IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 28, NO.

6, NOVEMBER / DECEMBER 199’2 1345

Real-Time Observer-Based (Adaptive)

Control of a Permanent-Magnet
Synchronous Motor without
Mechanical Sensors
Raymond B. Sepe, Member, IEEE, and Jeffrey H. Lang, Member, IEEE

Abstmct-This paper presents a theoretical and experimental

analysis of a closed-loop adaptive velocity control system for a
200-W permanent-magnet synchronous motor (PMSM). The Controller Controfier
control system utilizes a mechanically sensorless full-state ob-
server for the generation of all controller feedback information.
Both the control system and its experimental performance using
an implementation based on the Motorola 68020 microprocessor
are presented in detail. It is shown that the real-time observer-
based adaptive velocity controller is capable of successful
operation.
Observer

I. INTRODUCTION Motor

T” IS PAPER develops a closed-loop adaptive velocity

control system for a 200-W permanent-magnet syn-
chronous motor (PMSM). The control system utilizes a
Fig. 1 . System block diagram.

mechanically sensorless full-state observer for the genera-

tion of all controller feedback information. In particular, controller, and an outer-loop adaptive controller. The ,
the state observer replaces the mechanical state filter rotor-frame vector current controller combines feedfor-
used by the closed-loop adaptive controller presented in ward compensation, global state linearization, and a linear
181 with a discrete-time version of the observer presented proportional-integral (PI) regulator to control the torque
in [21. This paper is a significant step beyond [21 and [8] of the motor. The integral-proportional (IP) velocity con-
because [21 only develops an observer but does not use it troller presents torque commands to the current con-
for control, and [SI develops a controller that is based on troller. It also utilizes feedfonvard linearization. The de-
direct motion measurement. This paper is the first to sired performance of the closed-loop system is realized by
combine the two results. Although mechanically sensor- using the gains of the velocity controller to place the
less control has been described elsewhere for the PMSM dominant poles of the system in the necessary positions.
[91 and for the switched reluctance motor (SRM) [61, [ll, The observer generates estimates of the actual rotor-frame
this appears to be the first such report of a mechanically motor currents, velocity, and position from measurements
sensorless controller based on an observer. In addition, it of current and voltage taken at the motor terminals. In
appears to be the first such system with adaptation. contrast with the experiments described in [2], these state
A block diagram of the control system is shown in Fig. estimates are used in the multitime-scale closed-loop con-
1. It is a multitime-scale system consisting of a fast inner- trol system to regulate the velocity of the motor. In
loop current controller and observer, a slower velocity addition, the estimated velocity is taken as input to a
recursive linear least-square-error parameter estimator to
generate estimates of the motor parameters. Valid param-
Paper IPCSD 92-6, approved by the Industrial Drives Committee of
the IEEE Industry Applications Society for presentation at the 1991 eter estimates are then used to the
Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting, Dearborn, MI, Septem- troller gains, to modify the observer equations, and to
ber 28-October 4. This work was supported by a research grant from the update the feedfomard linearization in order to recover
Omron Corporation. Manuscript released for publication February 23,
1992. the desired closed-loop performance in the face of chang-
R. B. Sepe is with Electro Standards Lab., Inc., Cranston, RI 02921. ing motor parameters. More details concerning the devel-
J. H. Lang is with the Laboratory for Electromagnetic and Electronic opment of the current controller, the velocity controller,
Systems, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. MA 02139. and the outer-loop adaptive controller can be found in [81,
IEEE Log Number 9203294. whereas more information concerning the continuous-time

0093-9994/92$03.00 0 1992 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad. Downloaded on January 30,2024 at 04:08:33 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 1346 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS,VOL. 28, NO. 6, NOVEMBER / DECEMBER 1992

