This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

AHMED A. HASSAN1, JEAN THOMAS2 and FARAG AHWIDE3

ABSTRACT This paper investigates the application of the Model Predictive Control (MPC) technique in order to control the speed and/or position of the Linear Induction Motor (LIM) drive. The main goal of this controller is to provide the optimal 3-phase primary voltages necessary for tracking a certain reference trajectory. Moreover, constraints over the flux and current could be imposed to keep them within permissible values. The main idea is to tighten the future output error to zero, with minimum input effort. The MPC controller produces its optimal output derived from a quadratic cost function minimization based on the linearized machine model. A PI controller may be used in order to eliminate the steady state error completely. The MPC controller has the many advantages such as very fast response, robustness against load disturbance and parameters uncertainty, and it does not require coordinate transformations and pulse width modulation. Simulation results show that the MPC controller succeeded in well tracking all given speed reference trajectories at high speed as well as at low speed with almost no current and force ripples. KEYWORDS: Linear Induction Motor, Model Predictive Control, Model Uncertainty and Load Disturbances. 1. INTRODUCTION Nowadays, the linear induction motor (LIM) has been widely used in a variety of applications like as transportation, conveyor systems, actuators, material handling,

1

A. A. Hassan: Faculty of Enginnering, Electrical Engineering Dept., El-Minia University, Minia, Egypt Phone: +20 (0)86 75 55005 Email: aahsn@yahoo.com 2 J. H. Thomas: Faculty of Industrial Education, Automatic Control Department, Beni-Sueif University, Egypt , Phone : +20 (0)12 52 63 476 Email : jhh_thomas@yahoo.com 3 F. Ahwide: Faculty of Enginnering, Electrical Engineering Dept., El-Minia University, Minia, Egypt Phone: +20 (0)86 75 55005 Email: faragahwide6@hotmail.com

and lower parameter dependence. The driving principles of the LIM are similar to those of the traditional rotary induction motor. the control characteristics of the LIM are more complicated. 7. elevators. robot base movers. However. curtain pullers. Also the sliding mode control [21. However. However. 10]. the method of Direct Torque Control (DTC) is considered one of the latest and efficient techniques that used for this purpose [9. simplicity of design and implementation. and rail configuration. 19] is one of the effective methods that has many good features such as fast dynamic response. temperature. 2]. the classical DTC has inherent drawbacks such as variable switching frequency. simple mechanical construction. 8]. there are uncertainties existing in practical applications of the LIM which is usually composed of unpredictable plant parameter variations. sliding door closers. simpler configuration. Modern control techniques have been used to control the speed and/or position of the induction motor drives. the LIM drive system must provide high tracking performance. and high dynamic stiffness to overcome the above difficulties [1. no backlash and less friction. Therefore. office automation. drop towers. This method is combined with adaptive backstepping to control the mover position of a LIM drive [11]. etc. there has been considerable interest in the applications of intelligent methods to deal with the nonlinearities and uncertainties of the LIM control . Moreover. 22]. This is attributed to the change in operating conditions such as mover speed. high noise level at low speeds and also the difficulty to control torque and flux at low speeds. The advantages of DTC strategy are fast transient response. and robustness to parameter variations or load disturbance. the implementation of the associated control switching will cause chattering which involves high control activity and may excite unmodeled dynamics. This is attributed to the several advantages that the LIM may possess such as high starting thrust. In the past few years. high torque and current ripples. and unmodeled and nonlinear dynamics. alleviation of gears between motor and the motion devices. [3.pumping of liquid metal. external load disturbance. Among these techniques. and suitability for low speed and high speed applications [17.

