applied

sciences
Article
A Novel Constant Power Factor Loop for Stable V/f Control of
PMSM in Comparison against Sensorless FOC with
Luenberger-Type Back-EMF Observer Verified by Experiments
Michal Vidlak 1, * , Pavol Makys 1 and Lukas Gorel 2

1 Department of Power Systems and Electric Drives, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information
Technology, University of Zilina, Univerzitna 1, 010 26 Zilina, Slovakia
2 Vehicle Control & Networking Solutions, NXP Semiconductors, 1. Maje 1009,
756 61 Roznov pod Radhostem, Czech Republic
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: This paper proposes a novel constant power factor loop in the V/f control strategy with
stabilization for a permanent magnet synchronous motor (PMSM). The advantage of such an al-
gorithm is the independence of the machine parameters, which vary under different operational
conditions, e.g., with temperature, magnetic core saturation, and skin-effect. Furthermore, it is a low-
cost and simple-to-implement sensorless solution. The proposed strategy is compared against tradi-
tional sensorless FOC with a Luenberger-type back-electromotive force (EMF) observer, which can be
designed based on the machine model. The output of this kind of observer is typically an error signal,
which can be specified for position deviation, requiring phase-locked loop (PLL) algorithm implemen-
tation. Employing PLL, a rotor speed and position can be estimated from such an error. Therefore, it is
Citation: Vidlak, M.; Makys, P.;
a complex sensorless technique with high-performance microcontroller unit (MCU) requirements.
Gorel, L. A Novel Constant Power
Both strategies are deeply analyzed, mathematically described, and compared within the paper. At
Factor Loop for Stable V/f Control of
PMSM in Comparison against
the end of the paper, these sensorless strategies are supported by experimental verification with
Sensorless FOC with a traction PMSM designed for golf cart applications, and the pros and cons of both techniques
Luenberger-Type Back-EMF are discussed.
Observer Verified by Experiments.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179. https:// Keywords: sensorless control; Luenberger-type back-EMF observer; V/f control; power factor
doi.org/10.3390/app12189179 control; permanent magnet synchronous motor
Academic Editors: Javier Poza,
Gaizka Ugalde and Gaizka
Almandoz
1. Introduction
Received: 20 August 2022
The sensorless techniques for different types of electric machines are still improving,
Accepted: 12 September 2022
especially in the automotive industry. PMSMs are highly demanded in such applications for
Published: 13 September 2022
their high power density factor, high dynamic features, robustness, and high efficiency. Due
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral to cost reduction, which is a critical factor, especially in the automotive industry, researchers
with regard to jurisdictional claims in are forced to find new solutions for not only electrical drive but also the battery management
published maps and institutional affil- system, power electronics, machine design, or software modifications of different control
iations. strategies. In particular, sensorless strategies are still very popular and attractive, because
they offer the elimination of mechanical speed or position sensors coupled with the rotor
shaft. This eliminates potential troubles coming mainly from the mechanical connection
but also coming with vibration or temperature instability. A damaged sensor or one with
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
inappropriate functionality would completely disable further motor operation in a sensored
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
motor drive. Therefore, a proper sensorless algorithm could improve the minimization
distributed under the terms and
of the final cost, and furthermore, this solution decreases drive volume or maintenance
conditions of the Creative Commons cost. However, sensorless control could also offer a specified level of redundancy in case of
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// a sudden mechanical sensor failure, which could be even more attractive, especially in the
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ automotive industry but not only in this field. In general, sensorless vector control is one of
4.0/).

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12189179 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 2 of 29

the alternatives for operating PMSM without a mechanical sensor. The second alternative
is a simpler scalar control, which also offers some benefits.
Vector control provides separate torque and flux control in AC machines. Such
a control strategy is similar to separately excited DC machines, in which a mechanical
commutator maintains such effect. Field-oriented control (FOC) is a common form of vector
control. This control strategy is primarily used for applications requiring high dynamic
performance, such as servo systems. In FOC, the control reference frame is oriented on the
flux vector. Therefore, the position of the flux vector has to be identified to ensure precise
and reliable speed or position control. The most accurate way to determine its position is
through the mechanical sensor. The other way to distinguish the location of the flux vector
is estimating its position by employing a sensorless algorithm. In this case, the requirement
of a mechanical sensor is eliminated. The sensorless algorithms could be divided into
two basic groups: model-based (back-EMF-based) and non-model based methods (well
known as saliency-based methods).
The model-based methods, as the name says, include an exact mathematical model
consisting of differential equations. The main idea is to estimate the back-EMF from stator
voltages and currents and then use this information to estimate rotor position and speed.
These methods provide a satisfactory control performance in medium- and high-speed
regions, and many algorithms have been proposed. These include an extended Kalman
filter (EKF) [1–3], a model reference adaptive system (MRAS) [4], a Luenberger observer [5],
and a sliding mode observer (SMO) [6–11]. There are also other methods such as a least-
order observer [12] and a disturbance observer [13]. These two employ an extended EMF
term and can be applied for interior PMSM (IPMSM), where the rotor position information
is contained not only in the flux or the EMF but also in the inductances due to their saliency.
In [14,15], authors used a special asymptotic state observer with PLL. A different approach
is proposed in [16], where an adaptive observer has been used. As was mentioned above,
the main drawback of model-based estimators is in low-speed regions, where they are
not applicable for well-known reasons (mostly for an unfavorable signal-to-noise ratio of
the voltage measurement). Different start-up algorithms have to be applied to overcome
this problem [17–19]. Another question is parameter variation, especially the precision of
current and voltage measurement, which influences the final quality of estimation. Many
of these aspects can be compensated [20,21]. In [22], the inductance compensation method
is presented to achieve enhanced torque control performance against parameter variation.
The adverse effects of the inverter harmonics were minimized in [23,24] with voltage
error compensation techniques. The low-speed limit evaluation of back-EMF tracking was
discussed in [25].
The non-model-based strategies offer parameter sensitiveness and work effectively in
zero and low-speed regions. However, these methods basically require any type of signal
injection, high-frequency (HF) voltage [26–32], or HF current [33] injection to utilize the
rotor saliency. Some methods can also be used for the surface PMSM (SPMSM), where the
d and q axis of the rotor are geometrically symmetrical [30–32]. The HF voltage injection
causes the saliency reflected current, including the rotor position information. Demodula-
tion processes are then used depending on various voltage and current injection types to
retrieve the rotor speed and position. Band-pass and low-pass filters are widely used to
obtain a rotor position error signal in the demodulation process. However, these filters in-
evitably have drawbacks, such as a time delay of the rotor speed or position estimation and
a limitation of current controllers’ bandwidth [29]. Square-wave injection methods [34–37]
are used to solve these issues. They offer an extended range of injected voltage frequency,
and accordingly, the bandwidth of the current controllers can be significantly enhanced.
As a result, dynamic control performance can be improved. However, there are some
adverse effects of the signal injection methods, for example, increased losses, torque ripples,
and acoustic noises. Furthermore, the maximum inverter output voltage at higher speeds
could limit the additional injected signal. Consequently, it is recommended to use the mag-
netic saliency-based method with signal injection at a standstill and low-speed range and
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 3 of 29

a back-EMF-based technique above a certain threshold speed in the medium- and high-
speed region [38] to provide sensorless control of PMSM in a wide speed range.
In some papers, strategies also known as hybrid techniques have been proposed to
provide a full-speed-range sensorless drive. They usually represent a combination of back-
EMF-based and magnetic saliency-based techniques. In [39,40], a transition algorithm is
proposed to achieve a smooth operation between the two estimation methods. Furthermore,
the combination of the model-based dynamic feedforward control and current injection is
proposed in [33].
In comparison with FOC, scalar control is simpler and could be an ideal low-cost
alternative in some applications where high dynamic performance is not crucial, such as
fans, compressor drives, or pumps. It is a strategy in which a motor terminal voltage V
changes in proportion to the applied frequency f, and hence, it can also be expressed as V/f
control. It maintains constant machine flux and thus constant torque production capability
up to the rated machine speed. Using V/f control, a stator resistance voltage drop can be
neglected at higher frequencies. However, the voltage drop cannot be ignored at lower
frequencies. In this region, boost voltage can be applied to the machine to compensate for
the voltage drop. This allows the motor to develop the necessary torque even at lower
speeds [41]. The other disadvantage of scalar control is a possible loss of synchronism,
leading to instability issues. For this purpose, a stabilizing loop may be applied to modulate
reference frequency and thus maintain synchronism. This correction provides system
damping and reduces the speed oscillations, stabilizing the system [42–44]. Some authors
have presented different approaches to V/f control. In [44], stable V/f control with high-
efficiency control is compared against sensorless FOC. Sensorless vector control in [44] is
composed of two estimation algorithms. The first is the saliency-based method with HF
frequency injection for low-speed operation. In the high-speed region, a back-EMF-based
method is used. However, the employed algorithms are not further specified in the paper.
V/f control including stabilizing loop is discussed in [43]. In [45], a high-efficiency V/f
control loop used a single DC shunt current measurement. Other authors in [46,47] used
different types of maximum torque per ampere (MTPA) methods based on imaginary power
factor calculation suitable for a V/f controlled PMSM drive. The control V/f algorithms
based on unity power factor (UPF) calculation are simulated and experimentally verified
in [48,49]. A similar technique is applied and compared with FOC in [50,51], where active
flux observer and MTPA are used. Stable V/f control with UPF was compared to back-
EMF-based sensorless FOC in [52], supported by simulation analysis. In [53], the MTPA
method, field-weakening, maximum torque per voltage (MTPV), and energy optimal V/f
control are proposed. V/f control with MTPA for SPMSM based on HF voltage signal
injection is presented in [54].
This paper proposes a novel constant power factor loop in the V/f control strategy
with stabilization. The proposed V/f control does not require information about PMSM
parameters and is robust against its variations. These parameters vary during motor oper-
ation, e.g., with the magnetic core saturation, temperature, and skin effect. Furthermore,
the proposed V/f control structure does not require the direct calculation of phase shift
between current and voltage, as employed in [48,49]. Instead, the phase shift can be con-
trolled directly in the voltage vector reference frame dv qv based on the demanded power
factor. The proposed strategy is then compared to the traditional sensorless FOC with
Luenberger-type back-EMF observer, which can be designed based on the machine model.
Both strategies are deeply analyzed, mathematically described, and compared within the
paper. At the end of the paper, these sensorless strategies are supported by experimental
verification with the traction PMSM designed for golf cart applications, and the pros and
cons of both techniques are discussed.

2. Mathematical Model of PMSM

The equations describing voltages in the three phase windings of PMSM can be written
in matrix form. If symmetrical three-phase winding on the stator is supposed, then it can
 2. Mathematical Model of PMSM
The equations describing voltages in the three phase windings of PMSM can be writ‐
ten in matrix form. If symmetrical three‐phase winding on the stator is supposed, then it
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 can be assumed that their resistances are identical: 𝑅 𝑅 𝑅 𝑅 . In the mathemati‐
4 of 29
cal model, the saturation and temperature effects are also neglected [55].
𝑣 𝑖 𝜓
𝑑
𝑣 𝑅 R𝑖 a = Rb =𝜓Rc = Rs . In the mathematical
be assumed that their resistances are identical: (1)
𝑑𝑡 𝜓
model, the saturation and temperature𝑣effects are𝑖 also neglected [55].