version of the observer and its standalone performance TABLE I

FOR THE EXPERIMENTAL
PARAMETERS MOTOR
can be found in [2l. This paper concentrates on the
closed-loop interaction between the controller and the N 3
R 2.54 Cl
observer. 9.2 mH
Ld
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows.
Section I1 presents the model of the PMSM used here. 2H
8.4 mH
0.92 N-m/A
5.2 x Kg-m2
Section I11 presents the observer. Section IV presents the B 5.8 x lo-' N-m-s
current controller and the velocity controller. Section V C 1.91 X N-m
discusses the integration of the observer with the con-
trollers and presents examples of the performance of the
observer-based closed-loop controller without adaptation. is 314.16 rad/s, and continuous power is 200 W. Its peak
Section VI presents parameter estimation. Section VI1 torque is 1.92 N-m.
discusses controller and observer redesign based on the In the model presented above, eddy currents and mag-
estimated mechanical parameters. Section VI11 integrates netic saturation and hysteresis are all omitted. Further,
the nominal observer-based controller with parameter es- the electrical parameters N , R , L,, L , and K are all
timation and controller redesign to form the observer- assumed to be constant. However, the mechanical param-
based adaptive controller. Examples of its performance eters H , B , and C can all vary slowly. Additionally, the
are then presented. Finally, Section IX provides a sum- external load torque T can vary.
mary and conclusions.
111. OBSERVER
11. MOTORMODEL The discrete-time nonlinear rotor-frame observer used
The PMSM studied here is assumed to have three here is constructed by discretizing the continuous-time
balanced phases connected in a wye or delta configura- nonlinear observer in [2] using forward-Euler integration.
tion. The model for this motor is greatly simplified by The resulting observer equations are
reducing it to that for an equivalent two-phase motor and
then expressing it in the frame of its rotor [31. After these
transformations, the model becomes
[(k + 1) =
0
1 - ( R SJL,) i"(k)
1
- 6,JNG(k)
rd/Lq Lq/Ld O I
(; k )

de
&(k + 1) =
( 6J
1--q k )
6KN
+ -?(k)
H I':[
_ -
- w (3)
dt

where i and U are, respectively, two-vectors of current and 6;c si

- -sgn( G(k)) - - 7 ( k )
voltage that contain their direct ( i d ,U,) and quadrature H H
(iq, U , > components with respect to the rotor frame, w is
- S , G u [ [ ( 6 ( k ) , k )- [ ( k ) ] (5)
the rotor velocity, 8 is the rotor position, T is an external
load torque, N is the number of magnetic pole pairs in 6 ( k + 1) = 6 ( k ) + 6 , E ( k ) (6)
the motor, R is the phase resistance, L d and L , are the
direct and quadrature phase inductances, respectively, K where
is the PM constant, H is the rotor inertia, and B and C
are coefficients of viscous and coulombic load torque, J = [: 11
' (7)
respectively. A superscript denotes algebraic transposi-
tion. The parameters for the experimental motor are and 6i is the sampling period of the inner-loop current
given in Table I. For the experimental motor used here, controller, k is the index of time step Si,G; is a 2 X
the rated continuous torque is 0.64 N-m, continuous speed gain matrix, G, is a 1 x 2 gain matrix, the superscript

