Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION OF PM BRUSHLESS DC MOTOR

DRIVE WITH REFERENCE MODEL AND SIGNAL ADAPTATION


CONTROLLER

Petar Crnoija*, Ramu Krishnan, Fellow IEEE ** and Toni Bjai*


*University of Zagreb, Faculty of El. Eng. and Computing, HR-10000 Zagreb, Unska 3, Croatia
E-mail: petar.crnosija@fer.hr; toni.bjazic@fer.hr; Tel.: ++385 1 6129 849; Fax: ++385 1 6129 809
**The Bradley Department of El. & Comp. Eng., Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
E-mail: kramu@vt.edu

Abstract - Model reference adaptive control (MRAC) in general form and modified signal adaptation al-
gorithms are presented. Model reference adaptive control with modified signal adaptation algorithm has
been applied as outer speed controller in a permanent magnet brushless DC motor (PMBDCM) drive.
Dynamic simulation results obtained by optimization of main PI controller and outer MRAC with signal
adaptation speed controller show significant reduction in the error caused by parameter variations and
load torque.

Keywords Adaptive control, adjustable speed drives, brushless drives, control, design.

1. INTRODUCTION able system with main PI controller forms an inner control


loop.
The influence of minor parameter changes on a drive dy- A Single Input Single Output (SISO) (Fig. 1) linear time
namic behaviour may be satisfactorily compensated using invariant system can be described in state space form:
standard control algorithms, to ensure the required quality
and accuracy of the system response. However, the effects x ( t ) = Ax ( t ) + bu ( t ) , (1)
of substantial parameter variations can no longer be effec-
tively compensated by standard control algorithms. In such where: A system matrix (n n),
cases the control algorithm should allow for adaptation b system input vector (n 1),
(adjustment) to changed parameter values in order to ensure x system state space variables vector (n 1),
approximately the same system dynamic behaviour irre- u system control signal (scalar).
Likewise, reference model is described as follows:
spective of the magnitude of parameter variations.
In electrical drives with significant parameter variations, or x M ( t ) = A M x M ( t ) + b M u r ( t ) , (2)
pronounced nonlinear characteristics, it is not possible to
obtain satisfactory behaviour by applying only standard PI where: AM reference model matrix (n n),
or PID controllers. The variations of drive parameters can bM reference model input vector (n 1),
be compensated using: a gain scheduling system [1], [6], xM reference model state space variables vector
self-tuning controller [1] and model reference adaptive (n 1),
control (MRAC) [1], [2], [6]. ur reference signal (scalar).
Model reference adaptive control with parameter adaptation The control signal (Fig. 1) is given by:
[1], [6] contains proportional and integral parts of an adap-
tation algorithm and it needs more iteration for optimal us ( t ) = ur ( t ) + u A ( t ) , (3)
tuning of adaptation algorithm coefficients and new tuning
of controller parameters for changed plant parameters. The
main advantage of model reference adaptive control with
signal adaptation is that it does not contain integral parts
and hence it does not need tuning of controller parameters
for changed plant parameters [2], [3].

2. MODEL REFERENCE SIGNAL ADAPTATION


ALGORITHM

The signal adaptation algorithm generates additional control


signal uA which minimizes the difference between reference
model yM and system output y (Fig. 1). The adaptation sig-
nal uA acts on the system input so that the adaptation Fig. 1. Adaptive control system with reference model and
mechanism forms an outer control loop, while the adjust- signal adaptation controllers.

EDPE 2005, September 2628, 2005, Dubrovnik, Croatia


where: uA adaptation signal. u A ( t ) = sat ( ( t ) , h ) =
Tracking error vector (Fig. 1) equals:
h, for ( t ) > s
e ( t ) = xM ( t ) x ( t ) . (4) (13)
= K ( t ) , for ( t ) s ,
From the mathematical descriptions of a SISO linear time- h, for ( t ) < s
invariant system (1) and reference model (2) for the refer-

