Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
E MIL K LINTBERG
Department of Energy and Environment
Division of Electric Power Engineering
C HALMERS U NIVERSITY OF T ECHNOLOGY
Goteborg, Sweden 2013
Abstract
This thesis deals with comparing control techniques for two existing permanent magnet motors with harmonics in their back emfs. To do so, ideal models of a Brushless DC
(BLDC) motor and a Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor (PMSM) have been modified to describe the behavior of two existing permanent magnet motors.
Comparisons of the motor constant and the relative torque ripple are performed when
the motors are controlled with Field Oriented Control (FOC) as well as with traditional
BLDC control.
A novel control scheme aiming at controlling the currents to have the same shape as
the back emfs are presented. Simulations are performed to show how this method affects
the motor constant and relative torque ripple.
Torque ripple due to phase commutation in BLDC motors is discussed and a version
of lead angle adjustment is implemented to reduce this problem.
Even though an ideal BLDC motor has a higher motor constant than an ideal PMSM,
simulations showed that a higher motor constant (almost 5% and about 2% for the two
motors respectively) can be obtained by utilizing FOC compared to traditional BLDC
control. A lower relative torque ripple (almost 86% and almost 44% for the two motors
respectively) was also obtained for FOC compared to traditional BLDC control. A higher
average torque per peak current was, however, obtained with traditional BLDC control.
These results are valid for both motors.
Simulations showed that it is possible to achieve a higher motor constant, compared
to FOC and traditional BLDC control, by controlling the currents to have the same shape
as the back emfs. The relative torque ripple was however increased by using this method.
It is also shown, by an example, that the motor constant can be increased by implementing lead angle adjustment.
Index Terms: Permanent magnet motors, BLDC, PMSM, FOC, RLS, motor constant,
torque ripple, phase commutation.
iii
iv
Acknowledgements
First and dearest I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Torbjorn Thiringer for his
supervision, friendly attitude and many good ideas. Regardless of his often high workload,
he always makes time to answer questions as well as giving encouraging advice. You are
highly appreciated!
I am also very grateful to Dr. Stefan Lundberg for lots of help in the laboratory, but also
for good ideas and discussions regarding everything from implementations in Simulink to
motors in general. What is said about Torbjorn is also true for you.
I would moreover like to thank Assoc. Prof. Massimo Bongiorno and PhD student
Mebtu Beza for their patience, helpful attitude and sharing of their work regarding implementation of the RLS-algorithm.
Prof. Bo Egardt and Assoc. Prof. Torsten Wik are acknowledged for good discussions
about issues regarding estimations in closed loop.
om for providing me with good simulation data
A thank also goes to Dr. Johan Astr
for the BLDC motor.
I would also like to thank the whole department for a very friendly working environment, for letting me score every now and then when playing football and for making me
feel very welcome during my thesis work.
Last, and certainly least, I would like to give a special thank to my brothers Anton
Klintberg and Jacob Klintberg for supporting me, not only during this thesis work.
Emil Klintberg
Goteborg, Sweden, April 2013
vi
Contents
Abstract
iii
Acknowledgements
Contents
vii
1 Introduction
1.1 Background and motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Aim and outline of this thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1
1
.
.
.
.
3
3
3
5
5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
7
7
8
9
11
11
11
12
13
13
14
5 Current control
5.1 Field oriented control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.1 Design of IMC controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.2 Evaluation of current controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Field oriented control of harmonics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.1 Evaluation of field oriented control of harmonics . . . . . .
5.2.2 Estimation of harmonic content with Recursive Least Square
17
17
18
19
20
21
26
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
vii
Contents
5.3
.
.
.
.
.
32
32
32
34
35
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
37
37
37
38
38
38
41
45
46
49
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
53
53
54
56
56
58
58
59
59
60
References
61
63
63
63
5.4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
viii
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ix
Contents
Te
e
lead
m
e
m
Superscripts
(dq)
()
dq-coordinates
-coordinates
Subscripts
a, b, c
d
q
ref
Phase quantities
d-component
q-component
Reference
-component
-component
Abbreviations
BLDC
emf
FOC
IMC
PMSM
PWM
RLS
rpm
SISO
Brushless DC
Electromotive Force
Field Oriented Control
Internal Model Control
Permanent-Magnet Synchronous Motor
Pulse Width Modulation
Recursive Least Square
Revolutions Per Minute
Single Input Single Output
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background and motivation
Brushless DC (BLDC) motors were developed to offer a reliable, high performance and
low maintenance alternative to DC-motors [1]. The basic principle of a BLDC motor is,
however, the same as for a Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor (PMSM), with the
main difference that the BLDC motor does not need a sophisticated controller.
However, it has been shown that the control strategy for the BLDC motor is significant
with aspect to the efficiency of the drive system, and that it in many cases can be beneficial
to control a BLDC motor as a PMSM [2]. A thorough investigation of this can be found
in [2]. It would therefore be interesting to investigate how the choice of control approach
affects the performance of the motor in other ways.
This thesis will continue the comparison of control techniques for BLDC motors, by
focusing on torque production. It will be investigated at which cost torque can be produced
as well as the quality of the produced torque.
Chapter 1. Introduction
concluding remarks and suggestions for future work is given in Chapter 8.