Authorized licensed use limited to: Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad. Downloaded on January 30,2024 at 04:08:33 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 SEPE AND LANG: REAL-TIME OBSERVER-BASED CONTROL OF A PM SYNCHRONOUS MOTOR
de?otes an estimated quantity, and a(&k), k ) , and
i( O(k),k ) are, respectively, the measured motor voltages
and currents transformed into the rotor frame using >he
observer-estimated position. Note that the sym_bol is
used to denote an estimate, whereas the symbol is used
to denote the transfoTmation of a measurement into the
estimated frame of 8. Without direct measurement of
rotor position, the stator-frame-to-rotor-frame and rotor-
frame-to-stator-f;ame transformations must use the esti-
mated position 8 in place of the actual position 8. Thus,
the closed-loop controller and observer operate in an
estimated rotor frame.
I v . CURRENT AND VELOCITY CONTROL
This section contains a brief presentation of the rotor-
frame current controller and of the velocity controller.
Further development can be found in [7] and [SI.
A. Current Control
To achieve a fast dynamic response and zero steady-state
error to constant command inputs, the inner-loop vector
current controller is implemented as a proportional-
integral (PI) controller. The discrete-time current con-
troller is
x k ( k + 1) = x i ( k ) + ? $ ( i * ( k ) - i ( k ) ) (8)
u(k + 1) = C , x , ( k ) + G , ( i * ( k ) - i ( k ) ) + G,u(k)
(9)
+ K N w ( k + 1)
[:'I + u ( k + 1) (10)
where i" is the current command vector, x i ( k ) is the
integrator state vector, u ( k ) is a delayed plant input, and
G I , G,, and C , are gains. Note that (8)-(10) globally
linearize (1) by cancelling back emf and that they accom-
modate the delay of their computer-based implementa-
tion; see [SI and [SI. In particular, C, is the gain on the
delay state needed for full-state control.
B. Velocity Control
Because the closed-loop bandwidth of the current
controller is much larger than the desired closed-loop
bandwidth of the velocity controller, the velocity con-
troller issues commands to the current controller through
i* and assumes that the desired currents are achieved
immediately.
Performance goals for the velocity controller are speci-
fied in terms of risetime and overshoot. An IP controller
is used to meet those objectives. The IP controller does
not have a zero in its command-to-output transfer func-
tion as does the PI controller. Thus, the performance of
the IP controller is completely specified by its pole loca-
tions, which can be located to give the desired risetime
without overshoot. Note that the zero in the PI controller
Authorized licensed use limited to: Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad. Downloaded on January 30,2024 at 04:08:33 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1347
cannot be so located. The IP velocity controller is given in
discrete time by
x,(l + 1) = x , ( l ) + 6,( o * ( l )- w(1)) (11)
i:(l) = F , x , ( l ) - Fp w ( 1 ) +-
KN
sgn ( ~ ( 1 ) ) (12)
where x , is the integrator state, w* is the velocity com-
mand, 6, is the sampling period of the velocity controller,
1 is the index of time step a, and F, and Fp are gains.
Here, 6, = 86,.
V. OBSERVER-BASED
CONTROL
This section integrates the observer with the current
controller and the velocity controller. Adaptation is not
yet implemented. The fast inner-loop rotor-frame current
controller uses the estimated currents i from the observer
from (4) in place of i in the current control law (8)-(9). In
addition, the predicted velocity from ( 5 ) and predicted
current from (4) are used in (10) to globally linearize the
nonlinear motor system, and the predicted position from
(6) is used to transform the rotor-frame voltage com-
mands u(k + 1) to stator-frame voltage commands that
can be applied to the inverter. The slower outer-loop
velocity controller requires estimates of velocity i, to
replace w in its control law (11)-(13) [SI.
In the observer-based control system, estimated current
is used as the feedback signal. Note that this is necessary
because the feedback of rotor frame current! is necessary.
The two available rotor-frame currents are i and i. Here,
i is chosen because this observer estimate is filtered and
because it is computed as a prediction, which is required
in (10).
A. Analysis
Successful operation of the control system requires that
the gains for the velocity controller, the current con-
troller, and the observer result in a closed-loop stable
system with the desired performance. The choice of gains
is complicated by the fact that the inner-loop current
controller operates at a sampling rate of 2.44 kHz, whereas
the outer-loop velocity controller operates at a sampling
rate of 305 Hz, by the nonlinear nature of the motor
modeled by ( 1)-(3), and the severely nonlinear observer
modeled by (4)-(6).
Following the procedure detailed in [SI, the system is
analyzed by first linearizing the inner-loop system consist-
ing of the current controller, the motor, and the observer.
Next, the linearized inner loop is projected onto the
slower time scale of the velocity controller and connected
with the velocity controller. Finally, an eigenstructure
analysis is performed on the entire system. The gains of
the system are used to place the closed-loop poles in the
desired locations.
 134s IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 28, NO. 6, NOVEMBER / DECEMBER 1992

Linearization is performed around the following small-

signal conditions: zero load torque, zero observer estima-
tion error, zero direct-axis current, and a specified
steady-state velocity. Under these conditions, the lin-
earized observer error dynamics are separable from the ..,
0 ~ ~
, .,...-
controller dynamics. The current controller gains and the
velocity controller gains specified in [8] are used here. For -2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
the current controller, the gains are G, = 7.2 X lo', C, k-samples
= 12.9, and G, = -0.4 in SI units. For the velocity 6 quadrature-auscurrent

controller, the gains are F, = 0.0383 and F, = 3.2 in SI

units. The choice of acceptable observer gains is speed
!
dependent. For 35 rad/s I w 2 200 rad/s

