Electromagnetic launch assistance for space vehicles

B.V. Jayawant, J.D. Edwards, L.S. Wickramaratne, W.R.C. Dawson and T.C. Yang
Abstract: Motivated by reducing the cost of launching space vehicles, the US National
Aeronautics and Space Administration sponsored an industry/university research project to
explore the application of electromagnetic forces. Here, the technical issues involved are
examined, the initial achievements reported and further improvements suggested. If the initial
launch phase of a space vehicle is horizontal instead of vertical, it is possible to use electromagnetic forces to supplement the rocket thrust, with consequent saving of rocket fuel. The short
time of the horizontal launch phase (10 20 s) enables induction levitation to be used in combination with a compact form of a linear induction motor. The performance, dynamic characteristics and scaling laws of this system are examined. Induction levitation is simple and effective,
but it has an oscillatory response to force or torque disturbances, and it is unsuitable for very
large space vehicles. These problems can be overcome with magnetic suspension using controlled DC electromagnets. Although the energy required for electromagnetic launch assistance
is small, the electrical power demand is very high, necessitating some form of local energy
storage.

Introduction

There has been considerable interest in using electromagnetic propulsion technology to launch objects into space
[1]. Mankins [2] in 1994 suggested this approach for a firststage booster launch. More recently, Woodcock et al. [3]
have proposed an advanced, completely reusable rocketpowered vehicle that will take-off and land horizontally.
An essential feature of this concept is assistance of the
rocket thrust by an electromagnetic accelerator track
during the horizontal launch phase. This reduces the quantity of rocket fuel required for the launch, with a corresponding increase in the vehicle payload for a given gross
take-off mass. It also offers the advantage of a launch
abort option.
With electromagnetic launch assistance, a vehicle would
need to reach a speed of 200 m/s at the end of the accelerator track. To limit the stresses on a large reusable vehicle,
the maximum permissible acceleration would be in the
range 10 20 m/s2 (approximately 1g to 2g). If the acceleration is limited to 10 m/s2, a track length of 2 km would be
required, and the accelerating time would be 20 s. An acceleration of 20 m/s2 would reduce the track length to 1 km
and the accelerating time to 10 s.
The high speed required for a horizontal take-off makes
it desirable to eliminate wheels. An electromagnetic accelerator track therefore needs to employ some form of lowfriction vertical support such as electromagnetic levitation
# The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2008
doi:10.1049/iet-smt:20060145
Paper first received 28th December 2006 and in revised form 24th May 2007
B.V. Jayawant, J.D. Edwards and T.C. Yang are with the Department of
Engineering and Design, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QT, UK
L.S. Wickramaratne is with the Geoprober Drilling Ltd, 7 Queens Gardens,
Aberdeen AB15 4YD, UK
W.R.C. Dawson is with the PRT Advanced Maglev Systems, Old Timbers,
Westhill Drive, Burgess Hill RH15 9PP, UK
E-mail: j.d.edwards@sussex.ac.uk

42

or suspension, as proposed for advanced ground transport

systems [4]. In 1997, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) placed a contract with PRT
Advanced Maglev Systems in association with the
University of Sussex to develop a demonstration electromagnetic accelerator track based on Laithwaites concept
of a magnetic river [5]. The magnetic river is a single-sided
linear induction motor with a long primary and a secondary
of aluminium, which is both levitated and propelled by the
travelling magnetic field of the primary. Although simple
and elegant, the original Laithwaites magnetic river is
unsuitable for the high accelerations required for launch
assistance. Both the propulsion force and the levitation
force are functions of the vehicle speed and the primary
supply frequency, requiring precise control of the frequency for successful operation. A modified form was
therefore adopted for the demonstration accelerator track,
with separate induction levitation and propulsion subsystems. The induction levitation subsystem, which is
described in Section 3, gives a levitation force independent
of speed, with no propulsion effect. Propulsion is provided
by a double-sided linear induction motor, which gives a
thrust force with no levitation effect. This separation of
the propulsion and levitation makes the control very
simple, which is a desirable feature of a system that must
operate with high reliability. Fig. 1 shows the demonstration accelerator track at the NASA Marshall Space
Flight Centre [6], with a model space vehicle mounted
on top of the moving member. A practical system would
use two parallel accelerator tracks, with the vehicle
mounted on a carrier between the tracks, to allow the
rocket engines to fire into the void between the electromagnetic components.
This article considers the electromagnetic performance
and scaling laws of the components of an electromagnetic
accelerator track and the dynamic behaviour of a system
using induction levitation. It is shown that induction levitation, although simple in concept, has a complex oscillatory
response to force or torque disturbances and has a low force
IET Sci. Meas. Technol., 2008, 2, (1), pp. 42 52

