Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front.Electron., 01 September 2022
Sec. Industrial Electronics

Maximum efficiency control and predictive-speed controller design for interior permanent magnet synchronous motor drive systems

Tian-Hua Liu
Tian-Hua Liu*Yu-Hang ZhuangYu-Hang Zhuang
  • Department of Electrical Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan

Improving the efficiency of home appliances is an important area of research these days, especially for global warming and climate change. To achieve this goal, in this paper, a new method to improve the maximum efficiency control of an interior permanent magnet synchronous motor (IPMSM) drive system, which includes an IPMSM and an inverter, is investigated. By suitably controlling the d-axis current, the IPMSM drive system can quickly reach its maximum efficiency. A steepest ascent method is used to obviously reduce the searching steps of the maximum efficiency tracking control for an IPMSM. According to experimental results, by using the traditional fixed step method, 14 steps are required to reach the maximum efficiency operating point. By using the proposed steepest ascent method, however, only 4 steps are needed to reach the maximum efficiency operating point. In addition, according to the experimental results, during the transient dynamics, the predictive controller obtains faster responses and 2% lower overshoot than the PI controller. Moreover, during adding external load, the predictive controller has only a 10 r/min speed drop and 0.1 s recover time; however, the PI controller has a 40 r/min speed drop and 0.3 s recover time. Experimental results can validate theoretical analysis. Several measured results show when compared to the fix-step searching method with a PI controller, the proposed methods provide quicker searching maximum efficiency ability, quicker and better dynamic transient responses, and lower speed drop when an external load is added.

1 Introduction

Interior permanent magnet synchronous motors (IPMSM) have become more and more important due to their high torque per Ampere, good robustness, and high efficiency characteristics (Bose, 2002). IPMSMs have been widely used in home appliances, such as: air conditioners, vacuum cleaners, and lawn mowers. Generally speaking, to save energy and to improve dynamic responses, both a high performance speed controller and high efficiency search algorithms are all required for IPMSM drive systems.

Several researchers have investigated the maximum efficiency control and speed-loop controller designs for IPMSM drive systems. For example, Mahmud et al. investigated an optimum flux searching method for direct torque control of IPMSM drive systems (Mahmud et al., 2020). The relationship between the stator flux linkage and the stator current was analyzed first. Then, a seeking algorithm was investigated to determine the real-time optimal flux and then to generate the maximum torque-per-ampere control. Caruso et al. proposed an experimental investigation of a real-time high efficiency control algorithm for IPMSM drive systems. In that paper, by adjusting the d-axis current, the power losses were changed at varied loads nd speeds (Caruso et al., 2014). Yang et al. proposed efficiency optimization control of IPMSM drive systems, which considered the variations of the motor parameters (Yang et al., 2018). Takaashi et al. studied a high-efficiency control method for an IPMSM drive system by controlling the vector angle of the stator currents (Takaashi and Oguro, 2009). Liu et al. proposed an efficiency-optimal control method for a mono-inverter dual PMSM drive system. A simple optimal efficiency control was proposed. However, the optimal efficiency control was only focused on a dual-PMSM but not a single PMSM (Liu and Fadel, 2018). Kooning et al. investigated the maximum efficiency stator current waveforms for a PMSM and its drive system. The idea was good, however, the stator current waveforms were very complicated, which were difficult to be synthesized (Kooning et al., 2017). Ding et al. used an Artificial Bee Colony algorithm to improve the efficiency of a PMSM-inverter drive system. This algorithm, however, required the losses in the windings and lamination core, which were very difficult to obtain (Ding et al., 2016). Balamurali et al. developed a maximum efficiency control of PMSM drive systems in electric vehicle applications. However, a precise loss model was required (Balamurali et al., 2021). Balamurali et al. proposed a current advance angle to achieve efficiency improvement, which required an efficiency model with experimental tests that were very complicated (Balamurali et al., 2020).

