp( 1
0
z k
M
M
kd
k
wB
r
(A.7)
Inserting Equation A.7 into Equation A.3, the induced current is given as
163
( )
  ) cos( ) ( ) sin(
) ( 1
1
*
) 2 exp(
) sin(
) exp( 1 ) (
2
t L R t
L R
z k
M
M
kd
kL
wB
t I
r
+
(
+
=
(A.8)
The levitation force is given by
w B t I F
x z
* * ) ( = (A.9)
Averaging Equation A.9 over the wavelength the average levitation force is given by:
 
) 2 exp(
) ( 1
1
*
2
}
) sin(
) exp( 1 {
2
2 2 2
z k
L v k R
kL
w
M
M
kd B
K F
r
f z
+
>= <
(A.10)
164
LIST OF REFERENCES
[1] R. F. Post and D. D. Ryutov, The Inductrack: A Simpler Approach to Magnetic Levitation,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRLID124115.
[2] R. Kratz and R. F. Post, A Nullcurrent electrodynamic levitation system, Applied
Superconductivity, IEEE Transactions on, Volume: 12 Issue: 1, March 2002, pp 930 932.
[3] R. Kratz and R. F. Post, Halbach arrays for maglev applications, 6th International
Symposium on Magnetic Suspension Technology, Turin, Italy, October 711, 2001.
[4] P. Vas, Sensorless Vector And Direct Torque Control, Oxford Science Publications, 1998.
[5] P. C. Krause, O. Wasynczuk, and S.D. Sudho, Analysis of Electric Machinery, IEEE Press,
1995.
[6] Bimal K. Bose, Modern Power Electronics And AC Drives, PrenticeHall, 2002.
[7] Marian P. Kazmierkowski, R. Krishnan, Frede Blaabjerg, Control in power electronics:
selected problems, Academic Press, 2002.
[8] M.T. Caprio and R. C. Zowarka, MAGLEV Launch Assist Technology Demonstrator: Task 1,
Center for Electromechanics The University of Texas at Austin.
[9] Jacek F. Gieras and Zbigniew J. Piech, Linear synchronous motors: transportation and
automation systems, Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press, 2000.
[10] Syed A. Nasar and I. Boldea. , Linear electric motors: theory, design, and practical
165
applications, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. PrenticeHall, c1987.
[11] I. Boldea, S.A. Nasar, Linear motion electromagnetic systems, New York: Wiley, 1985.
[12] P.D.C. Perera. F. Blaabjerg, J.K. Pedersen, P. Thogersen, A sensorless, stable v/f control
method for permanentmagnet synchronous motor drives Industry Applications, IEEE
Transactions on, Volume: 39 Issue: 3 ,Page(s): 783 791, MayJune 2003.
[13] R.S. Colby, D.W. Novotny, An efficiency optimizing permanentmagnet synchronous
motor drive, Industry Applications, IEEE Transactions on, Volume: 24 Issue: 3, Page(s):
462 469, MayJune 1988.
[14] Longya Xu; Changjiang Wang, Implementation and experimental investigation of
sensorless control schemes for PMSM in superhigh variable speed operation, Industry
Applications Conference, 1998. ThirtyThird IAS Annual Meeting. The 1998 IEEE, Volume:
1, Page(s): 483 489 vol.1, 1215 Oct 1998.
[15] T.M Jahns, Motion control with permanentmagnet AC machines Proceedings of the
IEEE, Volume: 82 Issue: 8, Page(s): 1241 1252, Aug 1994.
[16] BonHo Bae; SeungKi Sul; JeongHyeck Kwon; JongSub Shin, Implementation of
sensorless vector control for superhigh speed PMSM of turbocompressor Industry
Applications Conference, 2001. ThirtySixth IAS Annual Meeting. Conference Record of the
2001 IEEE, Volume: 2, Page(s): 1203 1209 vol.2, 30 Sep4 Oct 2001.
[17] A. MunozGarcia, T.A. Lipo, D.W. Novotny, A new induction motor v/f control method
capable of highperformance regulation at low speeds, Industry Applications, IEEE
Transactions on, Volume: 34 Issue: 4, Page(s): 813 821, JulyAug. 1998.