I
'0 50 100 1% 200 250 300 350 400
k-samples

in SI units. For 160 rad/s _< w _< 300 rad/s velocity

I

in SI units. To achieve stable steady-state closed-loop -1-

operation between 3.5 and 300 rad/s, a hysteretic thresh-
old test is used to implement gain scheduling in the
observer in a simple manner. The estimated speed G is
compared with a threshold of 190 rad/s when transition-
ing from the low-speed gains of (14) to the high-speed
gains of (15). When transitioning from the high-speed
gains to the low-speed gains, a threshold of 170 rad/s is
used. A further development of gain scheduling can be
found in [4].
Sustained, stable steady-state operation below 35 rad/s
is difficult due to the reduced effect of the speed voltage
present in the current measurements [21. This speed volt-
age provides the information on which the observer acts.
However, transient motion to, from, or through w = 0 is
possible as shown in the next section.
B. Performance
The transient response of the observer-based controller
is sensitive to initial error between the estimated initial
position and the true initial position. To illustrate, a
simulation is performed. The controller is commanded to
step from 0 to 100 rad/s in velocity. The motor and
observer positions are initialized to 0 and 1 rad, respec-
tively. The solid line in Fig. 2 shows the behavior of the
motor, whereas the dashed line shows the behavior of the
estimated states. Notice that the actual current transients
are very large. Moreover, i, starts in the negative direc-
tion, which in turn causes the motor velocity response to
start in the negative direction. In contrast, the estimated
states behave perfectly as commanded. This discrepancy
occurs because the estimated rotor frame, which contains
the controller, is initially misaligned with the true rotor
frame by 1 mechanical radian. This is approximately 180
electrical degrees. Thus, the positive q-axis direction in
0 50 100 1% 200 250 300 350 400
k-samples
Fig. 2. Effect of initial position error on observer-based controller.
Dashed lines are estimates, and solid lines are true values.
the estimated frame initially corresponds to the negative
q axis in the actual rotor frame. As the position error
transient decays to zero, the estimated and the actual
frames become aligned, and the currents and velocity
settle to the desired values.
The observer-based controller is also affected by un-
modeled load torques. A simulation is performed with a
velocity step command from 0 to 100 rad/s; the load
torque is 0.15 Nm. The observer is also started at rest, but
its load torque is set to zero. This torque mismatch results
in a steady-state position error and, thus, a steady-state
misalignment between the estimated and the true rotor
frames. As shown in Fig. 3, this gives a steady-state error
between the estimated and the true motor currents but no
speed error.
The simulation of Fig. 3 indicates that velocity control
is possible with a load torque mismatch but that there can
be significant steady-state current errors. For low-to-
medium speed operation, the result can yield inefficient
motor operation since id heats the motor without produc-
ing significant torque. For high-speed operation, the in-
ability to accurately command id makes operation in the
field-weakening range difficult. If significant unknown load
torque is present, it should be measured or estimated and
input to the observer.
The observer-based controller is implemented in real
time on a computer system based on the 25-MHz 68020
microprocessor. The controller is coded in assembly lan-
guage with all computations carried out in 16-b integer

Authorized licensed use limited to: Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad. Downloaded on January 30,2024 at 04:08:33 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 SEPE AND LANG: REAL-TIME OBSERVER-BASED CONTROL OF A PM SYNCHRONOUS MOTOR 1349

1 direct-am clmalt
I

::
: I t
0

3,
50 100 150 200
k-samples
250

quadrature-am current
300 350 400

: ; n 0 50 100 150 200

k-samples
250 300 350
I
400
100 m xw)

I-samples
400 MO

Fig. 4. Motor velocity using real-time observer-based controller.

1001 ,,,--- - - _...

...____..____. .__-
__.--.
.." -.._ ....---....-
_..___..
--._ 1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
J
400
k-samples

