Tripathi 2018

Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
Journal of the Franklin Institute 355 (2018) 2392–2423

www.elsevier.com/locate/jfranklin
Enhanced efficiency in vector control of a

Surface-mounted PMSM drive
S.M. Tripathi∗, Chandan Dutta
Department of Electrical Engineering, Kamla Nehru Institute of Technology, Sultanpur 228118, India
Received 31 July 2017; received in revised form 8 November 2017; accepted 18 January 2018
Available online 9 February 2018
Abstract
In this paper, emphasis has been put on providing the result of a detailed simulation study on the
dynamics and efficiency of a vector-controlled voltage source inverter (VSI)-fed surface-mounted perma-
nent magnet synchronous motor (SPMSM) drive; which employs firstly a model-based loss-minimization
algorithm (MLMA) and secondly a binary search-based online loss-minimization algorithm (BSOLMA),
so as to reduce the total controllable electrical losses without much affecting the dynamic performance of
the drive. The steady-state SPMSM model taking into account the core loss has been considered. The dy-
namic performances of the SPMSM drive employing individually the abovementioned loss minimization
algorithms (LMAs) have been compared with that employing conventional zero d-axis current control
(ZDCC) through extensive digital computer simulations. The simulation results show that efficiency of
the drive enhances with the employment of the LMA.
© 2018 The Franklin Institute. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Out of the total available electrical power, roughly 58% is consumed by the electri-
cal motor driven systems [1]. Induction motors are the commonly employed electrical
machines in industrial applications. Nevertheless, the induction motors have their own
limitations such as the losses in the rotor circuits which prompted to utilize the per-
manent magnet synchronous motors (PMSMs) as variable-speed drives recently in nu-
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mani_excel@yahoo.co.in, mani@knit.ac.in (S.M. Tripathi).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfranklin.2018.01.007
0016-0032/© 2018 The Franklin Institute. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.M. Tripathi, C. Dutta / Journal of the Franklin Institute 355 (2018) 2392–2423 2393
merous applications e.g. pumps, fans, compressors, electrical vehicles and traction drives
[2]. Owing to the exclusion of the field-ohmic loss / omission of the rotor copper
loss, a properly designed PMSM offers higher efficiency as compared to other electrical
machines of equal power ratings [3]. The PMSMs offer not only the benefit of higher
efficiency, but also have numerous points of interest e.g. high torque to weight ratio,
high torque to volume ratio, high power factor, high air-gap flux-density and lower
maintenance cost [4].
In order to enhance the performance of the PMSM drives, control designs such
as minimum loss design and maximum torque design have been proposed in the past
research literatures. However, maximum torque design differs from the minimum loss
design [5]. In maximum torque per ampere (MTPA) control design, the d-and q-axes
stator currents are controlled with their optimal reference values in order to produce the
required motor torque with minimum stator current; whereas, the minimum loss design
actively controls the d-and q-axes stator currents in order to produce the required motor
torque with minimum power loss [6–7].
Control techniques such as [5,8–24] have already been reported so as to minimize
the losses and to enhance the performance of the PMSM drive. In view of the pump
applications, Zhou et al. [8] optimized the efficiency of the PMSM drive by incorpo-
rating MTPA control method with the fuzzy logic aimed at real-time search for the
optimum running point. In Ref. [9], Lee et al. proposed a loss minimization controller
based on a look-up table obtained by loss minimizing current sets for a given torque
and speed in the current control loop. In order to accomplish automatic flux-weakening
control with minimal copper loss in surface-mounted PMSM, a novel current-loop was
designed in [5]. Cho et al. [10] calculated the maximum efficiency point via precise
parameter estimation in an attempt to maximize the efficiency of the interior-PMSM
drive. Camurca et al. [11] formulated an optimization problem of a PMSG model and