non-minimum phase systems. This optimal solution is calculated based on the current states of the system. 20]. constrained systems [4].system. On the other hand. It can efficiently control a great variety of processes. 15] have been employed for this purpose. the model predictive controller has been applied to control the speed and/or position of the LIM drive. A robust controller that combines the merits of integral-proportional (IP) position control and neural network has been designed for a LIM drive [14]. The feedback linearization theory is used to decouple the thrust and flux amplitude of the LIM. Also. including systems with long delay times. However. These disadvantages could be avoided using intelligent backstepping control systems in order to control the mover of the LIM drive. Intelligent methods such as neural. an attempt to control the mover position of the LIM drive using real coded genetic algorithm has been reported in [12]. the actual speed error and the predicted future output of the model. as well as complex and hybrid systems [18]. the MPC controller offers an optimal 3-phase primary voltage necessary for tracking the speed trajectory. Model Predictive Control (MPC) appears to be an efficient strategy to control many applications in industry. This is in addition to the chattering problem associated with the sliding mode. the major drawback of this method is that their application domain is limited to static problems due to the feedforward neural network structure. The controller calculates the optimal primary voltages while respecting the given constraints over the flux and current to keep them within permissible values. Based on a linearized model for the LIM. fuzzy and genetic algorithm have been employed for this purpose [12-15. The recurrent or recurrent-fuzzy neural networks [13. where the secondary flux is estimated using the sliding mode flux observer. In this paper. Simulation results proved that the response of the proposed controller is very fast . multivariable systems. unstable systems. and the neural network is used to estimate the lumped uncertainty.

L s Lr and p : differential operator. . DYNAMIC MODEL OF THE LINEAR INDUCTION MOTOR The dynamic model of the LIM is modified from the traditional model of a three phase. General consideration about model predictive control (MPC) and its cost function are presented in section 3. Simulation results and general remarks are presented in section 5. The implementation scheme of the LIM drive together with the MPC controller is described in section 4. Rr σ = 1− L2 m . Moreover. 2. it shows more robustness against parameter uncertainty and load disturbances in the high speed as well as low speed ranges. Finally.compared to the classical direct torque controller. the conclusions and future work are given in section 6. The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 briefly presents the dynamic model of the linear induction motor. Y-connected induction motor in α − β stationary frame and can be described by the following differential equations [14]: R 1−σ p iα s = − s + σL s σTr R 1−σ p i β s = − s + σL s σTr pλαr = n p Lmπ Lm 1 iαs + λαr + υ λr + Vαs β σLs Lr Tr σLs Lr h σLs n p Lm π Lm 1 i β s − υ λr + λ βr + Vβ s α σ L s Lr h σLs Lr Tr σLs (1) (2) n pπ Lm 1 iαs − λαr − υ λβ r Tr Tr h n pπ Lm 1 iβ s + υ λαr − λβr Tr h Tr (3) pλβr = pυ = (4) 1 D 1 Fe − υ − FL M M M (5) Where : Tr = Lr . Fe : electromagnetic force.

the Generalized Predictive Control (GPC). that become the most utilizing technique after that. υ: M : total mass of the moving element. among them the chemical process. np : h: Lr : pole pitch. : α −β primary voltage components. It has proved to efficiently control a wide range of applications in industry. that was the first . leakage coefficient. λαr . Tr number of pole pairs. developed by David Clarke and his team [5]. Lm :magnetizing inductance per phase. V β s s σ: α − β primary current components. Rs : primary winding resistance per phase. many methods based on the same concepts are developed.FL : Ls : external force disturbance. are now grouped under the name Model Predictive Control (MPC) [4]. MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL A. i βs : Vα . In fact MPC received a very favourable echo in the industry because it is recognized as a simple and effective control technique. Those types of control. mover linear velocity. D : viscous friction and iron-loss coefficient. iαs . In 1980s. primary inductance per phase. Among them. The electromagnetic force can be described in the α − β fixed frame as [11]: Fe = k f λαr iβs − λβr iαs ( ) kf = 3n p Lmπ 2 Lr h (6) Where k f is the force constant which is equal to: 3. and noted by the work done by [16]. secondary inductance per phase. Rr : : secondary time constant. General Consideration Predictive control was first developed at the end of 1970s. λβr : α − β secondary flux components. secondary resistance per phase.

