Linear Motors for Mass Transit Systems, their Merits, Controls and Drive Aspects. Presented by: Konrad Woronowicz & Alireza Safaee

Transcription

1 Linear Motors for Mass Transit Systems, their Merits, Controls and Drive Aspects Presented by: Konrad Woronowicz & Alireza Safaee

2 Outline 1 URBAN MASS TRANSIT SYSTEMS REQUIREMENTS 2 LINEAR INDUCTION MOTOR PROPULSION 2

3 Urban Mass Transit System Requirements (What the end user/public wants) (What transit authority want) High Quality of Service Low Long-term Costs Frequent service High system availability Short journey times Short headways Safe system Maximum civil design flexibility Operation flexibility Driverless and unmanned Shorter trains Low O & M costs Easy access Comfort 3

4 Urban Mass Transit System Requirements Performance + High Quality of Low Cost Intermediate capacity Exemplary safe system Driverless AND unmanned 6.5% gradients All-weather operation Consistent all weather accurate station stops Tight turn capability 75 sec headways All with short as well as longer trains Low noise High system availability Frequent service High passenger comfort Easy passenger access Easy integration with other transit systems Fits mature urban Short trains Maximum civil design flexibility Aluminium car body designed by aerospace engineers Low system acquisition cost Low O & M costs Low tunnelling cost centres High reliability, Low maintenance, and Low running cost! 4

5 Urban Mass Transit Systems Capacity Gap Bus Light Rail People Bus Mover Commuter Rail Heavy Rail There is a capacity gap. Walking 5

6 Urban Mass Transit Systems Capacity Gap The gap exists because light rail doesn t provide the capacity and heavy metro is too expensive to be economical in that capacity range Max. Speed km/h) Automated Light Metro fulfils the gap Light Rail Automated Light Metro Metro Line Capacity (pphpd, thousands) 6

7 Urban Mass Transit Systems Other Requirements Customer Needs All weather operation Civil Design Flexibility Capacity Flexibility Adhesion independent propulsion 7

8 1 URBAN MASS TRANSIT SYSTEMS REQUIREMENTS 2 LINEAR INDUCTION MOTOR PROPULSION 8

9 Linear Induction Motor (LIM) propulsion From Rotary to Linear What is LIM propulsion? 9

10 Linear Induction Motor (LIM) propulsion Primary 10

11 Linear Induction Motor (LIM) propulsion Primary Windings 11

12 Linear Induction Motor (LIM) propulsion Primary Installation Hydraulic brake Axle steering linkage Primary suspension Protection bar LIM primary Debris deflector Track brake 12

13 Linear Induction Motor (LIM) propulsion Secondary Terminology Shaft > Anchorage Rotor end ring > Overhang Rotor winding > Top cap Rotor lamination stack > Back iron 13

14 Linear Induction Motor (LIM) propulsion Secondary Configurations Top cap and back iron relevant for thrust Coarsely laminated Solid Cost vs. performance optimization for alignment Different rotors The rotor disappears in reaction rail gaps Reaction rail gaps 14

15 Linear Induction Motor (LIM) propulsion LIM Justification Why LIM propulsion? Independence from Wheel/Rail Adhesion Steep Grade Capability All Weather Performance Low Noise Level Reduced Maintenance Increase Wheel Life Short headways 15

16 Linear Induction Motor (LIM) propulsion LIM Justification LIM propulsion is recommended for steep grades, operation in all weather conditions and demanding topographic conditions LIM reduces the overall height of the bogie Consequently reduces civil costs e.g. smaller tunnels and less elevated structures Allows use of true radial steering bogies Tighter curve radii at reduced noise levels allowing increased alignment flexibility Reduction of wheel wear Reduction of track wear Enables operation in all weather conditions No need for rail heating Accurate braking e.g. in front of platform doors Low operation and maintenance costs Except for cooling fans there are no moving parts e.g. no gearbox, driveshaft or bearings Reduced need for wheel and rail replacement 16