ence model, tracking error derivative is obtained [2], [3]: where: s is a region where the saturation function is linear,
K is the gain coefficient of generalized error (t), h is the
e ( t ) = x M ( t ) x ( t ) = A M e ( t ) + ( t ) + bu A ( t ) , (5)
value of saturation.
where: To illustrate the method, signal adaptation algorithm was
applied for parameter changes and load torque compensation
( t ) = ( A M A ) x ( t ) + ( b M b ) ur ( t ) . (6) of a PMBDCM drive and results are discussed in the
succeeding section.
Vector is determined by variations of system (plant) pa-
rameters from reference model parameters.
Stability of chosen signal adaptation controller is tested 3. MODEL OF PM BRUSHLESS DC MOTOR
using Lyapunov stability criterion. Suitable Lyapunov posi- DRIVE
tive-definite function [2], [3] is given by:
This model is based on the PM brushless DC motor drive
1 discussed and given in [6, 7]. For the sake of easy reference,
V =
T
e Pe, (7)
2 the model is derived in brief and given in the following.
During two phase conduction, the entire dc voltage is ap-
where P is positive-definite matrix given by: plied to the two phases and the transfer function for the
stator current is given by (Fig. 2):
A P + PA = Q,
T
(8)
where Q is positive-definite matrix. I as ( s ) Ka
= , (14)
Lyapunov function (7) derivative equals: Vis ( s ) E ( s ) 1 + Ta s

V = e Pe + e Pe.
T T
(9) where: Ka = 1/Ra, Ta = La/Ra, Ra = 2Rs, La = 2(L M), Rs is
the stator resistance per phase, L is the self inductance per
Replacing e in (9) with (5), follows: phase, M is the mutual inductance per phase, E is the in-
duced emf and s is the Laplace operator.
V = e Qe + 2e P 2e Pbu A .
T T T
(10)
The induced electromagnetic force (emf) E is proportional
It is shown that relation (10) is satisfied with following to rotor speed m:
signal adaptation form [2], [3]:
E = Kbm , (15)
u A ( t ) = h sign ( ( t ) ) , (11)
where:
(t ) = d e (t ) , d = b P,
T T T
(12) K b = 2 p , (16)

where: h is an adaptation coefficient, (t) is a generalized p is the flux linkages per phase (volt/rad/sec).
error, dT is an error weighting coefficient vector. Note that the electromagnetic torque for two phases com-
Coefficients of matrix P can be determined by solving bined is given by:
Lyapunov equation (8), with given coefficients of matrix Q.
Therefore, error weighting coefficient vector dT can be Te = 2 p I as = K b I as . (17)
determined. However, obtained coefficients may not give
best adaptation or smallest transient error and hence they The load is assumed to be proportional to speed:
are not optimal. Because of that, error weighting coefficient
vector is obtained by optimization using such program Tl = Bt m . (18)
packages as Matlab Optimization Toolbox [7], [8].
With that included in the feedback path, the speed to air gap
The signal adaptation algorithm (3) produces a sliding mode
torque transfer function can be evaluated as (Fig. 2):
of operation [2], [3] and generates a high frequency adaptation
signal, which can not be directly applied in electrical drives. m ( s ) Kt
To avoid high frequency oscillation in the drive, a sliding = , (19)
mode of operation can be organized in the reference model Te ( s ) 1 + Tt s
and/or observer (state variable estimator) [2], [3]. Another
where: Kt=1/Bt, Tt= J/Bt, Bt=B1+B2, where B1 is the friction
way is to replace signum function by a saturation function [2]:
coefficient of the motor, B2 is proportion coefficient be-
tween load torque and speed and J is the inertia of the ma-
chine.

EDPE 2005, September 2628, 2005, Dubrovnik, Croatia


Iam
Kc
Tc s + 1

*as - Vc Vis Ias Te m


*r 1 + 1 Kr Ka 1
K p (1 + ) K pi (1 + ) Kb
+ Ti s Tii s Tr s + 1 + Ta s + 1 + Jt s
- - -

Ti
Bt

E
Kb

mr K
T s + 1

Fig. 2. Block schematic of cascade speed control system of PM brushless DC motor drive.