The interesting of this control technique becomes obvious when the trajectory to be . including systems with long delay times. non-minimum phase systems. which maximizes the tracking performance while satisfying constraints. The control signal at instant t is obtained by solving. at each sampling period. multivariable systems. (1). electromechanical systems like controlling robot axes and many other applications. 1 : A simple block diagram describing the MPC. B. at each sampling instant. Principal Ideas of Model Predictive Control The main idea of predictive control is to use a model of the plant to predict future outputs of the system. It is capable to control a great variety of processes. an on line open loop optimal control problem over a finite horizon using the current state of the system as initial states. Based on this prediction. constrained systems and hybrid systems. the whole procedure is repeated again at the next sampling period according to the ‘receding’ horizon strategy [6]. petrol industry. It should be noted that the predicted output from the system model and the actual error are used to obtain the control signal. a sequence of future control values is elaborated through an on-line optimization process. unstable systems. A simple block diagram characterizing the MPC is shown in Fig. Only the first value of this optimal sequence is applied to the plant.application for this type of control. Model predictive control is based on the system model and the principles of residing horizon control (RHC). D isturbances w + R ulator eg ˆ y u P rocess y P redictive R lator egu based on a m odel P redicted O ut utp M ode l Fig.

g. e. with minimum input effort. N 2 . N u is the ( control horizon. chemical process or machine tools. being simple to apply in the case of multivariable system. can compensate the effect of pure delay by the prediction. w( k + j ) represents the reference trajectory over the future horizon N . in particularly it can pilot a big variety of process. The general object is to tighten the future output error to zero. The cost function to be minimized is generally a weighted sum of square predicted errors and square future control values. where the anticipation action takes place. β( j ). as for example in the robot. N 2 are the lower and upper prediction horizons over the output. Model Predictive Control have many advantages. and in the present of constraints it becomes a relatively more complex regulator than the PID for example.followed by the system is known in advance. in GPC: ˆ J ( N1 . and it takes more time for on-line calculations when the constraints intervene. being a simple technique of control to be applied and also offer optimal solution while respecting the given constraints. inducing the anticipate effect in closed loop. The control horizon permits to decrease the number of calculated future control according to the relation: ∆u ( k + j ) = 0 for j ≥ N u . this type of restructure required the knowledge of model for the system. Constraints over the control signal. λ j ) are weighting factors. On the other hand. . N u ) = ∑ β ( j )[ y (k + j k ) − w(k + j )] + ∑ λ ( j )[ u (k + j − 1)] 2 2 j = N1 j =1 N2 Nu (8) Where N1 . the outputs and the control signal changing can be added to the cost function: u min ≤ u ( k ) ≤ u max ∆u min ≤ ∆u (k ) ≤ ∆u max y min ≤ y ( k ) ≤ y max (9) Solution of (8) gives the optimal sequence of control signal over the horizon N while respecting the given constraints of (9).

The secondary flux components are estimated using the voltage and current signals as follows: λαr = ( Lr / Lm ) (λαs − σ Ls iαs ) λβr = ( Lr / Lm ) (λβs − σ Ls i βs ) (10) Where : λαs = ∫ (Vαs − iαs Rs )dt . MPC controller. voltage source inverter. The motor speed signal is measured and compared with a reference one. (2). output of the PI controller. estimated secondary fluxes and motor speed respectively. due to the . The system consists mainly of LIM. The system states are [iαs i βs λαr λ βr vr ]T . and feedback of the control signal. SYSTEM CONFIGURATION The block diagram of the linear induction motor controlled with the proposed MPC controller is shown in Fig. This linearization is made on-line at each sampling instant. 2. speed encoder. primary currents. A PI controller on the speed error is fed to the MPC controller in order to reduce the steady state error.4. The signals input to the MPC controller are the system states and their references. and secondary flux estimator. λβs = ∫ (Vβs − iβs Rs )dt iabc Fig. Block diagram of the LIM drive controlled with the MPC controller A linearization for the LIM model is made to be used as the linear model of the MPC controller.