[18] P. V. Kokotovic, The joy of feedback: nonlinear and adaptive, Control Systems
166
Magazine, IEEE, Volume: 12 Issue: 3, June 1992, pp: 7 17.
[19] D. G. Taylor, Nonlinear control of electric machines: an overview, Control Systems
Magazine, IEEE, Volume: 14 Issue: 6, Dec. 1994, pp: 41 51.
[20] Z. Qu, Robust Control of Nonlinear Uncertain Systems, Wiley 1998.
[21] Z. Qu and J. Kaloust, "Robust Control Design for Nonlinear Uncertain Systems Without
Structural Conditions", IFAC 96, San Francisco, pp.115120, July 1996.
[22] M. Vilathgamuwa and A. Rahman, Nonlinear Control of Interior Permanent Magnet
Synchronous Motor, Industry Applications, IEEE Transactions on, Volume: 39 Issue: 2,
MarchApril 2003, pp: 408 416.
[23] A. AlemanNieto, K. Raoof, and G. Quezel, G, A novel adaptive vector control system
for temperature compensation in induction motors, Industrial Automation and Control, 1995
(I A & C'95), IEEE/IAS International Conference on (Cat. No.95TH8005), 57 Jan. 1995, pp:
185 188.
[24] Q. Han, C. Ham, and R. Phillips, Design and Stability Analysis of a Super High Speed
Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor (PMSM), Power Electronics, Machines and Drives,
2004 (PEMD 2004), IEE International Conference on, Mar. 31 April. 2, Edinburgh, UK.
(to be published).
[25] Y. Cai, S.S. Chen, Numerical Analysis for Dynamic Instability of Electrodynamic
Maglev Systems, Shock and Vibration, Vol. 2. No. 4, pp. 339349.
[26] A. Rosenblatt, Riding on air in Virginia [Maglev train], Spectrum, IEEE, Volume:
39, Issue: 10, Oct. 2002. Pages: 20 21.
[27] M. Ono, S. Koga, Ohtsuki, H, Japan's superconducting Maglev train, Instrumentation
167
& Measurement Magazine, IEEE, Volume: 5, Issue: 1, March 2002. Pages: 9 15.
[28] P.H. Mellor, M.A AlTaee. And K.J. Binns, Open loop stability characteristics of
synchronous drive incorporating high field permanent magnet motor, Electric Power
Applications, IEE Proceedings B, Volume: 138 Issue: 4, Page(s): 175 184, Jul 1991.
[29] C. Lang, W.D. Jones, Virginia Maglev System Off to Shaky Start, Spectrum IEEE,
Volume: 40 Issue: 11, Nov. 2003, Page(s): 14 15.
[30] P Holmer, Faster than a speeding bullet train, Industry Applications, IEEE, Volume: 40
Issue: 8, Aug. 2003, Page(s): 30 34.
[31] W.A. Jacobs, Magnetic launch assistNASA's vision for the future, Magnetics, IEEE
Transactions on, Volume: 37 Issue: 1, Jan. 2001. Page(s): 55 57.
[32] B. V. Jayawant, Electromagnetic Levitation and Suspension Techniques, Edward Arnold
Ltd. London, 1981.
[33] P. K. Sinha, Electromagnetic Suspension: Dynamics & Control, Peter Peregrinus Ltd.,
London, UK, 1987.
[34] A. Bittar and S. Moura, H2 and H control for MagLev vehicles, Control Systems
Magazine, IEEE, Volume: 18 Issue: 4, Aug. 1998 pp: 18 25.B.
[35] O.V. Tozoni, Amleva selfregulating version of Maglev, Magnetics, IEEE
Transactions on, Volume: 37 Issue: 6, Nov. 2001, pp: 3925 3933.
[36] M. Nagai, H. Mori, and S. Nakadai, Active Vibration Control Of Electrodynamic
Suspension System, JSME International Journal Series CDynamics Control Robotics
Design And Manufacturing 38 (1): Mar. 1995, pp: 4854.