where 𝑣 , 𝑣 , 𝑣 are the three phase

va
 stator   𝑅 is the stator resistance, 𝑖 , 𝑖 , 𝑖
  voltages,
ia ψa
d
are the three phase stator currents, Rs i𝜓
vb  =and b ,+𝜓 , 𝜓
 ψb are the three phase stator flux
(1) link‐
dt
ages, given as: vc ic ψc

where v a , vb , vc are the three phase stator voltages, Rs is the stator cos 𝜃 i⎤a , ib , ic are the
𝜓 ⎡ resistance,
2𝜋
𝐿 𝐿 𝐿 𝑖
three phase stator currents, and ψa , ψb , ψc are the three phase ⎢stator flux linkages, given as:
cos 𝜃 ⎥
𝜓 𝐿 𝐿 𝐿 𝑖 𝜓 ⎢  3 ⎥ (2)
ψa 𝜓 L aa 𝐿 L ab 𝐿L ac 𝐿 i a 𝑖 ⎢ e
2𝜋 ⎥
     
cos ( θ )
ψb  =  Lba Lbb Lbc ib  + ψ pm cos ⎣θcos 𝜃
2π
e − 3
 3 ⎦ (2)
Lca Lcb Lcc ic 2π
ψc cos θe + 3
where 𝐿 , 𝐿 , 𝐿 are stator phase self‐inductances, 𝐿 𝐿 , 𝐿 𝐿 , 𝐿 𝐿
are mutual
where L aa , Linductances
bb , L cc are between
stator phase respective stator
self-inductances, phases,
L ab = L ba𝜓, L bc is
= the
L cb , permanent
L ca = L ac magnet
are
mutual
flux linkage, and 𝜃 between
inductances respectiverotor
is the electrical stator phases, ψ
position. By is the permanent
pmmeans of Clarke and magnetParkfluxtransfor‐
linkage, and
mation, three is the electrical
θe phase voltage (1)rotor position.
and By means(2)
flux equations of Clarke
can be and Park transformation,
transformed to the rotational
three phaseframe
reference voltage dq:(1) and flux equations (2) can be transformed to the rotational reference
frame dq:   𝑣  
id 𝑖 d ψ𝑑 𝜓 −ψq 𝜓
   
vd
=R 𝑅 + d
+ ωe 𝜔 (3) (3)
vq 𝑣 s iq 𝑖 dt ψ𝑑𝑡
q 𝜓 ψd 𝜓
where v𝑣
where d and
and 𝑣 the
vq are aredqtheaxis
dqvoltages, id and iq𝑖areand
axis voltages, 𝑖 axis
the dq are currents, ωe iscurrents,
the dq axis 𝜔 is the
the electrical
electrical angular velocity, and 𝜓 , 𝜓 are the dq axis flux linkages, defined as:
angular velocity, and ψd , ψ q are the dq axis flux linkages, defined as:

ψd 𝜓 Ld 𝐿0 i0 𝑖 1
      
1
= d
+ 𝜓 (4) (4)
ψq 𝜓 0 L0q 𝐿iq 𝑖 pm 0
ψ
0

where L𝐿d and

where Lq 𝐿are are
and theaxis
the dq dq inductances.
axis inductances. Substituting
Substituting (4) the
(4) into (5), intovoltage
(5), theequations
voltage equa‐
tions of the PMSM in dq coordinates lead to the following
of the PMSM in dq coordinates lead to the following form: form:
 𝑣   𝑖 𝐿0  d0i 𝑑 𝑖 − L i𝐿  𝑖   0
= Rs 𝑅 +𝑖 d 0 𝐿 d𝑑𝑡 +𝑖 ωe 𝜔 q 𝐿 q +𝑖ωe ψ pm𝜔 𝜓
vd id L 0 (5)
𝑣 1 (5)
vq iq 0 Lq dt iq Ld id 1
The mathematical model of PMSM in rotational reference frame dq is very popular
The mathematical model of PMSM in rotational reference frame dq is very popular for
for FOC structures, because both controllable quantities, current and voltage, are DC val‐
FOC structures, because both controllable quantities, current and voltage, are DC values,
ues, as is evident
as is evident from1.Figure
from Figure 1. In it
In addition, addition, it allowssimple
allows employing employing simple
controllers controllers
to force the to
force the machine currents to the required
machine currents to the required states. states.

Stationary reference frame Stationary reference frame Rotational reference frame

abc αβ dq

120° 120°
90° 90°
120°

Figure 1. Transformation
Figure 1. Transformation from
from stationary
stationary to rotational
to rotational reference
reference frame.frame.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 5 of 29

Appl.
Appl. Sci.
Sci. 2022,
2022, 12,
12, 9179
9179 55 of
of 28
28

The other important quantity of the machine is the electromagnetic torque. The
electromagnetic torque of the PMSM machine in rotational reference frame dq is defined as:
The
The other
other important
important quantity
quantity of
of the
the machine
machine isis the
the electromagnetic
electromagnetic torque.
torque. The
The elec‐
elec‐
tromagnetic
tromagnetic torque
torque of
of the
the PMSM
PMSM machine
3  in
machine in rotational
rotational reference

 frame
reference frame dq
dq is
is defined
defined as:
as:
Te = p ψ pm iq + Ld − Lq id iq (6)
3
23
𝑇
𝑇 𝑝 𝜓
𝑝𝜓 𝑖 𝑖 𝐿
𝐿 𝐿 𝑖
𝐿 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 (6)
(6)
22
where p is the number of pole pairs. The first term in Equation (6) represents a synchronous
where 𝑝
𝑝 is
is the
the number
where produced
torque number
by theof pole
pole pairs.
pairs. The
of permanent The first
first term
magnet flux,in
term Equation
inandEquation (6)
(6) represents
the second term isaa synchro‐
represents synchro‐
a reluctance
nous
nous torque
torquetorque produced
produced
dependent by the
the permanent
by rotor
on the saliency. magnet
permanent magnet
Both termsflux, and
and the
flux,reflect ansecond
the second term
term
essential is
is aa reluctance
aspect reluctance
of the torque
torque
torque dependent
in the on
dependent
production on the
the rotor
PMSM rotor saliency. Both
saliency.By
machine. Both terms
terms reflect
sublimation reflectofan
an essential
essential aspect of
of the
the torque
aspect torque
electromagnetic torque
and load
production
production in
in the
the PMSM
PMSM machine.
machine. By
By sublimation
sublimation
torque, the mechanical equation of PMSM can be presented as: of
of electromagnetic
electromagnetic torque
torque and
and load
load
torque,
torque, the
the mechanical
mechanical equation
equation of
of PMSM
PMSM can
can be
be presented
presented as:
as:
dω
T𝑇e − T = J𝑑𝜔
𝑑𝜔 m
(7) (7)
𝑇 𝑇 𝑇L 𝐽𝐽 𝑑𝑡
dt (7)
𝑑𝑡
whereT𝑇
where
where 𝑇L isis the
isthe load
theload torque, 𝐽J𝐽 is
torque,
load torque, is the moment
is the moment of
moment ofinertia,
of inertia, and𝜔
inertia,and
and 𝜔ωmis
isisthe
themechanical
the mechanical
mechanical angu‐
angular
angu‐
lar
lar velocity.
velocity. TheThe
velocity. block
block
The diagram
diagram
block of of
diagram the
of the PMSM
PMSMinin
PMSM
the rotational
inrotational reference
reference frame
rotational reference framedq
frame dqis
dq isisillustrated
illustrated in
illustrated
in
in Figure
Figure 22 [55]:
2 [55]:
Figure [55]:

Figure 2. Block
Block diagram
diagram of
Figure2.
Figure 2. Block diagram ofthe
of thePMSM
the PMSMin
PMSM ininrotational
rotational reference
reference
rotational frame
frame
reference dq.
dq. dq.
frame

3.3. Sensorless
Sensorless FOC
3.Sensorless FOC with
withLuenberger‐Type
with Luenberger-TypeBack‐EMF
Luenberger‐Type Back-EMF
Back‐EMF Observer
Observer
Observer
The
The back‐EMF
The back-EMF observer can
back‐EMF observer can be
can be used
be usedin
used inconjunction
in conjunctionwith
conjunction withthe
with thevector
the vectorcontrol
vector control strategy,
strategy,
control strategy, as
as shown
as shown
shown in Figure
in Figure
in Figure 3.
3. 3.

Figure
Figure 3.
3. Block
Block diagram
diagram of
of the
the sensorless
sensorless FOC
FOC with
with the
the Luenberger‐type
Luenberger‐type back‐EMF
back‐EMF observer
observer and
and
Figure 3. Block diagram of the sensorless FOC with the Luenberger-type back-EMF observer and
tracking
tracking observer.
observer.
tracking observer.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 6 of 28

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 6 of 29

Such a scheme can provide an alternative or redundant solution to the sensored con‐
trol drive. Thus, the drive is considered sensorless by removing the mechanical sensor
fromSuch a scheme
the rotor shaftcan
and provide an alternative
estimating or redundant
rotor speed solution
or position. to thethis
However, sensored
kind ofcontrol
observer
drive.
does not provide direct feedback on rotor speed and position. To solve this issue,from
Thus, the drive is considered sensorless by removing the mechanical sensor a track‐
the
ingrotor shaft can
observer andbe
estimating rotor speed
used to process the or position.
output However,
of the back‐EMFthis observer.
kind of observer doesthis
However,
not providestrategy
sensorless direct feedback
is basedononrotor
the speed
machineandmodel,
position.
andToitsolve thiscomplex,
is very issue, a tracking
leading to
observer can be used to process the output of the back-EMF observer. However, this
higher computational requirements for MCU. Furthermore, the implementation and cor‐
sensorless strategy is based on the machine model, and it is very complex, leading to higher
rect tuning of the several PI controllers, filters, etc., may be time‐consuming. Table 1 shows
computational requirements for MCU. Furthermore, the implementation and correct tuning
the main functions employed in this sensorless structure.
of the several PI controllers, filters, etc., may be time-consuming. Table 1 shows the main
functions employed in this sensorless structure.
Table 1. Sensorless FOC with the Luenberger‐type back‐EMF observer—complexity.
1. Sensorless
TableControl FOC with thePI
Structure Luenberger-type
I back-EMF
Park observer—complexity.
Clarke Atan Filters
Sensorless FOC
Control Structure PI I Park Clarke Atan Filters
with the Luenberger‐
Sensorless FOC 6 1 4 1 1 2
typewith
back‐EMF observer
the Luenberger-type 6 1 4 1 1 2
back-EMF observer
However, one should notice that the sensorless components in Table 1 are not match‐
ing with the block
However, diagram
one should in Figure
notice 3 sensorless
that the because the other components
components in Table 1are
arepart of the back‐
not matching
with the block diagram in Figure 3 because the other components are part of the back-EMF
EMF observer and tracking observer blocks. These are illustrated within the next sections.
observer and tracking observer blocks. These are illustrated within the next sections.
3.1. Sensorless FOC
3.1. Sensorless FOC
FOC is a common form of vector control. It is a cascade control structure with an
FOC is a common form of vector control. It is a cascade control structure with
inner current and outer speed loop. The control loops placed in series represent feedback
an inner current and outer speed loop. The control loops placed in series represent feedback
in a closed‐loop system. However, a transformation of the controllable motor quantities,
in a closed-loop system. However, a transformation of the controllable motor quantities,
such as current and voltage, from the stationary abc to the rotational reference system dq
such as current and voltage, from the stationary abc to the rotational reference system dq
must be conducted. In the dq coordinates, these variables become DC values. Thus, simple
must be conducted. In the dq coordinates, these variables become DC values. Thus, simple
controllerscan
controllers cancontrol
controlsuch
suchquantities,
quantities,
asas shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 4. 4.

Figure4.4.Transformations
Figure TransformationsininFOC
FOC scheme.
scheme.

PI
PIcontrollers
controllersare commonly
are commonlyused to maintain
used demanded
to maintain behavior
demanded by minimizing
behavior the
by minimizing
error between required and feedback variables. The parameters of these controllers,
the error between required and feedback variables. The parameters of these controllers, more
specifically proportional
more specifically and integral
proportional gain, have
and integral gain,tohave
be correctly calculated
to be correctly to adjust
calculated to the
adjust
dynamics of the whole system.
the dynamics of the whole system.
3.1.1. Current Loop
3.1.1. Current Loop
FOC is based on independent control of the machine torque and flux. Generally,
FOC is based on component
the torque-producing independentiscontrol of the machine
q-axis current, and thetorque and flux.
component Generally,
responsible for the
machine flux production is d-axis current. These components are part of the inner currentma‐
torque‐producing component is q‐axis current, and the component responsible for
chinewith
loop, fluxPI
production
controllersisplaced
d‐axisfor
current. These
each path, components
as shown are3.part
in Figure of the inner current
By compensating the
loop, with PI controllers
cross-coupling and back-EMFplaced for in
terms each
(5),path, as shown
simplified in Figure
voltage 3. By
equations cancompensating
be defined: the
cross‐coupling and back‐EMF  terms in (5), simplified
  voltage
  equations can be defined:
vd id Ld 0 d id
𝑣= Rs 𝑖
+ 𝐿 0 𝑑 𝑖 (8)
vq
𝑣 𝑅
iq
𝑖
0 Lq dt iq
0 𝐿 𝑑𝑡 𝑖
(8)

ItIt isisclear
clearfrom
from(8)
(8)that
thatthe
theequations areare
equations identical in in
identical structure. Therefore,
structure. thethe
Therefore, same
same
principle can be employed to calculate the gains of the controllers in both axes.
principle can be employed to calculate the gains of the controllers in both axes. The The only
only
 ver, the sampling time of the current loop and discrete form of the controllers h
considered. However, the effects of A/D converter and inverter transportation
neglected to simplify the controller design. The closed‐current loop can then be
with the following transfer functions representing RL circuit and current contro
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 7 of 29
1
𝐹 𝑠
𝐿𝑠 𝑅
difference lies in Ld and Lq , which leads to different proportional and integral gains K P , K I .
To accurately describe the current control loop, the transfer 𝑠 𝐾 of A/D converters
𝐾 functions
𝐹 𝑠 have to be evaluated. Moreover, the
and the voltage source inverter with a PWM modulator 𝑠
sampling time of the current loop and discrete form of the controllers have to be considered.
However, 𝐾 are
where 𝐾the, effects of the
A/Dproportional
converter andand integral
inverter gains ofdelay
transportation the current controller. T
are neglected
to simplify the controller design. The closed-current loop can then
fer function of a simplified closed‐current loop can be derived based on be designed with the(9) and
following transfer functions representing RL circuit and current controller:
𝐾 𝐾
𝐹 𝑠 𝐹1 𝑠 𝑠
𝐹 𝑠 FRL (s) = 𝐿 𝐿 (9)
1 𝐹 Ls 𝑠+
𝐹 Rs 𝑠 𝐾 𝑅 𝐾
𝑠 𝑠
K Pi s + K Ii 𝐿 𝐿
FPIi (s) = (10)
s
The block diagram of the simplified current control loop with compensa
where K Pi , K Ii are the proportional and integral gains of the current controller. The transfer
coupling
function of aand back‐EMF
simplified terms isloop
closed-current illustrated
can be derived in Figure 5. (9) and (10):
based on

i
KP KI
FPIi (s) FRL (s) s+ i
Fi (s) = =  KL + R L K Ii
(11)
1 + FPIi (s) FRL (s) s2 +
Pi s
s+
L L

The block diagram of the simplified current control loop with compensated cross-
coupling and back-EMF terms is illustrated in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Block diagram of the simplified current loop scheme.

The characteristic Equation of (11) reveals a second‐order system. However,

inator of the transfer function introduces zero due to the PI controller. It incr
system overshoot, lowering the potential closed‐loop bandwidth. The zero can
pensated
Figure bydiagram
5. Block a zero‐cancellation block
of the simplified current inscheme.
loop the feedforward. The zero‐cancellation
be considered as a first‐order filter with the following transfer function:
The characteristic Equation of (11) reveals a second-order system. However, the
nominator of the transfer function introduces zero due to the1PI controller. It increases
𝑠
the system overshoot, lowering the potential𝐹closed-loop 𝐾 bandwidth. The zero can be
compensated by a zero-cancellation block in the feedforward. 𝑠The zero-cancellation
1 block
can be considered as a first-order filter with the following 𝐾
transfer function:
Introducing (12) to (11), the closed‐current
1 loop transfer function will be re
FZCi (s) = (12)
as: K Pi
s+1
K Ii
𝐾
𝐹 𝑠 𝐹
Introducing (12) to (11), the closed-current 𝑠
loop transfer function will be rearranged as:
𝐿
𝐹 𝑠
1 𝐹 𝑠 𝐹 𝑠 KI 𝐾 𝑅 𝐾
FPIi (s) FRL (s) i
𝑠 𝑠
Fi (s) = =  K +LR  K Ii
𝐿 𝐿(13)
1 + FPIi (s) FRL (s) 2
s +
Pi s
s+
L L
The block diagram of the simplified closed‐current loop with zero‐cancellat
sented
The in Figure
block 6. of the simplified closed-current loop with zero-cancellation is
diagram
presented in Figure 6.

Figure Block
Figure6. 6. diagram
Block of the of
diagram simplified current loop
the simplified schemeloop
current with scheme
zero-cancellation.
with zero‐cancellation.
 𝐾 𝑅 𝐾
𝑠 𝑠 𝑠 2𝜉 𝜔 𝑠 𝜔
𝐿 𝐿
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 where 𝜔 is the natural frequency of the current loop, and 𝜉 is the damping
8 of 29

the current loop. The proportional and integral gains of the current controller i
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 ous domain can be then derived from (14) as follows: 8 of 28
Finally, the proportional and integral gains of the current controller can be designed by
comparing the closed-loop characteristic polynomial 𝐾 2𝜉 𝜔the𝐿ideal𝑅second-order system:
with
Finally, the proportional
 and integral
 gains of the current controller can be designed
= s2 𝐾 𝜔s +𝐿ideal
K Pi + Rs K Ii
s2 + characteristic
by comparing the closed‐loop s + polynomial with
+ 2ξ i ω0the
i
ω02i second‐order sys‐ (14)
tem: L L
However, the control loop is updated in discrete steps in real applications.
𝐾
where ω0i is the natural frequency 𝑅 the current
of 𝐾 loop, and ξ i is the damping factor of the
a discrete 𝑠 the𝑠current𝑠 controller
2𝜉 𝜔 𝑠 𝜔
current loop. representation of has to be used: (14)
𝐿 integral𝐿 gains of the current controller in continuous
The proportional and
domain can be then derived from (14) as follows: 𝐾 𝑧 𝐾
where 𝜔 is the natural frequency of the current loop, and 𝜉 is the damping factor of
the current loop. The proportional and
K Piintegral
= 2ξ i ωgains of the current controller in continu‐
0i L − R s
ous domain can be then derived from (14) as follows: 𝐾 𝑧 𝐾 𝑇
(15)
2L
𝐾
where 𝑇 is the sampling periodi of the K I2𝜉
= 𝜔ω 𝐿 𝑅
0i current loop.
(15)
However, the control loop is updated 𝐾 in 𝜔 𝐿
discrete steps in real applications. Therefore,
a3.1.2. Speed
discrete
However, Loop
representation
the controlof theiscurrent
loop updatedcontroller has
in discrete to be
steps used:
in real applications. Therefore,
a discrete representation of the current controller has to be used:
The speed loop is the outerKPloop (z) =in K Pthe cascade control structure of FOC. In
i i
𝐾 𝑧 𝐾
loop, a PI controller is employed to provide appropriate speed control (16)of the P
(16)
chine. The output of the speed K ( 𝑧
z ) = 𝐾 I𝑇
𝐾IicontrollerK T
i si creates a reference value for the q‐ax

controller,
where
where T𝑇si isistheassampling
the is evident
sampling periodinof
period ofFigure
the
thecurrent
current7. loop.
In most applications, it is advantageous t
loop.
controller with an anti‐windup function limiting the controller output and preve
3.1.2. Speed
rent Speed
3.1.2. overload Loop
Loop of the machine or inverter.
The speed
The speedloop
loopis is
thethe
outer looploop
outer in theincascade controlcontrol
the cascade structure of FOC. In
structure ofthe speed
FOC. In the
speed loop, a PI controller is employed to provide appropriate speed control of thema‐
loop, a PI controller is employed to provide appropriate speed control of the PMSM PMSM
chine. TheThe
machine. output
outputof the speed
of the controller
speed creates
controller a reference
creates value
a reference for the
value for q‐axis current
the q-axis current
controller, as is evident in Figure 7. In most applications, it is advantageous to ause
controller, as is evident in Figure 7. In most applications, it is advantageous to use PI a PI
controller with an anti‐windup function limiting the controller output and
controller with an anti-windup function limiting the controller output and preventingpreventing cur‐
rent overload of the machine or inverter.
current overload of the machine or inverter.

Figure 7. Block diagram of the speed loop.

An electrical time constant of the machine is usually much smaller than the
Figure 7.
Figure 7. Block
Block diagram
diagramof
ofthe
thespeed
speedloop.
loop.
stant of the mechanical part. A small electrical time constant requires a higher
frequency
An of time
An electrical
electrical the current
timeconstant
constantof loop,
the while
machine
of the the
is usually
machine speed loop smaller
much smaller
is usually much operates
than timeatcon‐
thethan thea time
lower sam
stant
constantof the mechanical
of This
the mechanical part. A small electrical time constant requires a higher sampling
quency. ensurespart. A small
enough timeelectrical time constant
to control requirescurrent
the machine a higher sampling
between two s
frequency of
frequency ofthe
thecurrent
currentloop,
loop,while
whilethethespeed
speedlooploopoperates
operatesatata lower
a lower sampling
sampling fre‐
frequency.
ples properly.
quency. This ensures Therefore,
enough time the
to current
control the loop can
machine be considered
current between two the sam‐
speed gain equal to 1
This ensures enough time to control the machine current between two speed samples
more,
ples itTherefore,
simplifies
properly.
properly. Therefore,the speed
the current
the current controller
looploop
cancan design,
be considered
be considered reducing
thethe gain equalthe
gain equal toto1.1.speed
Further‐loop transfe
Furthermore,
more, it simplifies the speed controller design, reducing the speed loop transfer function
itto a second‐order
simplifies the speed system.
controllerThe block
design, diagram
reducing of theloop
the speed simplified speed loop
transfer function to sche
to a second‐order system. The block diagram of the simplified speed loop scheme is pre‐
asented
second-order system. The block diagram of the simplified speed loop scheme is presented
sented in in Figure
Figure 8. 8.
in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Block diagram of the simplified speed loop.

Figure
Figure 8. Block
8. Block diagram
diagram of the simplified
of the simplified speed loop.speed loop.
 𝐾 𝑠 𝐾
𝐹 𝑠
𝑠
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 9 of 29
where 𝑘 is the torque constant, 𝐵 is the viscous frictio
theTheproportional and
closed speed loop can then integral gains
be designed with of thetransfer
the following speed controll
functions
speed loop
representing cansystem
mechanical be created based on (17) and (18):
and speed controller:

kT
Fm (s) =
Js + B
(17)
𝑘 𝐾
K Pω s + K Iω 𝐹 𝑠 𝐹 𝑠 𝐽
𝐹FPI 𝑠(s) = (18)
s
1 𝐹 𝑠 𝐹 𝑠 𝑘 𝐾
ω

where k T is the torque constant, B is the viscous friction coefficient, and K Pω , K Iω are the 𝑠
proportional and integral gains of the speed controller. The transfer function of the speed 𝐽
loop can be created based on (17) and (18):
Similarly, as in the current k K loop, k K zero is introduced
T Pω T Iω
FPI (s) Fm (s) J s+ J
the PI controller Fω (s) =
1 +increasing
= system overshoot. The(19)zero c
ω
 
FPI (s) Fm (s) k K + B k K
T Pω T Iω
ω s2 + J s+ J
the zero‐cancellation block, as shown in Figure 9, to impr
Similarly, as in the current loop, zero is introduced in the nominator of (19) due to the
formance
PI during
controller increasing machine
system overshoot. transients.
The zero can be compensated Asagain
an withalternative
the zero- t
cancellation block, as shown in Figure 9, to improve the speed loop control performance
ramp
during function
machine transients.is
As commonly
an alternative to theused in several
zero-cancellation applications
block, a ramp function t
is commonly used in several applications to prevent system overshoot.

Figure 9. Block diagram of the simplified speed loop with zero-cancellation.

Figure 9. Block diagram of the simplified speed loop with zero‐
The transfer function of the zero-cancellation with speed controller gains is defined as:

The transfer function of1the zero‐cancellation(20)

FZC (s) = K ω with s
Pω
K Iω s+1
as:
Introducing (20) into (19), the transfer function of the speed loop with compensated
zero is in the following form: 1
𝐹 𝑠
FPIω (s) Fm (s)
k T K Iω
𝐾 (21)
𝑠 1
J
Fω (s) = =
𝐾
 
1 + FPIω (s) Fm (s) 2 k T K Pω + B k T K Iω
s + J s+ J

Comparing the characteristic polynomial of (21) with the ideal second-order system,
Introducing (20) into (19), the transfer function of th
the parameters of the speed controller can be derived as:
zero is in the following form:
KP =
2ξ ω J − B ω 0ω
ω kT
(22)
J 2
K Iω = k T ω0ω
𝐹 𝑠 𝐹 𝑠
𝐹 𝑠
1 𝐹 𝑠 𝐹 𝑠 𝑘 𝐾
𝑠
𝐽
Comparing the characteristic polynomial of (21) with
the parameters of the speed controller can be derived as:
 of the speed loop. Such an approach provides enough
two speed samples [56]. Furthermore, the damping fa
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 the controller gains and dynamics response. The 10 of 29 dam

one (underdamped system), greater than one (overda

where ω0 is the natural frequency of the speed loop, and ξ ω is the damping factor of the
ically damped
ω
speed loop. system).
The discrete form For gains
of speed controller thecansecond‐order
be designed as: system
up to 0.707, to provideKP a(z)system ω = KP ω
attenuation −3 dB at t
(23)
K Iω (z) = K Iω Tsω
3.2. Luenberger‐Type
where Ts is the sampling period ofBack‐EMF
ω the speed loop. Observer
It should be noticed that the current loop is usually maintained faster than the speed
The primary purpose of this sensorless approach
loop. The reason is that the electrical time constant of the motor is much smaller than the
mechanical time constant of the motor, and so the small electrical time constant requires
which contains information about the rotor position.
the current control loop to run at a higher sampling frequency. On the contrary, the speed
loop can run in a slower control loop with a lower sampling frequency. This means that the
matical model of the PMSM machine. Therefore, the
natural frequency of the current loop will be always higher than the natural frequency of
the speed loop. Such an approach provides enough time to control the current between
Section 1 is mandatory to describe this sensorless app
two speed samples [56]. Furthermore, the damping factor can be maintained to influ-
ence the controller gains and dynamics response. The damping factor could be set at
PMSM in rotational reference frame dq depicted by (5
less than one (underdamped system), greater than one (overdamped system), or equal to
one (critically damped system). For the second-order systems, the damping factor is
form:
usually set up to 0.707, to provide a system attenuation −3 dB at the controller
cutoff frequency.

3.2. Luenberger-Type Back-EMF Observer

𝑣 𝑅 𝐿 𝑠 𝜔 𝐿 𝑖
𝑣
The primary purpose of this sensorless approach 𝜔 𝐿the back-EMF
is to estimate 𝐿 𝑠 𝑖
𝑅 voltage,
which contains information about the rotor position. It is a method based on the math-
ematical model of the PMSM machine. Therefore, the mathematical model introduced
where 𝑠 is the Laplace operator. However, (24) canno
in Section 1 is mandatory to describe this sensorless approach. The voltage equations
of the PMSM in rotational reference frame dq depicted by (5) can be rearranged to the
because the motor position is unavailable, and thus, t
following form:       
vd R s + L d s − ωe Lq id 0
served. Therefore, it is necessary to employ a new esti
vq
=
ωe Ld Rs + Lq s iq
+ ωe ψ pm
1
(24)

lagging from the origin dq rotational reference frame b

where s is the Laplace operator. However, (24) cannot be applied for a sensorless control,
because the motor position is unavailable, and thus, the back-EMF voltage cannot be
evident fromitFigure
observed. Therefore, 10.
is necessary to employ a new estimated rotational reference frame
γδ lagging from the origin dq rotational reference frame by an estimation position error θ ,
err
evident from Figure 10.

Figure 10. Vector diagram of PMSM defining stationary and rotating reference frames.
Figure 10. Vector diagram of PMSM defining stationary and

However, (24) has to be rewritten to the form w

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 11 of 29

However, (24) has to be rewritten to the form with the symmetrical impedance matrix,
as follows:       
vd Rs + Ld s − ωe Lq id 0
= + Eex (25)
vq ωe Lq Rs + Ld s iq 1
where Eex is the extended EMF (EEMF) term equal to:



Eex = ωe Ld − Lq id + ψ pm − Ld − Lq siq (26)

Afterward, (25) can be transformed to the estimated reference frame γδ, yielding
voltage equations:       
vγ Rs + Ld s − ωe Lq iγ e
= + γ (27)
vδ ωe Lq Rs + Ld s iδ eδ
where eγ , eδ are the γδ components of EEMF:
     
eγ − sin(θerr ) −iδ
= Eex + (ω̂e − ωe ) Ld (28)
eδ cos(θerr ) iγ

where ω̂e is the estimated rotor speed. Assuming that error between the estimated speed
ω̂e and actual rotor speed ωe under steady-state condition is zero, the second part of (28)
can be neglected. Afterward, the estimated γδ components of EEMF become:
   
êγ − sin(θerr )
= Eex (29)
êδ cos(θerr )

containing estimated position error θerr . This variable can be extracted from (29) by em-
ploying arctan function as follows [12]:

−êγ
 
θerr = tan−1 (30)
êδ

This also reduces the effect of the back-EMF observer parameter variation. For example,
if the d-axis inductance Ld is not accurate, it will affect the dynamic performance of the
observer. On the other hand, stator resistance Rs will not influence the control dynamics.
Instead, it will directly affect the resulting amplitude of the estimated back-EMF. However,
the effects of the unprecise Ld , Rs are the same in both γ and δ axis, because the controller
and observer models are identical in these axes. Therefore, by performing the division
of EEMF γδ components as in (30), the effects of the inaccurate Ld , Rs are compensated.
Nevertheless, the q-axis inductance Lq is not compensated with such division, because the
change in one axis is not proportional to the other one. This proves that such an observer is
dependent on the machine parameters, where the uncertainty in Lq affects the steady-state
accuracy of the observer. The block diagram of the back-EMF observer in the estimated
rotational reference frame γδ is presented in Figure 11.
It is evident in Figure 11 that the block diagram contains two PI controllers. The
parameters of these controllers have to be properly calculated to allow correct control
performance of the whole structure. Neglecting cross-coupling terms, the γ-axis and δ-axis
loops are identical to the current loop structure discussed in Section 3.1.1. This means
that the same principle can be used to calculate the proportional and integral gains of the
back-EMF controller with respect to d-axis inductance:

K Pb = 2ξ b ω0b Ld − Rs
(31)
K Ib = ω02b Ld

where ω0b is the natural frequency of the back-EMF observer, and ξ b is the damping factor of
the back-EMF observer. The natural frequency of the back-EMF observer is usually set close
 the controller and observer models are identical in these axes. Ther
the division of EEMF γδ components as in (30), the effects of the i
compensated. Nevertheless, the q‐axis inductance 𝐿 is not compen
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 sion, because the change in one axis is not proportional to12the of 29 other

such an observer is dependent on the machine parameters, where

toaffects the
the current steady‐state
loop accuracy
bandwidth, while of factor
the damping the observer.
is in intervalsThe block diagram
of approximately
serverTheinlower
0.5–1.5. the estimated rotational
damping factors reference
lead to higher overshootframe γδresponse
but faster is presented
and in
vice versa.

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179

where 𝜔 is the natural frequency of the back‐EMF observer, and 𝜉 is the da

factor of the back‐EMF observer. The natural frequency of the back‐EMF observer
ally set close to the current loop bandwidth, while the damping factor is in inter
approximately 0.5–1.5. The lower damping factors lead to higher overshoot but fa
sponse and vice versa.

3.3. Tracking Observer

Figure 11. Luenberger-type back-EMF observer in the estimated rotating reference frame γδ.
Figure
The11. Luenberger‐type
tracking back‐EMF
observer is an essential observer in the estimated
part of sensorless FOC withrotating re
a back‐EM
3.3. Tracking
server. the output of the observer has an estimation position error 𝜃 , it is
Observer
Since
The tracking
sary toItemploy observer
is evident is an
in
a structure essential
Figure
that can part
11 of sensorless
that
force theerror
such FOC
block towith
zeroa (𝜃
back-EMF
diagram 0).
observer.
contains
The PLL two
canP
Since the output of the observer has an estimation position error θerr , it is necessary to
this requirement
rameters and thus
of these provide zero
controllers have displacements
to be between the dq and toestima
employ a structure that can force such error to zero (θerrproperly
= 0). Thecalculated
PLL can satisfy allow
reference frame. The output of PLL is the estimated speed 𝜔
dq and estimated γδterms,p
and the estimated
formance
this requirementof andthethuswhole
provide structure. Neglecting
zero displacements between the cross‐coupling
𝜃 . The PLL allows estimating the rotor speed without an undesirable
reference frame. The output of PLL is the estimated speed ω̂e and the estimated position position deri
loops
θ̂The
e . The
are
estimated identical
PLL allowsspeed to
is used
estimating the current
as a feedback
the rotor loop
speed withoutvaluestructure
for the speed
an undesirable discussed andintoSection
loopderivative.
position calculate
Thethe same
estimated principle
speed is used can
as a be used
feedback to
value calculate
for the speed the
loop
coupling terms, while the estimated position is employed as an angle to transfo proportional
and to calculate and
cross- integ
coupling terms, while the estimated position is employed as an angle to transform the
EMF controller
voltages and currents with from respect
dq to thetoestimated
d‐axis inductance:
γδ reference frame. The block diag
voltages and currents from dq to the estimated γδ reference frame. The block diagram of
the back‐EMF and tracking observer with
the back-EMF and tracking observer with the PLL mechanism the PLL mechanism is shown
is shown in Figure 12. in Figure 1
𝐾 2𝜉 𝜔 𝐿 𝑅
𝐾 𝜔 𝐿

Figure
Figure 12.12. Back‐EMF
Back-EMF and tracking
and tracking observer
observer with PLLwith PLL mechanism.
mechanism.

However, the tracking observer contains the PI controller, whose parameters h

be correctly calculated. They can be calculated from the linearized version of the ob
shown in Figure 13.
 Figure 12. Back‐EMF and tracking observer with PLL mechan

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 However, the tracking observer contains the 13 of 29PI con

be correctly calculated. They can be calculated from the

shown intheFigure
However, 13. contains the PI controller, whose parameters have to
tracking observer
be correctly calculated. They can be calculated from the linearized version of the observer
shown in Figure 13.

Figure 13. Linearized

Figure 13. Linearized version
version of the tracking observerof
withthe tracking observer with P
PLL mechanism.

Similarly, the parameters can be calculated with the pole-placement method, yielding
the following proportional and integral gains of the PLL controller [57]:
Similarly, the parameters can be calculated with t
K P = 2ξ to ω0
ing the following proportional and integral gains
to
(32)of the
to

K Ito = ω02to

4. Stable V/f Control with Constant Power Factor Loop

𝐾 2𝜉 𝜔
V/f control is a form of scalar control maintaining a constant ratio between stator
voltage and required stator frequency. It is a good alternative in applications where𝐾 𝜔
highly dynamic control performance is not required, such as heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC), fans, or pumps. The V/f ratio is usually calculated from the nominal
values of the PMSM. It provides an opportunity to control the PMSM machine without the
4. Stable V/f Control with Constant Power Factor Loo
mechanical sensor on the rotor shaft. The position sensor is not demanded, because the
required αβ voltages are calculated with a transformation angle obtained by integrating
the required speed.
V/f control is a form of scalar control maintaining a
By employing the V/f control, the high-performance MCU needed in the FOC scheme
is not required. It is a very simple control strategy composed of fewer functions than
age and required stator frequency. It is a good alterna
sensorless FOC, as evident from Table 2. For example, a single PI controller in V/f control
instead of six in sensorless FOC avoids the time-consuming controller gains calculation. The
sensorless components in the stabilizing and CPF loop are illustrated in the next sections.
However, coming with this simplicity, there are also some drawbacks such as:
• Instability of the system after exceeding a specific applied frequency;
• Low dynamic performance;
• Poor fault protection against stall detection and overcurrent.

Table 2. Stable V/f control with constant power factor loop–complexity.

Control Structure PI I Park Clarke Atan Filters

Stable V/f control with
1 1 2 1 0 1
constant power factor loop

Nevertheless, the first issue can be solved by employing the stabilizing loop to prevent
undesired rotor oscillations. The second disadvantage may not be a problem in several
applications, where high dynamic performance is not required.
The block diagram of the V/f control with stabilization and constant power factor
loop is shown in Figure 14.
 Nevertheless, the first issue can be solved by employing the stabilizing lo
vent undesired rotor oscillations. The second disadvantage may not be a proble
eral applications, where high dynamic performance is not required.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 The block diagram of the V/f control with stabilization and constant
14 of 29 pow
loop is shown in Figure 14.

Figure
Figure 14.14. Block
Block diagram
diagram of theV/f
of the stable stable V/fwith
control control with
constant constant
power power
factor loop. factor loop.
4.1. Stabilizing Loop
4.1.The
Stabilizing Loop
stabilizing loop can be implemented in the V/f control to prevent rotor oscillations,
The stabilizing
thus stabilizing the system.loop can be of
The principle implemented in the
the stabilizing loop lies V/f control
in the to prevent rot
superimposition
of the small frequency signal onto the required electrical angular velocity. The
tions, thus stabilizing the system. The principle of the stabilizing loop lies in thesuperim-
posed frequency signal must be of opposite polarity to the experienced perturbation. The
position of the small frequency signal onto the required electrical angular vel
perturbation can be extracted, for example, from:
superimposed frequency signal must be of opposite polarity to the experienced
• DC link current;
•tion. The rotor
Actual perturbation
speed; can be extracted, for example, from:
• Input
DC active power.
link current;
 Each of therotor
Actual components
speed;requires some extra features to be employed or implemented.
For the perturbation extraction from DC link current, a current sensor in DC bus is necessary,
leading to higher additional costs. The extraction from the actual rotor speed can be
considered as the most reliable. However, a position sensor is required for this purpose,
removing advantages associated with sensorless control. The most practical with respect
to the final cost is the solution that uses an input active power component. This strategy
requires phase currents measurements, which is the common feature in the motor control
drives. The transformation of the three phase currents from abc to αβ reference frame must
be performed to calculate the active power Pe as:

3 ∗ 
Pe = vα iα + v∗β i β (33)
2
where v∗α , v∗β are the required αβ voltages and iα , i β are the measured αβ currents. The
input active power perturbation component ∆Pe can be extracted from origin signal with
a first-order high-pass filter. It eliminates a DC component from the active power Pe , and
the useful signal contains only higher-frequency components:
s
∆Pe = Pe (34)
s + τ1H
 𝐶 ∗
𝐾 , 𝜔 0
𝜔∗
where 𝐶 is the stabilizing loop constant, which must be
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 15 of 29

cal angular velocity 𝜔∗ in order to maintain almost co

where τH is the time constant of the high-pass filter. This constant can be experimentally
higherregarding
determined frequencies. Then,[49].
the speed oscillations theAfterward,
output it isof the stabilizing
necessary to amplify the loo
ponent 𝛥𝜔 , which is superimposed onto the required ve
AC component of active power with proportional gain of the stabilizing loop KS :

C
trol: Ks = 1∗ , ωe∗ 6= 0
ω
(35)
e

𝛥𝜔 𝐾 𝛥𝑃
where C1 is the stabilizing loop constant, which must be divided by the reference electrical
angular velocity ωe∗ in order to maintain almost constant damping, particularly at higher
frequencies. Then, the output of the stabilizing loop is the speed perturbation component
∗ ∗
𝜔
∆ωe , which is superimposed onto the required velocity ωe∗ to stabilize scalar control:𝜔 𝛥𝜔
∆ωe = −Ks ∆Pe
where 𝜔∗ is the voltage vector reference angular(36)veloci
ωv∗ = ω𝜃e∗+ ∆ω
∗
voltage vector position is e generated to perform Park
path
where ωv∗ is
and constant
the voltage power
vector reference factor
angular velocity.loop. The
Integrating thisblock diagram
variable, the
voltage vector position θv∗ is generated to perform Park transformation in feedforward path
sented
and in Figure
constant power 15The[42,43]:
factor loop. block diagram of the stabilizing loop is presented in
Figure 15 [42,43]:

ci. 2022, 12, 9179

Figure 15. Block diagram of the stabilizing loop based on active
Figure 15. Block diagram of the stabilizing loop based on active power calculation.

4.2. Constant Power Factor Control Loop

The stable V/f control can be extended to maintain specific operational conditions.
4.2. Constant
factor can bePower Factor
directly Control Loop
controlled in the voltage vector fr
Such conditions can be satisfied by performing voltage amplitude correction with the
additional loop. This paper proposes a novel constant power factor loop, where the power
shown Theinstable
FigureV/f
16.control can be extended to maintain
factor can be directly controlled in the voltage vector frame to the demanded value, as
shown in Figure 16.
Such conditions can be satisfied by performing voltage am
ditional loop. This paper proposes a novel constant pow

Figure 16. Block diagram of the constant power factor loop.

Figure 16. Block diagram of the constant power factor loop.

The constant power factor loop inputs are the me

from the three‐phase abc reference frame by employing C
 Figure 16. Block diagram of the constant power factor loop.

The constant power factor loop inputs are the measured αβ currents transformed
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 16 of 29
from the three‐phase abc reference frame by employing Clarke transform as follows:
𝑖 𝑖
The constant power factor loop inputs are the measured αβ currents transformed from(37)
√3
the three-phase abc reference frame𝑖 by employing√3Clarke transform as follows:
𝑖 𝑖
3 3
iα = i a
The αβ currents must be further transformed from the stationary αβ frame to the new
(37)
voltage vector frame dvqv, where the power √factor 3
√
can
3 be controlled. The transformation
i β = 3 ib − 3 ic
to the dvqv reference must be performed using Park transform with the required voltage
vector position 𝜃 ∗ :currents must be further transformed from the stationary αβ frame to the new
The αβ
voltage vector frame dv qv , where the power∗factor can be∗controlled. The transformation
to the dv qv reference must be𝑖 performed
𝑖 cos using
𝜃 Park 𝑖 sin 𝜃
transform with the required voltage(38)
∗
vector position θv :
∗ ∗
𝑖 idv =𝑖 iαsin
cos(𝜃θv∗ ) + i𝑖β sin
cos(θv∗𝜃) (38)(39)
∗ ∗
In the new dvqv reference frame, iqv =
the−idα vsin (θv )is+aligned
‐axis i β cos(θv with
) a stator voltage vector (39) 𝑉
as illustrated In in
theFigure
new dv q17. The vector
v reference frame,diagram
the dv -axis inisFigure
aligned17awithshows qv currents
a statordvvoltage vectorinVsthe
voltageas vector reference
illustrated frame,
in Figure 17. where the diagram
The vector power factor is controlled
in Figure 17a shows todv qvcos 𝜑 1.inOne
currents the of
the other opportunities is to control the power factor to unity cos 𝜑 1, as illustrated
voltage vector reference frame, where the power factor is controlled to cos ϕ < 1. One of in
the other
Figure 17b. Then, opportunities is to control
the stator current the power
vector factor towith
𝐼 is aligned unitythe ϕ = 1,voltage
cosstator as illustrated
vector in 𝑉 ,
Figure 17b. Then, the stator current vector Is is aligned with the stator voltage vector Vs ,
and thus power factor angle φ becomes zero. It is evident from both figures that the power
and thus power factor angle ϕ becomes zero. It is evident from both figures that the power
factor angle
factorcan becan
angle controlled by maintaining
be controlled by maintaining thetheqvq‐axis
-axiscurrent.
current.
v

(a) (b)
Figure 17. Vector
Figure diagram
17. Vector of PMSM:
diagram (a) φ(a)> ϕ0 >(cos
of PMSM: φ <ϕ 1);
0 (cos (b)
< 1); (b)φϕ==00(cos
(cos φ
ϕ== 1).
1).

∗
The required
The required qv -axis
qv‐axis current 𝑖 ∗ iqvcan
current can be
be directly
directlycalculated withwith
calculated respect to the required
respect to the re‐
power factor cos ϕ∗ and ∗ the feedback dv qv currents, as shown in Figure 18. Afterward, the
quired power factor cos 𝜑 and the feedback dvqv currents, as shown in Figure 18. After‐
PI controller forces the qv -axis current from Park transform to the required value based
ward, the PI controller forces the qv‐axis current from Park transform to the required value
on the demanded power factor. The output of the PI controller is the voltage amplitude
based on the demanded
correction ∆v, whichpower factor. The
is sublimated fromoutput of thed-axis
the required PI controller
voltage v∗dis the voltage
, while the requiredampli‐
tude correction ∆𝑣, 𝑣16∗ ,ofwhile
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 which
∗ is sublimated from the required d‐axis voltage
q-axis voltage vq is maintained at zero. Therefore, the power factor can be directly controlledthe
28

requiredbyq‐axis voltage
adjusting 𝑣 ∗ is
the d-axis maintained
voltage amplitude. at zero. Therefore, the power factor can be di‐
rectly controlled by adjusting the d‐axis voltage amplitude.

Figure 18.
Figure 18. Required
Requiredqqv‐axis calculation
v -axis block.
calculation block.

5. Experimental Results
In order to verify and compare the control performance of both sensorless ap‐
proaches, a series of experiments have been carried out on the experimental setup de‐
scribed in Section 5.1.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 17 of 29

Figure 18. Required qv‐axis calculation block.

5. Experimental Results
5. Experimental Results
In order to verify and compare the control performance of both sensorless approaches,
In of
a series order to verify and
experiments havecompare the control
been carried out onperformance of bothsetup
the experimental sensorless ap‐ in
described
proaches,
Section 5.1.a series of experiments have been carried out on the experimental setup de‐
scribed in Section 5.1.
5.1. Experimental Setup
5.1. Experimental Setup
The experiments were conducted on a power inverter module (PIM) with an apparent
powerThe experiments
of 150 kVA. Thewere conducted of
specifications onthe
a power inverter
PIM are module
available (PIM)A1
in Table withofan appar‐ A.
Appendix
ent power of 150 kVA. The specifications of the PIM are available in Table
DC power supplies were employed to ensure power for the PIM system basis chip (SBC) A1 of Appendix
A. DC
and the power
PIM DC supplies
bus. For were
the employed
sensorlessto ensurealgorithm’s
control power for the PIM system basis
implementation chip
and machine
(SBC) and the PIM DC bus. For the sensorless control algorithm’s implementation and
control, a microcontroller from the NXP Semiconductors, specifically MPC5775E, was used.
machine control, a microcontroller from the NXP Semiconductors, specifically MPC5775E,
The MPC5775E microcontrollers target automotive and industrial battery management
was used. The MPC5775E microcontrollers target automotive and industrial battery man‐
and inverter applications. The communication between the microcontroller MPC5775E
agement and inverter applications. The communication between the microcontroller
and PC was secured through the CAN interface. The application code was created in
MPC5775E and PC was secured through the CAN interface. The application code was
S32 Design Studio for Power Architecture. The USB Multilink Universal was utilized for
created in S32 Design Studio for Power Architecture. The USB Multilink Universal was
debugging
utilized for the application
debugging code fromcode
the application the from
PC tothe
thePCtarget
to theprocessor. FreeMASTER
target processor. FreeMAS‐Run-
Time Debugging tool observes the control variables and allows application
TER Run‐Time Debugging tool observes the control variables and allows application users to us‐
control
the
ers to control the machine current, speed, etc. A traction PMSM developed for golf cartwith
machine current, speed, etc. A traction PMSM developed for golf cart applications
aapplications
rated powerwith of 1.41 kWpower
a rated was used tokW
of 1.41 determine
was used experimental
to determine results. The parameters
experimental results.
ofThe
theparameters
PMSM areofprovided in Table A2 of Appendix A. A DC dynamometer
the PMSM are provided in Table A2 of Appendix A. A DC dynamom‐ was used to
provide
eter wasload
usedconditions
to providefor experimental
load conditions for PMSM. A torque
experimental sensor
PMSM. A with a measuring
torque sensor withrange
a
±measuring
20 Nm wasrangeplaced between the PMSM machine and DC dynamometer
±20 Nm was placed between the PMSM machine and DC dynamometer to provide accurate
information about the
to provide accurate actual motor
information abouttorque. Photos
the actual motor of torque.
the experimental setup
Photos of the are shown in
experimental
Figures
setup are19 shown
and 20.in Figures 19 and 20.

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 17 of 28

Figure 19. Experimental setup.
Figure 19. Experimental setup.

Figure20.
Figure 20.Experimental
Experimental setup—enlarged
setup—enlarged view
view for PMSM,
for PMSM, torque
torque transducer,
transducer, and
and DC DC dynamome‐
dynamometer.
ter.