These previously published papers (Ding et al., 2016; Kooning et al., 2017; Liu and Fadel, 2018; Balamurali et al., 2020; Balamurali et al., 2021), however, required an accurate loss model and efficiency model that were obtained by doing a lot of tests. To solve this difficulty, an efficiency control that does not require efficiency model is investigated here. Only the measured or estimated input power and output power are used here. In addition, a predictive speed-loop controller design that improves the transient responses and load disturbance responses is also investigated. To the authors’ best knowledge, the ideas in this paper are original and have not been previously published. This proposed IPMSM drive system can be used for home appliances, such as: air conditioners, vacuum cleaners, and lawn mowers.

2 The interior permanent magnet synchronous motor drive system

Figure 1 shows the block diagram of the proposed IPMSM drive system. The drive system includes two major parts: the hardware circuit and the DSP software. The hardware circuit consists of an inverter, an IPMSM, an encoder, a DC-link voltage, and an A/D converter. The DSP software includes a predictive speed controller, a maximum efficiency control algorithm, a PI current controller, a d-q axis to a-b-c axis coordinate transformation, a space-vector pulse-width modulation (SVPWM), and an a-b-c axis to d-q axis transformation. The whole IPMSM drive system includes two control-loops: a speed control-loop and a current control-loop.

FIGURE 1
www.frontiersin.org

FIGURE 1. Block diagram of proposed IPMSM drive system.

2.1 Mathematical model of the interior permanent magnet synchronous motor

Permanent magnet synchronous motors (PMSM) have two major types: surface-mounted permanent magnet synchronous motors (SPMSM) and interior permanent magnet synchronous motors (IPMSM). The IPMSM for this paper is shown in Figure 2. It includes a stator, a rotor, and an air-gap, and it has better robustness, higher operation speeds, and higher total torque than a SPMSM. The d-axis inductance is smaller than the q-axis inductance due to the magnetic salience. Also, because the effective air gap is minimized, the armature-reaction effect becomes clearly and easily noticeable. Furthermore, with a smaller air gap, the flux weakening method is quite effective for the IPMSM.

FIGURE 2
www.frontiersin.org

FIGURE 2. Structure of the IPMSM.

Assuming that the input three-phase voltages of the motor are balanced, the d-q axis voltages of the IPMSM are shown as the following equation (Wang et al., 2015):

[vdvq]=rs[idiq]+[Ld00Lq]ddt[idiq]+ωe[Lqiqλm+Ldid](1)

where vd and vq are the d- and q-axis voltages, rs is the stator resistance, id and iq are the d- and q-axis currents, Ld and Lq are the d- and q-axis inductances, ddt is the differential operator, ωe is the electrical speed, and λm is the permanent magnetic flux linkage of the IPMSM. The total torque of the IPMSM is expressed as follows:

Te=32P2[λmiq+(LdLq)idiq](2)

where Te is the total torque and p is the pole number. The dynamic speed of the IPMSM is

ddtωm=1Jt(TeBtωmTL)(3)

where ωm is the mechanical speed, Jt is the inertia, Bt is the viscous coefficient, and TL is the torque of the external load. The dynamic equation of the mechanical rotor position θm is expressed as follows:

ddtθm=ωm(4)

where θm is the mechanical rotor position of the IPMSM. The relationship between the electrical rotor position θe and the mechanical rotor position θm is shown as follows:

θe=P2θm(5)

The relationship between the electrical rotor speed ωe and the mechanical rotor speed ωm is depicted as the following equation:

ωe=P2ωm(6)

2.2 Inverter and space-vector pulse-width modulator modulation method

The power circuit of a three-phase voltage-source inverter is implemented by using six power switches, which are shown in Figure 3A. The power switches can use traditional IGBTs, MOSFETs, or silicon carbide power devices. The power circuit has three independent legs, and each leg includes two power switches–an upper power switch and a lower power switch. For each leg, one power switch is turned on and the other power switch is turned off. When the upper power switch is turned on and the lower switch is turned off, the switching state of this leg is set as “1”. On the other hand, when the upper power switch is turned off and the lower power switch is turned on, the switching state of this leg is set as “0”. For example, if the upper switch of the a-phase is turned on but the upper switches of the b-phase and c-phase are turned off, the switching state of the inverter is expressed as “100”. By using this similar method, one can have six active switching states including 100, 110, 010, 011, 001, and 101, and two zero-voltage switching states including 000 and 111. The details are shown in Figure 3B. In this paper, traditional IGBTs are used.