[37] D. M. Rote and Y. Cai, Review of Dynamic Stability of RepulsiveForce Maglev
168
Suspension Systems, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 38, No. 2, Mar. 2002, 1383
1390.
[38] Tozoni, O.V, Selfregulating permanent magnet linear motor, Magnetics, IEEE
Transactions on, Volume: 35 Issue: 4, July 1999 Page(s): 2137 2145.
[39] Tozoni, O.V, Designing a magnetodynamic stable suspension system, Magnetics, IEEE
Transactions on, Volume: 35 Issue: 5, Sept. 1999 Page(s): 4268 4274.
[40] Tozoni, O.V, New stable magnetodynamic suspension system, Magnetics, IEEE
Transactions on, Volume: 35 Issue: 2, March 1999 Page(s): 1047 1054.
[41] H. T. Coffey, et al., Preliminary design for a Maglev development facility, Argonne
National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, Rep. ANL/ESD14.
[42] A. Cassat and M. Jufer, MAGLEV projects technology aspects and choices, Applied
Superconductivity, IEEE Transactions on, Vol: 12, Issue: 1, Mar. 2002, pp: 915 925.
[43] E. R. Laithwaite, Transport without wheels, London: Elek Science, 1977.
[44] Jian Liang He; D.M. Rote, and H.T. Coffey, Applications of the dynamic circuit theory
to Maglev suspension systems, Magnetics, IEEE Transactions on, Volume: 29 Issue: 6,
Nov. 1993. Page(s): 4153 4164.
[45] S. Sakamoto, H. Watanabe, T. Takizawa, E. Suzuki, and N. Terai, Development of a
MAGLEV superconducting magnet for the Yamanashi test line in Japan: vibration
characteristics and analysis for design, Applied Superconductivity, IEEE Transactions on,
Volume: 7 Issue: 3, Sept. 1997 Page(s): 3791 3796.
[46] P.L. Ribani and N. Urbano, Study on figureeightshaped coil electrodynamic
suspension magnetic levitation systems without crossconnection, Magnetics, IEEE
169
Transactions on, Volume: 36 Issue: 1 , Jan. 2000 Page(s): 358 365.
[47] K. Davey, Analysis of an electrodynamic Maglev system, Magnetics, IEEE
Transactions on, Volume: 35 Issue: 5, Sept. 1999, Page(s): 4259 4267.
[48] K. Davey, Electrodynamic Maglev coil design and analysis, Magnetics, IEEE
Transactions on, Volume: 33 Issue: 5, Sept. 1997, Page(s): 4227 4229.
[49] K. Davey, T. Morris, J. Shaaf, and D. Rote, Calculation of motion induced eddy current
forces in null flux coils, Magnetics, IEEE Transactions on, Volume: 31 Issue: 6, Nov. 1995.
Page(s): 4214 4216.
[50] K. Davey, Optimization shows Halbach arrays to be nonideal for induction devices,
Magnetics, IEEE Transactions on, Volume: 36 Issue: 4, July 2000 Page(s): 1035 1038.
[51] H. A. Haus and J. R. Melcher, Electromagnetic Fields and Energy, Prentice Hall. 1989.
[52] J. OforiTenkorrang, J.H. Lang, A comparative analysis of torque production in Halbach
and conventional surfacemounted permanentmagnet synchronous motors, Industry
Applications Conference, 1995. Thirtieth IAS Annual Meeting, IAS '95, Conference Record
of the 1995 IEEE , Volume: 1 , 812 Oct. 1995 Page(s): 657 663 vol.1.
[53] SpokMyeong Jang; SungHo Lee; SangSub Jeong, Characteristic analysis of eddy
current brake system using the linear Halbach array, Magnetics, IEEE Transactions on,
Volume: 38 Issue: 5, Sept. 2002 Page(s): 2994 2996.
[54] SeokMyeong Jang; SungHo Lee; InKi Yoon, Design criteria for detent force
reduction of permanentmagnet linear synchronous motors with Halbach array, Magnetics,
IEEE Transactions on, Volume: 38 Issue: 5, Sept. 2002Page(s): 3261 3263.
