Current Control for IPMSM Drives: Direct

Discrete-Time Pole-Placement Design

Marko Hinkkanen⇤ , Zengcai Qu⇤ , Hafiz Asad Ali Awan⇤ , Toni Tuovinen† , and Fernando Briz‡
⇤ Aalto University, Espoo, Finland
† ABB Drives, Helsinki, Finland
‡ University of Oviedo, Gijón, Spain

Abstract—This paper deals with discrete-time models and cur- approximation [1]–[5]. This approach is well understood and
rent control methods for synchronous motors with a magnetically works well in most applications. However, the closed-loop
anisotropic rotor structure, such as interior permanent-magnet control bandwidth and the maximum operating frequency are
synchronous motors (IPMSMs) and synchronous reluctance mo-
tors (SyRMs). Dynamic performance of current controllers based limited to below approximately 5% of the sampling frequency.
on continuous-time models is limited, especially if the ratio of the Furthermore, heuristic compensations for the angular errors
sampling frequency to the fundamental frequency is low. An exact due to time delays are often needed. Higher dynamic perfor-
closed-form hold-equivalent discrete motor model is derived. mance at a given sampling frequency could be achieved by
The zero-order hold of the stator-voltage input is modeled in designing the controller directly in the discrete-time domain
stationary coordinates, where it physically is. An analytical
discrete-time pole-placement design method for a two-degree-of- [6], [8]–[11].
freedom state-space current controller with an integral action is A hold-equivalent discrete model—including the effects
proposed. The proposed method is easy to apply: only the desired of the zero-order hold (ZOH) and a sampler—of the motor
closed-loop bandwidth and the three motor parameters (Rs , Ld , drive is needed for the direct discrete-time control design. An
Lq ) are required. The robustness of the proposed current control exact closed-form hold-equivalent model has been derived for
design against parameter errors is analyzed. The controller is
experimentally verified using a 6.7-kW SyRM drive. induction motor drives in [12] and an approximate discrete
Index Terms—Current control, delay, discrete-time model, model for the IPMSM drives has been proposed in [9],
interior permanent-magnet synchronous motor (IPMSM), syn- [10]. The exact closed-form hold-equivalent model for surface
chronous reluctance motor (SyRM), zero-order hold. permanent-magnet synchronous motor (SPMSM) drives can
be found in [6], [8], but the closed-form expressions valid for
I. I NTRODUCTION IPMSM drives are not available in the literature.
Synchronous motors with a magnetically anisotropic rotor— In this paper, current control designs based on discrete
such as interior permanent-magnet synchronous motors IPMSM models are considered. First, the motor model and the
(IPMSMs), synchronous reluctance motors (SyRMs), and control design in the continuous-time domain are reviewed in
permanent-magnet-assisted SyRMs—are more and more ap- Section II. Then, the main results are presented as follows.
plied in hybrid (or electric) vehicles, heavy-duty working 1) An exact closed-form hold-equivalent discrete model
machines, and industrial applications. In these applications, the for IPMSM drives is derived in Section III. The ZOH
maximum speeds and, consequently, the maximum operating of the stator-voltage input is modeled in stationary
frequencies can be very high (e.g., 12 000 r/min corresponding coordinates, where it physically is. The model provides
to the frequency of 1 000 Hz for a ten-pole machine). Since the mapping between the continuous-time model (with
the switching frequency of the converter feeding the motor physical parameters) and the discrete-time model. The
is limited due to the losses, the resulting ratio between the derived closed-form expressions can be applied to the
switching frequency and the maximum fundamental frequency design, analysis, and implementation of controllers and
can be even below ten. This will affect the sampling frequency, observers (e.g., in connection with deadbeat [13] or
too, as it is typically equal to or twice the switching frequency. predictive [14] direct torque control methods).
Generally, the stator current of synchronous motor drives 2) An analytical direct discrete-time pole-placement design
is controlled in rotor coordinates [1]–[11]. This coordinate method for a two-degree-of-freedom (2DOF) state-space
system is a natural selection since the controllable quantities current controller with an integral action is proposed in
are DC in steady state, the inductance matrix and the PM-flux Section IV. The time delays are inherently taken into
vector are (ideally) constant, and other parts of the control account in the design. The proposed method is easy to
system typically operate in rotor coordinates. The most widely apply: only the desired closed-loop bandwidth and the
used current control approach is to use a synchronous-frame three motor parameters are needed.
proportional-integral (PI) controller, often augmented with 3) The robustness of the proposed current control design
decoupling terms to compensate for the cross-coupling due to against parameter errors is analyzed in Section V. The
the rotating coordinate system. Typically, the controller is first operation of the controller is further investigated by
designed in the continuous-time domain and then discretized means of simulations and experiments using a 6.7-kW
for the digital implementation using, e.g., the Euler or Tustin SyRM drive.