Chapter 2
Permanent magnet motor drives
This chapter will give a brief background to permanent magnet motor drives. Basic principles of BLDC motors and PMSMs will be presented as well as basic operation of frequency converters.
Voltage [V]
The ideal back emf in phase A, obtained by letting the motor in Figure 2.1 rotate
counterclockwise, and the corresponding ideal current in phase A, to obtain a constant
torque, are visualized in Figure 2.2(a) and Figure 2.2(b) respectively. The ideal back emfs
and currents in the other phases have identical shapes as in phase A, but shifted 120o
towards each other and phase A.
3
Angle [rad]
Current [A]
(a) ea
3
Angle [rad]
(b) ia
Accordingly, the phases are excited to obtain currents that coincide with the flat parts
4
2.1.2 PMSM
A two pole PMSM is visualized in Figure 2.3 where it is possible to see that the stator
windings, in contrast to the BLDC motor, in the ideal case are sinusoidally distributed [1].
Also the magnets on the rotor usually have a different shape compared to the BLDC motor,
this is however not visible in Figure 2.3. As a result the induced back emfs are sinusoidal
and the currents should also be sinusoidal to obtain a constant torque.
As a consequence, the control is more complex compared to the simple control of a
BLDC motor. To be able to create sinusoidal currents with the same frequency and in
phase with the back emfs, a synchronously rotating coordinate system aligned with the
rotor flux linkage vector is often introduced. This system, often denoted as the dq-system,
is visible in Figure 2.3 where it can be observed that the d-axis is aligned with the north
pole of the magnet.
Fig. 2.3 Two pole PMSM. For clarity only the distribution of phase A is visualized.
However, since this work focus on frequencies much lower than the switching frequency, it is assumed that the frequency converter can achieve an arbitrary voltage without
using PWM. I.e. only the fundamental voltage component from the converter is considered and the harmonics are neglected.
Chapter 3
Modeling of permanent magnet motors
The aim of this chapter is to present the models utilized in the rest of the work. Derivations
of models for an ideal BLDC motor and an ideal PMSM are presented. Furthermore, it is
stated how the obtained models are modified to describe the behaviour of real motors.
The following assumptions are made in the modeling of the motors.
The motors are unsaturated
Eddy current and hysteresis effects do not affect the winding currents.
The motors are nonsalient. Hence, the mutual and self inductances are constant and
do not depend on rotor position.
The frequency converters are constituted by ideal components.
The phase resistance is independent of frequency.
va = Ria + Ls
(3.1)
vb
(3.2)
vc
(3.3)
where Ls and M represents the self and mutual inductance respectively, R represents the
stator resistance and ex the back emf in phase x. By assuming that there is no neutral wire
7
va = Ria + (Ls M )
(3.4)
vb
(3.5)
vc
(3.6)
where the equivalent phase inductance L has been introduced. Since the BLDC motor is
controlled in a six step fashion where a controlled voltage is applied between two phases
at the time, it is more convenient to have a model with the phase-to-phase voltages as
inputs. A model of this type can be obtained by using (3.4) - (3.6) and that the sum of the
phase currents is zero. A model is then obtained as
vab = R(ia ib ) + L
d
(ia ib ) + eab
dt
(3.7)
d
(ib ic ) + ebc
(3.8)
dt
It is evident that only two equations are needed since the third would be a linear combination of the other two. To obtain a state space model, to implement in Simulink, (3.7) and
(3.8) are modified to have only one current derivative in each equation. The model then
becomes
dia
R
2
1
(3.9)
= ia +
(vab eab ) +
(vbc ebc )
dt
L
3L
3L
dib
R
1
1
= ib
(vab eab ) +
(vbc ebc )
(3.10)
dt
L
3L
3L
and the last current is obtained from
vbc = R(ib ic ) + L
ic = ia ib
(3.11)
(3.12)
were m and Te represent mechanical speed and torque due to interaction between the
magnetic field from the rotor and stator currents respectively. According to Faradays law
of induction a back emf can be written as
ex =
dx
dx de
=
= kx (e )e
dt
de dt
(3.13)
where x is the flux linkage and kx is the speed independent shape of the back emf and
will from here on be referred to as the back emf shape. By assuming that the back emfs in
the three phases have the same shape and are separated by 120o , it follow from (3.12) and
(3.13) that
2
4
Te = np (k(e )ia + k(e
)ib + k(e
)ic )
(3.14)
3
3
8
dm
= Te TL bm
dt
(3.15)
where TL and b represent a constant load torque and mechanical damping respectively.
TL + bm can be regarded as a linearization of the load torque. Equation (3.14) and (3.15)
can easily be implemented in Simulink to form a motor model together with the electrical
equations (3.9) - (3.11).
(a) 0o 60o
The idea is to replace the diodes with voltage sources acting as a diodes. That is to be
zero when the diode is conducting and to have a voltage that prevents current to flow when
the diode is not conducting. The voltage sources and circuits visualizing the principle are
shown in Figure 3.2(a)-3.2(b). By performing circuit calculations to the circuits in Figure
3.2(a)-3.2(b) it is possible to find what voltage is needed to keep the current through the
diode to be zero and then it is trivial to find the phase-to-phase voltages. The result, that
is to be implemented in Simulink, is summarized in Table 3.1.
