Field Weakening with Nonlinear Controller Design for an Interior
Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor
Ji-Liang Shi
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology
43 Keelung Road, Section 4
Abstract – This paper proposes a field weakening control
algorithm with a nonlinear speed-loop controller for an
interior permanent magnet synchronous motor. By using the
proposed method, the adjustable speed range can be extended
to 1.6 times that of the based speed. The method includes the
constant torque region and the constant power region. In
addition, an adaptive backstepping speed-loop controller is
designed to improve the transient response and load
disturbance rejection capability. A DSP based full digital
speed-control system is implemented. Several experimental
results validate the theoretical analysis.
I. INTRODUCTION
The interior permanent magnet synchronous motor
(IPMSM) has been widely used in industry due to its high
torque to current ratio, large power to weight ratio, high
efficiency, and superior robustness. The rotor of the IPMSM
has complex geometry. This feature allows the motor to be
operated in a high-speed operating range by incorporating the
field-weakening technique. Several researchers have
discussed the field-weakening technique for an IPMSM. For
example, Morimoto et al. proposed a combining method to
achieve a maximum torque-per-amp control and constant
power control [1]. Soong et al. compared the experimental
field-weakening performance of five rotors, including the
induction motor, the IPMSM, and the synchronous reluctance
motor [2]. Uddin et al. investigated the performance of an
IPMSM over a wide speed range for high precision industrial
applications [3]. Pan et al. proposed a linear torque control
strategy for an IPMSM drive to fully utilize the reluctance
torque and simplify the controller design [4]. Kim et al.
proposed a novel flux-weakening scheme for an IPMSM drive
system, which is based on the output of the synchronous PI
current regulator-reference voltage to the PWM inverter. The
flux level can be adjusted inherently by the outer voltage
regulation loop to prevent saturation of the current regulator
[5]. Rahman et al. proposed a novel control scheme for a
direct-controlled IPMSM drive incorporating field weakening
technique [6]. In addition, Rahman et al. proposed a nonlinear
control for an IPMSM. This paper, however, focuses on the
constant torque region only and does not consider the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This project is supported by National Science Council,
the R. O. C., under Grant NSC 94-2213-E-011-074.
1-4244-0136-4/06/$20.00 '2006 IEEE
Tian-Hua Liu Shih-Hsien Yang
o
Taipei 106, Taiwan
Liu@mail.ntust.edu.tw
constant power region [7]. Generally speaking, only very few
papers discuss the controller design for an IPMSM which is
operated in field weakening region [4]. This motivated us to
design an advanced nonlinear controller, which takes the
system nonlinearities into account in the controller design.
In this paper, an adaptive backstepping controller with a
maximum torque/ampere control is designed to overcome
motor mechanical parameter uncertainties and to improve the
dynamic responses of an IPMSM. The operation ranges of the
motor include constant torque region and constant power
region. The experimental results show that the proposed
method can work well in both the constant torque region and
the field weakening region. To the authors’ best knowledge,
this is the first time that an adaptive backstepping controller is
applied to the field-weakening control and constant torque for
an IPMSM. The details are shown follows.
II. MATHEMATICAL MODEL
In d-q axis synchronous frame, the dynamic equations of
the IPMSM, can be expressed as:
di d 1
= ( v d − rs i d + ω e L q i q ) (1)
dt Ld
diq 1 (2)
= ( v q − rs i q − ω e Ld i d − ω e λ m )
dt Lq
Where d/dt is the differential operator, id is the stator d-axis
equivalent current, and i q is the stator q-axis equivalent
current, Ld is the d-axis self- inductance, Lq is the q-axis self-
inductance, v d is the d-axis voltage, v q is the q-axis voltage,
rs is the stator resistance, ω e is the electrical speed, and λm
is the flux-linkage of the permanent magnet in the d-axis rotor.
The electro-magnetic torque expressed in the d-q synchronous
frame is
3P
Te = (( Ld − Lq )i d +λ m )iq (3)
22
where Te is the electro-magnetic torque of the motor, and P
is the number of poles of the motor. In this paper, the
1411
maximum torque algorithm is used to achieve a maximum available current of the inverter.
torque/ ampere ratio. According to equation (3), the difference Fig.1 shows the current trajectories of the d-q axis
between Ld and Lq is negative. As a result, a negative of id currents in different operating modes. In this figure, there are
three regions: region I, region II, and region III. In region I, the
is required to increase the electro-magnetic torque. The rotor speed is below base speed. The terminal voltage is below Vom ,
speed and position of the motor can be expressed as:
the motor is only limited by the maximum current of the
d 1 inverter. As a result, a MTPA control algorithm can be applied.
ω r = (Te −Tl − Bω r ) (4) When the motor speed increases and exceeds the base speed,
dt J the region II is achieved. Region II is the range between base
speed ωbase and ωc . The speed ωc is the speed of rated
and voltage with id and iq equal to zero. In region II, if the
d (5) MTPA can be satisfied and the terminal voltage is below the
θ r =ω r
dt allowed voltage, then the MTPA is selected. For example, in
Fig. 1, the C point is in the MTPA mode and the C point
where ω r is the mechanical rotor speed, J is the inertia
terminal voltage is below the voltage-limit at speed ω2 .
constant of the motor and load, Tl is the external load torque,
Then, the C point is chosen. However, in the real world, we
B is the viscous frictional coefficient of the motor and load, can not on-line measure the constant torque curve. As a result,
and θ r is the mechanical rotor position. The electrical rotor
we use a DSP to determine the d-axis current idB . When
speed and position are expressed as:
MTPA control is satisfied, the B point is selected at the speed
P of ω 2 by setting d-axis current command as idB . On the other
ωe = ωr (6)
2 hand, the DSP determines the d-axis current idD by using the
and field weakening control algorithm. From Fig.1, we can
observe that idD is smaller than idB and then the MTPA can
P
θe = θr (7)
be selected. For implementation, we use the DSP to compare
2
idD and idB . If idD < idB , the MTPA algorithm is used.
III. FIELD WEAKENING ALGORITHM
However, if idD > idB , the field weakening algorithm is
When the motor is operated in the constant torque region, a applied. When the speed exceeds ωc , only the field
maximum torque/ampere is required in this paper. The d-axis
weakening algorithm can be used. The d-q axis current
current command and q-axis current command are selected as
command in different operating modes is shown in Fig.2.
[3]:
ω
* − λm λ 2m 2 (8)
i =
d − + i q*
2 ( L d − Lq ) 4 ( Ld − L q ) 2
ωbase
ω1 = ω base
When the motor exceeds base-speed, the field weakening
technique is required. To fit the voltage limit constraint, the ωbase ≤ω 2 ≤ω c
d-axis and q-axis current commands have to satisfy the
following equation [1]: ωc ω3 =ωc