978-1-4799-8900-3/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE 156

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Wisconsin. Downloaded on August 22,2020 at 09:44:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Naturally, the model and the control design method are directly and ui = [0, !m pm ]T is the voltage induced by the PM flux.
applicable to SPMSM drives as well. This induced voltage can be considered as a load disturbance
from the current controller point of view.
II. C ONTINUOUS -T IME M ODEL AND C ONTROL D ESIGN For the purposes of Section III, the stator voltage input in
A. Continuous-Time Model (2a) can be expressed in stator coordinates, leading to
In order to model IPMSMs, real space vectors will be used d
s (t)
throughout the paper. For example, the stator-current vector = A s (t) + B 0 (t)uss (t) + b pm (6)
dt
is is = [id , iq ]T , where id and iq are the components of the where the time-varying input matrix is
vector and the matrix transpose is marked with the superscript
T. The identity matrix, the orthogonal rotation matrix, and the B 0 (t) = e #m (t)J
(7)
zero matrix are defined, respectively, as1
   If constant !m is assumed, #m (t) = #m (0) + !m t holds.
1 0 0 1 0 0
I= , J= , O= (1) B. Preliminaries: Continuous-Time Current Control Design
0 1 1 0 0 0
Vectors are denoted using boldface lowercase letters and For starters, a continuous-time 2DOF PI-type current con-
matrices using boldface uppercase letters. Space vectors in troller is reviewed. A state controller with an integral action
stator coordinates are marked with the superscript ”s”, no and reference feedforward will be used as a design framework.
superscript is used for space vectors in rotor coordinates. In the Laplace domain, this control law, expressed in rotor
The electrical angular speed and angle of the rotor are coordinates, is
denoted by !m and #m (t) = s !m dt, respectively. The time K ic
dependency of the variables is denoted by the argument t. It is us,ref (s) = K tc is,ref (s) + [is,ref (s) is (s)]
K 1c is (s)
s
worth noticing that the rotor speed and the motor parameters (8)
will be considered as quasi-constant parameters, when the where us,ref is the resulting reference voltage, is,ref is the
continuous-time model is discretized. reference current, K tc is the feedforward gain, K ic is the
In rotor coordinates, the state-space representation corre- integral gain, and K 1c is the state feedback gain. The gains
sponding to the standard model of the IPMSM is are real 2⇥2 matrices. The voltage production of the inverter is
assumed to be accurate and delayless, i.e., us = us,ref holds.
d s (t) Using (4) and (8), the closed-loop current response becomes
=A s (t) + Bus (t) + b pm (2a)
dt
is (t) = C s (t) +d pm (2b) is (s) = H c (s)is,ref (s) Y ic (s)ui (s) (9)

where s is the stator flux vector, us is the stator voltage The closed-loop transfer-function matrices for the reference
vector, and pm is the permanent-magnet (PM) flux. The following and disturbance rejection are
system matrices are
  H c (s) = (s2 I + sA1c + A0c ) 1
(sB 1c + B 0c ) (10)
Rs /Ld !m Rs /Ld 2
Y ic (s) = (s I + sA1c + A0c ) 1
(sC) (11)
A= , B = I, b =
!m Rs /Lq 0
  where
1/Ld 0 1/Ld
C= , d= (3)
0 1/Lq 0 A0c = CK ic , A1c = C(K 1c AC 1
)
where Rs is the stator resistance, Ld is the direct-axis induc- B 0c = CK ic , B 1c = CK tc (12)
tance, and Lq is the quadrature-axis inductance. The state-
space representation in (2) has two inputs: the stator voltage General control objectives for current controllers are: 1) no
us (t) and the PM flux pm (which is constant). If Ld = Lq , cross-coupling between the d- and q-axis and 2) the same
the model represents the SPMSM. If pm = 0, the model of closed-loop dynamics for both the axes. Hence, the non-
the SyRM is obtained. diagonal elements of H c (s) should be zero due to the first
The model (2) can be expressed in the Laplace domain as objective and the diagonal elements should be equal due to the
second objective. The resulting desired closed-loop transfer-
is (s) = Y c (s) [us (s) ui (s)] (4) function matrix is of the form
where the transfer-function matrix is b1c s + b0c
H c? (s) = 2 I (13)
 1
s + a1c s + a0c
1 Rs + sLd !m Lq
Y c (s) = C(sI A) = (5) Based on (12) and (13), the closed-loop poles and zeros can
!m Ld Rs + sLq
be placed using the relations
1 The notation is very similar to that obtained for complex space vectors: 1 1
the rotation matrix J corresponds to the imaginary unit j and the coordinate K tc = b1c Ĉ , K ic = a0c Ĉ
transformation matrices can be expressed using matrix exponentials, i.e., 1 1
e#J = cos #I + sin #J. K 1c = ÂĈ + a1c Ĉ (14)

157

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Wisconsin. Downloaded on August 22,2020 at 09:44:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
where the hat indicates parameter estimates, e.g.: stator coordinates [6], [8]. An additional compensation for the
 delay due to the ZOH is needed in the first approach [17].
1 L̂ 0
Ĉ = d (15) The latter approach is chosen here, since it inherently takes
0 L̂q the ZOH delay properly into account.
Choosing the design parameters2 At this point, the system without the computational time
delay is considered, i.e., only the effect of the ZOH in the
a0c = ↵2 , a1c = 2↵, b1c = ↵ (16) stator-voltage input is taken into account. The system model
the transfer-function matrix (13) reduces to the first-order will then be augmented with the time delay of one sampling
unity-gain low-pass filter period in Section III-D. When the stator flux is used as the
↵ state variable, the discrete-time state-space representation is
H c? (s) = I (17) given by
s+↵
where ↵ is the desired closed-loop control bandwidth. If s (k + 1) = s (k) + us (k) + pm (18a)
accurate parameter estimates in (14) are assumed, H c (s) = is (k) = C s (k) + d pm (18b)
H c? (s) holds. It can be easily shown that the controller
corresponding to (8), (14), and (16) is equivalent to the 2DOF where , , , C, and d are the discrete-time system
PI-type current controller considered in [2], [15], [16]. matrices. The discrete-time state matrix is