Fig. 1 Demonstration electromagnetic launch assistance track

(NASA photo)

per unit area, which makes it impractical for very large

loads. These problems can be overcome with magnetic
attraction, using controlled DC electromagnets, which has
been employed successfully in high-speed ground transport
systems [4, 7].
2

Linear motors

The concept of non-interacting levitation and propulsion

subsystems requires a double-sided linear motor in which
the normal forces on the secondary cancel out. In principle,
this could be achieved with a linear synchronous motor, in
which secondary magnets are placed symmetrically
between the two sides of the primary. However, this is an
unstable position; any displacement of the magnets
towards one side will result in a normal force acting to
increase the displacement. In a linear induction motor, in
contrast, the central position is stable. The linear induction
motor is easier to control, it is inherently self starting and it
does not exhibit the oscillatory behaviour of a synchronous
motor when the load angle is perturbed. The linear induction motor is therefore the preferred choice for a launch
assistance system.
Conventional linear induction motors have the primary
winding placed in slots between the teeth of a laminated
iron core. The airgap magnetic flux density, which determines the motor thrust per unit area, is then limited by the
magnetic saturation of the primary teeth. It is possible to
dispense with the primary teeth and place the primary
winding directly on the surface of a flat laminated iron
core. Because there are no teeth to saturate, the airgap
winding linear induction motor can develop a much
higher thrust per unit area than a conventional motor [8].
A very compact form of airgap winding employs rhomboidal coils [9, 10]. Fig. 2 shows the two sides of a
primary of this kind. The primary winding is completely
contained within the airgap, in contrast to a conventional
winding where the end-winding extends well beyond the
primary iron. This has the desirable consequence of
giving negligible external magnetic field. To limit the
length of the airgap, the active cross-sectional area of
the primary winding is considerably less than in a conventional motor, resulting in a high value for the primary
resistance. Consequently, the power loss in the primary
winding is much higher than that in a conventional
winding. This form of motor is unsuitable for continuous
operation, but it is well suited to the short accelerating
times of launch assistance applications. Table 1 compares
the predicted performance of a conventional motor and a
IET Sci. Meas. Technol., Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2008

Fig. 2 Airgap winding with rhomboidal coils

rhomboidal winding motor of similar core area, where the

flux density is limited by magnetic saturation of the
primary iron. The predictions are based on the Ooi and
White two-dimensional electromagnetic model [11],
ignoring end effects. These results demonstrate the superiority of the rhomboidal winding for launch assistance
applications.
With any form of linear motor, the power requirements
for electromagnetic launch assistance are very high. For
example, consider an accelerated mass of 100 tonnes, an
acceleration of 20 m/s2 and a final speed of 200 m/s. If
the linear motor provides half of the accelerating force,
the final power output is 200 MW. However, the total
energy output is only 1 GJ or 278 kWh. The local power
Table 1: Comparison of conventional and rhomboidal
winding linear induction motors
Quantity

Conventional

Rhomboidal

Number of poles (mm)

Pole pitch (mm)

300

300

Airgap length (mm)

30

30

Primary core width (mm)

300

316

Primary core depth (mm)

34

80

Primary slot depth or winding

40

15

630

316

178

220

Secondary width (mm)

450

450

Secondary depth (mm)

20

20

depth (mm)
Primary overall width including
end-winding (mm)
Primary overall depth (two sides
plus airgap) (mm)

Design speed (m/s)

30

30

Airgap flux density (T)

0.425

1.25

Maximum iron flux density (T)

1.62

1.62

Tractive force (kN)

21.0

136

Force density (kN/m )

48.3

287

Primary winding current density

7.63

104

0.24

62.6

540

605

25.7

4.45

(A/mm2)
Rate of temperature rise of
primary winding (K/s)
Total primary mass (copper and
iron) (kg)
Mass-to-thrust ratio (kg/kn)

43

supply system therefore needs to incorporate energy

storage, for example, using flywheels.

3
3.1

Induction levitation
Principles

Fig. 3 shows an induction levitator. The primary comprises

a series of coils with U-shaped cores, energised from a
single-phase AC supply, and the secondary is a channel of
high conductivity aluminium. Currents are induced in the
channel by the alternating magnetic field, flowing along
the web and finding return paths in the flanges, as shown
by the shaded plot of current density in Fig. 4. The interaction of currents in the web with the transverse magnetic
field between the poles of the U-cores gives a force of repulsion between the channel and the U-cores. If the channel
width is similar to the pole spacing, there is also a lateral
restoring force when the secondary is displaced from a symmetrical position.
When the array of U-cores is longer than the channel, the
induced current pattern, and hence the levitation force, is
virtually independent of the position of the channel. There
is only a small variation caused by the reduction in the
flux density in the regions between successive U-cores.
Apart from this small variation, the current pattern in the
channel is independent of the position and therefore independent of the speed of the channel in the longitudinal
direction.
In a practical system, there is a power-factor correction
capacitor in parallel with the coils on each U-core, so
that the levitator takes current at approximately unity
power factor, and the AC source has to supply only the
real power demand of the system. Without these capacitors, the reactive power demand would be unacceptably
large.
The demonstration accelerator track shown in Fig. 1
employs two induction levitators of this form, positioned
symmetrically on either side of the linear motor. In addition,
there are two induction stabilisers. These are similar to the
levitators, but face inwards towards the linear motor. Their
function is to keep the vehicle carrier centred on the track
and to keep the secondary reaction plate in the middle of
the gap between the two primary sections of the linear
motor. The channels for the levitator and stabiliser can be
seen on the carrier at the front of Fig. 1, and the corresponding U-core arrays can be seen further away where part of the
cover has been removed.

Fig. 4 Induced currents in the secondary

In comparison with other forms of electromagnetic levitation and suspension, induction levitation has the advantages of simplicity and a favourable force to weight ratio
for the levitated component. Energy loss in the primary
and secondary is acceptable for the short duration of
launch assistance, but makes this form of levitation unsuitable for continuous operation.

3.2

Scaling laws

In the demonstration accelerator track shown in Fig. 1, the

maximum accelerated mass is 100 kg. A practical launch
system would require an accelerated mass of at least 10
tonnes, and a reusable vehicle of the form envisaged in
[3] would have a mass of 2000 tonnes. It is therefore
necessary to consider how the performance of an induction
levitator varies with size.
Consider two stationary induction levitation systems:
the original system and a new system, geometrically
similar to the original system, with all dimensions multiplied by a scale factor p. The two systems will be
similar electromagnetically if the magnetic flux density
magnitude B at corresponding points is identical. It is
shown in the appendix that this condition will be achieved
if the primary current density magnitude Jp is divided by
p and the frequency is divided by p 2. The induced current
density magnitude in the secondary channel will also be
divided by p.
As the force per unit area depends on B 2, it follows that
the force per unit area will be identical in the two
systems, so the total levitation force is multiplied by p 2 in
the new system. The Joule power loss per unit volume in
any part of the system is given by
w

Fig. 3 Induction levitator

44

J2
s

(1)

where J is the magnitude of the current density and s is the

conductivity. As the current density values are divided by p
in the new system, the power loss per unit volume is divided
by p 2. The volume is multiplied by p 3, so the total power
loss, in both the excitation winding and the secondary conductor, will be multiplied by p.
The ratio of power loss to levitation force will be
divided by p in the new system, but the ratio of mass to levitation force will be multiplied by p. This is the trade-off in
large levitators, which sets a limit to the size of a levitation
unit.
IET Sci. Meas. Technol., Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2008

3.3

Simulation results

From the considerations of Section 3.2, it follows that the

performance of geometrically similar levitators can be
predicted from the results for a single prototype levitator,
provided the values of current density and frequency are
correctly adjusted. It is necessary first to find the
optimum operating frequency for the prototype levitator.
The commercial finite-element electromagnetic simulation
software MagNet (Infolytica Corporation) has been used
to model a levitator comprising an infinite array of
U-cores of the form shown in Fig. 3. This uses a full
three-dimensional model, with a time-harmonic eddycurrent solution for sinusoidal excitation of the levitator
primary coils. The force obtained from the simulation is
a time-averaged value of the developed force, which
varies from zero to maximum at twice the excitation
frequency.
Table 2 gives the parameters and computed performance
for one primary U-core section of the prototype levitator at a
frequency of 200 Hz, with the coil current adjusted to give a
mean flux density of 1.4 T in the core.

Table 2: Parameters and performance of induction

levitators
Quantity

Prototype

Scaled

Pole width (mm)

32

64

Pole depth (mm)

52

104

Inter-pole gap (mm)

32

64

Pole length

64

128

Number of turns per coil

200

200

Coil space factor

0.60

0.60

Coil resistivity at 208C (nVm)

17.2

17.2

Airgap length (mm)

12

24

Channel width (mm)

90

180

Channel depth (mm)

40

80

Web thickness (mm)

6.0

12.0

Flange thickness (mm)

8.0

16.0

Channel length (mm)

120

240

Channel resistivity at 208C (nVm)

26.3

26.3

Frequency (Hz)

200

50

Mean core flux density (T)

1.40

1.40

Primary resistance (V)

0.509

0.255

Primary inductance (mH)

23.2

46.4

Power factor correction

27.3

218

Primary current (A)

34.9

69.8

Primary voltage (V)

1020

1020

Primary power loss (W)

620

1240

Secondary power loss (W)

1430

2860

Primary mass (kg)

3.78

30.3

Secondary mass (kg)

0.352

2.82

Levitation force (N)

170

682

Force per unit pole area (kN/m2)

41.5

41.5

capacitance (mF)

Primary rate of temperature rise (K/s)

1.90

0.475

Secondary rate of temperature

4.54

1.14

rise (K/s)
Force, power and mass values are based on one primary U-core
section
IET Sci. Meas. Technol., Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2008

Fig. 5 shows the performance of the prototype levitator as

a function of frequency, normalised to the values at a frequency of 200 Hz. At low frequencies, the levitation force
increases rapidly with frequency, with a corresponding
increase in the power loss. However, at high frequencies,
although the power loss continues to increase at a similar
rate, there is a much smaller increase in the levitation
force. For this size of levitator, a frequency of 200 Hz
appears to give a good compromise between the requirements of a large levitation force and low power dissipation.
From Table 2, the force per unit pole area is 41.5 kN/m2,
and this value will be maintained in larger sizes if the
scaling principles are observed. In the small prototype levitator, the power loss per unit volume is very large, resulting
in high values for the initial rate of rise of temperature:
1.90 K/s for the primary and 4.54 K/s for the secondary.
Much lower values are obtained in large levitators (discussed subsequently). As the acceleration time will not
exceed 20 s, the temperature rise of even the small prototype levitator will not be excessive.
Fig. 6 shows the effect of size on the performance of geometrically similar induction levitators, based on the performance of the prototype levitator at 200 Hz. As the
levitation force increases as the square of the scale factor,
but the power loss increases linearly, the power loss per
unit force is inversely proportional to the scale factor. The
initial rate of rise of temperature depends on the power
loss per unit volume, so it is inversely proportional to the
square of the scale factor. In all respects, except the secondary mass per unit force, the performance of the levitator
improves with increasing size.
As the frequency is inversely proportional to the square of
the scale factor, the optimum size of a levitator for operation
from the 50 or 60 Hz mains supply has a scale factor of
2. Table 2 shows the parameters and performance of one
primary U-core section of this levitator. The levitation
force available is 2.84 kN/m length of the secondary aluminium channel. Each tonne of levitated mass therefore
requires a 3.45 m length of secondary, which itself has a
mass of 40.5 kg (4.05% of the total levitated mass). This
size of levitation unit gives a good compromise between
power dissipation and secondary mass per unit force. The
required levitation force is obtained by using the requisite
number of units, either in a long line with a single secondary
channel or in parallel lines with multiple secondary channels.
For small systems, the mains-powered induction levitator has obvious potential. A levitated mass of 10 tonnes
would require 34.5 m of secondary. If this is divided into
two parts, as would be required for a twin-track accelerator, the length of the levitator is 17.3 m. This could be
reduced to 8.63 m by using parallel pairs of secondary
channels. However, when the levitated mass is much
greater than 10 tonnes, the size of the levitator becomes
excessive. A practical upper limit is 100 tonnes, which
requires 345 m of secondary. In this case, if each section
of a twin-track levitator uses four parallel secondary channels, the length of the levitator is 43.1 m. For a space
vehicle with a gross take-off mass of 2000 tonnes, as proposed in [3], the induction levitator is not a practical proposition. Systems of this size would need to use magnetic
suspension.
4

Magnetic suspension

As indicated in Section 1, an alternative to induction levitation is magnetic suspension using controlled DC electromagnets. To compare the properties of the two systems,
we consider U-core electromagnets of the same form as
45

Fig. 5 Levitator performance as a function of frequency

a
b
c
d

Levitation force
Total power loss
Primary power loss
Secondary power loss

the levitation U-cores in Fig. 2, with a steel rail taking the

place of the aluminium channel. The scaling laws developed
in Section 3.2 are applicable to this system, except that there
is no time variation if eddy currents in the steel rail are
ignored.
Table 3 gives the parameters and computed performance for two sizes of magnetic suspension system, with
the magnet dimensions the same as the U-core
dimensions of the induction levitator in Table 2. The
core of the electromagnet is soft pure iron, with the
current adjusted to give a mean flux density of 1.8 T;
the rail is cold-rolled low-carbon steel. As with the induction levitator, the performance has been computed from a
three-dimensional finite-element model, taking account of
the nonlinear magnetic properties of the magnet core and
the rail.
A comparison of the results in Tables 2 and 3 shows that
the magnetic suspension system can develop 2.67 times the
force per unit area of the induction levitation system.
However, the mass of the moving part is much greater;
the mass of the electromagnet is 11 times the mass of the
secondary in the corresponding induction levitation
system. When comparing the systems, it is necessary to
use a smaller size of electromagnet; the prototype electromagnet will be used. This gives a lift force of 3.78 kN/m
length of rail, so a suspended mass of 1 tonne requires
2.59 m of rail. The corresponding mass of the electromagnets is 83.5 kg (8.35% of the suspended mass), which is
about double the value for the secondary of the induction
levitator. As the width of the electromagnet is half the
width of the induction U-core, it is possible to use twice
as many parallel rows of electromagnets as induction
U-cores. Table 4 compares induction levitation with
46

magnetic suspension for levitated or suspended mass

values of 10, 100 and 1000 tonnes.

5
5.1

Induction system dynamics

Introduction

It is necessary to assess the dynamic behaviour of the vehicle

carrier on an electromagnetic accelerator that uses induction
levitation and propulsion. The behaviour will depend on the
system configuration, but to make an initial assessment, a
study has been made of a single-track accelerator of the
form shown in Fig. 1 and described in Section 3.1. Fig. 7
shows a cross-section of a laboratory model of the carrier,
including the secondary reaction plate of the linear motor
and the secondary channels of the levitator and stabiliser.
The primaries of the linear motor, levitator and stabiliser
are not shown in the diagram. To study the behaviour, the
carrier must be treated as a dynamical system with six
degrees of freedom [12].

5.2

Translational and rotational dynamics

The following six equations are used to model the translational and rotational dynamics of the system under a bodyfixed coordinate system (x, y, z), which rotates at an absolute
angular velocity (vx , vy , vz) [13 15]. The coordinate origin
is the mass centre of the carrier; the x axis is the longitudinal
axis, in the direction of travel; the y axis is transverse and
IET Sci. Meas. Technol., Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2008

Fig. 6 Levitator performance as a function of size

a
b
c
d
e
f

Levitation force
Total power loss
Primary rate of temperature rise
Secondary rate of temperature rise
Total power loss per unit force
Secondary mass per unit force

the z axis is vertical

F x m(_vx vz vy # vy vz )

(2)

F y m(_vy vx vz # vz vx )

(3)

F z m(_vz vy vx # vx vy )

(4)

M x Ixx v x (Izz # Iyy )vy vz

(5)

M y Iyy v y (Ixx # Izz )vx vz

(6)

M z Izz v z (Iyy # Ixx )vx vy

(7)

In these equations, m is the total mass of the carrier and Ixx ,

Iyy and Izz are the moments of inertia about the x, y and z
axes, respectively. Disturbing forces, damping forces and
electromagnetic restoring forces are included in the force
vector (Fx , Fy , Fz); disturbing torques, damping torques
and electromagnetic restoring torques are included in the
moment vector (Mx , My , Mz). Parameters of the system
are given in Table 5.
Considering the fact that the body-fixed coordinate
system (x, y, z) rotations are very small about a space-fixed
coordinate system (X, Y, Z ), the following transformation
IET Sci. Meas. Technol., Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2008

matrix formulae are used to transform the components of

a vector from one system to the other. The individual
rotations are the incremental angles dux, duy, duz about the
X, Y and Z coordinate axes, respectively
9
8 9
8
>
>
=
=
< Ax >
< AX >
(8)
Ay R
AY
>
>
>
;
;
: >
:
Az
AZ
9
8
8 9
>
>
=
=
< AX >
< Ax >
#1
(9)
AY R
Ay
>
>
>
;
;
:
: >
AZ
Az
2

6
R 4 #duz
duy
2
1
6
R#1 4 duz
#duy

duz
1

#dux
#duz
1
dux

#duy

dux 7
5
1
3
duy
#dux 7
5
1

(10)

(11)

47

Table 3: Parameters and performance of magnetic

suspension systems
Quantity

Prototype

Scaled

Pole width (mm)

32

64

Pole depth (mm)

52

104

Inter-pole gap (mm)

32

64

Pole length (mm)

64

128

Number of turns per coil

200

200

Coil space factor

0.60

0.60

Coil resistivity at 208C (nVm)

17.2

17.2

Airgap length (mm)

12

24

Rail width (mm)

96

192

Rail depth (mm)

32

64

Rail length (mm)

120

240

Mean core flux density (T)

1.80

1.80

Primary resistance (V)

0.509

0.255

Magnet coil current (A)

22.6

45.2

Magnet coil voltage (V)

11.5

11.5

Magnet power loss (W)

260

1240

Magnet mass (kg)

3.86

30.9

Rail mass (kg)

2.80

22.4

Suspension force (N)

454

1820

Force per unit pole area (kN/m2)

111

111

Magnet coil rate of temperature

0.80

0.20

rise (K/s)
Force, power and mass values are based on one U-core
electromagnet

5.3

Simulation model

Equations (2) to (11) have been implemented in a Matlab/

Simulink model of the system [12, 16]. This model also
incorporates the nonlinear force/distance characteristics of
the levitator and stabiliser and damping forces.

Table 4: Comparison of induction levitation with

magnetic suspension
Induction

Magnetic

levitation

suspension

Track width (mm)

560

560

Track length (m)

8.63

3.24

10 tonnes
Number of parallel rows per

Fig. 7 Cross-section of the carrier considered for simulation

The levitation force is a nonlinear function of the airgap

between the primary and secondary, and it is also affected
by the lateral position of the secondary. In addition, if the
secondary is displaced laterally from a symmetrical position, there will be a lateral restoring force that is a nonlinear function of both the airgap and the lateral
displacement. Figs. 8 and 9 show the levitation and
lateral force/distance characteristics of a levitator, obtained
by finite-element modelling. Similar characteristics apply
to the stabilisers. These are time-averaged static force
values obtained from the finite-element simulation
described in Section 3.3; the periodic variation of the
force has been ignored because the frequency is far
removed from the natural frequencies of the system. For
oscillatory motion of the secondary, it is assumed that the
forces are functions of displacement only and are not
affected by velocity.
Although the electromagnetic force is a field force,
which is exerted continuously over the levitated channel,
it is assumed that it can be represented by forces
applied at two points distant l/4 from the ends of the
channel, where l is the channel length. This assumption
simplifies the analysis and gives reasonably accurate
results [17].
Damping forces are important, but difficult to determine. Analytical formulae are available for some kinds
of maglev system [18], but it is usually necessary to
employ experimental methods [19]. Damping in the laboratory model of the levitated carrier was estimated
from video recordings of the carrier motion following
a disturbance and represented approximately in the
simulation model by setting all damping coefficient
values to 0.7.

track

100 tonnes
Number of parallel rows per

Table 5: System parameters for dynamic modelling

Mass of the carrier (m) (kg)

23.3

Moment of inertia about x axis (Ixx) (kg/m2)

track

1.45

Track width (m)

1.12

1.12

Moment of inertia about y axis (Iyy) (kg/m )

Track length (m)

43.1

16.2

Moment of inertia about z axis (Izz) (kg/m2)

2.14

Length of the carrier (l) (mm)

800
569

1000 tonnes

1.59

16

Width of carrier between

Track width (m)

2.24

2.24

Levitator primary pole width (mm)

32

Track length (m)

216

80.9

Levitator excitation frequency (Hz)

50

Number of parallel rows per

track

48

channel centres (w) (mm)

IET Sci. Meas. Technol., Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2008

Fig. 8 Levitation force/distance characteristics

Y is the lateral displacement

5.4

Simulation results

The simulation model has been used to determine the

carrier response to different kinds of disturbing forces
and torques. In a practical system, there may be a large

pitching torque because of an offset between the mass

centre of the system and the line of action of
propulsion thrust. The mass centre will usually be above
the line of action of thrust, resulting in a negative pitching
torque about the y axis. Fig. 10 shows the oscillatory
response following a step change of pitching torque. As
expected, there is a damped pitching oscillation, with
considerable vertical displacement of the front and
rear ends of the carrier. There is also significant vertical
displacement of the mass centre, resulting from the
nonlinear force/displacement characteristics of the
levitators.
Fig. 11 shows the oscillatory response to a step of
force applied in the lateral direction, in line with the
mass centre. There is a lateral displacement of the
mass centre, and there is also a coupling effect
between the lateral and vertical directions, resulting in
a vertical displacement, and a roll about the longitudinal
axis.
Fig. 12 shows the oscillatory response to a pulse of torque
about the vertical axis. There is a vertical displacement of
the mass centre, in addition to a yaw about the vertical axis.
Fig. 13 shows the oscillatory response to a step of torque
about the longitudinal axis. There are vertical and lateral
displacements, in addition to a roll about the longitudinal
axis.
All the oscillation modes predicted by the simulation
have been observed in video recordings of the carrier
motion following torque and force disturbances [12],
but there has been no quantitative measurement of the
carrier motion for comparison with the simulation
results.
5.5

Fig. 9 Lateral force/distance characteristics

Y is the lateral displacement

Discussion

The nature of the nonlinear force/displacement characteristics of the levitators and stabilisers result in mode
coupling, where a disturbance on one axis gives rise to
oscillatory behaviour on other axes. These induction
systems are very lightly damped, so it may be necessary
to provide additional damping. It may also be necessary
to limit the vertical motion of the carrier following a
torque disturbance about the transverse axis. This
could be achieved by adding vertical stabilisers, in the
form of inverted levitators above the main levitators,

Fig. 10 Pitching torque response

a Vertical displacement: front (upper trace), mass centre and rear (lower trace)
b Pitch angle
IET Sci. Meas. Technol., Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2008

49

Fig. 11 Lateral force response

a Vertical displacement of the mass centre
b Lateral displacement of the mass centre
c Roll angle

but it would add to the cost and complexity of the

system.
Magnetic suspension using controlled DC electromagnets
requires closed-loop control to maintain a constant airgap

between the magnets and the reaction rail. This provides a

means of controlling the oscillatory behaviour, which is
not available in the simple induction levitation system,
and is one of the benefits of magnetic suspension.

Fig. 12 Yawing torque response

a Vertical displacement of the mass centre
b Yaw angle
50

IET Sci. Meas. Technol., Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2008

Fig. 13 Rolling torque response

a Vertical displacement: front (upper trace), mass centre and rear (lower trace)
b Lateral displacement
c Yaw angle

Conclusions

Induction levitation, combined with airgap winding linear

induction motors, could form the basis of a simple and
effective electromagnetic accelerator track for assisted horizontal launching of space vehicles. The performance of the
levitator improves with increasing size in all respects,
except for the ratio of secondary mass to levitation force.
The optimum operating frequency for a levitator varies
inversely as the square of the scale factor for geometrically
similar levitators, and a size, which is suitable for powersystem frequencies, offers a good compromise between
power dissipation and secondary mass. A simple induction
levitator has the disadvantage of oscillatory behaviour following a force or torque disturbance, with mode coupling
and little inherent damping. It may be necessary to add
induction stabilisers to limit the vertical motion following
a disturbance.
Induction levitators are limited to a force density of
40 kN per square metre of primary pole area, so they
are unsuitable for applications requiring a levitated mass
in excess of 100 tonnes. Larger systems would need to
use magnetic suspension with controlled DC electromagnets, which can give a force density in excess of
100 kN per square metre of magnet pole area.
Electromagnets must be carried on the moving system,
so there is a greater weight penalty than with induction
levitators, but the closed-loop control system required
for magnetic suspension would also solve the problem
of oscillation.
IET Sci. Meas. Technol., Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2008

With electromagnetic launch assistance, the energy consumption is small, but the power input to the linear
motors is very high. These requirements can be met by
local energy storage, for example, using flywheels.
7

Acknowledgment

The authors are grateful to NASA and PRT Advanced

Maglev Systems for financial support and to the
University of Sussex for the provision of experimental
facilities.
8

References

1 McNab, I.R.: Electromagnetic launch to space, J. Br. Interplanet.

Soc., 2007, 60, (2), pp. 5462
2 Mankins, J.C.: The MagLifter: an advanced concept using
electromagnetic propulsion in reducing the cost of space launch.
AIAA 30th Joint Propulsion Conf., 27 29 June 1994, paper 94-2726
3 Woodcock, G.R., Suter, J., and Morgenthaler, G.W.: Reusable launch
architecture to support sustainable human exploration of the solar
system. 54th Int. Astronautical Congress of the Int. Astronautical
Federation, the Int. Academy of Astronautics, and the Int. Institute
of Space Law, Bremen, Germany, 29 September3 October 2003
4 Jayawant, B.V.: Electromagnetic levitation and suspension
techniques (Edward Arnold, 1981)
5 Eastham, J.F., and Laithwaite, E.R.: Linear induction motors as
electromagnetic rivers, Proc. IEE, 1974, 121, (10), p. 1099 1108
6 NASA Marshall Space Flight Centre News Release 99-260, 4 October
1999
7 Bohn, G., and Steinmetz, G.: The electromagnetic-levitation and
guidance technology of the transrapid-test-facility-Emsland, IEEE
Trans. Magn., 1984, 20, (5), pp. 16661671
51

8 Balchin, M.J., and Eastham, J.F.: Performance of linear-induction

motors with airgap windings, Proc. IEE, 1975, 122, (12), pp. 13821390
9 Eastham, J.F., and Laithwaite, E.R.: Linear motor topology, Proc.
IEE, 1973, 120, (3), pp. 337343
10 Caricchi, F., Crescimbini, F., Honorati, O., Lo Bianco, G., and Santini,
E.: Performance of coreless-winding axial-flux permanent-magnet
generator with power output at 400 Hz, 3000 r/min, IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., 1998, 34, pp. 638 645
11 Ooi, B.-T., and White, D.C.: Traction and normal forces in the linear
induction motor, IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst., 1970, 89,
pp. 1263 1269
12 Wickramaratne, L.S.: Electromagnetic levitation and propulsion for
spacecraft launch, DPhil thesis, University of Sussex, 2002
13 Greenwood, D.T.: Classical dynamics (Prentice-Hall, 1977)
14 Greenwood, D.T.: Principles of dynamics (Prentice-Hall, 1988, 2nd
edn.)
15 Ginsberg, J.H.: Advanced engineering dynamics (Harper and Row,
1988)
16 The Mathworks. Using Simulink version 3 release 11 (The
Mathworks Inc.,) 1999
17 Sinha, P.K.: Electromagnetic suspension: dynamics and control
(Peter Peregrinus, 1987)
18 He, J.L., and Coffey, H.: Magnetic damping forces in
figure-eight-shaped null-flux coil suspension systems, IEEE Trans.
Magn., 1997, 33, (5), pp. 4230 4232
19 Zhu, S., Cai, Y., Rote, D.M., and Chen, S.S.: Magnetic damping for
maglev, Shock Vib., 1998, 5, pp. 119 128

Appendix

9.1

Conditions for electromagnetic similarity

r $ H r $ (nB)
8
< J p primary winding
0
non-conductors

:
ss E secondary conductor

r$E #

@B
@t

(12)

(13)

Combining (12) and (13) gives

8
r $ Jp
>
<
0
r $ r $ (nB)
>
: #s @B
s
@t

(14)

In the new system, we introduce new Cartesian space

coordinates and a new time coordinate as follows

52

(16)

In terms of the new coordinates, the differential operators

are
r

r0
,
p

@ 1 @
%
@t q @t0

(17)

The governing equations in terms of the new coordinates

are thus
8
pr0 $ J 0p
>
>
<
0
r0 $ r0 $ (n0 B0 )
2
p
@B0
>
>
: #s0s % 0
q @t

n0 n

where B is the magnetic flux density, n 1/(mr m0) the

magnetic reluctivity, Jp the current density of impressed
currents in the primary winding, ss is the conductivity of
the secondary material and E the induced electric field in
the secondary. In the secondary conductor, we have

y
y0 ,
p

8
r $ J 0p
>
<
0
r $ r $ (n0 B0 )
0
>
: #s0 @B
s
@t

(18)

These equations will be identical with the equations of

the original system if the following conditions hold

In the original system, we have

x
x0 ,
p

The boundary conditions for the new system in terms of x 0 ,

y 0 , z 0 are the same as the boundary conditions for the original system in terms of x, y, z. If primed symbols denote
quantities in the new system, then we have

z
z0 ,
p

t0

t
q

(15)

Jp
p
q
s0s 2 ss
p

J 0p

(19)
(20)
(21)

If the secondary conductivity is the same in the two

systems, then (21) becomes
q p2

(22)

From (20) and (22), it follows that the magnetic flux

density will be identical at corresponding points in the
two systems if (a) the excitation current density is
divided by p in the new system and (b) all time intervals
in the new system (time constants, periods, etc.) are multiplied by p 2. For sinusoidal excitation, the frequency in
the new system must therefore be divided by p 2. This is
equivalent to stipulating that the skin depth must be a constant fraction of the material depth. The secondary induced
current density will also be divided by p in the new
system.

IET Sci. Meas. Technol., Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2008