17 Linear Induction Motor (LIM) propulsion LIM Justification LIM propulsion Minimum civil cost and negotiates most demanding alignments Rotary propulsion Suitable for less demanding alignments and weather conditions Civil design flexibility 70 m mainline curves 35 m yard curves 6% grades Elevated, at-grade and in-tunnel Radial steering bogies Linear motor propulsion Civil design flexibility 100 m mainline curves 45 m yard curves 4% grades Elevated, at-grade and in-tunnel Fixed bogies Rotary motor propulsion 17

18 V P α I r α R f g f U R I Linear Induction Motor (LIM) propulsion System Components Inverter LIM primary on bogie I q I d f s Eliminates need to transmit thrust / braking forces through wheel-rail interface Assured thrust and service braking regardless of wheel / rail adhesion conditions Regenerative braking forces on the fixed reaction rail Eliminates the need for gearboxes, driveshafts, and bearings, reducing drive complexity and weight Eliminates the rotating inertia of the motor armature, gears and driveshafts Reduces the overall height of the bogie And consequently the height of the vehicle floor and of the overall vehicle Eliminates gearbox oil leaks / waste / pollution Allows use of true radial steering bogies LIM reaction rail 18

19 Steerable Bogies (LIM) Tight curves at lower noise levels and reduced wheel and track wear The advantages of a steerable bogie technology include: Tighter curve radii at reduced noise levels allowing increased alignment flexibility Reduction of wheel wear Reduction of track wear The floor height of the LIM option with steerable bogies is lower than the rotary option with fixed bogies (825 mm vs. 850 mm) Steerable-axle Bogie Conventional Fixed-axle Bogie 19

20 Steerable Bogies (LIM) A conventional non-steered bogie maintains parallel axles in curves, resulting in severe noise, wheel wear and rail wear 20

21 Steerable Bogies (LIM) A conventional steerable bogie offers limited steering in curves, resulting in somewhat reduced noise, wheel wear and rail wear 21

22 Steerable Bogies (LIM) The steering bogie achieves true radial steering in very small radius curves, eliminating flanging noise (very important in urban areas), and greatly reducing wheel wear and rail wear 22

23 Steerable Bogies (LIM) 23

24 Steerable Bogies - Very Low Wheel / Rail Wear No requirement to transmit thrust or braking forces (except in emergency braking) Radial Steering minimizes wheel/rail slippage and contact forces JFK wheel wear after km JFK new wheel profile 24

25 Precision Stopping Compared to Conventional Rail, LIM offers Much More Consistent and Reliable Service Stopping: Accurate station stopping - especially important with short platform lengths No wheel slides or wheel flats, regardless of track conditions (e.g. rain, snow, leaves, dust, pollen, oil and other contamination) No overspeed events due to poor braking capability Allowing short headways 25

26 Flexible Alignment Minimised land consumption and visible intrusion through flexible alignment Conventional application 3% grade Colombia Station Conventional application would have missed the preferred alignment and station location Actual LIM 6% grade Vancouver 26

27 Flexible Alignment Superior grade capabilities provide large savings in civil construction costs A hypothetical example of vertical alignment: Elevation 100 m 1 km Conventional technology bridge LIM Metro 1 vertical alignment Conventional technology vertical alignment Grade, %, for each 1 km segment LIM Metro 1 tunnel terrain Conventional technology tunnel Bombardier Inc. or or its its subsidiaries. All All rights reserved. Conventional technology INNOVIA Metro technology 1 Tunnel length 12.5 km 6.5 km Bridge length 4.0 km zero 27

28 Flexible Alignment 28

29 Flexible Alignment Lower civil costs and improved urban fit Consistent, reliable service with short trains at short headways under all weather conditions on grades of 6.5% Unmatched by conventional rotary propulsion technology Japanese legislation limits conventional subway car technology to 3.5% maximum grades, but allows 6% for LIM technology Reduced capital cost by using less tunnel and elevated structures More surface alignment Increasing flexibility to select location of stations Faster and easier access for passengers, e.g. compared to deep underground stations Conventional application 3% grade LIM application 6% grade Case study: Vancouver 29