Advantages of this pole-placement design are its simplicity = eATs = 11 12
(19)
and easy tuning: only the desired bandwidth ↵ and three 21 22
parameter estimates (R̂s , L̂d , and L̂q ) are needed. For digital 0
The input matrix B (t) in (7) corresponding to the stator
implementation, the algorithm has to be discretized using, e.g.,
voltage is time variant. Hence, the discrete-time input matrix
the Euler or Tustin methods. Unfortunately, unless the sam-
becomes
pling frequency is much higher than the closed-loop bandwidth Z Ts 
and the maximum operating frequency, the actual closed-loop = eA⌧ B 0 (Ts ⌧ )d⌧ · e#m (0)J = 11 12
(20)
system deviates significantly from (17) due to discretization 0 21 22
errors, leading to the cross-coupling between the d- and q- The input matrix corresponding to the PM flux is
axis, oscillations, or even instability. Z Ts 
Assuming accurate parameter estimates in (14), the = e d⌧ · b = 1
A⌧
(21)
disturbance-rejection transfer-function matrix in (11) reduces 0 2
to Y ic? (s) = s/(s + ↵)2 C. Alternatively, the poles and The closed-form expressions of the elements in (19)–(21) are
zeros could be placed using the complex vector design [3], given in the Appendix.
which leads to the same desirable reference-following transfer- In the case of the SPMSM, where Ld = Lq = L, the exact
function matrix (17), but the disturbance-rejection transfer- discrete-time model becomes much simpler. As an example,
function matrix becomes different. According to [3], the the system matrices and reduce to3
complex vector design reduces the sensitivity to parameter Ts
mismatch. Ts !m Ts J 1 e !m Ts J
=e e , = e (22)
III. D ISCRETE -T IME M ODELS where = Rs /L. These expressions are mathematically
A. Exact Model identical to those given in [6], [8] (where the complex-valued
For the development of an exact discrete-time model, sam- space-vector notation has been used).
pling of the stator currents is assumed to be synchronized B. Approximation Based on Series Expansion
with the pulse-width modulation (PWM). The switching-cycle
averaged quantities are considered. Under these assumptions, The system matrix in (18) can be expressed using the
the stator voltage in stator coordinates is piecewise constant series expansion [18]
between two consecutive sampling instants, which corresponds = I + Ts A (23)
to the ZOH in stator coordinates. In other words, uss (t) is
constant during kTs < t < (k + 1)Ts , where Ts is the where
Ts A Ts2 A2
sampling period and k is the discrete-time index. The sampling =I+ + + ... (24)
frequency is defined by fs = 1/Ts . 2! 3!
In the derivation of discrete-time models, two different The exact voltage input matrix cannot be easily expressed
approaches to model the stator-voltage input have been used as a series expansion due to the time-varying matrix B 0 (t) in
in the literature depending on whether the ZOH of the voltage (7). If the ZOH of the stator voltage were in rotor coordinates,
input is assumed to be in rotor coordinates [7], [17] or in the matrix would equal Ts B. However, the voltage is kept
constant in stator coordinates during the sampling period as
2 When placing the poles, it is often convenient to express the characteristic
polynomial as s2 + 2⇣!0 s + !02 , where !0 is undamped angular frequency 3 Unlike the IPMSM model, the SPMSM model could be expressed using
and ⇣ is the damping ratio. Hence, a0c = !02 and a1c = 2⇣!0 . complex space vectors by replacing the matrix J with the imaginary unit.

158

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Wisconsin. Downloaded on August 22,2020 at 09:44:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Plant model Y (z)
Kt
u0 ss,ref (k) uss (k)
PWM
is,ref (k) 1 us,ref (k)
1
Ki e(#m +!m Ts )J z ZOH
z 1

xi (k)
K1 K2 z 1

is (k) iss (k)

e #m J

#m (k)
M

Fig. 1. 2DOF state-space current controller with an integral action. The sampling of the stator currents is synchronized with the PWM. The effects of the
ZOH in stator coordinates, the coordinate transformations, and the computational time delay z 1 are included in the plant model. The angular error due to
the time delay is compensated for in the coordinate transformation of the stator voltage. The gains K 1 , K 2 , K i , and K t are 2 ⇥ 2 matrices.