described a minimal loss trajectory for the considered angular velocity range in a tridi-
mensional plot for loss minimization. In Ref. [12], Lee et al. utilized a mono-inverter
dual parallel configuration of PMSM along with MTPA control for minimizing current
and losses by controlling the slave motor using the d-axis current of the master motor
and, therefore, the requirement of two motors resulted in increased cost.
The authors of [13] minimized the losses of PMSM via reference current calcula-
tions using analytical expressions depending on torque, speed and dc voltage of the
drive. However, this required the knowledge of the machine parameters. In view of
the automobile applications, Lopez et al. [14] examined an optimum torque control of
PMSM utilizing maximum torque per ampere in low-speed region and maximum power
solutions for flux-weakening region. Mannan et al. [15] outlined a discrete-time multi-
input-multi-output optimal regulator control plan for the speed and efficiency optimization
of the interior-PMSM wherein, the controllable losses were optimized in terms of the
magnetic current components along with the constraint that both the electromagnetic and
load torques being equal at steady-state. Bernal et al. [16] presented a minimum loss
controller for an interior-PMSM in which the d-axis current components were weighted
so as to obtain the optimum d-axis current meant for loss minimization.
Based on a generalized d-q loss model suited to the dc motors, induction motors,
permanent magnet synchronous motors and synchronous reluctance motors as well, Ref.
[17] proposed an expression to obtain the optimum value of the d-axis component of the
stator current meant for minimal losses. For both SPMSM as well as IPMSM drives,
2394 S.M. Tripathi, C. Dutta / Journal of the Franklin Institute 355 (2018) 2392–2423
Nomenclature
d search step-size
ia∗ , ib∗ , ic∗ reference three-phase stator currents in a-b-c reference frame
ia , ib , ic measured three-phase stator currents in a-b-c reference frame
icd , icq d- and q-axes core-loss current components
id , id∗ actual and reference d-axis stator current components
id min , id max minimum and maximum values of the d-axis stator current in the
search interval
iq , iq∗ actual and reference q-axis stator current components
∗
iod , iod actual and reference d-axis demagnetizing current components
∗
ioq , ioq actual and reference q-axis torque producing current components
J motor inertia
kmech mechanical loss coefficient
Kp , Ki proportional-and integral-gains of the outer speed PI controller
Ld , Lq d-and q-axes stator winding inductances
P number of poles
Pin ,Pout drive input and output powers
Po rated power
Rc core-loss resistance
Rs stator winding resistance
s Laplace variable
Te electromagnetic torque
vd , vq d-and q-axes stator voltage components
W total controllable electrical losses
Wcu controllable copper loss
Wf e controllable core loss
Wmech mechanical loss
η drive efficiency
ψ PM rotor flux
ωe rotor speed (electrical)
ωr , ωr∗ actual and reference rotor speeds (mechanical)
a neural network control was proposed in [18] in order to have minimal losses for
different rotor speeds and load torque values. A novel maximum efficiency per ampere
control algorithm was proposed in [19] with an objective to achieve maximal efficiency
of the PMSM, while motors and drives were taken into synergetic deliberations.
An online LMA for an interior-PMSM was presented by Uddin et al. [20] in which
a fuzzy logic based speed controller was used to help in extending the operating speed
of the motor and the d-axis current was optimally controlled to achieve maximum
efficiency point. An online loss minimization based adaptive flux observer for direct
torque and flux control of PMSM drive was presented by Uddin et al. [21] so as
to operate the PMSM at minimum loss condition. An algorithm combining the MTPA
control and flux-weakening control for controlling the motor below and above base
speeds was developed by Toosi et al. [22] which concluded an optimum d-axis current
Rs
Ld
id i od
icd
Rc
vd ωe Lqioq
i q Rs
Lq
i cq i oq ωeψ
vq
Rc ωe Ld iod
Fig. 1. Equivalent circuits representing the steady-state SPMSM model taking the core loss into account.
so as to improve the performance of the interior-PMSM. Furthermore, Ref. [23] is also