ω4 >ωc
1 2V (9)
i = (−λ m + ( om ) 2 −( Lq i q* ) 2 )
*
d
Ld Pω r

Where

Vom = Vam − I am rs Fig. 1 The current trajectories of the d-q axis currents in
different operating modes.
The voltage Vam is the maximum available output voltage
of the inverter depending on the dc-link voltage. The current
I am is a continuous rated armature current or a maximum

1412
 ωr parameter with a negative value. Substituting (14)(15) into
(13), one can derive:
d (16)
V =− K s e 2 ≤0
ωr ≥ ωbase dt
According to equation (16), we can see that the Lyapunov
is semi-negative definite. As a result, the whole control
ω r ≥ ωc system is stable. Unfortunately, in the real world, the inertia
J and the external load Tl can not be measured precisely. In
addition, the inertia J and the Tl can be varied abruptly to the
external load. As a result, it is better to obtain the parameters
*
i dD < i dB J and the Tl by using on-line tuning.
The d-axis current and q-axis current are redefined as:
d (17)
id* =α c1 ωr* +c2ωr +c3 + Ks e
dt
id* iq* by i d* i q* by d *
ω r + c2ω r + c3 + K s e
c1 (18)
(12 )(13 )( 22 ) (12 )(13 )( 22 ) *
i = dt
q
( 23 )( 24 )( 29 ) ( 23 )( 24 )( 34 ) 3 3 d
Pλm + P ( Ld − Lq )α c1 ω r* + c2ω r + c3 + K s e
4 4 dt
Fig. 2 The d-q axis current command in different operating where c1 , c2 , and c3 are the on-line tuned parameters.
modes. By substituting (3)(4) into (11) and substituting (17)(18)
into the previous result, we can obtain
IV. CONTROLLER DESIGN d d 1 d 1 1
e = ω r* − (c1 ω r* + c2ωr +c3 + K s e) + Bωr + Tl (19)
dt dt J dt J J
The PID controller is widely used in industry due to its To consider the influence of the tuned parameter error, we
simplicity. In addition, by suitably adjusting the gains: KP, KI, should redefine the Lyapunov function as:
and KD, the PID controller can achieve the required 1 1 1 1
V = Je 2 + ( J − c )2 + ( B − c )2 + (T − c ) 2 (20)
performance of the closed-loop control system. As we know, 1 1 2 l 3
2 2γ 1 2γ 2 2γ 3
the variations of the system parameters and load can heavily
influence the performance of a PID controller. To eliminate where γ 1 , γ 2 , and γ 3 are adaptive positive gains. Next, by
the disadvantage, in this paper, an adaptive nonlinear taking the derivative of equation (20), one can obtain
controller is proposed. The details are as follows. d d 1 d 1 d 1 d
In this paper, first, the speed error is defined as : V1=Je e+ (J−c1) (J−c1)+ (B−c2) (B−c2 )+ (Tl −c3) (Tl −c3) (21)
dt dt γ1 dt γ2 dt γ3 dt
e=ω r* −ω r (10) In this paper, we assume that the variations of the inertia,
viscosity, and load are slow as compared to the variation of the
where ω is the speed command. By taking the derivative of
*
r current slope. As a result, dJ dt , dB dt , and dTl dt are
equation (10), one can obtain
d d * neglected. Then, substituting (19) into (21), one can obtain
e= (ω r −ω r ) (11) d d