discussed before. In [17], an approximate compensation for It is worth noticing that both the states are readily available
this effect was derived. Applying this compensation, the input as feedback signals in the state feedback control: is is the
matrix for the voltage can be approximated as measured feedback and us is obtained from the previous value
!m Ts /2 of the reference voltage us,ref .
⇡ Ts B e (!m Ts /2)J (25) In the following section, the current controller will be
sin(!m Ts /2)
designed based on the reference-following dynamics (similarly
Since the PM flux is constant in rotor coordinates, the input
as in Section II-B). The effect of the disturbance voltage ui on
matrix for the PM flux is
the stator current will be omitted for simplicity. If needed, its
= Ts b (26) effect can be analyzed separately based on the superposition
principle. Hence, from (29), the stator current in the z-domain
Typically, only the first two terms of (24) are needed, i.e.,
can be expressed as is (z) = Y (z)us,ref (z), where
= I + (Ts /2)A. Choosing = I yields the Euler approx-
imation, which suffices only at high sampling frequencies. Y (z) = z 1
(zI F) 1
G (30)
C. Current as a State Variable
IV. D ISCRETE -T IME C URRENT C ONTROL D ESIGN
The current control design becomes more straightforward,
if the stator current is chosen as a state variable. With this A. Framework
selection, the state equation can be expressed as A 2DOF state-space controller with an integral action,
shown in Fig. 1, is considered. The control law is
is (k + 1) = F is (k) + Gus (k) + g pm (27)
where the new system matrices are xi (k + 1) = xi (k) + is,ref (k) is (k) (31a)
1 us,ref (k) = K t is,ref (k) + K i xi (k)
F =C C , G=C , g = (I F )d + C (28) (31b)
K 1 is (k) K 2 us (k)
D. Inclusion of the Control Delay
Fig. 1 shows the plant model from the control system where xi is the integral state, K i is the integral gain, K t is the
point of view. As shown in the figure, the digital control feedforward gain, K 1 and K 2 are the state-feedback gains,
system and PWM update have (at least) one-sampling-period and us (k + 1) = us,ref (k). Since all the states are directly
time delay due to the finite computation time, i.e., uss (k) = available, the closed-loop poles can be placed arbitrarily. The
s
u0 s,ref (k 1) in stator coordinates, or, when transformed control law (31) can be expressed in the z-domain as
into rotor coordinates, us (k) = e !m Ts J u0s,ref (k 1). To Ki
us,ref (z) = K t is,ref (z) + [is,ref (z) is (z)]
simplify the notation, us,ref = e !m Ts J u0s,ref is defined, z 1 (32)
giving us (k) = us,ref (k 1). The effect of the time delay K2
K 1 is (z) us,ref (z)
on the voltage angle can be easily compensated for in the z
coordinate transformation of the reference voltage (cf. Fig. 1). From (30) and (32), the closed-loop dynamics become
For control design, the time delay can be included in the
plant model as [18] is (z) = H(z)is,ref (z) (33)
    
is (k + 1) F G is (k) O g where
= + us,ref (k) +
us (k + 1) O O us (k) I 0 pm
(29) H(z) = (z 3 I + z 2 A2 + zA1 + A0 ) 1
(zB 1 + B 0 ) (34)

159

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Wisconsin. Downloaded on August 22,2020 at 09:44:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
and the matrices are Due to the time delay, a0 = 0 is selected. The gain matrices
1
can be solved using (35) and (38):
A0 = G(K 2 G F + Ki K 1) 1 1 2
A1 = F + G[K 1 K 2G 1
(I + F )] K 1 = K i + (1 + a2 )Ĝ F̂ + Ĝ F̂
1
1 K 2 = (1 + a2 )I + Ĝ F̂ Ĝ
A2 = GK 2 G I F
1 1
B 0 = G(K i K t ), B 1 = GK t (35) K t = b1 Ĝ , K i = (1 + a1 + a2 )Ĝ (39)
A closed-loop state-space representation can be formed Using these expressions, the poles and zero in (38) can be
from (29) and (31) as arbitrarily placed. The gains depend on the rotor speed via the
2 3 2 32 3 matrices F̂ and Ĝ.
is (k + 1) F G O is (k) Choosing the coefficients a1 = 2 , a2 = 2 , and b1 =
4us (k + 1)5 = 4 K 1 K 2 K i 5 4us (k)5 (36) 1 leads to
xi (k + 1) I O I xi (k) 1
H ? (z) = I (40)
where the inputs are omitted for simplicity. The poles of (34) z(z )
equal the eigenvalues of the system matrix in (36). The system where = e ↵Ts is the exact mapping in the discrete domain
is stable if the eigenvalues are inside the unit circle. When of the intended real pole of the system. The diagonal matrix
analyzing the robustness of the system, it is worth noticing that consists of the delay and the first-order unity-gain low-pass
F and G should be the exact system matrices calculated using filter; the pole in (38) is cancelled by the zero in a similar
the actual motor parameters, while the gains can be based on manner as in the continuous-time case in (17), cf. Section II-B.
approximations and erroneous parameter estimates (depending In digital control, the computational time delay z 1 cannot be
on the controller under analysis). If the control design is based avoided in practice. It is worth noticing that the same input
on the exact model and the motor parameters are perfectly parameters for the design are needed as in the continuous-time
known, the eigenvalues of (36) equal the desired closed-loop case (R̂s , L̂d , L̂q , and ↵). The proposed design can be seen
poles. as a discrete-time counterpart to the control law presented in
Section II-B.
B. Approximation of the Continuous-Time Design
V. R ESULTS
The gains of the discrete-time controller (31) can be deter-
mined by approximating the continuous-time controller (cf. A transverse-laminated 6.7-kW four-pole SyRM is consid-
Section II-B) with the Euler method. In the framework of ered. The rated values of the motor are: speed 3175 r/min;
Fig. 1, the angular error of !m Ts due to the computational frequency 105.8 Hz; line-to-line rms voltage 370 V; and rms
delay is compensated for in the coordinate transformation. current 15.5 A. Four different current control designs have
When approximating continuous-time designs, the angular been evaluated:
error of !m Ts /2 caused by the ZOH delay should also be Design 1: approximation of the continuous-time design;
taken into account [17]. Embedding this compensation into Design 2: proposed design based on the approximate model
the gains yields with = I;
⇣ 1 1
⌘ Design 3: proposed design based on the approximate model
K 1 = e(!m Ts /2)J 2↵Ĉ R̂s I !m J Ĉ , K2 = O with = I + (Ts /2)A;
1 1 Design 4: proposed design based on the exact model.
K t = e(!m Ts /2)J ↵Ĉ , K i = e(!m Ts /2)J Ts ↵2 Ĉ (37)
For brevity, only selected results are presented in the follow-
The performance of this design is acceptable if the sampling ing.
frequency is about twenty times higher than the closed-loop A. Robustness Analysis
bandwidth and the operating frequency. At lower sampling
frequencies, direct discrete-time design methods are preferred. The robustness of the four current control designs against
parameter errors is analyzed by calculating the eigenvalues
C. Proposed Direct Discrete-Time Design of (36). The controller gains have been calculated using the
parameter estimates L̂d = 2.0 p.u., L̂q = 0.3 p.u., and R̂s =
General control objectives for current controllers in the case 0.04 p.u. The desired bandwidth ↵ is varied in a range from
of the discrete-time design are the same as in the continuous- 0 to 2⇡·500 rad/s.
time case, cf. Section II-B. Hence, the non-diagonal elements Fig. 2 shows the stability maps as a function of the desired
of H(z) in (34) should be zero in order to avoid cross- bandwidth ↵ and the ratio Lq /L̂q . The actual inductance Lq
coupling of the axes and the diagonal elements should be equal is varied in a range from 0 to 2.5L̂q , while other actual
in order to achieve the same dynamics for both the axes. The parameters perfectly match with their estimates. Figs. 2(a)
desirable closed-loop transfer-function matrix is of the form and 2(b) show the stability maps at zero speed when the
b1 z + b 0 sampling frequency is 2 kHz and 1 kHz, respectively. It can be
H ? (z) = I (38) seen that Design 1 has clearly the smallest stable regions: the
z3 + a2 z 2 + a1 z + a0