u k −1 . 180-V. the load force is taken as unmeasured disturbance input to the system. The motor detailed parameters are listed below in table (1). 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Computer simulations have been carried out in order to validate the robustness of the proposed scheme. Weights on manipulated variable rates = 0. The data of the LIM used for simulation procedure are [14]: 3-phase. Figure (3) shows the speed responses of the proposed MPC controller and also that obtained with the classical DTC. Instead.continuous change of the operating points. K I = 300 . maximum and minimum constraints are taken into account in the MPC controller so that the currents and fluxes do not exceed certain values. Different operating conditions including load change. various speed trajectories and mismatched parameter have been assumed.0001 sec. Weights on manipulated variables = 0 . The weights on the output currents and fluxes are set to zero because the reference trajectories of those signals are unknown.1 . 2-pole. The Matlab / Simulink software package has been used for this purpose. The LIM is assumed to start at t=0 and accelerated up to 2 m/sec in the first 0. Gains of the PI controller are: K p = 5. 14. The control signal is memorized and fedback to the input of the MPC for the linearization purpose. then the motor speed is kept constant at this value during the remaining simulation period. around the current states and the last control signal x k . The parameters of the MPC controller are set as follows: Prediction horizon N = 50 .2 A. Sampling interval = 0. Also.2 second. It is worthy to note that the acceleration period . Y-connected. Weights on the output signals = [ 0 0 0 0 2000 ]. 3-kW. control horizon N u = 50 . 60-Hz.

This is attributed to that the response speed of the DTC method is limited by the sector changes involved in its principle which depends on the flux and torque errors in addition to the flux position angle. On the other hand. to 700 N. there is a small dip in the speed response due to the load change. (wb) Rs (Ω) Rr (Ω) Ls (H) Lr (H) Lm (H) 0.5 seconds. Kf (N/wb. the MPC controller takes less than 0.78 36. At t=0. It has been noticed that with the MPC controller.5 sec. Furthermore. but the controller succeeded in restoring the speed reference very quickly.(0.). D (kg/s) Force constant. h (m) 3. only because it predicts how much the actual speed will deviate from its setpoint within the prediction horizon. . in order to attain the steady state value either from start or after the load disturbance took place.0455 148.35 0. The load force is stepped from 350 N. viscous friction and iron-loss coefficient. at t = 0. It can be said that the MPC controller response is much faster than that of the DTC response and able to deal with load changes more efficiently.5315 0.03 sec. the MPC provides feedback compensation for the load disturbance. and then adjusts the control output to achieve the objective speed. TABLE 1 PARAMETERS AND DATA OF THE LIM 5.077 sec. This is because the tested motor has a smaller size and less weight and so lower mechanical time constant (0.02846 0.2 sec) is thought to be enough for the motor to attain the desired speed (2 m/sec).056 It is worthy to indicate that the DTC needs to about 0.5 sec.027 2. the reference and actual speeds are aligned and good tracking performance has been achieved.3685 Pole pitch.02419 Total mass of the mover.A) Rated secondary flux.02846 0. multiplies the speed error by its weight. Nominal motor parameters are assumed. M (kg) .

This is attributed to the large difference between the given initial states and the actual states which affect the linearization model.2 0. Figure (4) shows the simulation waveforms obtained.3 Loa d Change 2 MPC response 1 0 Spe e d (m/s) speed referance -1 -2 DT C response -3 -4 -5 0 0.) 0. developed force and three phase primary currents.55 sec.1 0.9 1 Fig.4 0. The later is enlarged during the period from t= 0.phase currents and the electromagnetic force do not contain ripples as usually with the DTC technique for such low speed. Again the controller responds quickly to the load disturbance and behaves well at low speed except for the first few milliseconds at the beginning of simulation. in which the load change occurs.5 Tim e (s e c. They are from top to bottom: speed response.45 to 0. with the same load change of the previous scenario.7 0. (3) MPC response versus DTC response The performance of the MPC controller is tested also at low speed (0.1 m/s). .3 0. It is clear that the 3.6 0.8 0.