FIGURE 3
www.frontiersin.org

FIGURE 3. The inverter. (A) Main circuit (B) six-step vectors (C) SVPWM (D) turn-on intervals of the a-b-c phase voltages.

The space-vector pulse-width modulation (SVPWM) method in this paper is an advanced, computation-intensive PWM method, which currently might be the best modulation method for variable-frequency AC drive systems. Figure 3C shows the synthesis of the space vector Vref. First, if we assume the reference voltage command Vref is in region I, which is shown in Figure 3C, then the reference voltage command is expressed as the following equation:

Vref=t0TsV0+t1TsV1+t2TsV2(7)

where Vref is the reference voltage command, t0 is the time interval of the zero voltage vector V0, t1 is the time interval of the active voltage vector V1, t2 is the time interval of the active voltage vector V2, and Ts is the total time interval for one PWM switching cycle. From Figure 3C, according to trigonometric functions, the following two equations are obtained:

Vrefsin(60°θe)=t1TsV1sin(60°)(8)

and

Vrefsin(θe)=t2TsV2sin(60°)(9)

From Eqs. 8, 9, one can derive the following three equations:

t1=TsV123Vrefsin(60°θe)(10)
t2=TsV223Vrefsin(θe)(11)

and

t0=Tst1t2(12)

From Eqs. 10–12, one can easily develop the duty cycles of the V1, V2, and V0 voltage vectors. In addition, the duty cycles of the a-phase, b-phase, and c-phase voltages are shown as the following equations:

Sa_cmp=t12+t22+t04(13)
Sb_cmp=t22+t04(14)

and

Sc_cmp=t04(15)

where Sa_cmp , Sb_cmp, and Sc_cmp are the turn-on intervals of the a-phase, b-phase, and c-phase voltages. The details of their relationships are shown in Figure 3D.

3 Control algorithms

There are two different control algorithms proposed in this paper. The details are as follows:

3.1 Maximum efficiency control

The relationship between efficiency and the d-axis current for an IPMSM, which is shown in Figure 4, is a concave curve that has a global maximum efficiency point. The efficiency is a function of the d-axis current and can be expressed as follows (Avriel, 1976):

η= f(id)=12q1id2bid(16)

FIGURE 4
www.frontiersin.org

FIGURE 4. The concave curve of the efficiency to the d-axis current.

where η is the efficiency, f is a quadratic function, and q1 and b are the parameters of the quadratic function. By taking the differential of Eq. 16, one can obtain the following equation:

id=bq1(17)

where id is the relative d-axis current, which provides the maximum efficiency of the IPMSM drive system. In the real world, however, IPMSMs require a step-by-step algorithm to search on-line for the maximum efficiency. In this paper, a steepest ascent method is used. The details are as follows:

First, the initial d-axis current is selected and expressed as id0. Then, the error between id and id0 can be shown as follows:

e(id0)=12(id0id) q1(id0id)b(id0id)(18)

where e(id0) is the error of the function f between the id0 and the id. Next, by taking the differential of Eq. 16, one can obtain that the gradient of the function f, which is expressed as follows:

g(id)=f(id)=q1idb(19)

where g(id) is the gradient at the id current, and f is the gradient of the function f.

After that, the d-axis current of the (k+1)th step can be described as the following equation:

(id)k+1=(id)k+(α1)kgk(id)k(20)

and then from Eq. 19, one can obtain the following equation:

gk(id)k= q1(id)kb(21)

where (id)k+1 is the d-axis current at the (k+1)th step, (id)k is the d-axis current at the (k)th step, and gk is the gradient of the function f at the (k)th step. Substituting Eqs. 20, 21 into Eq. 16, and then taking its partial differential to (α1)k, one can derive the following equation (Avriel, 1976):

gk(id)kq1(id)kq1gk(id)k(α1)kgk(id)k+ gk(id)kb=0(22)

From Eq. 22, one can obtain the following equation:

gk(id)k(q1(id)k+b)q1gk(id)k(α1)kgk(id)k=gk(id)kgk(id)kq1gk(id)k(α1)kgk(id)k=0(23)

From Eq. 23, it is not difficult to derive the step size, (α1)k, as the following equation:

(α1)k=gk(id)kgk(id)kq1gk(id)kgk(id)k=1q1(24)

Finally, by substituting Eq. 24 into Eq. 20, one can obtain a simple equation for the (id)k+1 as follows:

(id)k+1=(id)k+(1q1)gk(id)k(25)

3.2 Predictive speed-controller design

Predictive controllers have been developed and improved for 40 years. They can be used for single-input and single-output systems, multi-input and multi-output systems, with constraint and without constraint systems, and model-based and no model-based systems. Recently, due to the improvements in digital signal processors, predictive controller design has become very popular in power electronics and motor drives (Soeterboek, 1992). In this paper, a predictive controller is used for the speed-loop control for the IPMSM in this paper. The details are described as follows:

3.1.1 Predictive speed-controller without input constraint

The dynamic speed equation of an IPMSM without an external load is shown as follows:

ddtωm=1Jt(TeBtωm)=1Jt(KTiqBtωm)(26)

where KT is the parameter of the torque constant. From Eq. 26, and converting the result into Laplace’s transformation, one can obtain the following equation:

Gp(s)=ωm(s)iq(s)=KTJts+Bt(27)

Next, we can define the transfer function of the zero-order-hold device as follows:

Gzoh(s)=1esTsps(28)

where Tsp is the time interval of the zero-order-hold device. The approximation of the transfer function of the zero-order-hold device cascading with the IPMSM can be shown as follows:

Gsp(s)=Gzoh(s)Gp(s)=1esTspsKTJts+Bt(29)

Defining esTsp=z1 and then substituting it into Eq. 29, one can develop the following z-transformation equation:

Gsp(z)=KTBt(1z1)(zz1zzeBtJtTsp)(30)

From Eq. 30, it is not difficult to derive the following equation:

Gsp(z)=ωm(z)iq(z)=KTBt(1eBtJtTspzeBtJtTsp)(31)

Taking the inverse z-transformation, one can obtain the following equation:

ωm(k+1)=e BtJtTspωm(k)+1e BtJtTspBtKTiq(k)=asωm(k)+bsiq(k)(32)

where as is eBtJtTsp and bs is 1eBtJtTspBtKT.

If we replace (k) with (k-1) and then use Eq. 32, we can derive the following equation:

ωm(k)=asωm(k1)+bsiq(k1)(33)

From Eqs. 32, 33, one can obtain the speed difference as the following equation:

Δωm(k+1)=asΔωm(k)+bsΔiq(k)(34)

where Δωm(k) is the speed difference at the kth sampling interval, Δiq(k) is the q-axis current difference at the kth sampling interval. From Eqs. 33, 34, one can derive the estimated speed at the (k+1) sampling interval as the following equation:

ω^m(k+1)=ωm(k)+Δωm(k+1)               =ωm(k)+asΔωm(k)+bsΔiq(k)(35)

It is possible to define the performance index Jp(k), which includes the square of the speed error, and the square of the Δiq(k) as the following equation:

Jp(k)=[ωm(k+1)ω^m(k+1)]2+rw[iq(k)iq(k1)]2(36)

where rw is the weighting factor. Submitting Eq. 35 into Eq. 36, one can obtain the following equations:

Jp(k)=[ωm(k+1)ωm(k)asΔωm(k)bsΔiq(k)]2             +rw[Δiq(k)]2(37)

and

Δiq(k)=iq(k)iq(k1)(38)

By rearranging Eq. 37, one can obtain the following equation:

Jp(k)=(bs2+rw)[Δiq(k)]22bs[ωm(k+1)ωm(k)asΔωm(k)]Δiq(k)            +[ωm(k+1)ωm(k)asΔωm(k)](39)

By taking the differential of Jp(k) and Δiq(k), and then assuming the result to be zero, one can develop the following equation:

2(bs2+rw)Δiq(k)2bs[ωm(k+1)ωm(k)asΔωm(k)]= 0(40)

From Eq. 40, the desired q-axis current difference command can be expressed as follows:

Δiq(k)=bs(ωm(k+1)ωm(k))bs2+rwasbsΔωm(k)bs2+rw(41)

Finally, the q-axis current command can be obtained as follows:

iq(k)=iq(k1)+Δiq(k)(42)

3.1.2 Predictive speed-controller with input constraint

It is possible to rewrite the constraints as the following two equations:

iq(k)iqmax(43)

and

iq(k)iqmin(44)

However, in this paper, we focus on the q-axis current difference. As a result, Eqs. 43, 44 can be expressed as the following two equations:

iq(k1)+Δiq(k)iqmax(45)

and

iq(k1)Δiq(k)iqmin(46)

By combing Eqs. 45, 46, one can obtain the following three equations (Wang, 2009):

U(k)=MΔiq(k)γ(47)
M=[11](48)

and

γ=[iqmaxiq(k1)iqmin+iq(k1)](49)

A Lagrange multiplier is used in this paper to combine the constraint and the performance index. Then the following equation can be obtained:

Jp(k)=λlagrTU(k)            =[λmaxλmin]TU(k)(50)

where λmax is the multiplier of the maximum q-axis current, and λmin is the multiplier of the minimum q-axis current.

By combining the constraint and the performance Jp(k), one can define a new performance index Jlagr(k). Then the Jlagr(k) can be defined as the following equation:

Jlagr(k)=Jp(k)+λlagrTU(k)(51)

Submitting Eqs. 39, 47 into Eq. 51, one can derive the Jlagr(k) as the following equation:

Jlagr(k)=(bs2+rw)[Δiq(k)]22bs[ωm(k+1)ωm(k)asΔωm(k)]Δiq(k)          +[ωm(k+1)ωm(k)asΔωm(k)] +λlagrT(MΔiq(k)γ)(52)

Then by using the differential of Jlagr(k) to Δiq(k) and assuming its result to be zero, one can obtain the following equation:

2(bs2+rw)Δiq(k)2bs[ωm(k+1)ωm(k)asΔωm(k)]+MTλlagr= 0(53)

Rearranging Eq. 53, one can obtain the following equation:

Δiq(k)=Δiq(k)MTλlagrbs2+rw(54)

where Δiq(k) is the q-axis current difference without a constraint. After that, the multiplier λlagr needs to be derived. The details are discussed as follows. First, in Eq. 52, by using the differential of Jlagr(k) to λlagr and assuming its result to be zero, one can obtain the following equation (Wang et al., 2015):

MΔiq(k)γ = 0(55)

Next, from Eq. 54, one can obtain the following equation:

MΔiq(k)=MΔiq(k)MMTλlagrbs2+rw(56)

Submitting Eq. 56 into Eq. 55, one can derive the following equation:

MΔiq(k)MMTλlagrbs2+rwγ=0(57)

Finally, the Lagrange multiplier is shown as follows:

λlagr=(bs2+rw)([11]Δiq(k)[iqmaxiq(k1)iqmin+iq(k1)])  =[λmaxλmin](58)

In the real world, the λlagr must be equal to or larger than zero. To meet this requirement, Hildreth’s quadratic programming procedure is used here (Wang et al., 2015). By using an iterative method, the optimal multiplier λlagr, is expressed as follows:

λlagr=[λmaxλmin](59)

Submitting Eq. 59 into Eq. 54, one can obtain the following equation:

Δiq_new(k)=Δiq(k)MTλlagrbs2+rw                  =Δiq(k)λmaxλminbs2+rw(60)

Finally, the q-axis current command, which considers the input constraint, can be expressed as follows:

iq_new*(k)=iq(k1)+Δiq_new(k)(61)

In order to explain in a more detailed way, Figure 5A shows the block diagram of the proposed predictive controller with an input constraint. The control algorithm includes an input constraint, a predictive control parameter without considering constraints, an uncontrolled plant, and an integration. First, the speed command ωm(k+1) is compared to the feedback speed ωm(k). Then, the speed error is multiplied by the constant gain bs. In addition, the speed difference, Δωm(k) is multiplied by the constant gain asbs. Next, the difference between these two results is multiplied by 1bs2+γw to obtain Δiq(k). After that, the, iqmin, iqmax, and iq(k1) are used to compute Δiq_new(k). Finally, iq_new*(k), which is the q-axis command with a constraint, is obtained and sent out to the IPMSM drive system. Then a closed-loop drive system is thus achieved.

FIGURE 5
www.frontiersin.org

FIGURE 5. Predictive controller with input constraint. (A) Block diagram (B) flow chart.

Figure 5B shows the flow-chart of the predictive controller with an input constraint. First, the q-axis current command iq*(k) is computed. Next, the iq*(k) is checked to determine if it is between iqmin and iqmax. If it is, then the iq*(k) is sent out to control the IPMSM drive system. Otherwise, the λmax and the λmin are used to determine the Δiq_new(k), which is the q-axis current difference with a constraint. Finally, the (k)q_new, which is the q-axis current command with a constraint, is sent out to control the IPMSM drive system.

4 Experimental results

The experimental results include two parts: background of Experimental Setting and measured results.

4.1 Background of experimental setting

The block diagram of the implemented IPMSM drive system is shown in Figure 6A, which includes a predictive speed controller, a PI current controller, a d-q axis to a-b-c axis coordinate transformation, a SVPWM modulator, an a-b-c axis to d-q axis coordinate transformation, an A/D converter, an inverter, and an IPMSM. The sampling interval of the speed-loop control is 1 ms, and the sampling interval of the current-loop control is 100 μs. First, the speed command ωm is compared to the feedback speed ωm. Then the speed error is processed by the predictive speed-controller to generate the q-axis current command iq. The d-axis current command id is determined by the calculated efficiency η and the steepest ascent tracking method. The efficiency η uses the torque Te multiplied by the mechanical speed ωm and then is divided by input power Pin, which is the DC-link voltage Vdc multiplied by the DC-link current Idc. After that, the d-q axis current commands are compared to the feedback d-q axis currents id and iq. Next, the PI current controller is used to generate the d-q axis voltage commands vd and vq. A d-q axis to a-b-c axis coordinate transformation is then used to convert vd and vq into the a-b-c axis voltage commands va, vb, and vc. After that, a SVPWM modulator is used to generate the six gating signals of the inverter. Finally, the IPMSM is rotated and a closed-loop IPMSM dive system is thus achieved.

FIGURE 6
www.frontiersin.org

FIGURE 6. Implemented IPMSM drive system. (A) Block diagram (B) hardware circuit (C) dynamometer.

Figure 6B shows a photograph of the hardware circuit, which includes a digital signal processor (DSP), an inverter and its driver, a power circuit which includes six IGBTs, a DC-link capacitor and a small inductor, and a current sensing circuit. Figure 6C shows a photograph of the IPMSM connected to a dynamometer, which is used for the adding an external load test.

4.2 Measured results

Several experimental results are shown in this paper to validate the theoretical analysis. Figure 7A shows the measured efficiency tracking response when using a 0.1A fixed step-size d-axis current. As can be observed, the IPMSM drive system requires 14 steps to reach its maximum efficiency, which is near 85%. Figure 7B shows the measured efficiency tracking response by using the steepest ascent method. This IPMSM drive system only takes four steps to reach its maximum efficiency. In addition, the step-size is gradually reduced as the IPMSM drive system approaches its maximum efficiency point. Figure 8A shows the relationship between the efficiency and motor speeds. As can be observed, the variations of the efficiency are quite small when the motor is operated from 600 r/min to 2000 r/min. Figure 8B show the relationship between the efficiency to the d-axis current, which is varied between 0 and 1A. The results shown in Figure 8B are very close to a concave curve. As a result, there is only one maximum efficiency point, which is also the global maximum point as well. It is feasible to use the steepest ascent method to search for the maximum point for a concave curve. From Figures 8A,B, we can see that the measured efficiency and the calculated efficiency are quite similiar.

FIGURE 7
www.frontiersin.org

FIGURE 7. Maximum efficiency tracking responses at 600 r/min with a 3 Nt. m load. (A) Using 0.1A fixed-step d-axis current (B) using steepest ascent method.

FIGURE 8
www.frontiersin.org

FIGURE 8. The relationship between efficiency and speed and efficiency and d-axis current. (A) Efficiency and speeds (B) efficiency and the d-axis current at 600 r/min and 3 N m load.

Figure 9A demonstrates the input line-voltage of the IPMSM, vab, which has a 10 kHz PWM switching frequency. By using the space-vector PWM modulation method, from 0° to 180°, the voltage vab is positive, and from 180° to 360°, the voltage vab is negative. In addition, the amplitude of the vab is near 250V. Figure 9B shows the input a-phase current of the IPMSM. The a-phase current has a near sinusoidal waveform with low current ripples.

FIGURE 9
www.frontiersin.org

FIGURE 9. Measured input voltage and current of the IPMSM. (A) Input voltage (B) input current.

Figure 10A displays the comparison of the speed responses by using a PI speed-loop controller and the predictive speed-loop controller. The parameters of the PI controller are determined by using a pole-assignment technique that has the same rise time as the predictive controller. As can be observed, the predictive controller has a lower overshoot and a shorter time to reach steady-state conditions. Figure 10B shows the relative q-axis current responses. The predictive controller provides a smaller peak current and greater input power than the PI controller. Figure 11A demonstrates the comparison of the predictive controller with and without a constraint. The predictive controller with a constraint has a lower overshoot than the predictive controller without a constraint. Figure 11B demonstrates the relative q-axis current. The predictive controller with a constraint has a smaller peak current, greater input power, and fewer ringing currents than the predictive controller without a constraint.

FIGURE 10
www.frontiersin.org

FIGURE 10. Measured transient responses at 600 r/min using predictive controller and PI controller. (A) Speed responses (B) q-axis current responses.

FIGURE 11
www.frontiersin.org

FIGURE 11. Measured transient responses at 600 r/min using predictive controller with and without constraints (A) speed responses (B) q-axis current responses.

Figure 12A shows the comparison of the speed responses when an external load of 3 N m is added at 600 r/min. The predictive controller has a 10 r/min speed drop and a 0.2 s recovery time. The PI controller, however, has a 40 r/min speed drop and a 0.35 s recovery time. Figure 12B demonstrates the relative q-axis current responses. The PI controller provides more ringing currents than the predictive controller. Figure 13 shows the measured responses at different speed commands from 10 r/min to 1800 r/min. All of the responses are very quick and linear. These results can demonstrate that the predictive speed-loop controller can provide better performance than the PI controller.

FIGURE 12
www.frontiersin.org

FIGURE 12. Measured load disturbance responses at 600 r/min. (B) Speed responses (B) q-axis current responses.

FIGURE 13
www.frontiersin.org

FIGURE 13. Measured responses at different speed commands.

5 Conclusion

In this paper, a maximum efficiency IPMSM control system with a predictive-speed controller design is investigated. By using the steepest ascent method, the searching times to reach the maximum efficiency can be effective reduced to 4 steps; however, by using the traditional fixed step method, the searching times to reach the maximum efficiency requires 14 steps. In addition, by using a predictive speed-controller, the transient response of the predictive controller is faster with a 2% reduction of overshoot than the PI controller. In addition, the predictive speed-control IPMSM drive system has a smaller speed drop, which is only near 10% of the PI controller, and quicker recovery time, which is only 25% of the PI speed-control. The proposed predictive-speed control IPMSM drive system can be operated from 10 r/min to 1800 r/min with satisfactory linear responses. The proposed method can be easily and effectively applied in motor drives for air conditioners, vacuum cleaners, and lawn movers.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

T-HL: English paper preparation, funding, advise. Y-HZ: Hardware design, DSP program coding, integration, testing, experimental waveform collections.

Funding

The paper is supported by Ministry of Science and Technology, under Grant MOST 110–2221-E-011–086.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Avriel, M. (1976). Nonlinear programming analysis and methods. New Jersey: USA: Prentice-Hall.

Google Scholar

Balamurali, A., Feng, G., Kundu, A., Dhulipati, H., and Kar, N. C. (2020). Noninvasive and improved torque and efficiency calculation toward current advance angle determination for maximum efficiency control of PMSM. IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrific. 6 (1), 28–40. doi:10.1109/tte.2019.2962333

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Balamurali, A., Kundu, A., Li, Z., and Kar, N. C. (2021). Improved harmonic iron loss and stator current vector determination for maximum efficiency control of PMSM in EV applications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 57 (1), 363–373. doi:10.1109/tia.2020.3034888

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bose, B. K. (2002). Modern power electronics and AC drives. New Jersey, USA: Prentice-Hall.

Google Scholar

Caruso, M., Tommaso, A. O. D., Genduso, F., and Miceli, R. (2014). “Experimental investigation on high efficiency real-time control algorithms for IPMSMs,” in 2014 International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Application (ICRERA) (Milwaukee, WI, USA: IEEE), 974–979. doi:10.1109/ICRERA.2014.7016531

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ding, X., Liu, G., Du, M., Guo, H., Duan, C., and Qian, H. (2016). Efficiency improvement of overall PMSM-inverter system based on artificial bee Colony algorithm under full power range. IEEE Trans. Magn. 52 (7), 11–14. doi:10.1109/tmag.2016.2526614

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kooning, J. D. M., Vyver, J. V., Meersman, B., and Vandevelde, L. (2017). Maximum efficiency current waveforms for a PMSM including iron losses and armature reaction. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 53 (4), 3336–3344. doi:10.1109/tia.2017.2681619

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu, T., and Fadel, M. (2018). An efficiency-optimal control method for mono-inverter dual-PMSM systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 54 (2), 1737–1745. doi:10.1109/tia.2017.2768535

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mahmud, M. H., Wu, Y., and Zhao, Y. (2020). Extremum seeking-based optimum reference flux searching for direct torque control of interior permanent magnet synchronous motors. IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrific. 6 (1), 41–51. doi:10.1109/tte.2019.2962327

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Soeterboek, R. (1992). Predictive control-A unified approach. New Jersey, USA: Prentice-Hall.

Google Scholar

Takaashi, A., and Oguro, R. (2009). “A method of high efficiency control for IPMSM by disturbance observer,” in 2009 International Conference on Power Electronics and Drive Systems (PEDS), 637–642. doi:10.1109/PEDS.2009.5385899

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, L., Chai, S., Yoo, D., Gan, L., and Ng, K. (2015). PID and predictive control of electrical drives and power converters using MATLAB/simulink. Singapore: Wiley & Sons.

Google Scholar

Wang, L. (2009). Model predictive control system design and implementation using MATLAB. London, UK: Springer.

Google Scholar

Yang, S., Liu, K., Hu, Y., Chu, L. L., and Chen, S. (2018). “Efficiency optimization control of IPMSM considering varying machine parameters,” in 2018 IEEE Student Conference on Electric Machines and Systems (Huzhou, China: IEEE). doi:10.1109/SCEMS.2018.8624761

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Keywords: maximum efficiency control, predictive control, interior permanent-magnet motor, digital signal processor, motor drive systems

Citation: Liu T-H and Zhuang Y-H (2022) Maximum efficiency control and predictive-speed controller design for interior permanent magnet synchronous motor drive systems. Front. Electron. 3:904976. doi: 10.3389/felec.2022.904976

Received: 26 March 2022; Accepted: 09 August 2022;
Published: 01 September 2022.

Edited by:

Yuanmao Ye, Guangdong University of Technology, China

Reviewed by:

Hsueh-Hsien Chang, Jinwen University of Science and Technology, Taiwan
Jinhong Sun, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China

Copyright © 2022 Liu and Zhuang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Tian-Hua Liu, Liu@mail.ntust.edu.tw

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.