160

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Wisconsin. Downloaded on August 22,2020 at 09:44:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 îòë îòë
Ü»­·¹² ï
Ü»­·¹² î
Ü»­·¹² í ø±ª»®´¿°­ ©·¬¸ Ü»­·¹² î÷
î î Ü»­·¹² ì ø±ª»®´¿°­ ©·¬¸ Ü»­·¹² î÷

ïòë Ü»­·¹² ï ïòë

¯

¯
Ô¯ ãÔ

Ô¯ ãÔ
Ü»­·¹² î
Ü»­·¹² í ø±ª»®´¿°­ ©·¬¸ Ü»­·¹² î÷
ï Ü»­·¹² ì ø±ª»®´¿°­ ©·¬¸ Ü»­·¹² î÷ ï

ðòë ðòë

ð ð
ð î°Iïðð î°Iîðð î°Iíðð î°Iìðð î°Iëðð ð î°Iïðð î°Iîðð î°Iíðð î°Iìðð î°Iëðð
ô ø®¿¼ñ­÷ ô ø®¿¼ñ­÷
(a) (b)
îòë îòë
Ü»­·¹² ï
Ü»­·¹² î
Ü»­·¹² í
î Ü»­·¹² ì ø±ª»®´¿°­ ©·¬¸ Ü»­·¹² í÷ î

Ü»­·¹² ï ø«²­¬¿¾´»÷
ïòë ïòë Ü»­·¹² î
¯

¯
Ô¯ ãÔ

Ô¯ ãÔ
Ü»­·¹² í
Ü»­·¹² ì
ï ï

ðòë ðòë

ð ð
ð î°Iïðð î°Iîðð î°Iíðð î°Iìðð î°Iëðð ð î°Iïðð î°Iîðð î°Iíðð î°Iìðð î°Iëðð
ô ø®¿¼ñ­÷ ô ø®¿¼ñ­÷
(c) (d)

Fig. 2. Stability maps for the four different current control designs as a function of the desired bandwidth ↵ and the ratio Lq /L̂q : (a) electrical angular
speed !m = 0 of the rotor, the sampling frequency fs = 2 kHz; (b) !m = 0, fs = 1 kHz; (c) !m = 2⇡ · 200 rad/s, fs = 2 kHz; and (d) !m = 2⇡ · 200
rad/s, fs = 1 kHz.

quency is 2 kHz and 1 kHz, respectively. When the sampling

frequency is 1 kHz, Design 1 has no stable region at all.
Further, the stable region of Design 2 is very small: ↵ is
limited to about 2⇡·50 rad/s, if there are no parameter errors.
The stable regions of Designs 3 and 4 are comparatively large.
A comparison of Figs. 2(c) and 2(d) show that decreasing the
sampling frequency from 2 kHz to 1 kHz makes the stable
regions smaller in all the designs and the difference between
Designs 3 and 4 increases.
The robustness against erroneous L̂d and R̂s has also been
analyzed. In the case of L̂d , the results are very similar to
Fig. 3. Stability maps for the four different current control designs as a those in Fig. 2 and are not shown here. All the current control
function of the desired bandwidth ↵ and the ratio Rs /R̂s . The speed is !m = designs are almost insensitive to errors in R̂s in the whole
2⇡ · 200 rad/s and the sampling frequency is fs = 1 kHz.
speed range. As an example, Fig. 3 shows the stability maps as
a function of the desired bandwidth ↵ and the ratio Rs /R̂s . The
desired bandwidth ↵ is limited to about 2⇡·150 rad/s when actual resistance Rs is varied in a range from 0 to 2.5R̂s , while
the sampling frequency is 2 kHz and to about 2⇡·75 rad/s other actual parameters perfectly match with their estimates.
when the sampling frequency is 1 kHz. The stable regions of The speed is !m = 2⇡ · 200 rad/s and the sampling frequency
Designs 3 and 4 basically overlap with those of Design 2, i.e., is 1 kHz. It can be seen that the stable region of Design 2 is
there are no significant differences between Designs 2. . . 4. A almost independent of the stator resistance error. Further, the
comparison of Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) shows that decreasing the stable regions of Designs 3 and 4 effectively cover the whole
sampling frequency from 2 kHz to 1 kHz makes the stable area. Design 1 is unstable due to the low sampling frequency
regions smaller in all the designs. It is worth noticing that, if (independently of the stator resistance error).
Lq > L̂q , the actual bandwidth becomes generally lower than It is worth noticing that the actual parameters were assumed
the desired bandwidth ↵. to be constant (but erroneous) in this robustness analysis. In
Figs. 2(c) and 2(d) show the stability maps at the electrical practice, the actual inductances may vary significantly (due
angular speed !m = 2⇡ · 200 rad/s when the sampling fre- to the magnetic saturation) even during one sampling period,