5.2. Experimental Verification of Stable V/f Control with CPF

In this section, a series of experiments for the V/f control with stabilization and CPF
that were performed are described. The input parameters for this control strategy are pre‐
sented in Table A3 of Appendix A. In Figure 21, the ramp‐up to the nominal reference
speed, change in speed direction, and 50% load applied at steady‐state, with a required
 Figure 20. Experimental setup—enlarged view for PMSM, torque transducer, and DC dynamome‐
ter.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 18 of 29

5.2. Experimental Verification of Stable V/f Control with CPF

In this section, a series of experiments for the V/f control with stabilization and CPF
5.2. Experimental Verification of Stable V/f Control with CPF
that were performed are described. The input parameters for this control strategy are pre‐
In this section, a series of experiments for the V/f control with stabilization and CPF
sented in Table A3 of Appendix A. In Figure 21, the ramp‐up to the nominal reference
that were performed are described. The input parameters for this control strategy are
speed, change
presented in speed
in Table A3 of direction,
Appendix A. and 50% load
In Figure applied
21, the ramp-upat to
steady‐state, with a required
the nominal reference
power factor
speed, changeof in
1, speed
is presented.
direction,The
andramp was applied
50% load set up with a slope ofwith
at steady-state, 1000a rpm/s.
requiredThe 50%
load wasfactor
power applied
of 1,from 8 s to 19The
is presented. s in
ramp forward
the was set updirection andoffrom
with a slope 29 s to The
1000 rpm/s. 40 s in the
backward direction. The command to change the speed direction was set up atin
50% load was applied from 8 s to 19 s in the forward direction and from 29 s to 40 s 21 s. The
the backward
boost voltage ofdirection.
3 V wasThe command
applied to change
to d‐axis themotor
during speed direction
start‐up was
untilset1000
up atrpm
21 s.to over‐
The boost voltage of 3 V was applied to d-axis during motor start-up until 1000 rpm to
come the starting issues. These issues are associated with a resistive voltage drop, which
overcome the starting issues. These issues are associated with a resistive voltage drop,
cannot
whichbe neglected
cannot at lowatspeeds.
be neglected Above
low speeds. the rotational
Above the rotational speed𝑛nr of
speed 1000rpm,
of 1000 rpm,the
the boost
∗
voltage is set back at 0 V, as is evident from the required d‐axis voltage ∗ 𝑣
boost voltage is set back at 0 V, as is evident from the required d-axis voltage v in Figure 21. in Figure 21.
d
Speed [rpm]
Voltage [V]

Figure 21.21.Ramp‐up
Figure Ramp-up and ramp‐downwith
and ramp-down withthethe nominal
nominal reference
reference speedspeed andload
and 50% 50% load applied
applied at at
steady‐state,
steady-state,with
withaa required powerfactor
required power factor ofspeed,
of 1: 1: speed, dq voltages,
dq voltages, dq currents.
dq currents.

In Figure 22, the same conditions were applied except for the applied load, which was
In Figure 22, the same conditions were applied except for the applied load, which
increased to 75%.
was increased
In Figureto23,75%.
the applied load to the machine was increased to 100%. However, as
evident from the figure, the machine cannot hold such a load, and the system becomes
unstable. The reason behind the control failure lies in the required power factor. At the
power factor is equal to unity, the required d-axis voltage v∗d decreases with the higher
loads, leading the system to an unstable region.
At the lower power factor, e.g., equal to 0.95, the V/f control can operate under full-
load conditions, avoiding system instabilities. This is demonstrated in Figure 24, where the
control performance under 100% load is presented.
The speed profiles with changes to nominal reference speed by 1000 rpm in both
directions with no-load are shown in Figures 25 and 26. The first shows the speed profile
for a power factor equal to 1, while the second one shows the profile for the lower power
factor of 0.95, which was previously verified under full-load conditions. As can be seen
from both figures, the real motor speed nr follows the reference speed nr∗ and the accuracy
at steady-state is spectacular. The main difference lies in the start-up current, which
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 18 of 28

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 19 of 29

Speed [rpm]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 18 of 28
is approximately four times higher with a required power factor of 0.95, as evident in
Figures 25 and 26.

Speed [rpm]
Voltage [V]Voltage [V]

Figure 22. Ramp‐up and ramp‐down with the nominal reference speed and 75% load applied at
steady‐state, with a required power factor of 1: speed, dq voltages, dq currents.

In Figure 23, the applied load to the machine was increased to 100%. However, as
evident from the figure, the machine cannot hold such a load, and the system becomes
unstable. The reason behind the control failure lies in the required power factor. At the
Figure
power 22.22.Ramp‐up
factor
Figure is equal
Ramp-up and ramp‐down
toramp-down
and unity, thewithwiththethe
required nominal
d‐axis
nominal reference
voltage
reference 𝑣 ∗speed
speed andload
decreases
and 75% 75% load
with applied
the
applied at
at higher
steady‐state, with
steady-state,
loads, leading theaasystem
with required
required topower
power factor
factor
an unstable ofregion.
of 1: 1: speed,
speed, dq voltages,
dq voltages, dq currents.
dq currents.

In Figure 23, the applied load to the machine was increased to 100%. However, as
Speed [rpm]

evident from the figure, the machine cannot hold such a load, and the system becomes
unstable. The reason behind the control failure lies in the required power factor. At the
power factor is equal to unity, the required d‐axis voltage 𝑣 ∗ decreases with the higher
loads, leading the system to an unstable region.
Speed [rpm]
Voltage [V]
Voltage [V]

Figure 23.23.
Figure Ramp‐up
Ramp-upwith
withthe
the nominal reference
nominal reference speed
speed andand 100%
100% load load applied
applied at steady‐state,
at steady-state, with with
a required power factor of 1: speed, dq voltages, dq currents.
a required power factor of 1: speed, dq voltages, dq currents.

At the lower power factor, e.g., equal to 0.95, the V/f control can operate under full‐
load conditions, avoiding system instabilities. This is demonstrated in Figure 24, where
the control performance under 100% load is presented.
Figure 23. Ramp‐up with the nominal reference speed and 100% load applied at steady‐state, with
a required power factor of 1: speed, dq voltages, dq currents.
 Speed [rp
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 20 of 29
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 19 of 2

Voltage [V]
Speed [rpm]
Voltage [V]

Figure 24. Ramp‐up and ramp‐down with the nominal reference speed and 100% load applied a
steady‐state, with a required power factor of 0.95: speed, dq voltages, dq currents.

The speed profiles with changes to nominal reference speed by 1000 rpm in both di
rections with no‐load are shown in Figures 25 and 26. The first shows the speed profile
for a power factor equal to 1, while the second one shows the profile for the lower power
factor of 0.95, which was previously verified under full‐load conditions. As can be seen
from both figures, the real motor speed 𝑛 follows the reference speed 𝑛∗ and the accu
racy at steady‐state is spectacular. The main difference lies in the start‐up current, which
Figure
is Figure24.
24.Ramp‐up
Ramp-upfour
approximately andramp-down
and ramp‐down
times higher with
with thethe
with anominal
nominal reference
reference
required speed speed
power and and
100%
factor 100%
ofload load
applied
0.95, applied in
at
as evident a
steady‐state,
steady-state,with
with a required power factor of 0.95: speed, dq voltages, dq currents.
a required power factor of 0.95: speed, dq voltages, dq currents.
Figures 25 and 26.
The speed profiles with changes to nominal reference speed by 1000 rpm in both di
Speed [rpm]

rections with no‐load are shown in Figures 25 and 26. The first shows the speed profil
for a power factor equal to 1, while the second one shows the profile for the lower powe
factor of 0.95, which was previously verified under full‐load conditions. As can be seen
from both figures, the real motor speed 𝑛 follows the reference speed 𝑛∗ and the accu
racy at steady‐state is spectacular. The main difference lies in the start‐up current, which
is approximately four times higher with a required power factor of 0.95, as evident in
Figures 25 and 26.
Voltage [V]
Speed [rpm]
Voltage [V]

Figure
Figure25.
25.Speed
Speed profile uptotonominal
profile up nominal reference
reference speed
speed with no‐load
with no-load and required
and required power
power factor of 1: factor o
1: speed, dq voltages, dq currents.
speed, dq voltages, dq currents.

Figure 25. Speed profile up to nominal reference speed with no‐load and required power factor o
1: speed, dq voltages, dq currents.
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 21 of 29
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 20 of 28
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 20 of 28

Speed [rpm]
Speed [rpm]
Voltage [V]
Voltage [V]

Figure
Figure 26.
26.Speed
Speed profile up to nominal reference
profile speed withwith
no‐load and required power factorfactor
of
Figure 26. Speed profileupuptotonominal
nominalreference
referencespeed
speed with no‐load
no-load and required power
power of
factor of
0.95: speed, dq voltages, dq currents.
0.95: speed, dq voltages, dq currents.
0.95: speed, dq voltages, dq currents.

5.3.5.3.
Experimental
Experimental Verification of Luenberger‐Type
Verification Back‐EMF Observer in Sensorless FOC
5.3. Experimental Verification ofofLuenberger‐Type
Luenberger-Type Back-EMF
Back‐EMF Observer
Observer in in Sensorless
SensorlessFOC FOC
In this section, similar experimental results are presented in order to compare the
In this section, similar experimental results are presented in order to compare the
In this section, similar experimental results are presented in order to compare the
control performance of both sensorless techniques. The input parameters
control performance of both sensorless techniques. The input parameters for the sensorless for the sensor‐
control performance of both sensorless techniques. The input parameters for the sensor‐
lessFOC
FOCare areavailable
availableininTable
TableA4A4 of of Appendix
Appendix A.A. AsAs stated
stated in the
in the Introduction,
Introduction, thethe
model-
less FOC are
model‐based
available
methods
in Table A4 ofatAppendix A.due
Astostated in the Introduction, the
based methods areare
notnot applicable
applicable at lowlow speeds
speeds due theunfavorable
to the unfavorablesignal-to-noise
signal‐to‐
model‐based
noise ratio methods are not applicable at low speeds due to the unfavorable signal‐to‐
ratio of of
thethe voltage
voltage measurements.
measurements. DueDue to to this
this disadvantage,
disadvantage, stable
stable V/fV/fwith
withCPF
CPFloop
noise
loop ratio
was used of as
the voltage control
a start‐up measurements.
strategy Due to this disadvantage, a stable V/fd‐axis
with CPF
was used as a start-up control strategy forfor sensorless
sensorless FOC.FOC. It uses
It uses required
a required d-axis voltage
loop ∗
voltage was𝑣 ∗ used as a start‐up control strategy for sensorless FOC.
to
vd to start-up start‐up the machine, while the required q‐axis voltage
the machine, while the required q-axis voltage vq is maintained∗ It𝑣 ∗uses a required d‐axis
is maintained at As
at zero.
∗ ∗
voltage
zero. 𝑣
As evident
evident to start‐up
in Figure
in Figure the machine,
27,motor
27, the the motor while the
start‐up
start-up required
is smooth,
is smooth, q‐axis
without
without voltage
hugehuge 𝑣 is maintained
oscillations.
oscillations. at
zero. As evident in Figure 27, the motor start‐up is smooth, without huge oscillations.
Speed [rpm]
Speed [rpm]
Voltage [V]
Voltage [V]

Figure 27. The

Figure motor
27. The start‐up
motor in stable
start-up V/f control
in stable with with
V/f control CPF CPF
and transition to thetosensorless
and transition FOC FOC
the sensorless
withwith
Luenberger‐type back‐EMF
Luenberger-type observer:
back-EMF speed,
observer: dq voltages,
speed, dq currents.
dq voltages, dq currents.
Figure 27. The motor start‐up in stable V/f control with CPF and transition to the sensorless FOC
with Luenberger‐type back‐EMF observer: speed, dq voltages, dq currents.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 21 of 28

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 22 of 29

Transition to the sensorless FOC is applied at the rotational speed 𝑛 of 500 rpm
Evaluation of low speed limit was discussed and verified in [25]. At the threshold speed
the estimated
Transitionrotational speed 𝑛FOCis isset
to the sensorless as a feedback
applied value for
at the rotational thenrspeed
speed of 500controller,
rpm. as
Evaluation
well of low speed
as the estimated limit was
electrical discussed
position 𝜃 and
to verified
the Park intransformations.
[25]. At the threshold speed,the tran
During
the estimated
sition betweenrotational
V/f andspeed n̂r is setFOC,
sensorless as a feedback
a smallvalue for theinspeed
decrease controller,
rotational 𝑛 can be
as well
speed
as the estimated electrical position θ̂e to the Park transformations. During the transition
observed. The whole transition is considered to be a small disadvantage of such an ap
between V/f and sensorless FOC, a small decrease in rotational speed nr can be observed.
proach. However, the decrease in the rotational speed 𝑛 has not had a huge impact on
The whole transition is considered to be a small disadvantage of such an approach. How-
theever,
system stabilityinand
the decrease control performance
the rotational speed nr has of notthe
hadsensorless method.
a huge impact on the After the transi
system
tion, the d‐axis current 𝑖 is controlled to zero, while the q‐axis current
stability and control performance of the sensorless method. After the transition, the d-axis 𝑖 provides the
necessary
current idtorque to thetomachine.
is controlled zero, while the q-axis current iq provides the necessary torque to
theInmachine.
Figure 28, the ramp‐up to the nominal reference speed of 3000 rpm, 50% load ap
plied at In steady‐state,
Figure 28, the andramp-up
changeto the
in nominal referenceisspeed
speed direction of 3000 rpm,
illustrated. 50% load
The figure shows the
applied at steady-state, and change in speed direction is illustrated. The figure shows the
robustness of the observer to the applied load disturbance and also a sufficient change in
robustness of the observer to the applied load disturbance and also a sufficient change in
speed
speeddirection
direction from thenominal
from the nominal speed
speed of machine
of the the machine 3000torpm
3000 rpm −3000to rpm.
−3000Atrpm.
the At the
lower
lowerspeeds,
speeds, sensorless
sensorless FOCFOCwithwith Luenberger‐type
Luenberger-type back‐EMF
back-EMF observer
observer was switched
was switched to to
thethestable
stableV/f
V/fcontrol
controlwith CPFloop
with CPF looptotoprovide
provide adequate
adequate operation.
operation.
Speed [rpm]
Voltage [V]

Figure
Figure28.
28.Ramp‐up
Ramp-up andand ramp-down
ramp‐down with
with thethe nominal
nominal reference
reference speedspeed and
and 50% 50%
load load at
applied applied a
steady‐state: speed, dq voltages, dq currents.
steady-state: speed, dq voltages, dq currents.

Figure 29 shows a similar experimental verification. However, 75% load is applied to

Figure 29 shows a similar experimental verification. However, 75% load is applied to
the machine. The experimental results show similar behavior and also robustness against
thesuch
machine. The experimental results show similar behavior and also robustness agains
load disturbance.
such load disturbance.
Finally, in Figure 30, the applied load is increased to 100%, which corresponds to
the nominal torque of the experimental PMSM machine. It is obvious that the sensorless
FOC with Luenberger-type back-EMF observer is also operating properly under full-load
Speed [rpm]

machine conditions.
Compared to the same experimental procedure with stable V/f control in Figure 24, it
is evident that stable V/f control with CPF has a better response to the load disturbance. In
the sensorless FOC, the decrease in speed after the applied load is more significant.
Figure 31 shows the speed profile up to the nominal reference speed of 3000 rpm with
no-load conditions.
Voltage [V]
 Figure 28. Ramp-up and ramp-down with the nominal reference speed and 50% load applied at
steady-state: speed, dq voltages, dq currents.

Figure 29 shows a similar experimental verification. However, 75% load is applied to

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 23 of 29
the machine. The experimental results show similar behavior and also robustness against
such load disturbance.

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 Figure Ramp-up

29.29.
Figure Ramp-upand andramp-down
ramp-down withwiththe
thenominal
nominal reference
reference speed
speed andload
and 75% 75%applied at 23 ofat2
load applied
steady-state:
steady-state: speed,dq
speed, dqvoltages, dqcurrents.
voltages, dq currents.

Finally, in Figure 30, the applied load is increased to 100%, which corresponds to the
nominal torque of the experimental PMSM machine. It is obvious that the sensorless FOC
with Luenberger-type back-EMF observer is also operating properly under full-load
machine conditions.

Figure30.
Figure Ramp-up and
30.Ramp-up andramp-down
ramp-down with
withthethe
nominal reference
nominal speed speed
reference and 100%
andload applied
100% load atapplied a
steady-state: speed, dq voltages, dq currents.
steady-state: speed, dq voltages, dq currents.

Compared to the same experimental procedure with stable V/f control in Figure 24
it is evident that stable V/f control with CPF has a better response to the load disturbance
In the sensorless FOC, the decrease in speed after the applied load is more significant.
Figure 31 shows the speed profile up to the nominal reference speed of 3000 rpm with
no-load conditions.
 steady-state: speed, dq voltages, dq currents.

Compared to the same experimental procedure with stable V/f control in Figure 24
it is evident that stable V/f control with CPF has a better response to the load disturbance
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179
In the sensorless FOC, the decrease in speed after the applied load is more significant.
24 of 29
Figure 31 shows the speed profile up to the nominal reference speed of 3000 rpm wit
no-load conditions.

Figure
Figure 31. Speedprofile
31. Speed profile upnominal
up to to nominal reference
reference speed withspeed with
no-load: no-load:
speed, speed,
speed error, speed error, d
dq voltages,
voltages, dq
dq currents. currents.

This figure can be used to determine the accuracy of the sensorless FOC with
Luenberger-type back-EMF observer in a wide speed range. The result is that the es-
timated rotational speed is tracking the real motor speed with very high accuracy, which
is evident from the speed error. Slight deviations are present in the motor transient due
to switching between two methods during motor start-up. The other reason for the small
oscillations lies in the controllers bandwidth.

5.4. Comparison of the Main Features for Stable V/f with CPF and Sensorless FOC with
Luenberger-Type Back-EMF Observer
The comparison of the main features regarding control performance of both sensorless
control strategies is presented in Table 3.
Some of the statements were verified experimentally within the article, e.g., accuracy,
load disturbance response, start-up, and structure tuning.
The dynamics of both control structures are good. However, sensorless FOC could
provide a faster speed response when increasing the bandwidth of the controllers. In the
case of stable V/f control, the parameters of the stabilizing loop should be modified to
improve the control dynamics.
Parameters dependence of the back-EMF observer was discussed in Section 3.2, while
the stable V/f is completely independent of the machine parameters. This is consid-
ered as the biggest advantage, because the machine parameters change during motor
operation, e.g., with saturation and temperature. Furthermore, these parameters are re-
quired for controller tuning in sensorless FOC, as derived in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 25 of 29

Table 3. Comparison between stable V/f with CPF and sensorless FOC with Luenberger-type
back-EMF observer.

Sensorless FOC with

Parameter Stable V/f with CPF
Luenberger-Type Back-EMF Observer
Accuracy High High
Dynamics Good Very good
Parameters dependence Low Medium
Computational time Low High
Load disturbance response Very good Good
Start-up Good -
Structure tuning Easy Hard
Low-speed operation Bad -

Computational time can be determined analytically based on the complexity of both

sensorless control structures. Comparing Tables 1 and 2, it is evident that sensorless
FOC is more complex and requires more computational time and high-performance MCU.
Furthermore, the start-up control strategy has to be used regarding sensorless FOC, which
further increases the complexity of the whole structure.
Structure tuning is more complex for sensorless FOC, where the gains of speed and
current controllers have to be calculated. For the calculation, it is necessary to know the
machine parameters, which have to be measured or obtained by the machine manufacturer.
In stable V/f control, just a few parameters have to be set up properly, including stabilizing
loop parameters and the controller gains in the CPF loop.
Low-speed operation is not acceptable for both sensorless control strategies. In the
stable V/f control with CPF, boost voltage has to be applied in such a region to properly
control the machine at low speeds. Sensorless FOC with Luenberger-type back-EMF
observer cannot even be used in such a region due to the unfavorable signal-to-noise ratio
of the voltage measurements, which is the main disadvantage of the back-EMF-based
sensorless methods.

6. Conclusions
A novel CPF loop for stable V/f control of PMSM is proposed in this paper. The
proposed sensorless control strategy is robust against machine parameters variation and
offers a low-cost and simple-to-implement solution. It also allows controlling the motor
power factor without dependence on machine parameters with the new CPF loop in the
dv qv reference frame. The main advantages of such a structure are speed control accu-
racy, parameter dependence, and computational time. The proposed control strategy was
also compared against the traditional sensorless FOC with a Luenberger-type back-EMF
observer within the paper. The back-EMF observer depends on the PMSM model, so it
is necessary to know the machine parameters. The strategy with a back-EMF observer
can be used just in the mid- and high-speed regions but with more than satisfactory con-
trol performance. However, due to the low-speed performance disadvantage, the stable
V/f was also used as a start-up control strategy for sensorless FOC with the Luenberger-
type back-EMF observer, providing satisfactory results. The experimental verification on
a 1.41 kW PMSM machine designed for golf cart traction applications shows that stable
V/f with a CPF loop seems to be more attractive than the back-EMF-based method regard-
ing sensorless speed control.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.V.; methodology, M.V. and P.M.; software, M.V. and
L.G.; validation, M.V. and P.M.; formal analysis, M.V.; investigation, M.V.; resources, M.V.; data
curation, M.V.; writing—original draft preparation, M.V.; writing—review and editing, L.G. and P.M.;
visualization, M.V.; supervision, L.G. and P.M.; project administration, P.M.; funding acquisition, P.M.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 26 of 29

Funding: This research was funded by the Slovak Scientific Grant Agency VEGA for project
support 1/0795/21.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data sharing not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Parameters of PIM.

Parameter Symbol Value Unit

Apparent power SN 150 kVA
Nominal voltage VN 340 V
Peak current I pk 420 A
PWM switching frequency f PW M 3–12 kHz
Maximum electrical efficiency ηmax 98 %

Table A2. Parameters of PMSM.

Parameter Symbol Value Unit

Rated power PN 1.41 kW
Rated speed nN 3000 rpm
Rated torque TN 4.5 Nm
Rated current IN 44.18 A
Rated frequency fN 250 Hz
Pole pairs p 5 -
Stator resistance Rs 0.011 Ω
d-axis inductance Ld 0.052 mH
q-axis inductance Lq 0.059 mH
Permanent magnet flux linkage ψ pm 0.0108 Wb
Motor inertia Jm 5.39 kg·cm2
System inertia Js 59.5 kg·cm2

Table A3. Parameters for the Stable V/f control with CPF.

Parameter Symbol Value Unit

Stabilizing loop constant C1 20 -
HPF time constant τH 15.9 ms
Proportional gain of the PI
K Pv 0.05 -
controller in the CPF loop
Integral gain of the PI
K Iv 1 × 10−5 -
controller in the CPF loop

Table A4. Parameters for the Sensorless FOC with Luenberger-type back-EMF observer.

Parameter Symbol Value Unit

Natural frequency of the speed controller f 0ω 0.25 Hz
Natural frequency of the d-axis
f 0dq 100 Hz
and q-axis current controller
Natural frequency of the back-EMF observer f 0bem f 100 Hz
Natural frequency of the tracking observer f 0to 4 Hz
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 27 of 29

References
1. Bolognani, S.; Oboe, R.; Zigliotto, M. Sensorless Full-Digital PMSM Drive with EKF Estimation of Speed and Rotor Position.
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 1999, 46, 184–191. [CrossRef]
2. Wang, Z.; Zheng, Y.; Zou, Z.; Cheng, M. Position Sensorless Control of Interleaved CSI Fed PMSM Drive with Extended Kalman
Filter. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2012, 48, 3688–3691. [CrossRef]
3. Quang, N.K.; Hieu, N.T.; Ha, Q.P. FPGA-Based Sensorless PMSM Speed Control Using Reduced-Order Extended Kalman Filters.
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2014, 61, 6574–6582. [CrossRef]
4. Orlowska-Kowalska, T.; Dybkowski, M. Stator-Current-Based MRAS Estimator for a Wide Range Speed-Sensorless Induction-
Motor Drive. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2010, 57, 1296–1308. [CrossRef]
5. Zhu, Y.; Tao, B.; Xiao, M.; Yang, G.; Zhang, X.; Lu, K. Luenberger Position Observer Based on Deadbeat-Current Predictive
Control for Sensorless PMSM. Electronics 2020, 9, 1325. [CrossRef]
6. Chi, S.; Zhang, Z.; Xu, L. Sliding-Mode Sensorless Control of Direct-Drive PM Synchronous Motors for Washing Machine
Applications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2009, 45, 582–590. [CrossRef]
7. Kim, H.; Son, J.; Lee, J. A High-Speed Sliding-Mode Observer for the Sensorless Speed Control of a PMSM. IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron. 2011, 58, 4069–4077. [CrossRef]
8. Rivera Dominguez, J.; Navarrete, A.; Meza, M.A.; Loukianov, A.G.; Canedo, J. Digital Sliding-Mode Sensorless Control for
Surface-Mounted PMSM. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2014, 10, 137–151. [CrossRef]
9. Song, X.; Fang, J.; Han, B.; Zheng, S. Adaptive Compensation Method for High-Speed Surface PMSM Sensorless Drives of
EMF-Based Position Estimation Error. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2016, 31, 1438–1449. [CrossRef]
10. Liang, D.; Li, J.; Qu, R. Sensorless Control of Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machine Based on Second-Order Sliding-Mode
Observer with Online Resistance Estimation. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2017, 53, 3672–3682. [CrossRef]
11. Wang, Y.; Xu, Y.; Zou, J. Sliding-Mode Sensorless Control of PMSM with Inverter Nonlinearity Compensation. IEEE Trans.
Power Electron. 2019, 34, 10206–10220. [CrossRef]
12. Morimoto, S.; Kawamoto, K.; Sanada, M.; Takeda, Y. Sensorless Control Strategy for Salient-Pole PMSM Based on Extended EMF
in Rotating Reference Frame. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2002, 38, 1054–1061. [CrossRef]
13. Zhiqian, C.; Tomita, M.; Doki, S.; Okuma, S. An Extended Electromotive Force Model for Sensorless Control of Interior Permanent-
Magnet Synchronous Motors. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2003, 50, 288–295. [CrossRef]
14. Burgos, R.; Kshirsagar, P.; Lidozzi, A.; Wang, F.; Boroyevich, D. Mathematical Model and Control Design for Sensorless Vector
Control of Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machines. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE Workshops on Computers in Power
Electronics, New York, NY, USA, 16–19 July 2006; pp. 76–82.
15. Kshirsagar, P.; Burgos, R.P.; Jang, J.; Lidozzi, A.; Wang, F.; Boroyevich, D.; Sul, S.-K. Implementation and Sensorless Vector-Control
Design and Tuning Strategy for SMPM Machines in Fan-Type Applications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2012, 48, 2402–2413. [CrossRef]
16. Piippo, A.; Hinkkanen, M.; Luomi, J. Analysis of an Adaptive Observer for Sensorless Control of Interior Permanent Magnet
Synchronous Motors. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2008, 55, 570–576. [CrossRef]
17. Fatu, M.; Teodorescu, R.; Boldea, I.; Andreescu, G.-D.; Blaabjerg, F. I-F Starting Method with Smooth Transition to EMF Based
Motion-Sensorless Vector Control of PM Synchronous Motor/Generator. In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE Power Electronics
Specialists Conference, Rhodes, Greece, 15–19 June 2008; pp. 1481–1487.
18. Wang, Z.; Lu, K.; Blaabjerg, F. A Simple Startup Strategy Based on Current Regulation for Back-EMF-Based Sensorless Control of
PMSM. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2012, 27, 3817–3825. [CrossRef]
19. Wang, M.; Xu, Y.; Zou, J.; Lan, H. An Optimized I-F Startup Method for BEMF-Based Sensorless Control of SPMSM. In
Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Transportation Electrification Conference and Expo, Asia-Pacific (ITEC Asia-Pacific), Harbin, China,
7–10 August 2017; pp. 1–6.
20. Inoue, Y.; Yamada, K.; Morimoto, S.; Sanada, M. Effectiveness of Voltage Error Compensation and Parameter Identification for
Model-Based Sensorless Control of IPMSM. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2009, 45, 213–221. [CrossRef]
21. Ichikawa, S.; Tomita, M.; Doki, S.; Okuma, S. Sensorless Control of Synchronous Reluctance Motors Based on Extended EMF
Models Considering Magnetic Saturation with Online Parameter Identification. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2006, 42, 1264–1274.
[CrossRef]
22. Yoo, J.; Lee, Y.; Sul, S.-K. Back-EMF Based Sensorless Control of IPMSM with Enhanced Torque Accuracy Against Param-
eter Variation. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE), Portland, OR, USA,
23–27 September 2018; pp. 3463–3469.
23. Hejny, R.W.; Lorenz, R.D. Evaluating the Practical Low-Speed Limits for Back-EMF Tracking-Based Sensorless Speed Control
Using Drive Stiffness as a Key Metric. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2011, 47, 1337–1343. [CrossRef]
24. Inoue, Y.; Kawaguchi, Y.; Morimoto, S.; Sanada, M. Performance Improvement of Sensorless IPMSM Drives in a Low-Speed
Region Using Online Parameter Identification. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2011, 47, 798–804. [CrossRef]
25. Zossak, S.; Sovicka, P.; Sumega, M.; Rafajdus, P. Evaluating Low Speed Limit of Back-EMF Observer for Permanent Magnet
Synchronous Motor. Transp. Res. Procedia 2019, 40, 610–615. [CrossRef]
26. Corley, M.J.; Lorenz, R.D. Rotor Position and Velocity Estimation for a Salient-Pole Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machine at
Standstill and High Speeds. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 1998, 34, 784–789. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 28 of 29

27. Jung-Ik, H.; Ide, K.; Sawa, T.; Sul, S.-K. Sensorless Rotor Position Estimation of an Interior Permanent-Magnet Motor from Initial
States. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2003, 39, 761–767. [CrossRef]
28. Xie, G.; Lu, K.; Dwivedi, S.K.; Rosholm, J.R.; Blaabjerg, F. Minimum-Voltage Vector Injection Method for Sensorless Control of
PMSM for Low-Speed Operations. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2016, 31, 1785–1794. [CrossRef]
29. Kim, S.-I.; Im, J.-H.; Song, E.-Y.; Kim, R.-Y. A New Rotor Position Estimation Method of IPMSM Using All-Pass Filter on
High-Frequency Rotating Voltage Signal Injection. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2016, 63, 6499–6509. [CrossRef]
30. Ji-Hoon, J.; Sul, S.-K.; Jung-Ik, H.; Ide, K.; Sawamura, M. Sensorless Drive of Surface-Mounted Permanent-Magnet Motor by
High-Frequency Signal Injection Based on Magnetic Saliency. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2003, 39, 1031–1039. [CrossRef]
31. Shih-Chin, Y.; Lorenz, R.D. Surface Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machine Position Estimation at Low Speed Using Eddy-
Current-Reflected Asymmetric Resistance. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2012, 27, 2595–2604. [CrossRef]
32. Yang, S.-C.; Lorenz, R.D. Surface Permanent-Magnet Machine Self-Sensing at Zero and Low Speeds Using Improved Observer for
Position, Velocity, and Disturbance Torque Estimation. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2012, 48, 151–160. [CrossRef]
33. Seilmeier, M.; Piepenbreier, B. Sensorless Control of PMSM for the Whole Speed Range Using Two-Degree-of-Freedom Current
Control and HF Test Current Injection for Low-Speed Range. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2015, 30, 4394–4403. [CrossRef]
34. Young-Doo, Y.; Seung-Ki, S.; Morimoto, S.; Ide, K. High-Bandwidth Sensorless Algorithm for AC Machines Based on Square-
Wave-Type Voltage Injection. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2011, 47, 1361–1370. [CrossRef]
35. Kim, D.; Kwon, Y.-C.; Sul, S.-K.; Kim, J.-H.; Yu, R.-S. Suppression of Injection Voltage Disturbance for High-Frequency Square-
Wave Injection Sensorless Drive with Regulation of Induced High-Frequency Current Ripple. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2016,
52, 302–312. [CrossRef]
36. Xu, P.L.; Zhu, Z.Q. Novel Square-Wave Signal Injection Method Using Zero-Sequence Voltage for Sensorless Control of PMSM
Drives. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2016, 63, 7444–7454. [CrossRef]
37. Ni, R.; Xu, D.; Blaabjerg, F.; Lu, K.; Wang, G.; Zhang, G. Square-Wave Voltage Injection Algorithm for PMSM Position Sensorless
Control with High Robustness to Voltage Errors. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2017, 32, 5425–5437. [CrossRef]
38. Wang, G.; Valla, M.; Solsona, J. Position Sensorless Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machine Drives—A Review. IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron. 2020, 67, 5830–5842. [CrossRef]
39. Hong, J.; Jung, S.; Nam, K. An Incorporation Method of Sensorless Algorithms: Signal Injection and Back EMF Based Meth-
ods. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Power Electronics Conference—ECCE ASIA, Sapporo, Japan, 21–24 June 2010;
pp. 2743–2747.
40. Yang, S.-C.; Hsu, Y.-L. Full Speed Region Sensorless Drive of Permanent-Magnet Machine Combining Saliency-Based and
Back-EMF-Based Drive. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2017, 64, 1092–1101. [CrossRef]
41. Bose, B.K. Control and Estimation of Induction Motor Drives. In Modern Power Electronics and AC Drives; Pearson Education Inc.:
Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2002; p. 339.
42. Perera, P.D.C. Mathematical Models and Control Properties. In Sensorless Control of Permanent-Magnet Synchronous Motor Drives;
Aalborg University: Aalborg, Denmark, 2002.
43. Perera, P.D.C.; Blaabjerg, F.; Pedersen, J.K.; Thogersen, P. A Sensorless, Stable V/f Control Method for Permanent-Magnet
Synchronous Motor Drives. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2003, 39, 783–791. [CrossRef]
44. Itoh, J.-I.; Nomura, N.; Ohsawa, H. A Comparison between V/f Control and Position-Sensorless Vector Control for the Permanent
Magnet Synchronous Motor. In Proceedings of the Power Conversion Conference-Osaka 2002 (Cat. No.02TH8579), Osaka, Japan,
2–5 April 2002; pp. 1310–1315.
45. Kiuchi, M.; Ohnishi, T.; Hagiwara, H.; Yasuda, Y. V/f Control of Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motors Suitable for Home
Appliances by DC-Link Peak Current Control Method. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Power Electronics Conference
—ECCE ASIA, Sapporo, Japan, 21–24 June 2010; pp. 567–573.
46. Sue, S.-M.; Hung, T.-W.; Liaw, J.-H.; Li, Y.-F.; Sun, C.-Y. A New MTPA Control Strategy for Sensorless V/f Controlled
PMSM Drives. In Proceedings of the 2011 6th IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications, Beijing, China,
21–23 June 2011; pp. 1840–1844.
47. Kim, W.-J.; Kim, S.-H. A Sensorless V/f Control Technique Based on MTPA Operation for PMSMs. In Proceedings of the 2018
IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE), Portland, OR, USA, 23–27 September 2018; pp. 1716–1721.
48. Andreescu, G.-D.; Coman, C.-E.; Moldovan, A.; Boldea, I. Stable V/f Control System with Unity Power Factor for PMSM Drives.
In Proceedings of the 2012 13th International Conference on Optimization of Electrical and Electronic Equipment (OPTIM),
Brasov, Romania, 24–26 May 2012; pp. 432–438.
49. Coman, C.-E.; Agarlita, S.-C.; Andreescu, G.-D. V/f Control Strategy with Constant Power Factor for SPMSM Drives, with
Experiments. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 8th International Symposium on Applied Computational Intelligence and
Informatics (SACI), Timisoara, Romania, 23–25 May 2013; pp. 147–151.
50. Agarlita, S.; Coman, C.; Andreescu, G.; Boldea, I. Stable V/f Control System with Controlled Power Factor Angle for Permanent
Magnet Synchronous Motor Drives. IET Electr. Power Appl. 2013, 7, 278–286. [CrossRef]
51. Isfanuti, A.; Paicu, M.-C.; Andreescu, G.-D.; Tutelea, L.N.; Staudt, T.; Boldea, I. V/f with Stabilizing Loops and MTPA versus
Sensorless FOC for PMSM Drives. Electr. Power Compon. Syst. 2020, 48, 1197–1210. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9179 29 of 29

52. Vidlak, M.; Gorel, L.; Makys, P. Performance Evaluation, Analysis, and Comparison of the Back-EMF-Based Sensorless FOC
and Stable V/f Control for PMSM. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Symposium on Power Electronics, Electrical Drives,
Automation and Motion (SPEEDAM), Sorrento, Italy, 22 June 2022; pp. 318–323.
53. Consoli, A.; Scelba, G.; Scarcella, G.; Cacciato, M. An Effective Energy-Saving Scalar Control for Industrial IPMSM Drives.
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2013, 60, 3658–3669. [CrossRef]
54. Lee, K.; Han, Y. MTPA Control Strategy Based on Signal Injection for V/f Scalar-Controlled Surface Permanent Magnet Syn-
chronous Machine Drives. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 96036–96044. [CrossRef]
55. Hrabovcová, V.; Rafajdus, P.; Makyš, P. Analysis of Electrical Machines; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020; ISBN 978-1-83880-207-3.
56. Vidlak, M.; Gorel, L.; Makys, P.; Stano, M. Sensorless Speed Control of Brushed DC Motor Based at New Current Ripple
Component Signal Processing. Energies 2021, 14, 5359. [CrossRef]
57. Filka, R.; Balazovic, P.; Dobrucky, B. Transducerless Speed Control with Initial Position Detection for Low Cost PMSM
Drives. In Proceedings of the 2008 13th International Power Electronics and Motion Control Conference, Poznan, Poland,
1–3 September 2008; pp. 1402–1408.