HyperStudy, OptiStruct, Flux 의연계를통한 연료모터펌프소음저감최적화 알테어황의준

Contents Introduction Workflow Model Setup Results

Introduction This study deals with a multi-physics optimization of a fuel pump permanent magnet motor implemented in an airplane wing The goal is to reduce motor noise with the challenge to maintain the initial electromagnetic performances

Introduction HyperStudy Flux OptiStruct The goal is to leverage in the automatic coupling between the above software in order to perform an optimization taking into account both electromagnetic and vibration aspects HyperStudy for optimization Flux for electromagnetic analysis OptiStruct for structural analysis

Introduction of model Stator Rotor Brushless DC permanent magnet motor 24 slots M19 lamination 4 poles Surface radial NdFeB magnets Stator OD = 96 mm Rotor OD = 50 mm Stack length = 50 mm Nominal speed : 3600 rpm (60 Hz) Torque at nominal speed : 0.2Nm Output power : 75W Power supply : 15V / 3A

Workflow Optimization method Shape variables EM simulation Mechanical mesh Magnetic forces NVH analysis Mean torque Saturation induction Current density Equivalent radiated power

Torque (N.m) Max current density (A/mm²) Induction (B) Flux model Electromagnetic analysis A parameterized motor model has been created in Flux 2D The performances have been analyzed (torque, current density, saturation induction) 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Tooth saturation induction Time (s) 2.4E-01 2.2E-01 2.0E-01 1.8E-01 1.6E-01 1.4E-01 1.2E-01 Torque 3.E+06 3.E+06 2.E+06 2.E+06 1.E+06 5.E+05 Current density 1.0E-01 0.E+00 5.E-04 1.E-03 2.E-03 2.E-03 Time (s) Time (s)

Flux to OptiStruct Preparing Vibro-acoustic analysis Import the mechanical mesh from OptiStruct Compute forces on this support Export the forces for OptiStruct

OptiStruct model Vibration analysis The NVH analysis is performed using OptiStruct using the forces exported from Flux The Equivalent Radiated Power (ERP) of the supporting structure is evaluated. It is a simplified method to evaluate dynamic radiation of panels and their acoustic performances ERP output requested on the green area.

HyperStudy model setup Needed files Flux files: 4HST.F2G.FLU 4HST.F2G postpro.py HyperMesh and OptiStruct files: Shapes_Skin.optistruct.node.tpl Shapes_Skin.shp Skin.fem ERP_Calculation_On_Rib03.tpl Wing_SE.h3d Rotor_Super_Element.h3d Shapes_ERP.optistruct.node.tpl Shapes_ERP.shp Skin.tpl

HyperStudy model setup

Results TORQUE_MEAN >= 0,1888572 N.m BTOOTH_MAX <= 1,6287 T Jmax <= 2,75 A/mm² ERP SD TWS TGD_2 TGD SD 50 runs have been done in 16 hours

Results Design comparison Initial Optimized Definition Initial Optimum SD Slot depth 6.93 7,04 SO Slot opening 0.74 0,627 TGD_2 Slot opening angle 0,72 0,506 TGD Opening depth 0,495 0,456 TWS Stator tooth width 1.683 1,756 TORQUE_MEAN (N.m) Mean torque 0.188857 0,1895 BTOOTH_MAX (T) Max B on the tooth 1.6287 1,576 J_MAX (A.mm²) Max current density 2,75 2,73 ERP (mw) Equivalent radiated power 61,44 3,72

Max current density (A/mm²) Induction (B) Torque (N.m) Cogging torque (N.m) Results Electromagnetic Performances comparison 2.4E-01 2.2E-01 Torque comparison 5.E-02 4.E-02 3.E-02 2.E-02 Cogging torque comparison 2.0E-01 1.8E-01 1.6E-01 initial optimized 1.E-02 0.E+00-1.E-02 0.E+00 5.E-04 1.E-03 2.E-03 2.E-03 3.E-03-2.E-02 initial optimized 1.4E-01-3.E-02 1.2E-01 0.E+00 5.E-04 1.E-03 2.E-03 2.E-03 Time (s) -4.E-02-5.E-02 Time (s) 3.E+06 3.E+06 Current density comparison 1.8 1.6 1.4 Tooth saturation induction 2.E+06 1.2 2.E+06 1.E+06 optimized 1.0 0.8 0.6 initial 5.E+05 0.E+00 initial 0.4 0.2 0.0 optimized Time (s) Time (s)

Results ERP comparison When checking the vibro-acoustic results between both concepts (baseline/optimized), we observe some major improvements in the acoustic domain. On the whole frequency range, we can observe an ERP reduction of an average 1db. And if we focus on most critical peaks, we observe a reduction of up to 15db!

Thank you!!