ArticleActuators2024
Practical Comparison of Two- and Three-Phase Bearingless Permanent Magnet Slice Motors for Blood Pumps.
Article in Actuators, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The majority of bearingless permanent magnet slice motors (BPMSMs) used in commercially available rotary blood pumps use a two-phase configuration, but it is unclear as to whether or not a comparable three-phase configuration would offer a better performance. This study compares the performance of two-phase and three-phase BPMSM configurations. Initially, two nominal designs were manufactured and empirically tested for their performance characteristics, namely, the axial stiffness, radial stiffness, and current force. Subsequently, finite element analysis (FEA) models were developed based on these nominal devices and validated against the empirical results. Simulations were then employed to assess the sensitivity of performance characteristics to variations in seven different geometric features of the models for both configurations. Our findings indicate that the nominal three-phase design had a higher axial stiffness and radial stiffness, but resulted in a lower axial-to-radial-stiffness ratio when compared to the nominal two-phase design. Additionally, while the nominal two-phase design shows a higher current force, the nominal three-phase design proves to be slightly superior when the force generated is considered relative to the power usage. Notably, the three-phase configuration demonstrates a greater sensitivity to dimensional changes in the geometric features. We observed that alterations in the air gap and rotor length lead to the most significant variations in performance characteristics. Although most changes in specific geometric features entail equal tradeoffs, increasing the head protrusion positively influences the overall performance. Moreover, we illustrated the interdependent nature of the head height and rotor height on the performance characteristics. Overall, this study delineates the strengths and weaknesses of each configuration, while also providing general insights into the relationship between specific geometric features and performance characteristics of BPMSMs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.