[55] Z. Zhu and D. Howe, Halbach permanent magnet machines and applications: a review,
170
Electric Power Applications, IEE Proceedings, Volume: 148 Issue: 4, July 2001, pp. 299
308.
[56] S. Jang and L. Sung, Comparison of Two Types of PM Linear Synchronous Servo and
Miniature Motor with Air cored Film Coil, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol.38, no.5,
2002, pp32643266,
[57] M. Lee, S. Lee and D. Gweon, Analysis of Halbach magnet array and its application to
linear motor, Mechatronics, Volume 14, Issue 1, February 2004, pp. 115128.
[58] D. Trumper, M. Williams, and T. Nguyen, arrays for synchronous machines, Industry
Applications Society Annual Meeting, 1993, IEEE, vol.1, pp. 9 18.
[59] D. Trumper, W. Kim, and M. Williams, Design and analysis framework for linear
permanentmagnet machines, Industry Applications, IEEE Transactions on, Volume: 32
Issue: 2, MarchApril 1996 pp. 371 379.
[60] K. Halbach, Application of permanent magnets in accelerators and electron storage rings
(invited), Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 57, Issue 8, 1985, pp. 36053608.
[61] J. R. Melcher, Continuum Electromechanics, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1981.
[62] R. E. Ziemer and W. H. Tranter, Principles of Communications, John Wiley & Sons Inc,
1988.
[63] K. Halbach, Desing of Permannet Multipole Magnets with Oriented Rare Earth Cobalt
Material, Nuclear instruments and Method, 169. (1980). pp: 110.
[64] M. Nagai, H. Mori, and S. Nakadai, Active Vibration Control Of Electrodynamic
Suspension System, JSME International Journal Series CDynamics Control Robotics
Design And Manufacturing 38 (1): Mar. 1995, pp: 4854.
171
[65] J. H. Blakelock, Automatic Control of Aircraft and Missiles, Jhon Wiley & Sons. 1991.
[66] D. Mcruer, I. Ashkenas, and D. Graham, Aircraft Dynamics and Automatic Control,
Princeton University Press. 1973.
[67] Joseph Katz, Allen Plotkin, Low speed aerodynamics, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
[68] Giancarlo Genta, Motor vehicle dynamics modeling and simulation, World Scientific,
c1997.
[69] J. Dill and D. Meeker, Maglifter Tradeoff Study and Subscale System Demonstrations
NAS980691362, 2000.
[70] Jacek F. Gieras and Mitchell Wing, Permanent magnet Motor Technology, Marcel
Dekker, Inc. 2002.
[71] H. J. Marquez, Nonlinear Control Systems: Analysis and Design, Wiley Interscience.
2003.
[72] H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems, Macmillan publishing Company, 1992.
[73] M. Krstic, I. Kanellakopoulos, and P. Kokotovic, Nonlinear and Adaptive Control
Design, New York: Wiley, 1995.
[74] T. Sakamoo, Guidance controls characteristics for Maglev vehicle with dynamic
compensator, Industrial Electronics Society, 2000. IECON 2000. 26th Annual Conference of
the IEEE, Volume: 4, 2228 Oct. 2000 Page(s): 2285 2290 vol.4.
[75] T. Morizane, N. Kimura, K. Taniguchi, Simultaneous control of propulsion and
levitation of linear induction motor in a novel Maglev system, Power Electronics and
Motion Control Conference, 2000. Proceedings. PIEMC 2000. The Third International,
Volume: 1, 1518 Aug. 2000 Page(s): 127 131.
172
[76] K. Yoshida, A. Fuji, Takami, H, Passthroughsection experiment in massreduced
mode of controlledrepulsive PM LSM Maglev vehicle by new DTC method, Power
Conversion Conference, 2002. PCC Osaka 2002. Proceedings of the, Volume: 2, 25 April
2002 Page(s): 867 872.
[77] MeiYung Chen; MingJyh Wang; LiChen Fu; Modeling and controller design of a
maglev guiding system for application in precision positioning, Industrial Electronics, IEEE
Transactions on, Volume: 50 Issue: 3, June 2003 Page(s): 493 506.
[78] MeiYung Chen; MingJyh Wang; LiChen Fu, A novel dualaxis repulsive Maglev
guiding system with permanent magnet: modeling and controller design, Mechatronics,
IEEE/ASME Transactions on, Volume: 8 Issue: 1, March 2003. Page(s): 77 86.
[79] K. Halbach, Physical and optical Properties of Rear Earth Cobalt Magnets, Nuclear
instruments and Method, 187. (1981). pp: 109117.
[80] K. Yoshida, L. Shi, T. Yoshida, Decoupledcontrol method of normal and thrust forces
in linear induction motor for Maglev vehicle MarineExpress ME01, Electric Machines and
Drives, 1999. International Conference IEMD '99, 912 May 1999 Page(s): 369 371.
[81] M. Nagai, H. Mori, and S. Nakadai, "Active Vibration Control of Electrodynamic
Suspension System," JSME International Journal, series C, vol. 38, no. 1, 1995 pp. 4854.
[82] D. L. Atherton, A. R. Eastham, and K. Sturgess, Passive secondary magnetic damping
for superconducting Maglev vehicles, Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 47, no. 10, October
1976, pp. 46434648.
[83] E. Gottzein, B. Lange, and F. OssenbergFranzes, "Control System Concept for a
Passenger Carrying Maglev Vehicle," High Speed Ground Transportation Journal, vol. 8,
173
no. 2, 1974.
[84] H. Tsunashima and M. Abe, "Dynamics of the Mechanical Levitation Control System for
a Maglev Transport Vehicle," JSME International Journal, series C, vol. 37, no. 3, 1994, pp.
528535.
[85] I. Boldea, Static and Dynamic Performance of Electrodynamic (Repulsion) Levitation
Systems (EDS), Electric Machines and Electromechanics, vol. 6, pp. 4555, 1981.
[86] S. Nakadai and M. Nagai, LQI optimal control of electrodynamic suspension,
International Journal of Applied Electromagnetics in Materials, v. 4, (1994) pp. 309316.
[87] K. Nonami, W. He, and H. Nishimura, Robust Control of Magnetic Levitation Systems
by Means of H
2
Control/mSynthesis, JSME International Journal, series C, vol. 37, no. 3,
1994, pp. 513520.
[88] Y. Cai, T. M. Mulcahy, and D. M. Rote, Dynamic stability Experiment of Maglev
systems, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, Rep.ANL95/10, 1995.
[89] Y. Cai, S. S. Chen, T. M. Mulcahy, S. S. Chen, and D. M. Rote, Dynamic stability of
Maglev systems, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, Rep.ANL92/21, 1992.
[90] T. Yamada, M. Iwamoto and T. Ito, Magnetic Damping Force in Inductive Magnetic
Levitation System for HighSpeed Trains, Electrical Engineering in Japan, vol. 94, no. 1,
1974, pp. 8084.
[91] Y. Iwasa, "Electromagnetic flight stability by model impedance simulation," Journal of
Applied Physics, vol. 44, 1973, pp. 858862.
[92] M. Iwamoto, T. Yamada, and E. Ohno, Magnetic Damping Force in Electrodynamically
Suspended Trains, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. MAG10, (1974), pp. 458461.
174
[93] H. Ohsaki, S. Torii, K. Higashi, and E. Masada, "Damping Characteristics of the
Superconducting Maglev Vehicle," Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on
Superconductivity (ISS'93), October 2629, 1993, Hiroshima Japan.
[94] V. Nguyen, J. Delamare, and J. P. Yonnet, "A Passive Damper for Magnetic
Suspension," IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 30, no. 6, November 1994, pp. 4749
4751.
[95] F. C. Moon, "Vibration Problems in Magnetic Levitation and Propulsion," Transport
Without Wheels, E. Laithwaite Editor, Elek Science, London 1977 pp. 122161.
[96] D. Chu and F. C. Moon, "Dynamic Instabilities in Magnetically Levitated Models,"
Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 54, no. 3, March 1983, pp. 16191625.