dt dt V1 = e[( J − c1 ) ω r* + ( B − c2 )ω r + (TL − c3 ) − K s e ]
dt dt (22)
Then, define a Lyapunov function
1 1 d 1 d 1 d
V = Je 2 (12) − ( J − c1 ) c1 − ( B − c2 ) c2 − (TL − c3 ) c3
2 γ1 dt γ2 dt γ3 dt
By taking the derivative of equation (12) and substituting After some mathematical processes, we can derive
(3)(4) into the derivative of equation (12), one can obtain : d d * 1 d 1 d
V1 = ( J − c1 )( e ωr − c1 ) + ( B − c2 )( eωr − c2 )
d d 1 3 3 1 1  (13) dt dt γ 1 dt γ 2 dt
V = Je ω * − ( Pλ + P( L − L )i )i + Bω + T 
dt  dt
r
J 4
m
4
d q d q
J
r
J
l
 + ( TL − c3 )( e −
1 d
c3 ) − K se
2 (23)
In order to on-line adjust the d-axis and q-axis currents, γ 3 dt
in this paper we select the two currents as : Finally, we can set the parameter adaptive law as follows:
d
e ω* −
1 d
c =0
(24)
r 1
d * dt γ 1 dt
id =α J ωr + Bωr +Tl + K se (14)
dt 1 d (25)
eω r − c 2 =0
d * γ 2 dt
ωr + Bωr +Tl + K s e
J (15) 1 d
iq = dt e− c =0 (26)
3 3 d γ 3 dt 3
Pλm + P ( Ld − Lq )α J ω r* + Bω r +Tl + K s e
4 4 dt From (24)-(26), we can derive the adaptive law of the speed
where K s is a positive constant, and α is an adjustable controller as:

1413
 Then, we can derive
d d
c1 =γ 1e ω r* (27) (32)
dt dt i d*
α=
d (28) λm λm2 3 3
c2 = γ 2eωr (id* + )2 − ( Pλ m + P(Ld − Lq )id* )
dt 2( Ld − Lq ) 4( Ld − Lq ) 2 4 4
d (29)
c3 = γ 3e
dt According to equation (32), we can use the iterative method to
adjust α , and then to obtain the current commands id* , iq* to
By substituting (27)-(29) into (23), we can obtain
• achieve the maximum torque/ ampere control.
V1 = −Ks e2 ≤ 0 (30) On the other hand, when the motor is operated in the field
From (30) and using Barbalat’s lemma, we can show that weakening mode, rearranging equation (9), we can obtain
the whole control system is asymptotically stable [8]. Then, λm1 2Vom 2
the speed error can reach zero in the steady-state condition. id* + (= ) −( Lq iq* ) 2 (33)
The whole control algorithm is shown in Fig. 3. The system Ld Ld Pωr
parameters and controller parameters are on-line tuned. The Substituting (17)-(18) into (33), we can derive
implemented system is shown in Fig.4. The system is based on
a digital signal processor TMS2407. The system includes two 1 2Vom L2d * λm 2 i d* (34)
major parts: software and hardware. Most of the functions are ( ) − ( id + ) =
L2q Pω r L2q Ld 3 3
implemented by a DSP. As a result, the hardware is very α ( Pλm + P ( Ld − Lq )id* )
4 4
simple. Finally, we can obtain
Lq i d* (35)
i q* α=
ω *
r ωr 2Vom 2 3 3
( ) −( Ld id* +λm ) 2 ( Pλm + P( Ld − Lq )i d* )
i d* Pω r 4 4

α selector According to equation (35), we can also use the iterative

method to adjust α , and then to obtain the current commands
id* , iq* to achieve the field-weakening control. The controller is
impossible for a sensorless control system. The major reason
is that the precious shaft position and speed are required.

V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Fig. 3 The closed-loop drive system.
In this paper, the commercial IPMSM parameters are ：
B= 0.0341 N.m.sec/rad, J = 0.0227 Kg-m2, λm = 0.31V.sec/
i q* i q* i a* T1 rad., Ld = 15.1 mH, L q = 31mH, Lq / Ld =2.05. The base
i b* T2
i d* i d* i c* T3 speed is selected as 2300 r/min. Several experimental results
are shown here. The parameters of proposed controller are:
ωr i d*
ib K s = 2, γ 1 = 0.00001, γ 2 = 0.01, γ 3 = 1. Fig. 5 shows the speed
ia ib ia
response at 1 r/min. In constant torque region, the proposed
θe
system works well at a speed as low as 1 r/min. Fig. 6 shows
the transient responses at 500 r/min. Fig. 7 shows the transient
responses at 1500 r/min and 3500 r/min. Fig. 8 shows the
variation of the adaptive parameters in transient state at 3500
r/min.. The experimental results show that the on-line tuned
parameters have fast convergence behavior. Fig. 9(a)(b)(c)
Fig. 4 The implemented control system. show the speed and current responses and current trajectories
at 2500 r/min with a 1.5 N.m load. Fig. 10 (a)(b) show the
As mentioned in section III, when the motor is operated speed and current responses without using field weakening
in the MTPA mode, by substituting (17)-(18) into (8), we can technique. Fig.11(a)(b) show the speed and current responses
derive： by using field weakening technique. Fig. 12 shows the
measured torque-speed capability curves. The proposed
method performs better than the traditional method by setting
1 *
i (31) the d-axis current as zero.
− λm λ m2 α d
id* = − + ( )2
2( L d − L q ) 4( Ld − Lq ) 2 3 3
Pλ m + P ( Ld − L q )i d*
4 4

1414
 (a)
Fig .5 The measured response from standstill to 1 r/min

c1 = J c2 = B

c1 = 0.5 J c2 = 0. 5B

c1 = 1.5 J c2 = 1.5B

(b)
Fig.6 The transient responses at 500 r/min.

Fig.7 The transient responses at 1500 r/min and 3500

r/min.
−3
(10 )

(c)
c1
Fig. 9 The transient response and load response at 2500 r/min
(a) speed (b) d-axis and q-axis currents (c) current
c2 trajectories.

c3

Fig.8 The measured results of adaptive parameters.

1415
 ωr
(a)
Fig. 12 The measured torque-speed capability.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, a field-weakening technique and a

nonlinear speed-loop controller are proposed for an IPMSM.
The proposed method can be applied in both the constant
torque region and the field-weakening region. Several
experimental results are shown to validate the theoretical
analysis. This paper proposes a new direction to control the
IPMSM in a wide speed range.

(b) REFERENCES
Fig. 10 The responses without using field weakening
[1] S. Morimoto, M. Sanada, and Y. Takeda, “Wide-speed operation
(a) speed (b) current. of interior permanent magnet synchronous motors with
high-performance current regulator,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol.
30, no.4, pp. 920-926, July/ Aug. 1994.
[2] W. L. Soong and N. Ertugrul, “Field-weakening performance of
interior permanent-magnet motors,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol.
38, no. 5, pp. 1251-1258, Sep./ Oct. 2002.
[3] M. N. Uddin, T. S. Radwan, and M. A. Rahman, “Performance of
interior permanent magnet motor drive over wide speed range,”
IEEE Trans. Energy Conv., vol. 17, no.1, pp. 79-84, Mar. 2002.
[4] C. T. Pan and S. M. Sue, “A linear maximum torque per ampere
control for IPMSM drives over full-speed range,” IEEE Trans.
Energy Conv. , vol. 20, no.2, pp. 359-366, June 2005.
[5] J. M. Kim and S. K. Sul, “Speed control of interior permanent
magnet synchronous motor drive for the flux weakening
operation,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 33, no. 1 , pp. 43-48,
(a) Jan./ Feb. 1997.
[6] M. F. Rahman, L. Zhong, and K. W. Lim, “A direct
torque-controlled interior permanent magnet synchronous motor
drive incorporating field weakening,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol.
34, no. 6, pp. 1246-1253, Nov./ Dec. 1998.
[7] M. A. Rahman, D. M. Vilathgamuwa, M. N. Uddin. and K. J.
Tseng,“Nonlinear control of interior permanent magnet
synchronous motor,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 39, no.2, pp.
408-415, Mar./ Apr. 2003.
[8] J. J. E. Slotine, and W. Li, Applied Nonlinear Control. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall,1991.

(b)
Fig. 11 The responses using field weakening
(a) speed (b) current.

1416