there which suggests the machine-operation in both voltage-and current-limited modes
simultaneously, so as to achieve MTPA control in the field-weakening region.
Upon review of several research papers, it has been realized that the ‘model-based’
and ‘search-based’ loss minimization approaches are of particular interest. Nevertheless,
the dynamics of the PMSM drive (particularly, SPMSM drive) that employing these
LMAs have hardly been examined by the researchers, when the drive undergoes a vari-
ety of transient conditions. In order to reduce the total controllable electrical losses in
a vector-controlled VSI-fed SPMSM drive, firstly a model-based loss minimization algo-
rithm (MLMA) and secondly, a binary search-based online loss minimization algorithm
(BSOLMA) have been examined in this paper.
Unlike [24] (wherein with the minimization of the controllable electrical losses via
an online iterative search algorithm, the dynamic performance of the interior-PMSM
drive was examined for a speed-reversal case only); this paper provides the result of a
detailed simulation study on the dynamics and efficiency of a SPMSM drive employing
individually the aforementioned LMAs and also the conventional zero d-axis current
control (ZDCC), for a variety of transient conditions. This paper is organized as follows:
Section-II presents steady-state SPMSM model taking into account the core loss. The
vector control of the SPMSM drive is briefly discussed in Section-III. The MLMA and
BSOLMA are explained in Section-IV. The dynamics of the SPMSM drive employing
ZDCC, MLMA and BSOLMA are examined under a variety of transient conditions in
Section-V. A discussion on simulation study is presented in Section-VI. At last, some
conclusions are listed in Section-VII.
2. Steady-state SPMSM model including core loss resistance
The equivalent circuits representing steady-state SPMSM model as presented in various

research literatures have not taken the core loss (consisting of hysteresis and eddy current
losses) into account. In order to take the core loss into account, a resistor Rc is also
introduced in the conventional equivalent circuit of the SPMSM [25–29] as shown in
Fig. 1. This way, the d-q axes stator currents (id and iq ) have been divided into
the core loss current components (icd and icq ) and into the demagnetizing and torque
producing current components (iod and ioq ), as illustrated in Fig. 1.
In practice, the value of core loss resistance Rc depends on the operating conditions
and can be determined via a method provided in [27]. However, in this research work,
the parameters of the SPMSM along with the value of core loss resistance Rc have
directly been acquired from [30], which are listed in Appendix.
So, the modelling equations of the SPMSM in steady-state taking into account the
core loss can be expressed as

vd iod Rs 0 −ωe Lq iod 0
= Rs + 1+ + (1)
vq ioq Rc ωe Ld 0 ioq ωe ψ
ωe Lq ioq
icd = − (2)
Rc
ωe
icq = (ψ + iod Ld ) (3)
Rc
id = iod + icd (4)
iq = ioq + icq (5)

3 P
Te = ψ ioq + (Ld − Lq )iod ioq (6)
2 2
3. Vector control of SPMSM drive
For enhanced efficiency, the vector control of a VSI-fed SPMSM drive making use of
the LMA is illustrated in Fig. 2. The SPMSM drive system comprises a PI controller
to regulate the outer speed feedback loop and a hysteresis controller to regulate the
inner current feedback loop. The outer speed PI controller generates the reference q-
axis torque producing current component by processing the error between the reference
and the actual rotor speeds as follows:

∗ Ki ∗
ioq = Kp + ωr − ωr (7)
s
The parameters of the outer speed PI controller are tuned using the symmetric op-
timum approach thoroughly described in [31–32]. Further, the reference d-axis stator
current is set to zero in a conventional FOC scheme for a SPMSM drive. However, in
the proposed FOC scheme, the d-axis stator current is actively controlled wherein the
reference d-axis stator current is estimated by using either a MLMA or BSOLMA. The
details of the MLMA and BSOLMA are presented in the next section. The estimated
d-q axes reference stator current components are transformed into the a-b-c reference
frame and are compared to the measured three-phase stator currents. The current errors
are then processed by an inner hysteresis controller which generates the control signals
for the VSI feeding the SPMSM.
Fig. 2. The schematic of the vector control of SPMSM drive making use of the LMA.
4. Loss minimization algorithms (LMAs)
The total losses on the SPMSM include mechanical, electrical and some additional
losses as well [24]. The mechanical loss, which is proportional to the square of the
rotor speed, includes the friction and windage losses [7], i.e.
Wmech = kmech × ωe2 (8)
where, kmech is the mechanical loss coefficient. Being independent from the electrical
variables such as stator current or the magnetic flux, the mechanical loss is not con-
trollable [4,7,33,34]. Moreover, the estimation of the additional losses, originated from
the eddy current losses in the stator construction, is not so easy and, in addition, these
losses are a small fraction (about 0.05%–0.2%) of the rated power [4,24,34,35].
With respect to efficiency, on the other hand, the inverter and motor loss analyses
depicted in [36] as well as the investigations carried out in [37] with motor and inverter
loss models demonstrated that, the inverter losses need not to be taken into account in
the efficiency optimizing control algorithms for the small drives (<10 kW), because the
share of the inverter losses is insignificant in the total loss of drive system compared
to the share of the motor losses i.e., motor losses are dominating. Accordingly, in
efficiency optimizing control algorithms for the small drives, the motor loss minimization
criterion is just as good as the drive loss minimization criterion [37]. In the proposed
research work, the LMAs primarily serve minimization of the controllable motor losses
only and, undoubtedly, are reasonable for the minimization of losses in the proposed
SPMSM drive also, which in this case is below 10 kW, where the inverter losses are
not much important as they would have only a very little influence on the drive loss.
Hence, in view to the above, it is worth remarkable here that the mechanical and
additional losses as well as inverter losses have been ignored in the development of
LMAs, so as to simplify the analyses. However, the electrical losses viz. copper and
core losses are controllable and therefore, can be minimized so as to maximize the drive
efficiency [33]. So, in order to reduce the total controllable electrical losses without
much affecting the dynamic performance of the SPMSM drive, two different LMAs are
presented in this paper, namely
a. Model-based loss minimization algorithm (MLMA)
b. Binary-search based online loss minimization algorithm (BSOLMA).
4.1. MLMA
The controllable copper losses can be expressed as

3
Wcu = Rs id2 + iq2 (9)
2
and the controllable core losses can be expressed as
3 2
W f e = Rc icd + icq
2
(10)
2
Using Eqs. (2)–(5), the expressions for Wcu and W f e can be rewritten as

3 ωe Lq ioq 2 ωe (ψ + iod Ld ) 2
Wcu = Rs iod − + ioq + (11)
2 Rc Rc
2
3 ωe Lq ioq (ωe ψ + ωe iod Ld )2
Wf e = + (12)
2 Rc Rc
Therefore, total controllable electrical losses W can be expressed as a function of the
iod , ioq and ωe , i.e.

W iod , ioq , ωe = Wcu iod , ioq , ωe + W f e iod , ioq , ωe (13)
Since the value of ioq is directly proportional to the electromagnetic torque of the
SPMSM and moreover, in the steady-state condition where the motor speed and electro-
magnetic torque are constant, the total controllable electrical losses depend on iod . So,
the condition for minimizing electrical losses can be derived by partial differentiating
the expression (13) with respect to iod assuming Te and ωe constant, one may have

∂W [Rs Rc2 + ωe2 Ld2 (Rs + Rc )]iod + ψ Ld ωe2 (Rs + Rc )
=3× (14)
∂ iod Rc2
Nevertheless, exploring a point whether it is a maximum or minimum, can be estab-
lished with the second-order partial derivative, therefore,
2 2
∂ 2W Ld ωe 3L 2 ω 2
= 3 R s + 1 + d e (15)
∂iod
2 Rc2 Rc
This means,
∂ W
2
>0 (16)
∂iod
2
Thus, the existence of the loss minimum can be concluded.

