Machine Design
How Ironcore Motors Defeat Cogging and Find New Uses

How Ironcore Motors Defeat Cogging and Find New Uses

Ironless linear motors have had a clear advantage over ironcore linear motors in many applications for one clear reason: they’re not subject to cogging. “Cogging” is a term used to describe non-uniform velocity. It can appear as a jerky motion, especially at slow speeds. It happens because of the magnetic attraction between the steel teeth of the motor forcer (stator) and the magnet track that it rides over. Cogging limits the smoothness of motion for systems using ironcore motors, allowing them to only be used in applications that require motion from one point to another. Ironless linear motors do not have steel stator teeth in their design, therefore cogging is eliminated, allowing the motor to achieve smoother uniform velocities. (It should be noted that since these are linear motors, there is no rotary motion involved.)

There is a solution to cogging for those manufacturers preferring ironcore motors in their applications. Why wouldn’t they, after all? Ironcore motors use half the magnets of equivalent ironless motors, which helps lower the price of the application. In addition, the higher magnetic flux creates much more force relative to the size of the motor.

Ironcore linear motors are simply rotary motors cut and unrolled; they contain the same parts but in slightly different relationships. The lamination cage becomes the comb-shaped back iron. The windings still reside inside slots in the lamination assembly. The shaft with magnets bonded to its circumference becomes a flat plate with magnets on the surface. In a typical design of ironcore motor construction, the magnetic forces designate the position of the motor between the lamination teeth and the permanent magnet assembly. A horizontal component of the net force will move the lamination assembly. As the coil moves relative to the magnets, this force will change. This is what causes cogging in an ironcore motor. There is a vertical component where magnetic attractive forces exist between the coil and the magnet track. This force must be able to be absorbed by the bearing structure. This is seen as bearing preload.

1. Typical Ironcore Motor Construction: These motors are simply rotary motors cut and unrolled, with the same parts but in slightly different relationships. The yellow arrows designate the magnetic force between the lamination teeth and the permanent magnet assembly for the given position.

Parker Hannifin ironcore motors use a fractional winding technique. In fractional windings, the teeth do not correspond equally to the magnets, so the horizontal component of the net magnetic force from the inner teeth will be lower. Many of them will cancel each other out. However, the cogging forces from the leading and training edges remain. The vertical component of the magnetic force also remains, however it is much more constant. This results in smaller variations in bearing preload.

2. Ironcore Motor using a Fractional Winding: Here the teeth do not correspond equally to the magnets, resulting in lower net magnetic force.

Cogging Force

The cogging force can be measured by moving the motor at a constant velocity and recording the current output of the driving amplifier versus time. Knowing the velocity and the motor’s force constant, force versus position can be plotted. For example when the Parker Trilogy R10-1 motor is moving at 2.5mm/s. approximately 35N of the force is due to mechanical-bearing friction.

3. Plot of Typical Cogging Force versus Position: This plot represents Parker Trilogy R10-1 motor with anti-cog features removed to demonstrate slow velocity and accentuated cogging force. Inertial damping can make the amplitude seem smaller at higher velocities and payloads. The magnet’s pitch of 30mm leads to the periodic waveform shown.

Traditional Means of Reducing Cogging

Cogging is not unique to linear motors; rotary motors have the same problem. There are several methods traditionally used to minimize cogging that can be employed in linear motors. These include:

  • Skewing the magnets;
  • Shaping the magnets; and/or
  • Skewing the slots in the laminations.

All of these reduce cogging by intentionally misaligning the laminations and magnets. This softens the transitions of the lamination teeth from one magnet to the next and reduces cogging, but it also reduces the motor’s force output and efficiency because the windings and magnetic fields are no longer optimally aligned.

4. Skewed and Shaped Magnets: Intentionally misaligning laminations and magnets reduces cogging, but anti-cog technology uses destructive interference to accomplish the same effect.

Anti-Cog Technology

Parker’s anti-cog technology does not use skewed magnets or any other method that compromises motor efficiency. It uses destructive interference. Additional features are added to the lamination assembly that produce an opposite and equal cogging pattern. These features are called anti-cog blocks. Because a fractional winding is used and the cogging forces from the inner teeth all cancel each other out, the same size and shape anti-cog blocks can be used regardless of the length of the lamination assembly.  Anti-cog blocks only have to compensate for the cogging from the leading and trailing edge of the lamination assembly.

5. Example of Cogging Pattern with Anti-Cog Technology: A Parker Trilogy R1 0-1 motor with anti-cog blocks shows cogging reduced by more than 90%. This plot was created moving at 2.5mm/s and about 35N of force was due to mechanical bearing friction. Notice the absence of the periodic waveform with the 30mm pitch. Most of the remaining force fluctuations are due to bearing seal stiction.

The anti-cog assembly is a parallelogram made using a proprietary powdered metal material and process. The material, shape, and manufacturing process are all carefully controlled to ensure that the cogging force of the anti-cog assembly equals that of the lamination assembly. By reducing cogging, an ironcore motor may be used in place of an ironless motor.  Advantages are that ironcore motors produce more force relative to size vs. ironless, so a smaller motor can be used.  Also, ironless motors use two sets of magnets on a U-shaped track while ironcore has one set of magnets that can be significantly less expensive.

6. Here is a top view of a typical lamination assembly and a typical anti-cog assembly in their most favored positions in the magnetic field. The large rectangle is the R1 0-1 lamination assembly. It is positioned so that the leading and training edges are centered on magnets. Since a fractional winding is used and the inner teeth cancel each other out, the interaction of the leading and training edges with the magnets determine the most favored position.

Ironcore linear motor coils have preferred positions relative to their magnets. This causes disruptive cogging forces and has traditionally limited their performance in applications requiring smooth operation. Methods such as skewing the magnets or slots and shaping the magnets can reduce the cogging, but at a cost in motor efficiency. The use of a fractional winding simplifies the implementation of the anti-cog technology and results in a much more constant attractive force for more consistent bearing preload. Anti-cog technology virtually eliminates cogging and enables ironcore motors to be used in applications where only ironless motors would have been considered before.

7. Combined Lamination and Anti-Cog Assembly: Anti-cog technology uses destructive interference to combine the cogging patterns of the lamination assembly and anti-cog assembly to remove the inherent cogging without sacrificing motor efficiency.

Jeff Nazzaro is the Gearhead and Motor Product Manager at Parker Hannifin Corp.—Electromechanical Automation. 

Hide comments


  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.