10
Diode current
ic = 0
ic = 0
ib = 0
ib = 0
ia = 0
ia = 0
ic = 0
ic = 0
ib = 0
ib = 0
ia = 0
ia = 0
vab
v
v
0
1
(v
+
e
+
ea 2eb )
c
2
v
1
(v
e
ec + 2ea )
b
2
v
v
0
1
(v
+
e
c + ea 2eb )
2
v
1
(v
ec + 2ea )
b
2
vbc
0
1
2 (v + ea + eb 2ec )
v
1
(v
ea + 2eb )
c
2
v
v
0
1
2 (v + ea + eb 2ec )
v
1
(v
e
c ea + 2eb )
2
v
v
vca
v
1
2 (v ea eb + 2ec )
v
v
0
1
(v
+
e
+ ec 2ea )
b
2
v
1
2 (v + ea + eb 2ec )
v
v
0
1
(v
+
e
+
ec 2ea )
b
2
d()
dt
(3.16)
(3.17)
where L is the stator inductance, i() is the stator current in -coordinates and is
the magnitude of the flux linkage from the rotor magnets. The flux linkage vector of the
rotor rotates with the electrical speed and is displaced with the electrical angle from the
-axis. By using (3.17) in (3.16) the following state equation in -coordinates, that is to
be implemented in Simulink, is obtained
di()
= v () Ri() je eje
(3.18)
dt
where the term je eje from here on will be referred to as the back emf. For control
purposes it is beneficial to transform (3.18) to dq-coordinates. The following is then obtained
di(dq)
L
= v (dq) Ri(dq) je Li(dq) je ej(e )
(3.19)
dt
where the term je Li(dq) from here on will be referred to as the cross coupling term and
je ej(e ) will be referred to as back emf.
L
(3.21)
11
x 10
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
[Vs/rad]
[Vs/rad]
0.05
0.1
0.15
8
0
2
3
4
Electrical angle [rad]
0.2
0
12
2
3
4
Electrical angle [rad]
Chapter 4
Parameters and waveforms from real
permanent magnet motors
The simulation models described in Chapter 3 are going to be adapted to two different
BLDC motors. One that has a low amount of harmonics in the back emf and therefore is
close to a PMSM, and one that has a harmonic content in the back emf which makes it
more similar to an ideal BLDC motor.
13
10
10
e
eb
ec
0
10
Voltage [V]
Voltage [V]
0
2
10
4
6
8
10
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
Time [s]
0.008
10
0.01
200
400
600
Frequency (Hz)
800
1000
ea
80
eb
60
ec
10
Voltage [V]
Voltage [V]
40
20
0
20
10
40
10
60
80
100
0
10
15
Time [ms]
20
25
10
200
14
400
600
Frequency (Hz)
800
1000
15
16
Chapter 5
Current control
This chapter will present the controllers used in this work. A standard vector control
scheme is presented, here denoted as Field Oriented Control (FOC). The field oriented
control is then modified to also utilize field oriented control of the harmonics. Furthermore, a traditional BLDC control scheme as well as a modified version of traditional
BLDC control are described.
disturbance. The block G (p) then becomes a complex valued transfer function without
any coupling between the real and imaginary parts.
It can be realized from Figure 5.1, that the motor is described by two Single-Input
Single-Output (SISO) systems with a coupling in between. This coupling can however be
compensated for, and two non coupled SISO systems are then obtained.
17
The design approach that is going to be utilized is Internal Model Control (IMC), and
an inherent drawback with this method is poor response from a load disturbance [5]. The
response can however be improved by adding active damping [6]. That is to add extra
resistance to the model by introducing an inner feedback loop, as visualized in Figure 5.2.
To further reduce this effect, feed forward of back emf is also implemented. To sum up,
(3.19) is reduced to
L
di(dq)
= v (dq) (R + Ra )i(dq)
dt
(5.1)
by choosing
(dq) + je
(5.2)
c n 1
) G (p)
p + c
(5.3)
c 1
+ c (R + Ra )
G (p) = c L
p
p
(5.5)
If the inner feedback loop is chosen to be as fast as the closed loop system, this implies
that Ra should be chosen as
R
Ra = c L
(5.6)
By using (5.6) in (5.5) the controller can be found to be
2
+ c L = kp + ki
F (p) = c L
p
p
(5.7)
Current [A]
4
2
0
0.98
0.985
0.99
0.995
1.005 1.01
Time [s]
1.015
1.02
1.025
1.03
1.015
1.02
1.025
1.03
(a) iq
Current [A]
1
0.98
0.985
0.99
0.995
1.005 1.01
Time [s]
(b) id
Fig. 5.5 Step response. A step in the quadrature current reference to 5 A is performed at 1 s.
(dq)
i5,ref = 0.1209iref
(dq)
(dq)
i7,ref = 0.03408iref
20
(5.9)
(5.10)
(5.11)
Current [A]
20
10
10
1.05
1.1
Time [s]
1.15
1.2
(a) iq1
Current [A]
2
1
0
1
2
1.05
1.1
Time [s]
1.15
(b) id1
22
1.2
Current [A]
1.05
1.1
Time [s]
1.15
1.2
1.15
1.2
(a) iq5
Current [A]
5
0
5
10
1
1.05
1.1
Time [s]
(b) id5
Current [A]
1.05
1.1
Time [s]
1.15
1.2
1.15
1.2
(a) iq7
Current [A]
10
5
0
5
1.05
1.1
Time [s]
(b) id1
23
10
Current [A]
5
0
5
10
0.98
1.02
1.04
1.06
1.08
Time [s]
1.1
1.12
1.14
1.1
1.12
1.14
1.1
1.12
1.14
(a) ia
Current [A]
10
5
0
5
10
0.98
1.02
1.04
1.06
1.08
Time [s]
(b) ib
Current [A]
10
5
0
5
10
0.98
1.02
1.04
1.06
1.08
Time [s]
(c) ic
24
6
Current [A]
4
2
0
2
4
6
2.005
2.01
2.015
2.02
2.025
2.015
2.02
2.025
2.015
2.02
2.025
Time [s]
(a) ia
6
Current [A]
4
2
0
2
4
6
2.005
2.01
Time [s]
(b) ib
6
Current [A]
4
2
0
2
4
6
2.005
2.01
Time [s]
(c) ic
25
5
0
5
10
0.99
1.01
1.02
Time [s]
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.03
1.04
1.05
10
5
0
5
10
0.99
1.01
1.02
Time [s]
(5.12)
where represent the estimation error and is the so called forgetting factor which
is introduced to handle time varying quantities. The algorithm obtained from minimizing
(5.12) is as follows
= (t
1) + K(t)(t)
(t)
(5.13)
1)
(t) = y(t) T (t)(t
(5.14)
K(t) = P (t)(t) =
P (t) =
26
P (t 1)(t)
I + T P (t 1)(t)
(5.15)
1
P (t 1)(t) T (t)P (t 1)
1
(P (t1)
) = (I K(t) T (t))P (t1) (5.16)
T
I + P (t 1)(t)
i() = I1
()
()
() j5e
+ I5
() j7e
+ I7
(5.17)
()
where I1 , I5
and I7
are the complex amplitudes that are going to be estimated.
By expanding (5.17) and separating the real and imaginary parts, the following vectors in
the RLS-algorithm can be identified.
[
]
T = I1 I1 I5 I5 I7 I7
(5.18)
[
]
cos(e ) sin(e ) cos(5e ) sin(5e ) cos(7e ) sin(7e )
=
sin(e ) cos(e ) sin(5e ) cos(5e ) sin(7e ) cos(7e )
[
]
y T = i i
T
(5.19)
(5.20)
(5.21)
= I1
I5
I7
[
]
T = eje t ej5e t ej7e t
(5.22)
y = i + ji
(5.23)
By assuming that the sampling period Ts is small the following can be obtained from
(5.13)
s ) ((k
1)Ts )
(kT
d
K
Ts
(5.25)
Moreover, note that contains estimates of amplitudes, while y and contain periodic
functions. By realizing this, two important observations can be made.
i1
()
i5
()
i7
() je t
= I1
=
=
()
I5 ej5e t
()
I7 ej7e t
(5.26)
(5.27)
(5.28)
By using (5.26)-(5.28) in (5.24), the following state space representation can be obtained
()
i
d 1()
i
dt 5()
i7
()
i1
Kct (1)eje t + je
Kct (1)eje t
Kct (1)eje t
()
j5e t
j5e t
j5e t
=
Kct (2)e
Kct (2)e
j5e
Kct (2)e
i5
()
j7e t
j7e t
j7e t
Kct (3)e
Kct (3)e
Kct (3)e
+ j7e
i7
Kct (1)eje t
+ Kct (2)ej5e t y(t) (5.29)
Kc (3)ej7e t
where Kct (n) represent the nth element in the observer gain vector Kct . A steady state
model can thus be found, by finding the observer gain in steady state. The inverse of the
covariance matrix in continuous time is given by [9]
P
t
(t) =
eRLS (t ) ( ) T ( )d
(5.30)
1
Ts
(5.31)
By using (5.30), the observer gain can then be found from (5.15) and hence the coefficients
in the state space model. The obtained state space model is as follows
()
()
i1
i1
1 + je
1
1
1
d ()
()
=
+
5
5 j5e
5
5 y(t) (5.32)
i5
i
dt 5()
()
7
7
7 + j7e
7
i7
i7
where the relative bandwidth is defined as
=
RLS
e
(5.33)
1 2 2
1
16
+ + j( + ))
36
3
6
9
1 2 1
1
10
+ + j( + ))
72
6
6
9
7
7
8
1
7 = RLS ( 2 + + j( + ))
72
9
36
9
5 = RLS (
28
(5.34)
(5.35)
(5.36)
29
10
200
=1
=4
= 16
=1
=4
= 16
150
10
100
Angle [o]
Gain
50
1
10
0
50
10
100
150
10
600
200
800
()
=1
=4
= 16
10
=1
=4
= 16
150
100
50
Gain
Angle [o]
10
0
50
10
100
150
10
600
200
800
()
=1
=4
= 16
10
=1
=4
= 16
150
100
10
Angle [o]
Gain
50
1
10
0
50
10
100
150
10
600
800
30
200
10
200
=1
=4
= 16
10
=1
=4
= 16
150
100
50
Gain
Angle [o]
10
10
0
50
100
10
150
4
10
10
5000
0
5000
Angular frequancy [rad/s]
i1
200
5000
0
5000
Angular frequancy [rad/s]
i1
200
=1
=4
= 16
=1
=4
= 16
150
100
10
Angle [o]
Gain
50
2
10
0
50
10
100
4
10
150
200
5000
0
5000
Angular frequancy [rad/s]
5000
0
5000
Angular frequancy [rad/s]
i5
i5
1
10
200
=1
=4
= 16
=1
=4
= 16
150
10
100
50
Gain
Angle [o]
10
10
0
50
100
10
150
4
10
5000
0
5000
Angular frequancy [rad/s]
200
5000
0
5000
Angular frequancy [rad/s]
()
31
di
= v 2(R + Ra )i
dt
(5.37)
by choosing
e
v = v 2Ra i + 2k
(5.38)
2c2 L
ki
= kp +
p
p
(5.39)
32
Current [A]
5
0.1
0.15
0.2
Time [s]
0.25
0.3
0.25
0.3
0.25
0.3
(a) ia
Current [A]
5
0.1
0.15
0.2
Time [s]
(b) ib
Current [A]
5
0.1
0.15
0.2
Time [s]
(c) ic
Fig. 5.15 Step response. A step in the current reference to 5 A is performed at 0.1 s.
33
(5.40)
where ezn is the zero sequence and exz is the back emf in phase x with the zero sequence
subtracted. By using this, (3.9) and (3.10) can be simplified to
dia
R
2
1
1
= ia +
vab +
vbc eaz
dt
L
3L
3L
L
(5.41)
dib
R
1
1
1
= ib
vab +
vbc ebz
(5.42)
dt
L
3L
3L
L
To obtain an analytical expression for lead , commutation from phase A to phase B is
studied. The following assumptions are also made
The current increases and decreases linearly. This might seem to be a rough assumption, but it should be quite accurate for motors with a low resistance.
= didtb . This is however only true at certain operating points, as will be explained in Section 7.2.
dia
dt
It is also assumed that the current in phase B is the same after commutation as it
was in phase A when the commutation started, hence ia (t1 ) = ib (t2 ) = I.
It is then straight forward to obtain the following by integrating (5.41) and (5.42)
3RI + 2v
1
I=
(t2 t1 ) +
6L
L
t2
eaz dt
(5.43)
t1
1
3RI + 4v
(t2 t1 )
I=
6L
L
t2
ebz dt
(5.44)
t1
where t1 and t2 are the time instants when the commutation begin and ends respect
t
tively. By realizing that t12 eaz dt = t12 ebz dt if the currents and back emfs are in phase,
it is trivial to find the commutation time as
t2 t1 =
34
2LI
v
(5.45)
t2 t1
e LI
e =
2
v
(5.46)
35
36
Chapter 6
Comparison of torque ability
To quantify the difference between the motor types and the different control techniques
regarding torque ability, the motor constant will be used. The motor constant is defined
as [16]
Te
km =
(6.1)
Ploss
where Ploss represent the resistive losses in the stator windings. As can be seen in (6.1)
the motor constant is an indicator of at which cost torque can be produced, and hence an
indicator of motor performance.
(6.2)
where k represents the peak value of the back emf shape and i represents the peak
value of the stator current. The rms value of the ideal currents, visualized in Figure 2.2(b),
is
IRM S =
2
i
3
(6.3)
By using (6.2) and (6.3) an expression of the motor constant can be found to be
km =
2
np k
R
(6.4)
37
(6.5)
3
np k
(6.6)
2R
By comparing (6.4) and (6.6) it can be realized that an ideal BLDC motor has almost
15.5% higher motor constant than an ideal PMSM. The difference will however be smaller
in reality due to difficulties to create the ideal back emfs and the ideal currents for the
BLDC motor.
Theoretical calculated motor constants for ideal motors with parameters adopted from
the Airplane motor and BLDC motor are stated in Table 6.1 and Table 6.2 respectively.
km =
Table 6.1: Theoretical motor constants for ideal motors with parameters from the Airplane
motor
Motor type km [N m/W 1/2 ]
PMSM
1.0245
BLDC
1.1830
Table 6.2: Theoretical motor constants for ideal motors with parameters from the BLDC
motor
Motor type km [N m/W 1/2 ]
PMSM
1.5313
BLDC
1.7681
First, it is possible to observe that the current waveforms are close to the ideal shapes
but the obtained torque is not. This is since the back emfs are far from the ideal shapes for
a BLDC motor. The motor constant is, as a result, substantially (almost 20%) lower than
for an ideal BLDC motor.
1.5
Current [A]
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05 7.06
Time [s]
7.07
7.08
7.09
7.1
7.07
7.08
7.09
7.1
7.07
7.08
7.09
7.1
(a) ia
1.5
Current [A]
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05 7.06
Time [s]
(b) ib
1.5
Current [A]
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05 7.06
Time [s]
(c) ic
39
Torque [Nm]
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Time [s]
0.7
0.8
0.9
Torque [Nm]
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Time [s]
40
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05 7.06
Time [s]
7.07
7.08
7.09
7.1
7.07
7.08
7.09
7.1
7.07
7.08
7.09
7.1
(a) ia
1.5
Current [A]
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05 7.06
Time [s]
(b) ib
1.5
Current [A]
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05 7.06
Time [s]
(c) ic
Torque [Nm]
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Time [s]
0.7
0.8
0.9
7.07
7.08
7.09
7.1
7.07
7.08
7.09
7.1
7.07
7.08
7.09
7.1
1.5
Current [A]
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05 7.06
Time [s]
(a) ia
1.5
Current [A]
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05 7.06
Time [s]
(b) ib
1.5
Current [A]
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05 7.06
Time [s]
(c) ic
42
To obtain sinusoidally shaped currents, feed forward of the true back emf is utilized. The
torque and currents, from a unity step response in the q-current, are visualized in Figure
6.8 and Figure 6.7(a)-6.7(c) respectively. The motor constant is presented in Table 6.6.
The obtained motor constant is close to the motor constant for an ideal PMSM. It
is also possible to observe that the motor constant, also for this motor, is higher when
controlled as a PMSM compared to BLDC control. The difference is however smaller
compared to the Airplane motor. Moreover, the obtained average torque per peak current
is 11.5% higher when BLDC control is utilized compared to FOC.
1.5
Current [A]
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
7.05
7.1
7.15
7.1
7.15
7.1
7.15
Time [s]
(a) ia
1.5
Current [A]
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
7.05
Time [s]
(b) ib
1.5
Current [A]
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
7.05
Time [s]
(c) ic
43
Torque [Nm]
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Time [s]
0.7
0.8
0.9
Torque [Nm]
It is evident from Table 6.7 that it is possible to achieve a higher motor constant with
this method than with traditional BLDC or PMSM control. The obtained motor constant
is higher than for an ideal PMSM but lower than for an ideal BLDC motor. This is natural
since more harmonics is utilized to produce torque than for an ideal PMSM but less than
for an ideal BLDC motor.
10
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Time [s]
44
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
7.05
7.1
7.15
7.1
7.15
7.1
7.15
Time [s]
(a) ia
1.5
Current [A]
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
7.05
Time [s]
(b) ib
1.5
Current [A]
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
7.05
Time [s]
(c) ic
6.3.1 An example
To illustrate this problem, a simulation where the voltage is limited to 70 V is performed.
The model utilized is of the ideal BLDC motor with parameters from the Airplane motor.
The induced back emfs are visualized in Figure 6.12(a)-6.12(c), where it is possible to
observe that the magnitudes are slightly less than 35 V (32.87 V ). The induced phase-tophase voltages are hence close to the DC-link voltage. The phase currents are visualized
in Figure 6.13(a)-6.13(c) and the obtained torque are visualized in Figure 6.11. The motor
constant is presented in Table 6.8.
Table 6.8: Simulation results
Te,avg [N m]
2.0879
Ploss [W ]
3.2072
1/2
km [N m/W ] 1.1658
The current waveforms in Figure 6.13(a)-6.13(c) obviously deviate from the ideal
shapes. As a result there is ripple in the torque. Also, the obtained motor constant is lower
than for an ideal BLDC motor since a higher RMS-current is needed to have the same
average torque. The torque ripple visualized in Figure 6.11 will be quantified in Section
7.2.
Torque [Nm]
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
7.0025 7.0026 7.0027 7.0028 7.0029 7.003 7.0031 7.0032 7.0033 7.0034 7.0035
Time [s]
46
Voltage [V]
20
0
20
7
7.0005
7.001
7.0015
7.002
Time [s]
7.0025
7.003
7.0035
7.0025
7.003
7.0035
7.0025
7.003
7.0035
Voltage [V]
(a) ea
20
0
20
7
7.0005
7.001
7.0015
7.002
Time [s]
Voltage [V]
(b) eb
20
0
20
7
7.0005
7.001
7.0015
7.002
Time [s]
(c) ec
47
Current [A]
10
0
10
7
7.0005
7.001
7.0015
7.002
Time [s]
7.0025
7.003
7.0035
7.0025
7.003
7.0035
7.0025
7.003
7.0035
Current [A]
(a) ia
10
0
10
7
7.0005
7.001
7.0015
7.002
Time [s]
Current [A]
(b) ib
10
0
10
7
7.0005
7.001
7.0015
7.002
Time [s]
(c) ic
48
Torque [Nm]
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
7.0025 7.0026 7.0027 7.0028 7.0029 7.003 7.0031 7.0032 7.0033 7.0034 7.0035
Time [s]
Angle [o]
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
5
Time [s]
10
49
Current [A]
10
0
10
7
7.0005
7.001
7.0015
7.002
Time [s]
7.0025
7.003
7.0035
7.0025
7.003
7.0035
7.0025
7.003
7.0035
Current [A]
(a) ia
10
0
10
7
7.0005
7.001
7.0015
7.002
Time [s]
Current [A]
(b) ib
10
0
10
7
7.0005
7.001
7.0015
7.002
Time [s]
(c) ic
50
Voltage [V]
20
0
20
7
7.0005
7.001
7.0015
7.002
Time [s]
7.0025
7.003
7.0035
7.0025
7.003
7.0035
7.0025
7.003
7.0035
Voltage [V]
(a) ea
20
0
20
7
7.0005
7.001
7.0015
7.002
Time [s]
Voltage [V]
(b) eb
20
0
20
7
7.0005
7.001
7.0015
7.002
Time [s]
(c) ec
51
52
Chapter 7
Comparison of torque ripple
The torque produced by a permanent magnet motor can be divided into three different
components
Torque due to interaction between rotor and stator magnetic fields.
Reluctance torque due to saliency.
Cogging torque.
In this chapter ripple due to interaction between rotor and stator magnetic fields will be
investigated.
To quantify the difference between the motor types and control techniques regarding
torque ripple, the relative torque ripple in steady state will be studied. The relative torque
ripple is defined as
Te,ripple,peaktopeak
Te =
(7.1)
Te,avg
Torque [Nm]
0.12
0.11
0.1
0.09
7
7.005
7.01
7.015
7.02
7.025 7.03
Time [s]
7.035
7.04
7.045
7.05
Torque [Nm]
0.102
0.1
0.098
0.096
7
7.005
7.01
7.015
7.02
7.025 7.03
Time [s]
7.035
7.04
7.045
7.05
Torque [Nm]
1.8
1.6
1.4
7
7.005
7.01
7.015
7.02
7.025 7.03
Time [s]
7.035
7.04
7.045
7.05
Torque [Nm]
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
7.005
7.01
7.015
7.02
7.025 7.03
Time [s]
7.035
7.04
7.045
7.05
55
Torque [Nm]
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
7.005
7.01
7.015
7.02
7.025 7.03
Time [s]
7.035
7.04
7.045
7.05
(7.2)
where e is the peak value of the back emfs. By using this in (3.14) it is evident that the
torque during commutation is given by
c
Te = 2np ki
(7.3)
The torque during commutation is hence proportional to the noncommutating phase current ic .
56
(7.4)
(7.5)
dib
R
2(v e)
= ib +
dt
L
3L
By using (7.5), (7.6) and (3.11), it is evident that
(7.6)
dic
R
v 4
e
= ic
(7.7)
dt
L
3L
which indicates that commutation ripple depends on the relation between back emf and
DC-link voltage. A more thoroughly analysis of commutation ripple is found in [17]. By
neglecting the resistance, the commutation ripple can be divided into three different cases
depending on the operating point [17]. Observe that this is also obvious in (7.7).
v = 4
e. This will cause
dic
dt
v < 4
e will result in a dip in the produced torque during commutation.
v > 4
e will result in a peak in the produced torque during commutation.
The torque dip in the second case is given by [17]
Te,dip =
2
eI
v 4
e
(1 +
)
m
v + 2
e
(7.8)
6
eI
v 4
e
( + m tcom,2
)
m 3
2(v + 2
e)
(7.9)
LI
v + 2
e
(7.10)
(7.11)
Similarly, if the same analysis is performed for the third case, the following results are
obtained. The average torque can be expressed as
Te,avg,3 =
6
e
v 4
e
( + m tcom,3
)
m 3
4(v e)
(7.12)
LI
v 2
e
(7.13)
2
eI
v 4
e
(1 +
)
e
2(v e)
(7.14)
57
7.2.2 An example
This section will quantify the torque ripple due to phase commutation in the simulation
described in Section 6.3.1. The torque ripple is visualized in steady state in Figure 6.11
and the relative torque ripple is presented in Table 7.6. The relative torque ripple due to
phase commutation is in this example more severe than any of the previously presented
cases for ideal current waveforms. Furthermore, recall from Section 6.3.1 that this phenomenon also decreases the motor constant. This illustrates that phase commutation in
many cases is a severe problem with BLDC motors.
Table 7.6: Simulation results
Te,avg [N m]
2.0879
Te,ripple,peaktopeak [N m] 1.0412
Te
0.4987
It is also interesting to see how well the ripple can be predicted by (7.8)-(7.11). By
using that v = 70 V during commutation, the peak values of the back emfs are 32.87 V ,
the peak values of the currents are 17 A and that the mechanical speed is 487.7 rad/s,
it is possible to find the values presented in Table 7.7. The predictions correspond quite
well with the simulation even though the resistance is neglected in the derivation of (7.8)(7.11).
Table 7.7: Prediction
Te,avg [N m]
2.2912
Te,ripple,peaktopeak [N m] 1.2537
Te
0.5472
58
2
2.1009
1.0393
0.4947
Chapter 8
Concluding remarks and future work
8.1 Summary and concluding remarks
The aim of the work was to investigate how two existing permanent magnet motors perform when different control techniques are used. To do so, ideal models of a BLDC motor
and a PMSM have been adapted to two permanent magnet motors. The motor constant as
well as the relative torque ripple has been studied when different control techniques are
utilized.
Even though an ideal BLDC motor has a higher motor constant than an ideal PMSM,
simulations showed that a higher motor constant (almost 5% and about 2% for the two
motors respectively) can be obtained by utilizing FOC compared to traditional BLDC
control. A lower relative torque ripple (almost 86% and almost 44% for the two motors
respectively) was also obtained for FOC compared to traditional BLDC control. It should
however be noted that a higher average torque per peak current was obtained with traditional BLDC control.
A higher motor constant indicates that the efficiency might be higher. It should however be noted that the motor constant only takes resistive losses in the stator windings into
account. For instance, it has been shown that a motor can have an overall efficiency that
is higher when it is controlled as a BLDC motor compared to FOC, especially at light
loads [2]. Mainly since the iron losses (which are neglected in this work) can be lower
when traditional BLDC control is utilized [2].
A novel control scheme to control the currents to have the same shape as the back emfs
was presented. The control scheme is utilizing an RLS-algorithm to find the fundamental
component and the most significant harmonics in the measured current. Field oriented
control is then utilized for the fundamental and the harmonics. This technique was only
implemented for the motor with the highest amount of harmonics in the back emf.
Simulations showed that it is possible to obtain a higher motor constant, compared
to both FOC and traditional BLDC control, by controlling the currents to have the same
shape as the back emfs. For the investigated case, simulations showed, however, a less than
1% increase in motor constant with this method compared to FOC. The relative torque
ripple was increased by using this method. In fact, the highest relative (and absolute)
torque ripple was obtained with this method. Simulations also showed that the average
torque per peak current was higher for this method compared to standard FOC, but lower
than for traditional BLDC control.
59
60
References
[1] A. Hughes, Electric Motors and Drives. Elsevier Ltd, 2006.
[2] J. Astrom, Investigation of Issues Related to Electrical Efficiency Improvements of
Pump and Fan Drives in Buildings. PhD thesis, Department of Energy and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology, 2011.
[3] N. Mohan, T. M. Undeland, and W. P. Robbins, Power Electronics. Converters, Applications and Design. John Wiley & Sons, inc, 2003.
[4] S. Baldursson, Bldc motor modelling and control - a matlab/simulink implementation, Masters thesis, Department of Energy and Environment, Chalmers University
of Technology, 2005.
[5] T. Glad and L. Ljung, Control Theory. Multivariable and Nonlinear Methods. Taylor
& Francis, 2000.
[6] L. Harnefors, Control of variable-speed drives, tech. rep., Department of Electronics, Malardalen College University, 2002.
[7] M. Bongiorno, J. Svensson, and L. Angquist, Online estimation of subsynchronous
voltage components in power systems, tech. rep., Department of Energy and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology, ABB Power Technologies, 2008.
[8] M. Beza, Control of energy storage equipped shunt-connected converter for electric
power system stability enhancement, tech. rep., Department of Energy and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology, 2012.
[9] K. J. Astrom and B. Wittenmark, Adaptive Control. Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company, 1995.
[10] M. Beza and M. Bongiorno, Application of recursive least square (rls) algorithm
with variable forgetting factor for frequency components estimation in a generic input signal, tech. rep., Department of Energy and Environment, Chalmers University
of Technology, 2012.
[11] S.-I. Park, T.-S. Kim, S.-C. Ahn, and D.-S. Hyun, An improved current control
method for torque improvement of high-speed bldc motor, tech. rep., Hanyang University, PNA Electronics, 2003.
61
References
[12] Z. Q. Zhu, S. Bentouati, and D. Howe, Control of single-phase permanent magnet
brushless dc drives for high-speed applications, tech. rep., University of Sheffield,
2000.
[13] B.-G. Gu, J.-H. Choi, S. hyun Rhyu, and I.-S. Jung, Optimal lead angle calculation
for brushless dc motor, tech. rep., Korea Electronics Technology Institute, 2010.
[14] A. H. Niesar and A. V. H. Moghbelli, Commutation torque ripple if four-switch,
brushless dc motor drives, part ii: Controllability and minimization, tech. rep., Department of Electrical Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology,
2006.
[15] C. Xia, Y. Wang, and T. Shi, Implementation of finite-state model predictive control for commutation torque ripple minimization of permanent-magnet brushless dc
motor, tech. rep., Tianjin University, Tianjin Polytechnic University, 2012.
[16] D. Hanselman, Brushless Permanent Magnet Motor Design. Magna Physics Publishing, 2006.
[17] R. Carlson, M. Lajoie-Mazenc, and J. C. dos Fagundes, Analysis of torque ripple due to phase commutation in brushless dc machines, tech. rep., Universidade
Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Laboratoire dElectrotechnique et dElectronique Industrielle, 1992.
[18] R. Krishnan, Permanent Magnet Synchronous and Brushless DC Motor Drives. Taylor and Francis Group, 2010.
62
Appendix A
Two axis representation of three phase
systems
A.1 Transformation of three phase quantities to complex
vectors
Provided that there is no zero sequence, it is evident that a three phase system constituted
by the quantities va , vb and vc can be represented by an equivalent two phase system since
va , vb and vc are not linearly independent.
The quantities are often transformed into a vector v () in a stationary complex reference frame according to
v () (t) = v + jv = K(va (t) + vb (t)ej
2
3
+ vc (t)ej 3 )
(A.1)
(A.2)
0
[ ]
va
3
2
1 v
vb = 1
3
3
v
K
2
vc
3 13
(A.3)
Fig. A.1 Relation between the -coordinate system and the dq- coordinate system.
(A.4)
64
][ ]
[ ] [
v
cos(e ) sin(e ) vd
=
v
sin(e ) cos(e )
vq
(A.5)
(A.6)
(A.7)