Fig. 3. Curves of core loss, copper loss and total loss functions with respect to d-axis current at rated speed
and no-load condition.
The existence of the loss minimum can also be verified by plotting the curves of
core loss, copper loss and total loss functions with respect to d-axis current. A plot of
these loss functions at rated speed and no-load condition is depicted in Fig. 3 which
indicates that the total loss function is a concave curve with respect to the d-axis
current and, hence, there is certainly a minimum point [16]. Minimum losses satisfy
[16–17]

∂ Wcu + W f e ∂W
= =0 (17)
∂ iod ∂ iod
It can also be represented as
∂ Wcu ∂W f e
=− (18)
∂ iod ∂ iod
Meaning that, the minimum total loss operating point is located in between the min-
imum operating point of copper loss and that of the core loss wherever the rate of
change of core loss equals to the rate of change of copper loss [16]. This understanding
is consistent with the plots shown in Fig. 3. Using Eq. (17), one may derive optimal
point for the minimized losses as follows:
∗ ψ Ld ωe2 (Rs + Rc )
iod =− (19)
Rs Rc2 + ωe2 Ld2 (Rs + Rc )
Afterward, in order to minimize the power losses in the SPMSM, the d-axis sta-
tor current is controlled with its optimal reference value determined by Eq. (20) after
making use of Eqs. (2), (4), (7) and (19).

∗ ψ Ld ωe2 (Rs + Rc ) ωe Lq Ki ∗
id = − + Kp + ωr − ωr (20)
Rs Rc2 + ωe2 Ld2 (Rs + Rc ) Rc s
Further, in order to produce the required motor torque, the q-axis stator current is
controlled with its optimal reference value determined by Eq. (21) after making use of
Eqs. (3), (5), (7) and (19).

Ki ψ ωe Ld2 ωe2 (Rs + Rc )
iq∗ = Kp + (ωr∗ − ωr ) + 1− (21)
s Rc Rs Rc2 + ωe2 Ld2 (Rs + Rc )
4.2. BSOLMA
Fundamentally, the binary search algorithm searches a sorted array by repeatedly nar-
rowing the search interval into half in successive iterations where the search continues
in the left-half or right-half of the sorted array (omitting the other-half for further con-
sideration) depending upon the search value in the recent search interval being less than
or greater than the middle value, until the search value matches the middle one.
Founded on the above algorithm, a loss minimization algorithm, termed as binary
search-based online loss minimization algorithm (BSOLMA), has been presented in this
∗
subsection. Since in case of SPMSM, the optimal current iod can simply be expressed
as an analytical function featuring only a local minimum. Accordingly, the total con-
trollable electrical losses at constant motor speed and electromagnetic torque can also
be minimized by finding the optimum d-axis stator current component [24] by making
use of an iterative ‘binary-search’ based online-loss minimization algorithm (BSOLMA)
as follows:
Defining the initial search interval [id min = −10A, id max = 10A] as well as the search
step-size (d = 1.0mA), the mid-value x is determined as
id max + id min
x= (22)
2
While |id min − id max | >= 2d, the search interval is narrowed in the subsequent itera-
tions by updating the values of id min or id max as per following criteria
if W (x − d ) < W (x + d ) then id max = x (23)
if W (x − d ) > W (x + d ) then id min = x (24)
so as to realize
W (id min ) = W (id max ) (25)
Here, the values of W (x + d ), W (x − d ), W (id min ) and W (id max )are calculated using
Eqs. (26)–(29).
⎡ ⎤
∗ ωe (ψ + Ld iod1 ) 2
⎢Rs (x + d ) + ioq +
2
⎥
3⎢ Rc ⎥
W (x + d ) = ⎢ ⎥ (26)
2⎢
⎣ ( ω L i ∗ 2
e q oq ) + ( ω e ψ + ω e d iod1 )
L 2 ⎥
⎦
+
Rc
⎡ ⎤
∗ ωe (ψ + Ld iod2 ) 2
⎢R s (x − d ) + ioq +
2
⎥
3⎢ Rc ⎥
W (x − d ) = ⎢ ⎥ (27)
2⎢
⎣
∗ 2
(ωe Lq ioq ) + (ωe ψ + ωe Ld iod2 )2 ⎥
⎦
+
Rc
⎡ ⎤
∗ ωe (ψ + Ld iod min ) 2
⎢R s id2 min+ ioq + ⎥
3⎢ Rc ⎥
W (id min ) = ⎢ ⎥ (28)
2⎢
⎣
∗ 2
(ωe Lq ioq ) + (ωe ψ + ωe Ld iod min )2 ⎥
⎦
+
Rc
⎡ ⎤
∗ ωe (ψ + Ld iod max ) 2
⎢R s + ioq
id2 max + ⎥
3⎢ Rc ⎥
W (id max ) = ⎢ ⎥ (29)
2⎢
⎣
∗ 2
(ωe Lq ioq ) + (ωe ψ + ωe Ld iod max )2 ⎥
⎦
+
Rc
where,
∗
ωe Lq ioq
iod1 = (x + d ) + (30)
Rc
∗
ωe Lq ioq
iod2 = (x − d ) + (31)
Rc
∗
ωe Lq ioq
iod min = id min + (32)
Rc
∗
ωe Lq ioq
iod max = id max + (33)
Rc
The flow chart of the BSOLMA is illustrated in Fig. 4. When search ends, the
value of x would be the optimal value of the reference d-axis stator current component
resulting in minimum power loss in the SPMSM. Therefore,
id∗ = x (34)
The optimal value of the q-axis stator current component, which would produce the
required motor torque, can be determined by Eq. (35) after making use of Eqs. (3)–(5),
(7) and (34).