5 Time (s e c.7 0.1 sec.47 0.s pe e d re s pons e Spe e d (m/s) 0 Spe ed re fe ra nce -0. To validate the robustness of the MPC controller against parameters uncertainty.4 0.9 1 100 Thre e pha se prima ry currents 50 0 -50 0. Figure (5) illustrates the simulation waveforms in this case of uncertainty at low speed (0.4 0.3 0.) 0.1 0.55 Fig.48 0.54 0.1 0. .2 0.5 0.1 m/s).53 0. the effect of primary resistance only has been considered the value of primary resistance is increased by 50% in the LIM model while it is kept at its nominal value in the controller.51 0.45 0.5 Time (s e c. the waveforms of the developed force and primary currents are free of any ripples. Also.2 0. the reference speed is attained in 0. only.3 0.8 0.46 0.6 0.49 0.7 0. Thus.8 0.52 0.9 1 2000 D e ve lope d Force 1000 0 -1000 -2000 0 0.) 0.5 Loa d C ha nge -1 0 0. It has been indicated that very fast response has been achieved using the MPC controller. The load is kept constant at the level of 350 N. 4.6 0. Simulation results obtained with the MPC controller at low speed.

In order to check the tracking performance of the MPC controller. Simulation results obtained with the MPC controller at low speed and mismatched primary resistance.4 0.5 Tim e (s e c.4 0.) 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.9 1 1500 D e ve lope d Force 1000 500 0 -500 0 0.4 0.9 1 50 Thre e pha se prima ry curre nts 0 -50 0 0. Figure (6) shows the result of the MPC response as well as the DTC response with sinusoidal speed command having frequency = 5 Hz and amplitude 1 m/s.9 1 4000 3000 D e ve lope d Force 2000 1000 0 -1000 -2000 0 0.9 1 Fig.3 0. 5.7 0.1 0.05 Spe e d re fe re nce 0 0 0.8 0. 2 1 0 Spe e d (m/s) MPC re s pons e -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 0 Spe e d re fe re nce D TC re s pons e 0.8 0.2 0.7 0.8 0. it has also been investigated with sinusoidal variation of the speed reference.7 0.2 0. This means that the reference position of the mover is also sinusoidal.1 0.6 0.2 Spe e d (m/s) 0.0.2 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.9 1 .5 Tim e (s e c.4 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.) 0.8 0.) 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.5 Tim e (s e c.15 Spe e d re s po ns e 0.5 Tim e (s e c.2 0.6 0. It is clear from the figure that the DTC response is not able to track the speed reference while the MPC controller succeeds in following the reference trajectory.) 0.7 0.3 0.

Finally. It has been shown that the MPC controller offers better response than that of the classical direct torque control. Future work should include experimental works to validate this technique practically. robustness against parameter uncertainties and load changes. well tracking of speed trajectory at all speeds and has almost no current and force ripples. it does not require coordinate transformations and pulse width modulation. 6. The proposed MPC controller response has many advantages. and permanent magnet synchronous motor. Also. (6) MPC response versus DTC response with sinusoidal speed reference. It has been thought that the proposed controller is the fastest at all among the existent traditional controllers. However. .Fig. CONCLUSIONS This paper presents the successful application of the model predictive controller to control the speed and/or position of the Linear induction motor drive. very fast response. the same technique will be applied to control other machines like rotary induction motor. the recurrent neural control will be used to overcome the computational load problem of the MPC controller. In addition. This controller provides the optimal primary voltages necessary for tracking a certain reference speed trajectory while fulfilling the constraints over the flux and current to keep them within permissible values. it has relatively high computation load which include the on-line linearization and the optimal solution computation.