161

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Wisconsin. Downloaded on August 22,2020 at 09:44:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 0.4 0.6

0.4
0.2
0.2
id , iq (p.u.)

id , iq (p.u.)
0 0

−0.2
−0.2
−0.4

−0.4 −0.6
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
t (s) t (s)
(a) (a)
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
id , iq (p.u.)

id , iq (p.u.)
0 0

−0.2 −0.2

−0.4 −0.4
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
t (s) t (s)
(b) (b)

Fig. 4. Simulation results at the speed !m = 2⇡ · 200 rad/s with the accurate Fig. 5. Simulation results at the speed !m = 2⇡ · 200 rad/s for Design 4: (a)
parameter estimates: (a) Design 3; (b) Design 4. The desired bandwidth is Lq = 0.7L̂q ; (b) Lq = 1.5L̂q . The desired bandwidth is ↵ = 2⇡ · 100 rad/s
↵ = 2⇡ · 100 rad/s and the sampling frequency is fs = 1 kHz. Sampled and the sampling frequency is fs = 1 kHz. Sampled values of id (blue), iq
values of id (blue), iq (red), and their references (black) are shown. (red), and their references (black) are shown.

which causes additional bandwidth limitations. is close to the stability boundary. In Fig. 5(b), the actual
inductance is Lq = 1.5L̂q . The step response is now well
B. Simulation Results damped, but the actual bandwidth is much less than the desired
Figs. 4 and 5 show time-domain simulation results of the bandwidth.
current waveforms. The electrical angular speed of the rotor
C. Experimental Results
is !m = 2⇡ · 200 rad/s. The desired bandwidth is ↵ = 2⇡ ·
100 rad/s and the sampling frequency is 1 kHz. The current The discrete-time current controllers were experimentally
references id,ref and iq,ref are changed stepwise. The sampled investigated using the 6.7-kW SyRM drive. A servo induction
values of the current components id and iq are shown (but the machine was used as a loading machine in the speed-control
ripple between the sampling instants is fairly large at this low mode. The four current control designs (described in the
sampling frequencies, cf. [7]). beginning of the section) were implemented in a dSPACE
Figs. 4(a) and 4(b) show the results for Designs 3 and 4, DS1104 PPC/DSP board. The sampling was synchronized with
respectively. The actual parameters perfectly match with their the PWM. The sampling and switching frequencies were 2
estimates. Some cross-coupling and overshoot appears in Fig. kHz.
4(a), while the results in Fig. 4(b) completely agree with the The actual inductances Ld (id , iq ) and Lq (id , iq ) of the
desired performance. If the sampling frequency were increased SyRM depend significantly on the current components due to
to 2 kHz, the results of Design 3 would become very close the magnetic saturation. The saturation effects were modeled
to those of Design 4. In accordance with the stability maps in the estimates L̂d and L̂q by means of the power functions
in Fig. 2(d), the time-domain simulations for Designs 1 and 2 [19]. In order to properly model the effect of the differential
were unstable under these operating conditions. inductances, a one-step prediction of the inductance estimates
Fig. 5 demonstrates the effects of parameter mismatches would be needed, since the transformations in (28) become
on the step responses in the case of Design 4. The actual F (k) = C(k + 1) (k)C 1 (k) and G(k) = C(k + 1) (k).
inductance is Lq = 0.7L̂q in Fig. 5(a), where significant Here, for simplicity, the effect of the differential inductances
oscillations appear. These oscillations could also be anticipated was omitted, i.e., the matrices were calculated as F̂ (k) =
1
based on Fig. 2(d), where the given operating condition Ĉ(k) ˆ (k)Ĉ (k) and Ĝ(k) = Ĉ(k) ˆ (k).

162

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Wisconsin. Downloaded on August 22,2020 at 09:44:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 1.2 0.4

0.8
0.2
0.4
id , iq (p.u.)

id , iq (p.u.)
0 0

−0.4
−0.2
−0.8

−1.2 −0.4
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
t (s) t (s)
(a)
Fig. 6. Experimental results at the rotor speed !m = 0 for Design 4. The
desired bandwidth is ↵ = 2⇡·100 rad/s and the sampling frequency is fs = 2 0.4
kHz. Sampled values of id (blue), iq (red), and their references (black) are
shown.
0.2