[97] CARABELLI, S. DELPRETE, C, Passive Repulsive MagLev: Concept and
Experimental Demonstration, Vehicle System Dynamics, Nov. 2000, Vol. 34 Issue 5, p333.
[98] Carabelli, S. Delprete, C. Genta, G. Zanolli, S, Control of a two activeaxes suspension
for maglev vehicles, American Control Conference, 1997. Proceedings of the 1997,
Volume: 6, 46 June 1997. Page(s): 3962 3966 vol.6.
[99] Greene, A. Harrold, W. Kasevich, R. Morrison, F. Tang, C, LSM control of Maglev
vehicle ride quality, Magnetics, IEEE Transactions on, Volume: 10 Issue: 3, Sep 1974
Page(s): 431 434.
[100] C.F. ZHAO, W.M. ZHAI, Maglev Vehicle/Guideway Vertical Random Response and
Ride Quality, Vehicle System Dynamics, Sep2002, Vol. 38 Issue 3, p185.
[101] X. Zheng, J. Wu, And Y. Zhou, Numerical Analyses On Dynamic Control Of Five
DegreeOfFreedom Maglev Vehicle Moving On Flexible Guideways, Journal Of Sound
175
And Vibration, 235, No. 1 (2000): Pp4361.
[102] Takahashi, T. Koganezawa, G. Su, and K. Oyama, A super high speed PM motor drive
system by a quasicurrent source inverter, Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting,
1993, Conference Record of the 1993 IEEE , 28 Oct 1993, vol.1, pp. 657 662.
[103] Akira Chiba, Tadashi Fukao. Super High Speed Electrical Machines, (no information on
where, 2000).
[104] Kondo, K. Matsuoka, K, Stability analysis of permanent magnet synchronous motors for
railway vehicle traction in a sudden line voltage change, Industrial Electronics Society,
2001. IECON '01. The 27th Annual Conference of the IEEE, Volume: 2, 2001. Page(s): 1445
1450 vol.2.
[105] Osheiva, Rahman, Effect of parameter variations on th estability limits of permanent
magniet synchronous machines, Electric machines and power system, 18; 1990. 519534.
[106] G. C. Verghese, J. H. Lang, and L. F. Casey, Analysis of instability in electrical
machines, IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat., vol. IA22, pp. 853864, Sept./Oct. 1986.
[107] Gao, Y.; Chau, K.T.; Design of permanent magnets to avoid chaos in pm synchronous
machines, Magnetics, IEEE Transactions on, Volume: 39 Issue: 5, Sept. 2003. Page(s):
2995 2997.
[108] Hemati, N.; Kwatny, H.; Bifurcation of equilibria and chaos in permanentmagnet
machines, Decision and Control, 1993, Proceedings of the 32nd IEEE Conference on, 1517
Dec. 1993. Page(s): 475 479 vol.1.
[109] Zhong Li; Jin Bae Park; Young Hoon Joo; Bo Zhang; Guanrong Chen, Bifurcations and
chaos in a permanentmagnet synchronous motor, Circuits and Systems I: Fundamental
176
Theory and Applications, IEEE Transactions on, Volume: 49, Issue: 3, Year: Mar 2002.
Page(s): 383387.
[110] J. L. He, Z. Wang, D. M. Rote, and S. Winkelman, Investigation of the Stability of AC
RepulsiveForce Levitation Systems For LowSpeed Maglev, IEEE Transactions on
Magnetics. Vol. 28, No. 5, Sept 1992, pp 33153317.
[111] J. R. Reite, F. J. Milford, And R. W. Christy, Foundations Of Electromagnetic Theory,
AddisonWesley Publishing Company, 1979.
[112] Yang, Xiaolong, Flight Control Design Using A Blend Of Modern Nonlinear Adaptive
And Robust Techniques, Ph.D. Thesis, University Of California, Irvine, 2003.
[113] Fredriksson, Jonas, Nonlinear ModelBased Control Of Automotive Powertrains, Ph.D.
Thesis, Chalmers Tekniska Hogskola (Sweden), 2002.
[114] He, Jianmin, Nonlinear Adaptive Motion Control For The Tau Platform With Friction,
Ph.D. Thesis, Case Western Reserve University, 2002.
[115] Howell, Adam Spencer, Nonlinear Observer Design And Fault Diagnostics For
Automated Longitudinal Vehicle Control, Ph.D. Thesis, University Of California, Berkeley,
2002.
[116] Mahadevan, Radhakrishnan; Nonlinear Optimization For Control And Analysis Of
Bioprocesses, Ph.D. Thesis, University Of Delaware, 2002.
[117] Ramalho, Fernando Pinto, Nonlinear HInfinity Control Of Nuclear Steam Generators,
Ph.D. Thesis, University Of Michigan, 2002.
[118] Zhang, Rong, Multivariable Robust Control Of Nonlinear Systems With Application To
An ElectroHydraulic Powertrain, Ph.D. Thesis, University Of Illinois At Urbana
177
Champaign, 2002.
[119] T. Murai and H. Hsegawa, Electromagnetic Analysis of Inductrack Magnetic
Levitation, Electrical Engineering in Japan, Vol. 142, No. 1, pp. 76.
[120] R. Post and D. Ryutov, The Inductrack Concept: a New Approach to Magnetic
Levitation, 1996.
[121] V.K. Garg, and R.V Dukkipati,, Dynamics of Railway Vehicle Systems, Academic Press,
New York, 1984.
[122] D. Meeker, Addendum to Maglifter Tradeoff Study and Subscale System Demonstrations
NAS980691362, 2001.
[123] Nelson, Robert. Flight Stability and Automatic Control McGrawHill Book
Company.1989.
[124] I.Y.A. Wang, I. BuschVishniac, A new repulsive magnetic levitation approach using
permanent magnets and aircore electromagnets, Magnetics, IEEE Transactions on,
Volume: 30, Issue: 4, 1994. pp: 14221432.
[125] Michael D. Greenberg. Advanced Engineering Mathematics, PrenticeHill, Inc., 1988.
[126] S. L. B. Dickinson, Aircraft Stability and Control for Pilots and Engineers, London, Sir
Isaac Pitman & Sons Ltd. 1968.
[127] Ximin Shan and ChiaHsiang Menq , Robust Disturbance Rejection for Improved
Dynamic Stiffness of a Magnetic Suspension Stage, IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON
MECHATRONICS, VOL. 7, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2000, pp 289295.
[128] S. Sivrioglu, K. Nonami Active permanent magnet support for a superconducting
magneticbearing flywheel rotor, Applied Superconductivity, IEEE Transactions on,
178
179
Volume: 10 , Issue: 4 , Dec 2000 pp:1673 1677.
[129] M. Corless, A. Frazho, Linear systems and control: an operator perspective, New
York, Marcel Dekker, 2003.
[130] A. Bryson, Y. Ho, Applied optimal control: optimization, estimation, and control,
Washington, Hemisphere Pub. Corp., 1975.
[131] H. A. Shute, J. C. Mallinson, D. T.Wilton, and D. J. Mapps, Onesided fluxes in planar,
cylindrical, and spherical magnetized structures, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 36, pp: 440451,
2000.
[132] B. Anderson, and J. Moore, Optimal control: linear quadratic methods Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1990.
[133] T. Vincent, and W. Grantham, Nonlinear and optimal control systems John Wiley
&Sons, Inc. 1997.
[134] L. S. Tung, R. F. Post and M. MartinezFrias, Final Progress Report for the NASA
Inductrack Model Rocket Launcher at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboraory,
Livermore, CA, UCRLID144455.
[135] Hull, Richard A., Dynamic Robust Recursive Control: Theory and Applications, Ph.D.
Thesis, University Of Central Florida, 1996.
[136] Park, K.H. Ahn, K.Y., Kim, S.H. and Kwak, Y.K.,Wafer distribution system for a clean
room using a novel magnetic suspension technique, Mechatronics, IEEE/ASME
Transactions on Volume: 3, Issue: 1, pp: 7378, 1998
[137] A. L. Greensite, Analysis and Design of Space Vehicle Flight Control System, Spartan
Books. 1970.