and L.-J. 1999. Model predictive control. 251256. pp. Lin F.2. On Energy Conversion.REFERENCES 1. Robust control using neural network uncertainty observer for linear induction motor servodrive.W. Electric Power System Research 72 .. G. Gastli A. IEEE Trans. 12. 157-169. Springer-Verlag. Electr. Boldea I. 2001. 1997. 28. C. 17. On Fuzzy Systems. 14. Vol. 2002. 1998. Boucher. Abdou G. F.-J.2. A. pp. 4. Vol. and P. On-line gain tuning IP controller using real coded genetic algorithm.3. 9. Adaptive backstepping sliding mode control for linear induction motor drive. 1992. IEEE Trans. and F. 7. 111116. A Review Introduction to Linear GPC and Applications. Direct torque control of induction machines using space vector modulation. Compensation for the effect of joints in the secondary conductors of a linear induction motor. Vol. London.. and S. and S.3. Bucci G. Cambridge University Press. pp. Tuffs. 1991. On power Electronics. Journal A. 1987. The control of LIM by a generalization of standard vector techniques. Pastorelli. and Po-Kai Huang. Scarano. Appl. 2000. 27. A modified direct torque control of induction motor sensorless drive. Proc. Sherif. 1994. Profumo. IEEE Trans. and S. No. and II. Vol. Kuo-Kai Shyu. Nasar.286293. A.H.-P. pp. 15. Meo. 137-160. pp. 21-35. 149. Habetler T.-H.1. 1998. UK. 13. S. Asymmetrical constants and effect of joints in the secondary conductors of a linear induction motor.. Bordons. No. pp. M. Dumur D. 2002. IEE Proc. Application. 3. Generalized predictive control – Part I. 23(2). On Energy Conversion. F. pp. Lin F.122-130. No. pp. . Automatica. Ometto. S. 184-194. Vol. 8.241-251.2. 10. IEEE Trans. Indust. 6. Hsin-Jang Shieh. Hsu. E. of IEEE IAS. pp. and Rong-Jong Wai. 13. IEEE Trans. 11. Power Appl. and Rong-Jong Wai. No.. No. 623-626. 39(4). A.. and M. 2004..102-115. Tolbert. Vol. Camacho.. 5. Clarke. 2000. D. Vol. pp.. Boldea. Lascu C. Linear electric actuators and generators. Hybrid control using recurrent fuzzy neural network for linear induction motor servo drive. P. 9. No. Ind. I. IEEE Trans. Vol. pp. Gastli A.-J. Ind. Shen.. Application. pp. Lin Faa-Jeng. 36. IEEE Trans. Theoritical and experimental design of LIM in automated manufacturing systems. Mohtadi and P. 2.. Blaabjerg.1045-1053. M. and C. Lin F.

