Page 226 - 2024-Vol20-Issue2

222 | Salman & Mohammed & Mohammed

TABLE I.
GEOMETRY DESIGN OF THE PMECB

Parameter Value Unit
Conductivity of Copper disk 58.0 × 106 S/m
2.7 × 103 kg/m3
Copper density mm
Disc brake thickness 8 mm
Disc brake diameter 200 mm
0.8
Length of air gap 0.99904 ghm.m
Relative permeability of copper 100E - 9 kg
2.21 rpm
Resistivity of Brake Disc [p] 0 - 1500
Mass disc
Speed range

critical phases, as shown by the Solid Works EMS flowchart Fig. 2. Flowchart of the PMECB design
in Fig. 2. Fig. 3 shows PMECB components. Fig. 4 il-
lustrates the use of SolidWorks in simulating the model for
this research. The simulation software incorporates conduc-
tive materials and measures key parameters such as electrical
conductivity, permeability, and intensity. As illustrated in
Fig. 4, the FE analysis discretizes the permanent magnetic
material into tiny elements, allowing numerical assessment
of the integral based on the force intensity and magnetic field
distribution at each element. For real-world applications, this
technique gives a more precise and practical answer. To begin
PMECB production, the electromagnetism specialist was em-
ployed for 3D analysis and optimization. Table II shows the
electrical conductivity of recommended materials [20].

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the PMECB components

The study provided valuable insights into how ferromagnetic cant interaction between the eddy currents and the permanent
permanent magnetic materials impact the performance of ON magnetic field, which results in stronger braking forces. As
(ECB) systems. Numerical simulations were conducted using the speed of the conductor increases, the force applied to
several ferromagnetic PM materials as braking components to the brakes also increases. Higher conductance materials gen-
evaluate key performance parameters such as braking force, erate stronger eddy current interactions, leading to greater
efficiency, and thermal behavior. The graph in Fig. 5 illus- braking forces. Conversely, lower conductivity materials pro-
trates the braking force values for each material as a func- duce weaker eddy currents and exhibit lower braking forces.
tion of rotational speed. This sentence compares different Neodymium iron boron magnets are distinguished from other
magnetic materials to understand how their properties affect permanent magnets by their superior electrical conductivity.
braking performance. The strength of eddy currents is directly Neodymium Iron Boron magnets can produce stronger brak-
proportional to the rate of change of magnetic flux and the ing forces than other materials due to their higher magnetic
Conductivity of the conductor. This leads to a more signifi- flux density [21]. Samarium Cobalt magnets offer high mag-
netic fields and thermal stability, while Ferrite magnets can
TABLE II. be a cost-effective alternative with lower braking forces for
THE MATERIALS’ ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY certain applications.

Material Conductivity (S / m) Fig. 6 shows. The braking power generated in an eddy
Neodymium Iron Boron 6.3 × 106 current braking system involving different PM materials at
1.2 × 106
Samarium Cobalt 1.0 × 103
Ferrite(Ceramic) Magnet