Fig. 3. Effect of torque mismatch on observer-based controller. Dashed

lines are estimates, and solid lines are true values. k-samples

Fig. 5. Effect of inertial mismatch on observer-based controller. Dashed

line is estimated state, and solid line is true state.
arithmetic. Rotor-frame transformations are implemented
using look-up tables. The sampling periods are 6, = 409.6 VI. PARAMETER ESTIMATION
pus and 8, = 3.2 ms.
To exercise the observer-based controller with its gain This section contains a brief presentation of the param-
scheduling, w is commanded from rest to be a square eter estimator. Further development can be found in [71
wave between 100 and 250 rad/s. The initial position and 181.
error and the load torque are both zero. Fig. 4 shows the The parameter estimator estimates the discrete-time
result. Notice that the observer-based controller can be mechanical parameters of the motor. Because of its rapid
started from rest as long as it rapidly moves toward stable rate of convergence and ease of implementation, a recur-
operation. This experiment also illustrates the effective- sive least-square-error (RLSE) estimation scheme is used
ness of gain scheduling. Without it, the high-speed gains [lo]. The RLSE estimator used here is
would result in instability if used at 100 rad/s, and the
$(I) = $(I - 1) + T ( I ) [U ( / ) - $ T ( f - 1)4(1)] (16)
low-speed gains would result in instability if used at 250
rad/s. The noise on the velocity waveform is a conse-
quence of the large 6, required by the 68020 microproces-
sor to complete all the necessary controller and observer
computations.
The effect of a change in inertia on the observer-based
controller is shown in Fig. 5. A simulation is performed in
P ( I ) = P(I - 1) -
I
P ( I - 1 ) 4 ( I ) + T ( I ) P ( l - 1) 1
+
h + T ( I ) P ( l - 1)4(1) A
( 18)
l-
which a step in velocity from 0 to 100 rad/s is com-
manded. The motor inertia is increased to three times its where $ is the vector of parameter estimates of [ a b cIT
nominal value. The observer is initialized to zero position with
error and nominal motor inertia. Although the estimated a = e-(B/H)6,
states behave as desired, the true motor states are all (19)
unstable. One method of avoiding such problems caused
by parameter mismatch is to adapt the observer to changes
in the mechanical parameters. This is the motivation for
the observer-based adaptive controller developed in Sec-
tion VII.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad. Downloaded on January 30,2024 at 04:08:33 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 1350 IEEE TRANSACTIONS O N INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 2X, NO. 6, NOVEMBER / DECEMBER 1992
and T is a vector of gains, P is the covariance matrix,
4(1) = [dZ- l)iz(Z - 1) - sgn(w(Z - 1))lT,and A is the
forgetting factor. Here, A = 0.98 is used.
A valid parameter estimate is generated when the
measurements processed by the parameter estimator pass
the threshold test for persistant excitation, and the stand-
ard deviation of the estimated parameter passes a thresh-
old test for convergence. As a final test, the estimated
parameter is checked to be within known reasonable
limits. Estimates that pass these three tests are passed on
to the controller redesign algorithm [8]. As protection
against noise, measurements are first processed by a 0.01-
to-80-Hz bandpass filter before being used in parameter
estimation.
VII. CONTROLLER
A N D OBSERVER
REDESIGN
The closed-loop mechanical dynamics are dominated by
two complex pole pairs. Participation factor analysis used
in [71 and [SI demonstrates that the first pole pair mainly
describes the dynamic interaction between the motor ve-
locity and the velocity controller, whereas the second pole
pair mainly describes the dynamics of the error between
the true and estimated motor velocities. In the adaptive
setting, the location of the first pole pair is kept invariant
by adjusting the velocity controller gains according to the
estimated parameters. The location of the second pole
pair gives acceptable performance when the estimated
parameters are used to adjust the observer so that there is
no parameter mismatch between the observer and the
motor. Although it may also be advantageous to adjust the
gains of the observer in the presence of parameter
changes, the present lack of an analytical procedure to
determine the gains precludes this possibility. Both con-
troller and observer redesign are performed whenever a
valid set of parameter estimates are received.
For the I-P velocity controller, the proportional and the
integral gains are computed from
FP = (1 + a PI -
- (22)
Ff = (1 - F1 - F2 + Pl F Z ) / ( b % )
where p,, = 0.6662 k 0.26521' are the desired closed-loop
pole locations. Finally, (12) must be updated with C via
KN
c = -c.b
A detailed explanation of (22)-(23) is given in [7] and [81.
As seen in Section V-B an inertial mismatch can lead to
closed-loop instability. The observer redesign algorithm
desensitizes the system to inertial change. This requires
the on-line estimation of the continuous-time inertia H
for use in (5). For reasonably fast sampling, (20) becomes
KN
H=-S
b "
Because the permanent magnets are samarian-cobalt
magnets, K is essentially constant.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad. Downloaded on January 30,2024 at 04:08:33 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
VIII. OBSERVER-BASED CONTROL
ADAPTIVE
The adaptive controller is completed by combining the
observer-based controller with the parameter estimator
and the controller and observer redesign. The observer is
connected to the parameter estimator by replacing w in
(16) with &. Valid parameter estimates are used in
(22)-(24) to compute the new velocity controller gains Fp
and FI and to compute an estimate of C. These quantities
are substituted into (11) and (12) to redesign the velocity
controller. The estimated parameters are also used in (25)
to compute the new inertia. This inertia is substituted into
( 5 ) of the observer to remove any inertial mismatch be-
tween the observer and the motor.
A. Analysis
The success of the observer-based adaptive controller
depends on the ability of the observer to supply the
parameter estimator with an accurate velocity estimate
even before adaptation has occurred. Otherwise, the pa-
rameter estimator will likely give incorrect parameter
estimates and, at best, poor adaptive controller perfor-
mance. To demonstrate the problem, a simulation is per-
formed. A square wave in velocity from 0 to 100 rad/s is
commanded to the observer-based controller with param-
eter estimation. However, controller and observer re-
design using (22)-(25) are inhibited. The inertia of the
motor is increased to three times its nominal value,
whereas the observer uses the nominal motor inertia. Fig.
6 shows the result. The estimated velocity behaves as
desired, but the actual motor velocity waveform is much
different. Because the estimated velocity transient is used
by the parameter estimator, the estimated parameters are
characteristic of the nominal motor. Thus, the closed-loop
system does not recognize the fact the motor inertia has
changed. Adaptation therefore cannot improve the system
performance; it is blind to parameter changes because of
poor velocity information from the observer.
To improve the transient tracking ability of the ob-
(23) server with parameter mismatch, the observer gains G,
are increased one hundredfold. This allows accurate ve-
locity transient tracking for inertial mismatch up to about
two times the nominal inertia while not compromising the
stability of the closed-loop system. As long as the inertia
varies less than a factor of two before adaptation takes
place, the observer redesign can keep the inertial mis-
match within acceptable bounds, Of course, the price for
increased observer bandwidth is an increase in the noise
content in the state estimates and in the closed-loop
velocity control system. One possible accommodation is to
have two observers: one for control and one for parame-
ter estimation.
B. Peqormance
The observer-based adaptive controller is implemented
in real time on a computer system based on the 25-MHz
Motorola 68020 microprocessor. The nonadaptive part of
 SEPE AND LANG: REAL-TIME OBSERVER-BASED CONTROL OF A PM SYNCHRONOUS MOTOR 1351