id , iq (p.u.)
Fig. 6 shows an example of experimental results at zero
0
speed. The current references are changed stepwise. Design 4
is used. Designs 2 and 3 gave similar results, in accordance
with the stability maps in Fig. 2(a). It can be seen that the −0.2
control response is close to the desired response, except for
the oscillations after the steps in iq,ref . The fast change in iq −0.4
causes both Ld and Lq change substantially even during one 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
t (s)
sampling period. The cross-saturation also causes some cross- (b)
coupling between the d- and q-axis. These oscillations could
probably be reduced by taking the effect of the differential Fig. 7. Experimental results at the rotor speed !m = 2⇡ · 200 rad/s: (a)
Design 2; (b) Design 4. The desired bandwidth is ↵ = 2⇡ · 100 rad/s and
inductances into account in the saturation model. Generally, the sampling frequency is fs = 2 kHz. Sampled values of id (blue), iq (red),
the saturation effects tend to be less severe in IPMSMs and and their references (black) are shown.
PM-assisted SyRMs than in SyRMs.
Fig. 7 shows examples of experimental results at the rotor model or a series expansion (where one more term than in the
speed !m = 2⇡ · 200 rad/s. The desired bandwidth is ↵ = Euler method already gives good results). According to the
2⇡ · 100 rad/s and the sampling frequency is 2 kHz. Designs results of eigenvalue analysis, simulations, and experiments,
2 and 4 are used in Figs. 7(a) and 7(b), respectively. The the proposed design improves the dynamic performance and
stator voltage is approximately zero until t = 0.02 s, but after robustness especially at high speeds as compared to the
the step in id,ref , the voltage increases up to about 80% of the benchmark methods. The design method is directly applicable
rated value. The system remains stable in the case of Design 2, to SPMSM drives as well.
but much noise and some cross-coupling can be observed. The
performance of Design 4 is much better. The ripple seen in the A PPENDIX
waveforms in Fig. 7(b) originates mainly from the imperfect E XACT D ISCRETE -T IME M ODEL
magnetic saturation model. At this sampling frequency of 2 The closed-form solutions for the elements of in (19) are
kHz, the results for Design 3 were very similar to those for 
Ts sinh( Ts )
Design 4 shown in Fig. 7(b), in accordance with the stability 11 = e cosh( Ts )
maps in Fig. 2(c). 
Ts sinh( Ts )
22 = e cosh( Ts ) +
VI. C ONCLUSIONS
sinh( Ts )
An exact closed-form hold-equivalent discrete model of 21 = 12 = !m e Ts
(41)
IPMSM and SyRM drives was derived. The model can be p
where 2 and4
2
applied to design, analysis, and implementation of controllers = !m
and observers. Further, an analytical discrete pole-placement ✓ ◆ ✓ ◆
Rs 1 1 Rs 1 1
design method for a 2DOF state-space current controller with = + , = (42)
2 Ld Lq 2 Ld Lq
an integral action was proposed. The time delays are inherently
p
taken into account in the design. The proposed design method 4 If!m2 > 2 , then = j im = j !m 2 2 is imaginary. All

is easy to apply: only the desired closed-loop bandwidth and the matrix elements remain real since cosh(j im Ts ) = cos( im Ts ) and
sinh(j im Ts )/(j im ) = sin( im Ts )/ im hold due to the properties of
three motor parameters are needed. The hold-equivalent model hyperbolic functions. Furthermore, for = 0, these functions reduce to
applied in the current control design can be either the exact cosh( Ts ) = sinh( Ts )/ = 1.