I. 14(5).. pp.. 2001. 49.E. A. Lin Faa-Jeng. pp. Takahashi I. 1993. C.Control Theory Appl. Utkin. T. 413-428. 22. Adaptive backstepping control using recurrent neural network for linear induction motor drive. Yan Z.134-145. J. Thomas J. 19. Dumur. No. 3. pp.1. Rault. J.3. F-J. Dec.تحقيق المسار المرسوم للسرعة مع وضع حدود على قيم كل من الفيض والتيار بحيث ل تتعدى القيم المسموح بها والفكرة الساسية للمتحكم التنبؤى تقوم على اجبار قيمة الخطأ فى السرعة لكى تصل الى الصفر بأقل قيمههة للههدخل . Proc. 2002. 29. Application... 2004. IEEE Trans. 18. 20. Zhang Z. Sept. Wen-Der Chou. 1993. Lin and S. Jin. التحكم التنبؤى النمزجى فى سواقة المحرك الحثى الخطى ذو الثلثة أوجه : ملخص يقوم هذا البحث بتطههبيق طريقههة التحكههم التنبههؤى النمزجههى للتحكههم فههى سههرعة المحههرك الحههثى الخطههى. Vol. 21. 375-379.1380-1387. Rong-Jong Wai.15. 1978. IEE Proc. Vol. Indust. 36. and V.. pp. Sensorless sliding mode control of induction motors. Ind. Automatica. Tursini M. 17. 2000. Petrella.. pp.. 16. Ind. R Eastham.161167.. التكاملى المعروف الى المتحكم التنبؤى ولقد أثبتت النتائج نجهاح النظههام المقههترح فههى جعههل سهرعة المحهرك الحهثى الخطههى يتبهع بدقههة المسههار المرجعههى : المرسوم سواء فى السرعات العالية أو المنخفضة . Ide. L. Testud and J.. IEEE Trans.-P. and G.1286-1297. Vol. 78-85. Wai R. Appl./Oct. IEEE Trans. Peak thrust operation of linear induction machines from parameter identification. Dawson.Hsu. Richalet J. pp. and Parasiliti. Gueguen.1. and Shu-eng Hsu. pp. Vol. Intelligent backstepping control for linear induction motor drive. 148. pp. No. No. Model Predictive Control for Hybrid Systems under a State Partition based MLD Approach (SPMLD). 2000. of IEEE IAS. Vol. automation and robotics ICINCO’04. 47.بناء على تقليل دالة التكلفة التربيعية. Decoupling control of thrust and attractive force of a LIM using a space vector control inverter. International conference on informatics in control. IEEE Trans. Japon. On Industrial Electronics. وعلوة على ذلك فانه يملك المميزات التية . والهههدف الساسى من استخدام ذلك المتحكم هو اخراج جهد مثههالى ثلثههى الوجههه علههى اطههراف المحههرك لكههى يتمكههن مههن .193-202. Adaptive sliding mode observer for speed sensorless control of induction motors. Model predictive heuristic control : application to industrial processes. Vol.-J. Electronics.. Setúbal. ويستخدم لتحقيق ذلك النموزج الرياضى الخطى للمحرك ولضمان وصول قيمة الخطأ فهى السهرعة الههى الصههفر فههى مرحلهة السهتقرار فهانه تهم اضهافة المتحكهم التناسهبى . Buisson and H. R. D. and Y.

2.1.يحقق أقل نسبة من التشوهات فى التيار المسحوب من المصدر وكذلك القوة المحركة. 3.يملك استجابة أسرع من أى متحكم آخر. .يملك متانة عالية ضد التغير فى عناصر المحرك أو التغير فى الحمل.

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- LIMby kommerapranayreddy
- Simulation of High Performance PID Controller for Induction Motor Speed Control With Mathematical Modelingby Santhosh Guduru
- 33I17-IJAET1117374_v6_iss5_2253-2261by Lava Kumar
- Comparative Study of Speed Control of Induction Motor Using PI and Fuzzy Logic Controllerby International Organization of Scientific Research (IOSR)

- LIM
- Simulation of High Performance PID Controller for Induction Motor Speed Control With Mathematical Modeling
- 33I17-IJAET1117374_v6_iss5_2253-2261
- Comparative Study of Speed Control of Induction Motor Using PI and Fuzzy Logic Controller
- ACC_slides_MHE_v1.pdf
- Induction Motor
- Sensor Less Speed Control of an Induction Motor
- Jia 2012
- 2-2-1
- X1 Robotics R&D
- 019_036.pdf
- 14-28-1-PB
- Induction Motor
- CR4 - Thread_ Polarity Checking of 6 Lead 3Ph Induction Motor
- IJoi
- Catalogue AEEB.pdf
- Design of Indoor Blimp
- 76292560 Electric Machines and Drives 190
- Slip-Ring Motor Introduction & Application
- Induction Motor 1
- Final 1
- 1.Modelimi i Ngasjes Dhe Motorit Asinkron- Gjithashtu Edhe Modeli Matematik
- Ac Drives 01.ppt
- 114_JCRS_20130322
- Ch 3 - Induction Motors
- A Comparative Study of Field-Oriented Control and Direct-Torque Control of Induction Motors Using an Adaptive Flux Observer
- 27158 AEC AssignmentNo
- IJETAE_1212_24
- Village Electrification2
- ICA2009-B21
- Model Predictive Control

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd