Sandro Calligaro University of Udine

RETAPED 1ST EDITION

UDINE, DECEMBER 15TH, 2014

Reg-
*me

Advanced and Sensorless

Control of IPM and
Synchronous Reluctance
Motor Drives

Te*

= + +
=

Traction motor drives

HEV, EV motors today

DC motor (obsolete!)

IM (Tesla)

Rotor losses copper rotor cage (cost)

Rotor losses difficult to dissipate

Mature technology, no magnets, high mech. robustness

IPMSM/PMASR (Toyota, Nissan, BMW, GM, )

Mid cost: could avoid rare earths (using ferrite PMs)

High performance, high power density

Good mechanical robustness

Reluctance machines (No magnets, no cage. Future?)

SynRM: low cost, mid efficiency, mid density

SwRM: low cost, mid efficiency, mid density, torque ripple & audible noise

Traction drives:
Control requirements
Aspect

Need (control side)

Solution

Reliability, safety, cost

Alternative to mechanical
sensor (redundancy, at least)

Sensorless

High torque at low-speed

MTPA

Short-term overload
capability

oversizing, include
magn. saturation

Starting / Uphill climb

No transmission,
Wide constant-power range
engine-like torque at high-speed (2-5 x base speed)

Flux-Weakening

Battery operation

Variable DC-link voltage

compliance

Flux-Weakening

Autonomy, travel cost

Efficiency

MTPA,
(Flux-Weakening)

Comfort

Smooth control

Dynamics study

Temperature variation,
parameters dispersion

Parametric variations
compliance

Parameters id.
(off-line, on-line)

Industrial drives: so different?

Aspect

Need (control side)

Solution

Reliability, safety, cost

Avoid mechanical sensor

Sensorless

High torque at low-speed

MTPA

Short-term overload
capability

oversizing, include
magn. saturation

Direct-drive,
high-speed (e.g. spindle)

Wide constant-power range

Flux-Weakening

Line voltage

Variable DC-link voltage

compliance

Flux-Weakening

High starting torque

Operating cost, temperature rise Efficiency

MTPA,
(Flux-Weakening)

Machine cycle time & accuracy

Smooth control

Dynamics study

Temperature variation,
parameters dispersion

Parametric variations
compliance

Parameters id.
(off-line, on-line)

PMSM (&SynRM) sensorless control

PMSM (&SynRM) sensorless:

Introduction (FOC scheme)
VDC

*me

Reg-
-

ia
d/dt

3-ph
IGBT
inverter

b
c

ib

me

me

Space
Vector
PWM

Torque
control

Te*

me
position
transducer

PMSM

Torque control needs rotor position

Speed control needs speed for feedback

PMSM (&SynRM) sensorless:

Introduction (FOC scheme)
VDC

+
Torque
control

Te*
-

v*
+

*me

Reg-

v*b
+

ia
d/dt

v i*

v i* b

Position
&
speed
estimation

3-ph
IGBT
inverter

b
c

ib

ib

me

me

Space
Vector
PWM

me

ia

position
transducer

PMSM

Torque control needs rotor position

Speed control needs speed for feedback

Mechanical sensor replaced by estimation algorithm

Measured signals: DC-link voltage + 2 currents (all electric, inside inverter)

Sensorless:
Methods classification

Model-based (observers): exploit fundamental flux or back-EMF

Estimate rotor flux or back-EMF extract position from the vector angle

B-EMF speed SNR decreases with speed no est. at zero-speed

Signal injectionbased: exploit inductance variation with rotor angle (anisotropy)

A specific signal is added to fundamental voltages and currents

Anisotropy modulates signal demodulation position-related signal

Sensorless:
Model-based vs injection
Aspect

Flux obs.

Back-EMF obs

HF injection

Speed range

Low to high speed

Mid to high speed

Low-speed &
stands-still

Additional losses

Yes, in SynRM

Yes, in SynRM

HF injected current

Parametric dependence

very important
Low
(changes with temp.)

Low

Main noise sources

Current
measurement offset

Back-EMF harm.,
dead-time dist.

Current control
rejection at HF,
magn. harmonics

Required parameters

All (flux map)

, (saturation)

None
( , for tuning)

Implem. complexity

Mid

Low

Mid-High

Run in parallel

Slight disturbance
by HF injection

Heavy disturbance
by HF injection

Must implement
parallel coordinate
transforms

Tuning complexity

Mid

Low

High

Sensorless control:
Back-EMF observer-based estimation

Back-EMF observer sensorless:

Isotropic rotor PMSM model

Electrical model in complex state-space representation:

= + +
=

Luenberger back-EMF observer:

1
=
+ 1

Back-EMF observer + Q-PLL for speed & position extraction

back-EMF
observer

HPF

Q-PLL

Back-EMF observer sensorless:

Dynamics analysis

Complex continuous-time Laplace compact equations, easy to manipulate

Motor and observer equations back-EMF estimation transfer function

Position & speed estimation transfer function (linearization) BW design

1
=
=
1 + 1 2
2
2
[] =

, =

B-EMF magnitude speed magnitude normalization constant PLL dynamics

1
=

Effective auto-tuning (commissioning) for observer and PLL, only and needed

Back-EMF observer:
Extension to IPMSM and SynRM

Adaptation to IPMSM or SynRM: extended back-EMF [Koonlaboon, Sangwongwanich]

Modified IPMSM model fictitious isotropic-rotor model with
= + +
+ ( ) +

( )

Fictitious rotor flux magnitude (AKA active-flux [Blaabjerg,Boldea]):

= + ( )
Using same back-EMF observer, with

Same dynamical properties as observer for isotropic PMSM

Back-EMF is distorted only during current transients: ( )

SynRM requires some -axis current even at no load (if = 0 =0):

HF injection:
Experimental results

Speed control stiffness: 700 rpm, 100% nom. torque step disturbance (2.8kW SM-PMSM)

HF injection:
Experimental results

Speed step response: 200 to 1000 rpm, 50% nom. load (2.2kW industrial IPMSM)

50 ms

meas. speed
est. speed
meas. position
meas. position

Sensorless control:
HF injection

Signal injection

IPMSM and SynRM rotor anisotropy: by design

Phase inductance depends on rotor position

Can be exploited for rotor position & speed estimation

Injected signal variants

Discontinuous (INFORM) [Holtz 90s]

HF pulsating voltage

HF rotating voltage vector

Square-wave [e.g. Sul, late 2000s]

PWM excitation [e.g. Asher, late 2000s]

[Lorenz 90s]

Noise from magnetic non-idealities (harmonics)

Implementation and tuning considered difficult

HF injection implemented only recently in some general-purpose industrial drives

HF pulsating voltage:
Operating principle

HF (200-2000Hz) pulsating voltage added to fundamental, along estimated -axis

= sin

If (i.e. position error) current not aligned to voltage ( -axis)

injected
voltage
(estimated d-axis)

HF pulsating voltage:
Operating principle

HF (200-2000Hz) pulsating voltage added to fundamental, along estimated -axis

= sin

If (i.e. position error) current not aligned to voltage ( -axis)

components
on real rotor axes

HF pulsating voltage:
Operating principle

HF (200-2000Hz) pulsating voltage added to fundamental, along estimated -axis

= sin

If (i.e. position error) current not aligned to voltage ( -axis)

q-axis:
higher reactance
lower current

d-axis:
lower reactance
higher current

HF pulsating voltage:
Operating principle

HF (200-2000Hz) pulsating voltage added to fundamental, along estimated -axis

= sin

If (i.e. position error) current not aligned to voltage ( -axis)

resulting
current

HF pulsating voltage:
Operating principle

HF (200-2000Hz) pulsating voltage added to fundamental, along estimated -axis

= sin

If (i.e. position error) current not aligned to voltage ( -axis)

estimated
q-axis current:
error signal

HF pulsating voltage:
Demodulator and PLL
Demodulated used as position estimation error input

( )
cos

ab

dq
iib

demodulator
demodulator
DFT

Filter

PLL
PLL

LPF

PI reg
PI reg

1 sin(2
sin 2 2

DFT
= sin

ALTERNATIVE DEMODULATION SCHEME

= 0
(phase-delay insensitive)

dq
ab

Injection
(add to fund.
voltage ref.)

HF pulsating voltage:
Demodulator and PLL
Demodulated used as position estimation error input

demodulator

PLL

DFT
21 sin(2 )

iib

PI reg

DFT

ALTERNATIVE DEMODULATION SCHEME

(phase-delay insensitive)

LPF

HF pulsating voltage:
Estimation dynamics

Dynamics is still under-investigated (too often tuned empirically in literature)

Loop gain: demodulation filter + PI regulator goals: stability + fund. vs HF separation

Analytical study design criteria to achieve required estimation BW

Position estimation loop:

analytical vs. simulated step response
est. error
analytical
simulation

Position estimation loop:

analytical frequency response

5 ms

HF pulsating voltage:
Experimental results

Speed reversal (HF inj): 50 to -50 rpm, no load (1.4kW custom IPMSM)
meas. speed
est. speed
meas. position
meas. position
250 ms

HF pulsating voltage:
Experimental results

Speed reversal (HF inj): 50 to -50 rpm, 90% nom load (1.4kW custom IPMSM)

250 ms

meas. speed
est. speed
meas. position
meas. position

Sensorless control:
PWM excitation

PWM excitation sensorless:

Differences with respect to HF injection

Sinusoidal excitation (pulsating carrier / rotating carrier injection)

+ Simple implementation (standard HW, small SW footprint)

Additional power losses (injection current)

Reduced voltage range (reserved for injection)

Frequency/amplitude trade-off

PWM excitation:
+ No additional signals (other than usual control)

Additional HW (Rogowsky coils, oversampling)

PWM pattern modification in some conditions

PWM excitation sensorless:

Preliminary results (off-line)

locked rotor position: 64 steps within an electrical revolution (5s average)

sin cos signals

Position (atan2 calc.)

Unmodeled features:

Cosine shows offset component

Probable PM influence

Sensorless control:
Combining different methods

Sensorless:
Combining low and high speed methods

Signal injection OK at low-speed , model-based OK at high-speed

Need mixing or switching between the estimation signals of the two methods

Described methods can work independently dynamics studied separately

The two methods must be tuned for similar dynamics (e.g. same BW)
weight
1.0

low-speed
method

high-speed
method

|m|

0.0
Low threshold

control mode

high-speed
method

High Threshold

low-speed
method

|m|
Low Threshold

High Threshold

Other techniques combine model-based and injection (more complex to analyze)

[K.Ide et al.]
[Piippo, Luomi]

[Vagati et al.]

HF injection:
Experimental results

Speed reversal (HF inj+flux obs): 500 to -500 rpm, no load (2.2kW industrial IPMSM)
meas. speed
est. speed
meas. position
meas. position
125 ms

IPMSM flux-weakening control

IPMSM flux-weakening:
Introduction

At high-speed, steady-state

010

011

000 , 111

110

100

DC-link voltage imposes a constraint

001

101

(more if over-modulation is allowed)

Ellipses in current plane, shrinking with increas.

Flux-Weakening constant voltage

Current angle (from MTPA), total stator flux

Apparent power available =

Higher voltage limit higher torque vs. speed

IPMSM flux-weakening:
Control goals

Challenge: possible current control loss if voltage saturation occurs

Operating point must be reachable (given the voltage limit)

Better voltage limitation control higher operating voltage without control loss
Need: smooth transition between MTPA and F-W

Need: robustness against parameter dispersion

control
variable

VCC
Methods:
Feed-back (based on Vector Current Control)

Feed-forward ( vs. speed LUT or function)

Mixed feedforward feedback (Torque and Flux Control)

Single Current Regulator by Voltage Angle Control

MTPA
reference
generator

vector
modif.

TFC

from
speed
control

SCR-VAC

IPMSM flux-weakening:
Current vector angle scheme (VCC)

Voltage magnitude regulator forces current angle so that =

Current vector: rotation from MTPA to voltage ellipse

gMTPA*
Ru
Vlim

|v|

lower
limit
0

Dg*

upper
limit

id*

cos()
abs()

g*

antiwindup
feedback

iq*

sin()
is*

Simple implementation, good integration in FOC scheme

Smooth transition between MTPA and F-W simply by saturation + anti-windup

Robust against parametric errors (steady-state condition set by feedback)

IPMSM flux-weakening:
VCC loop dynamics
id
-

sKPd+KId
s

u d*

Yd(s)
1
Rs+sLd

id

cos()

i d*

MWme(s)
CD(s)
1
ud
1+stC

Rid(s)

i s*

Analysis of loop dynamics

RV(s)
|v|ref -

g*

WmeLd

CC(s)

WmeLq

CD(s)

Riq(s)
iq

|v*|

CD(s)

Small-signal plant transfer function

=

22

Strong non-linearity (see static gain)

sin
cos

uq

1
Rs+sLq
Yq(s)
WmeLmg

||

1
1+stC

1
1+stC

i q*

u q*

sKPq+KIq
s

sin()

sKPV+KIV
s

iq

IPMSM flux-weakening:
VCC gain adaptation (2011)

On-line calculation of static gain compensation (gain adaptation)

=
=

1
+

( )

UNCOMPENSATED

( )

RV
+

UNCOMPENSATED

COMPENSATED

IPMSM flux-weakening:
VCC gain adaptation (2011)

On-line calculation of static gain compensation (gain adaptation)

=
=

1
+

( )

UNCOMPENSATED

( )

RV
+

COMPENSATED

COMPENSATED

IPMSM flux-weakening:
Experimental results (2011)

Torque disturbance @5000 rpm, MTPA to F-W control transition (home appliance IPMSM)

COMPENSATED

IPMSM flux-weakening:
Experimental results (2011)

Torque disturbance @5000 rpm, MTPA to F-W control transition (home appliance IPMSM)

COMPENSATED

IPMSM flux-weakening:
Experimental results (2011)

Torque disturbance @5000 rpm, MTPA to F-W control transition (home appliance IPMSM)

UNCOMPENSATED

IPMSM flux-weakening:
F-W gains design for BW (2014)

In literature and our old work, voltage regulator tuned empirically

Analytical design of regulator gains desired (auto-tuning)

Idea: simplify plant dynamics (some approximations)

On-line adaptation makes equivalent plant dynamics constant

RegV

|V|*+

sKpV+KiV
s

GAIN
ADAPT

control
variable

CURR.
CTRL
+
DECOUPL.

Idq

MOTOR
(VOLTAGE
EQUATIONS)

Vdq

||

Simple design method for PI voltage regulator gains

Design input: desired control BW

Very good results in simulation and experiments (not published yet)

|V|

F-W gains design for BW:

Experimental results (2014)

Voltage ref. step: 290 to 250Vrms @3000 rpm, 50% nominal load (2.2kW industrial IPMSM)

Design for 21Hz BW

1st order response

F-W gains design for BW:

Experimental results (2014)

Voltage ref. step: 350 to 300Vrms @7000 rpm, no load (2.2kW industrial IPMSM)

Design for 21Hz BW

1st order response

Experimental setup

Experimental setup
1.4 kW
scooter
IPMSM

2x GEFRAN
ADL200
(5.5kW)
Magtrol
Hd-715
(6.2Nm,3.4 kW)

2.2 kW
ind. IPMSM

4 kW
SM-PMSM
servo
(brake)

Conclusions

Some control requirements of traction drives are similar to industrial ones

HEV/EV drives development can leverage a mature technology

IPM/PMASR motors now dominate, SynRM/SwRM could take over

Sensorless could be implemented for sensor substitution or redundancy

Simple & effective techniques, filtering and tuning are crucial in some cases

Analytical approach for a systematic tuning (stability & BW)

Flux-weakening is a must in traction (constant-power range is ICE-like)

Dynamics study allows to get the best from Closed-Loop methods:

Ensure stability & desired BW DC-link voltage exploitation maximized

During development of sensorless and flux-weakening, needed to deal with:

Identification (encoder phasing, inductance mapping, self-id, MTPA)

Dead-time compensation (physical modelling and self-identification)