Transistor chopper transfer function is given by: 4. MAIN PI SPEED CONTROLLER DESIGN
Vis ( s ) Kr Main PI speed controller parameters are determined using
= , (20)
Vc ( s ) 1 + Tr s transient performance based design optimization of
PMBDCM [9].
where: In case of classic (standard) speed controller design, which
compensates maximum time constant of drive, speed con-
Tch 1 troller integral time constant equals: Ti = Tt = 94.1 ms.
Tr = = , (21)
2 2 f ch Controller gain coefficient for drive overshoot Mpmr = 10%
gives Kp = 24.8, as seen from Fig. 3. Responses of speed
fch is chopper frequency. feedback signal mr, speed m and current ias on step
The current and speed feedbacks have low pass filters with change of reference value *r(t) = 0.1S(t), with Ti = Tt =
transfer functions (Fig. 2): 94.1 ms and Kp = 24.8, are shown on Fig. 4.
For faster and better load torque compensation it is neces-
I am ( s ) Kc sary that controller integral time constant be as small as
= , (22)
I as ( s ) 1 + Tc s possible and controller gain coefficient as large as possible.
Therefore, controller integral time constant is picked as: Ti
mr ( s ) K = 0.125Tt = 11.76 ms (Fig. 3) and controller gain coefficient
= . (23) is chosen for speed feedback signal overshoot Mpmr = 40%:
m ( s ) 1 + T s
Kp = 44.9 (Fig. 3). To achieve system overshoot Mpmr =
Numerical value of the drive parameters are: 10%, first order filter with time constant Tf = 1.96 ms has
Base speed, nb = 4000 rev/min, Base power, Pb = 373 W, been added to the drive input.
Base current, Ib = 17.35 A, Base voltage, Vb = 40 V, Base 80
torque, Tb = 0.89 Nm, Supply voltage, Vs = 160 V, Maxi-
mum phase current, Imax = 2Ib = 34.7 A, Maximum torque, 70

Tmax = 2Tb = 1.78 Nm, Gain of the inverter, Kr = 16 V/V, 60


Time constant of the converter, Tr = 50 s, Phase resistance,
50
Ra = 1.4 , Phase inductance La = 2.44 mH, Phase time
Overshoot (%)

constant, Ta = La/Ra = 1.743 ms, Ka = 1/Ra = 0.71428 A/V, 40

Emf constant, Kb = 0.051297 Vs, Total friction coefficient,


30
Bt = 0.002125 Nm/rad/sec, Inertia, J = 0.0002 kgm2, Kt =
5
1/Bt = 41.89, Motor and load time constant, Tt = J/Bt = 94.1 20

ms, Current feedback gain Kc = 0.288 V/A, Current feed- 4


10
back time constant, Tc = 0.159 ms, Speed feedback gain, K 2
3
1
= 0.02387 Vs/rad, Speed feedback time constant, T = 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1 ms. Controller Gain

Integral time constant of the current controller is usually Fig. 3. Dependence of speed feedback signal overshoot
chosen to be equal to the armature time constant Mpmr and controller gain coefficient Kp for different values
(compensates maximum time constant in the current loop): of controller integral time constant:
Tii = Ta = 1.743 ms. For the overshoot Mpi = 5% current 1. Ti = Tt; 2. Ti = 0.75Tt; 3. Ti = 0.5Tt; 4. Ti = 0.25Tt;
controller gain coefficient determined from the Bode plot 5. Ti = 0.125Tt.
and simulation is Kpi = 1.267.

EDPE 2005, September 2628, 2005, Dubrovnik, Croatia


derivative. Derivations are calculated approximately as
Speed Feedback Signal (V) follows:
0.1
1
 ( z)
z 1
G1 ( z ) =
0.05
2
mr
= , (24)
0 mr ( z ) Ts z
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
6
 ( z )
z 2z + 1
2
Speed (s -1)

G2 ( z ) =
4
1
mr
= , (25)
mr ( z )
2 2
2
2 Ts z
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
10 where Ts = 50 s is sampling time of algorithm.
2 Reference model is chosen to satisfactorily describe system
Current (A)

0
1 (plant) behavior with nominal parameters. Its transfer func-
tion is given by:
-5
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
Time (s) Mmr ( s ) 1
GM ( s ) = = , (26)
Fig. 4. Responses of speed feedback signal mr, speed m Ur (s) (1 + T s ) (1 + 2 T s + T s )
f n
2
n
2

and current ias for a change in reference speed *r(t) =


0.1S(t) with speed controller parameters: where Mmr is reference model output, Tf = 1.96 ms is a
1. Kp = 24.8, Ti = 94.1 ms, Tf = 0; filter time constant, while and Tn are determined by opti-
2. Kp = 44.9, Ti = 11.76 ms, Tf = 1.96 ms. mization and equal: = 0.318, Tn = 1.197 ms.
Discretization of the reference model is made with zero
order hold (ZOH) blocks in input and output of the refer-
Responses in Fig. 4 (curves 2) show that speed feedback ence model. Sample time of ZOH blocks is set to Ts = 50 s.
signal mr and speed m have approximately the same Error weighting coefficient vector d (size 31) is deter-
time of response at maximum, while maximum value of mined by optimization based on integral square error
armature current is a little bit less than in the case of maxi- (ISE) criterion:
mum time constant compensation (curves 1).
Responses on Fig. 5 show that influence of load torque on I = e
2
( t ) dt , (27)
speed is significantly faster (8 times) and better (2 times)
compensated in case of controller parameters determined where:
for integral time constant Ti = 11.76 ms (curves 2) than for
integral time constant Ti = 94.1 ms (curves 1). e ( t ) = Mmr ( t ) mr ( t ) . (28)

Optimization is carried out on reference step change *r(t)


5. IMPLEMENTATION OF REFERENCE MODEL = 0.1S(t), change of moment inertia to values J = 0.5Jn and
AND SIGNAL ADAPTATION ALGORITHM J = 2Jn, saturation value h = 0.1 and gain coefficient K = 1.
Optimization resulted in following:
This paper covers the application of modified signal adapta-
d = 25 2.22847 10 .
T -6

tion algorithm (13) with three state space variables and third 0.0059726 (29)
order reference model. First state space variable is speed
Responses of reference model output, armature current and
feedback signal, while other two are its first and second
speed feedback signal error without adaptation on reference
Speed (s -1) Speed Feedback Signal (V)

0
2
step change *r(t) = 0.1S(t) are shown in Fig. 6. Maximum
-0.1
speed feedback signal error equals em = 33.2% for J = 0.5Jn
1 and em = 29.7% for J = 2Jn.
-0.2
Responses of speed feedback signal and armature current
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
without adaptation on step change of rated load torque are
0
2 shown in Fig. 7. Maximum relative speed feedback signal
-5 drop equals: mr = -1.33% for J = Jn; mr = -1.67% for J
1
= 0.5Jn; mr = -1.08% for J = 2Jn.
-10
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05 Model reference adaptive controller with modified signal
30 adaptation algorithm (13), optimal error weighting
2
coefficients (29) and sampling time Ts = 50 s reduces
Current (A)

20

10
1 maximum speed feedback signal error to value: em = 0.94%
0
for J = 0.5Jn and em = 1.83% for J = 2Jn (Fig. 8).
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
Time (s) Model reference adaptive controller with modified signal
adaptation algorithm (13) and optimal error weighting
Fig. 5. Responses of speed feedback signal mr, speed m
coefficients (29) reduces maximum speed feedback signal
and current ias for a change in nominal load torque Mt(t) =
drop to value (Fig. 9): mr = -0.24% for J = Jn; mr = -
0.89S(t) with speed controller parameters:
0.42% for J = 0.5Jn; mr = -0.14% for J = 2Jn.
1. Kp = 24.8, Ti = 94.1 ms, Tf = 0;
2. Kp = 44.9, Ti = 11.76 ms, Tf = 1.96 ms.

EDPE 2005, September 2628, 2005, Dubrovnik, Croatia


Reference model output (V)
Reference model output (V) 0.1 0.1

0.08

0.06 0.05

0.04
0
0.02 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05

0 15

Armature current (A)


0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05 2
10
10
5 1
2
0
1
5
Current (A)

-5
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
-3
x 10
0 2
2

Error (V)
-5
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
0

0.04 1
2 -1
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
0.02
0.05 2

Adaptation signal (V)


Error (V)

0
0
-0.02
1 1
-0.04 -0.05
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 6. Reference model output signal Mmr, armature Fig. 8. Reference model output signal Mmr, armature
current ias and error e responses for a step input current ias, error e and adaptation signal uA responses for a
r*=0.1S(t) and moment of inertia change in the drive step input r*=0.1S(t) and moment of inertia change in the
without adaptation: 1. J = 0.5 J n , 2. J = 2 J n . drive with adaptation (h = r = 0.1, K = 1):
1. J = 0.5 J n , 2. J = 2 J n .

0 0.02
Speed feedback signal (V)
Speed feedback signal drop (V)

0
-0.05
3
-0.02
1

-0.1 -0.04
2
3
-0.06
1 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
-0.15

25 2
2
13
Armature current (A)

-0.2 20
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
15

10
30 2
5

25 1 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
3
20
0.1 1
Current (A)

3
Adaptation signal (V)

15
0.05

10
0

5 2
-0.05

0 -0.1
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 7. Speed feedback signal mr and armature current Fig. 9. Speed feedback signal mr, armature current ias
ias responses for a step change of the nominal load torque and adaptation signal uA responses for a step change of the
Tl = 0.89S(t) and moment of inertia change in the drive nominal load torque Tl = 0.89S(t) and moment of inertia
without adaptation: 1. J = J n , 2. J = 0.5 J n , 3. J = 2 J n . change in the drive with adaptation (h = r = 0.1, K = 1):
1. J = J n , 2. J = 0.5 J n , 3. J = 2 J n .

EDPE 2005, September 2628, 2005, Dubrovnik, Croatia


6. CONCLUSION 7. REFERENCES

The key contributions of the proposed paper are summa- [1] K. J. Astrm and B. Wittenmark: Adaptive Control,
rized in the following: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Mas-
(i) It is possible to determine optimal speed controller sachusetts, 1989.
parameters for faster (4-8 times) and better (2 times) [2] Yu. A. Bortsov, N. D. Polyakhov and V. V. Putov:
load torque compensation than that obtained using Electromechanical Systems with Adaptive and Modal
traditional design based on compensation of maxi- Control, Energoatomizdat, Leningrad, 1984.
mum time constant of system. [3] P. Crnoija, . Ban, Y. A. Bortsov: Implementation of
(ii) Using a filter at the drive input, the desired speed Modified MRAC to Drive Control, 9th European Con-
response overshoot to reference value change is ference on Power Electronic and Applications, Graz,
achieved. 2001.
(iii) Model reference adaptive control and modified signal [4] R. Krishnan: Electric Motor Drives: Modelling,
adaptation control with optimal coefficients have been Analysis, and Control, Prentice Hall, Inc., New Jersey,
applied to minimize the effect of moment of inertia Feb 2001.
variations on the performance of the PMBDCM drive [5] R. Krishnan: Permanent Magnet Synchronous and
system. It reduces the error of speed feedback signal Brushless DC Motor Drives: Theory, Operation,
from 33.2% (29.7%) to 0.94% (1.83%). Performance, Modelling, Simulation, Analysis and
(iv) Model reference adaptive control and modified signal Design, Part 3: Permanent Magnet Brushless DC
adaptation control with optimal coefficients reduce the Machines and Their Control, Virginia Tech,
influence of load torque on speed feedback signal (4 Blacksburg, 2000.
to 8 times lower speed drop). [6] Y. A. Landau: Adaptive Control: The Model Refer-
The main advantage of model reference adaptive control ence Approach, New York, 1979.
with signal adaptation is that it does not contain integral [7] D. Hanselman, B. Littlefield: Mastering MATLAB, A
parts and hence it does not need tuning of controller Comprehensive Tutorial and Reference, Prentice-Hall,
parameters for changed plant parameters [2, 3]. New Jersey, 1996.
Authors are planning to investigate the influence of noise on [8] SIMULINK, Dynamic System Simulation Software,
adaptation algorithm behaviour. Presented choice of state User's Guide, The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, 1991-92.
space variables is not suitable because of calculation of [9] P. Crnoija, R. Krishnan, T. Bjai: Transient
derivatives. Performance Based Design Optimization of PM
Authors are also planning to investigate robustness of Brushless DC Motor Drive Speed Controller, IEEE
optimal main PI controller and MRAC with optimal International Symposium on Industrial Electronics, ISIE
coefficients of modified signal adaptation algorithm. 2005, B6-05, Dubrovnik, 2005.

EDPE 2005, September 2628, 2005, Dubrovnik, Croatia