100 mom velocltv velocity

140,

120 -

100 -

80 -
k-samples

im observer estimated velocity 60-

‘U-

20 -

0 SO 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 5 10 15 U) 2s 0

k-samples l-samples

Fig. 7. Effect of adaption on motor speed response.

parameter estimares

-0 m 100 im 200 250 300 350 400

k-samples

Fig. 6 . Simulation of velocity and parameter estimates with observer

inertial mismatch.

the controller is implemented as before. The parameter

estimation and adaptation are coded in the C language
using double-precision arithmetic. Because of the limited
computational power of the 68020, they are executed as
background tasks. Data is transferred between the two 5
50 100 150 200 250 300
tasks by a buffering scheme. With sufficient computa- I-samples
tional power, the parameter estimation and adaptation
could operate recursively in real time with a sampling Fig. 8. Parameter estimates in SI units.
period of 6,.
To demonstrate the observer-based adaptive controller,
between the observer and the closed-loop control system.
w is commanded to be a square wave between 0 and 100 The mechanically sensorless controllers, both with and
rad/s. The velocity controller and the observer are initial-
without adaptation, are successfully implemented in real
ized for the unloaded motor. To demonstrate adaptation, time using a computer system based on the 25-MHz
the inertia is doubled. Fig. 7 superimposes an exploded Motorola 68020 microprocessor.
view of a risetime transient from the square-wave speed Through simulations and experiments, it is shown that
excitation of the motor before and after adaptation has both observer-based control and observer-based adaptive
occurred. The dashed line indicates that adaptation has control of the PMSM are feasible. However, several im-
restored the desired risetime. Fig. 8 shows the evolution
portant issues must be addressed. First, the performance
of the mechanical parameter estimates that are used to of observer-based control is sensitive to inertial mismatch.
redesign the control system to recover the desired per- Adaptation addresses this problem but can only do so
formance. It is shown that the real-time observer- successfully if its bandwidth is high. To obtain this band-
based adaptive velocity controller is capable of successful
width, the observer must estimate motor velocity well,
operation. which may require high gains in the presence of inertial
mismatch. The high observer gains in turn amplify meas-
IX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
urement noise, leading to poor performance, as can be
This paper develops a discrete-time observer-based seen by comparing Figs. 4 and 7. This suggests the use of
controller and a discrete-time observer-based adaptive one observer for the controller and another observer for
controller for the PMSM by combining the results of [2] the parameter estimator. Second, observer gain schedul-
and [SI. In particular, its focus is on the interaction ing must be introduced to maintain stability over a large

Authorized licensed use limited to: Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad. Downloaded on January 30,2024 at 04:08:33 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 1352 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 28, NO. 6, NOVEMBER / DECEMBER 1992
velocity range. Finally, the turn-on transient of the ob-
server-based controller is sensitive to initial observer er-
ror, and the steady-state currents of the observer-based
controller are sensitive to unknown load torque.
REFERENCES
M. Ehsani, I. Husain, and A. B. Kulkarni, “Elimination of discrete
position sensor and current sensor in switched reluctance motor
drives,” in Proc. U S Ann. Mtg., Oct. 1990, pp. 518-524.
L. A. Jones and J . H. Lang, “A state observer for the permanent-
magnet synchronous motor,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 3, pp.
374-382, Aug. 1989.
P. C. Krause, Analysis of Electric Machinery. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1986.
S. Low, “Design of an observer for the permanent magnet syn-
chronous motor,” S. B. thesis, Dept. Elec. Eng. Comput. Sci., Mass.
Inst. Technol., Cambridge, MA, May 1991.
S. R. MacMinn and T. M. Jahns, “Control techniques for improved
high-speed performance of interior PM synchronous motor drives,”
in Proc. IEEE IAS Ann. Mtg., Oct. 1988, pp. 272-280.
S. K. Panda and G. A. J. Amaratunga, “Switched reluctance motor
drive without direct rotor position sensing,” in Proc. IAS Ann.
Mtg., Oct. 1990, pp. 525-530.
R. B. Sepe, “Adaptive control of the permanent-magnet syn-
chronous motor,” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. Elec. Eng. Comput. Sei.,
Mass. Inst. Technol., Cambridge, MA, Sept. 1990.
R. B. Sepe and J. H. Lang, “Real-time adaptive control of the
permanent-magnet synchronous motor,” IEEE Trans. Industry A p -
plications, vol. 27, pp. 706-714, July/Aug. 1991.
R. Wu and G. R. Slemon, “A permanent-magnet motor drive
without a shaft sensor,” in Proc. IAS Ann. Mtg., Oct. 1990, pp.
553-558.
P. Young, RecursiLse Estimation and Time-Series Analysis. New
York: Springer-Verlag, 1984.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad. Downloaded on January 30,2024 at 04:08:33 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Raymond B. Sepe (M’YO) received the B.S. and
M.S. degrees in 1983 and the Ph.D. degree in
1990, all in electrical engineering, from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT),
Cambridge.
From 1983-1985, he was an electrical engi-
neer for GenRad Corporation, West Concord,
MA. He has conducted postdoctoral research at
MIT in the areas of adaptive control, estimation,
and computer architecture, with applications to
ac drives, dc drives, and flexible structures. He is
currently with Electro Standards Lab., Cranston, RI.
Dr. Sepe is a member of Eta Kappa Nu.
Jeffrey H. Lang (S’78-M’80) received the B.S.,
M.S , and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineer-
ing from the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology (MlT), Cambridge, MA, in 1975, 1977,
and 1979, respectively. From 1977 through 1979,
he held a Fannie and John Hertz Foundation
Fellowship.
In 1980, he joined the Department of Electri-
cal Engineering and Computer Science at MIT,
where he is now Professor of Electrical Engi-
neering. His research involves the analysis, de-
sign, and control of physical systems, and currently concentrates on
electromechanical systems with application to traditional electric ma-
chine systems, microsensors and microactuators, and flexible structures.
Dr. Lang is a member of Eta Kappa Nu and Tau Beta Pi.