163

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Wisconsin. Downloaded on August 22,2020 at 09:44:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 The closed-form solutions for the elements of in (20) are [10] W. Peters and J. Böcker, “Discrete-time design of adaptive current
h controller for interior permanent magnet synchronous motors (IPMSM)
with high magnetic saturation,” in Proc. IEEE IECON’13, Vienna,
11 = G g11 cos(!m Ts ) g12 sin(!m Ts ) g11 11
Austria, Nov. 2013, pp. 6608–6613.
i [11] A. Altomare, A. Guagnano, F. Cupertino, and D. Naso, “Discrete-time
2
+ ( + )!m ( 11 22 ) control of high speed salient machines,” in Proc. IEEE ECCE 2014,
h i Pittsburgh, PA, Sept. 2014, pp. 3528–3534.
12 = G g12 cos(!m Ts ) + g11 sin(!m Ts ) g12 11 + g22 21 [12] J.-C. Alacoque, “Discrete-time modelling — flux and torque deadbeat
h i control for induction machine,” in Proc. EPE-PEMC’06, Portorož,
= G g21 cos(!m Ts ) g22 sin(!m Ts ) g21 g11 Slovenia, Aug./Sept. 2006, pp. 1099–1104.
21 22 21
[13] J. S. Lee, C.-H. Choi, J.-K. Seok, and R. D. Lorenz, “Deadbeat-direct
h torque and flux control of interior permanent magnet synchronous ma-
22 = G g22 cos(!m Ts ) + g21 sin(!m Ts ) g22 22 chines with discrete time stator current and stator flux linkage observer,”
i (43) IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 1749–1758, July/Aug. 2011.
2
+( )!m ( 22 11 ) [14] T. Geyer, “Model predictive direct torque control: derivation and analysis
of the state-feedback control law,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 49, no. 5,
pp. 2146–2157, Sept./Oct. 2013.
where G = 1/[( 2 2 2
) +4 2 2
!m ] and [15] L. Harnefors, K. Pietiläinen, and L. Gertmar, “Torque-maximizing field-
weakening control: design, analysis, and parameter selection,” IEEE
g11 = ( ) 2 ( + ) + 4 !m
2
, g12 = 2( ) !m Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 161–168, Feb. 2001.
2 2 [16] O. Wallmark, S. Lundberg, and M. Bongiorno, “Input admittance
g21 = 2( + ) !m , g22 = ( + ) ( ) + 4 !m (44) expressions for field-oriented controlled salient PMSM drives,” IEEE
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 1514–1520, Mar. 2012.
In the previous derivations, it is important to notice that [17] B.-H. Bae and S.-K. Sul, “A compensation method for time delay of
ex+y = ex ey does not hold for matrix exponentials in general. full-digital synchronous frame current regulator of PWM AC drives,”
The elements of in (21) are given by IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 802–810, May/June 2003.
[18] G. F. Franklin, J. D. Powell, and M. Workman, Digital Control of
Dynamic Systems, 3rd ed. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley, 1997.
1 = H [( )(1 11 ) !m 21 ] [19] Z. Qu, T. Tuovinen, and M. Hinkkanen, “Inclusion of magnetic satu-
 ✓ ◆
11 + 22 ration in dynamic models of synchronous reluctance motors,” in Proc.
2 =H 21 + !m 1 (45) ICEM’12, Marseille, France, Sept. 2012, pp. 994–1000.
2
where H = ( + )/[( + )( 2
) + !m ].
Marko Hinkkanen (M’06–SM’13) received the M.Sc.(Eng.) and D.Sc.(Tech.)
degrees from Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland, in 2000
ACKNOWLEDGMENT and 2004, respectively. Since 2000, he has been with Helsinki University of
Technology (part of Aalto University, Espoo, since 2010). He is currently
The authors would like to thank Mr. Daniel Koslopp for an Assistant Professor (tenure track) with the Aalto University School of
preliminary analyses of discrete models. The work was sup- Electrical Engineering. His research interests include control systems, electric
ported in part by ABB Oy and in part by the Academy of drives, and power converters.
Finland. Zengcai Qu received the B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering and automa-
tion from Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China, in 2007 and the
R EFERENCES M.Sc. degree in space science and technology jointly from Lulea University of
Technology, Kiruna, Sweden, and Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo,
[1] T. M. Rowan and R. J. Kerkman, “A new synchronous current regulator Finland, in 2009. Since 2009, he has been working towards the D.Sc.(Tech.)
and an analysis of current-regulated PWM inverters,” IEEE Trans. Ind. degree at Aalto University, Espoo. His research interests are efficiency control
Appl., vol. IA-22, no. 4, pp. 678–690, July/Aug. 1986. and sensorless control of electric drives.
[2] L. Harnefors and H.-P. Nee, “Model-based current control of AC
machines using the internal model control method,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Hafiz Asad Ali Awan received the B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering
Appl., vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 133–141, Jan./Feb. 1998. from University of Engineering & Technology, Lahore, Pakistan in 2012.
[3] F. Briz del Blanco, M. W. Degner, and R. D. Lorenz, “Dynamic analysis Since 2013, he has been working towards his Masters degree in electrical
of current regulators for AC motors using complex vectors,” IEEE Trans. engineering at Aalto University, Espoo, Finland. His main research interest is
Ind. Appl., vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 1424–1432, Nov./Dec. 1999. the control of electric drives.
[4] F. Briz, M. W. Degner, and R. D. Lorenz, “Analysis and design of current
regulators using complex vectors,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 36, no. 3, Toni Tuovinen received the M.Sc. degree from the University of Helsinki,
pp. 817–825, May/June 2000. Helsinki, Finland, in 2005 and the M.Sc.(Eng.) degree from Helsinki Uni-
[5] H. Kim and R. D. Lorenz, “Improved current regulators for IPM machine versity of Technology, Espoo, Finland, in 2009. He received the D.Sc.(Tech.)
drives using on-line parameter estimation,” in Conf. Rec. IEEE-IAS degree from Aalto University, Espoo, in 2014. He is currently a Senior Design
Annu. Meeting, vol. 1, Pittsburgh, PA, Oct. 2002, pp. 86–91. Engineer with ABB Oy, Helsinki. His main research interests include the
[6] K.-K. Huh and R. D. Lorenz, “Discrete-time domain modeling and control of electric drives.
design for AC machine current regulation,” in Conf. Rec. IEEE-IAS
Annu. Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 2007, pp. 2066–2073. Fernando Briz (A’96–M’99–SM’06) received the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees
[7] J.-S. Yim, S.-K. Sul, B.-H. Bae, N. R. Patel, and S. Hiti, “Modified from the University of Oviedo, Gijón, Spain, in 1990 and 1996, respectively.
current control schemes for high-performance permanent-magnet AC From June 1996 to March 1997, he was a Visiting Researcher with the
drives with low sampling to operating frequency ratio,” IEEE Trans. University of Wisconsin, Madison. He is currently a Full Professor with the
Ind. Appl., vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 763–771, Mar./Apr. 2009. Department of Electrical, Computer and Systems Engineering, University of
[8] H. Kim, M. W. Degner, J. M. Guerrero, F. Briz, and R. D. Lorenz, Oviedo. His topics of interest include control systems, power converters and
“Discrete-time current regulator design for AC machine drives,” IEEE ac drives, machine diagnostics and digital signal processing. Dr. Briz received
Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 1425–1435, July/Aug. 2010. the 2005 IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON I NDUSTRY A PPLICATIONS Third Place
[9] W. Peters, T. Huber, and J. Böcker, “Control realization for an interior Prize Paper Award and was the recipient of five IEEE Industry Applications
permanent magnet synchronous motor (IPMSM) in automotive drive Society Conference and IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition
trains,” in Conf. PCIM 2011, vol. 1, Nuremberg, Germany, May 2011, prize paper awards. He is currently Program Chair and Associate Editor of
pp. 98–103. the Industrial Drives Committee of the IAS-IPCSD.

164

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Wisconsin. Downloaded on August 22,2020 at 09:44:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)