30 Reduced Capital Costs LIM can use flexible alignment thus reduces land intake, optimizes alignment selection, reduces tunnel sections and number of underground stations. Optimized alignment would reduce civil costs, wayside equipment, fleet size and associated costs. Meanwhile reduces travel time and energy consumption. Minimizes demolition of existing buildings because of the small curve capability. Smaller elevated structures as results of lightweight vehicle design. Shorter stations as results of smaller consists and driverless operation at low headways. Shorter stations reduce costs of civil and E&M station equipment. Depot building size and its equipment are deduced as results of shorter trains. Lower civil cost due to smaller tunnel diametre because of smaller vehicle dynamic envelope due to low vehicle floor height. 30

31 Energy Efficiency Better receptivity to regenerated energy Short-train, short headway operation increases likelihood of motoring trains to profit from nearby regenerating trains System alignment The steep grade capability can avoid tunnels and their potentially very high aerodynamic drag Direct drive No need for gearboxes and the associated bearings and driveshafts, which add mass and create losses No need for rail heating May be required for conventional systems with steep grades in winter conditions Intelligent energy management Wayside energy storage system is feasible Low rotating mass Significantly lower rotating mass than for conventional vehicles, typically 3.5% compared with 10% Low rotating mass Significantly lower rotating mass than for conventional vehicles, typically 3.5% compared with 10% Smaller stations Reduced lighting, heating and airconditioning costs, which can be very significant Operating mode Consistent and reliable high accel / decel performance under all weather conditions 31

32 LIM Constraints Vertical Force Vertical force path LIM Rotary Motor Forces cancel Single Sided Linear Motor Forces do not cancel Wheel bearing Wheel Rail Guideway Bogie frame Guideway LIM suspension LIM structure Reaction rail Structure Reaction rail anchorage Primary Secondary 32

33 LIM Constraints End Effect Reduced thrust as speed increases F l u x d e n s i t y Distance from LIM front The reaction rail is magnetized as the vehicle moves Magnetic flux cannot change instantaneously Thrust [kn] Speed [m/s] Variable magnetizing inductance Unbalanced phase currents Uneven flux density distribution in air gap as function of speed 33

34 LIM Constraints Direct Drive Force applied directly to track LIM envelope LIM active area Constraints No force multiplication by gear Physical limits for force Magnetic flux density Thermal loading LIM active area determined by space in bogie Maximum LIM thrust constrained by available space in bogie 34

35 LIM Control Peak Trust LIM operation at the peak of the thrust slip curve Thrust Slip Frequency 35

36 LIM Control Frequency Control V E fs I r R f g I f U LIM 36

37 LIM Control Adaptive Control α I q I d V P α fs I r R R f g f U I LIM 37

38 Reference Projects Proven track record 150 kilometres of LIM-based Metro systems delivered in seven major cities Over 600 vehicles delivered Toronto, Canada (1985) Vancouver, Canada (1986) Detroit, USA (1987) Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (1998) Vancouver, Canada (2002) New York, USA (2003) Beijing, China (2008) YongIn 2, South Korea (2010) 38

39 Highly Competitive Operating and Maintenance Costs LIM-based systems achieve very low costs even compared to systems that carry 30x the volume of passengers annually Cost $US Cleveland Staten Island Baltimore PATCO Miami-Dade AirTrain JFK Atlanta Los Angeles Philadelphia San Francisco PATH Washington Chicago Boston New York City SOURCE: FTA Heavy Rail 1.00 Vancouver SkyTrain 0.00 Annual passengers carried 1,000,000 10,000, ,000,000 1,000,000,000 39

40 Test Track Kingston, Ontario, Canada 1830 m 3%, 6% grade Full ATO 40

41 Summary > 700 LIM propulsion systems in revenue operation Reliable all-weather performance No moving parts, very long lift span Minimal maintenance and operating cost Short headways Steep grades 41

42 Thank you! Questions? Visit our websites: ww.theclimateisrightfortrains.com 42