∗ Ki ∗ ωe ∗
iq = K p + ωr − ωr + ψ + Ld iod (35)
s Rc
where,

∗ ωe Lq Ki ∗
iod = id∗ + Kp + ωr − ωr (36)
Rc s
Note that, for the SPMSM case,
Ld ≈ Lq (37)
Fig. 4. Flowchart of the BSOLMA.
Further, the output power Pout and the efficiency of the SPMSM drive can reasonably
be expressed as

2
Pout = × ωe Te (38)
P
Pin − W Pout
η= = (39)
Pin Pout + W
5. Dynamic performance analysis
In order to compare the efficiency enhancement in the SPMSM drive employing

individually the MLMA and BSOLMA with that employing conventional-ZDCC un-
der a variety of transient conditions, a detailed simulation model is built using MAT-
LAB/Simulink and the dynamics of the rotor speed and d-q axes stator currents together
with the power losses and the drive efficiency for each transient condition are observed.
It is realized that the SPMSM drive (with system parameters as listed in Appendix)
achieves the steady-state with soft dynamic response. The different transient conditions
to which the SPMSM drive is tested are
(A) Start-up at rated load-torque

(B) Reduced load-torque at rated speed
(C) Increased load-torque at rated speed
(D) Speed reduction at rated load-torque
(E) Speed acceleration at rated load-torque
(F) Speed acceleration while reduction in load torque
(G) Speed reduction while increment in load torque
(H) Speed reduction while reduction in load torque

(I) Speed acceleration while increment in load torque
(J) Speed-reversal at rated load-torque
It is also worth mention here that the simulation time-step is taken as (Ts = 1 μs) and
the optimal values of the reference direct-and quadrature-axes stator current components
are updated within each sampling-interval of the outer speed control-loop (Tw = 500 μs).
5.1. Start-up at rated load-torque
In the beginning, the motor is idle. The motor is started-up at rated load-torque
(12.0 N-m) by setting the speed reference as 1750 rpm at t = 0. The outer speed PI con-
troller forces the rotor to quickly track the reference speed value without surpassing the
reasonable overshoot limit as depicted in Fig. 5(a), (e) and (i) for all three approaches
viz. ZDCC, MLMA and BSOLMA, respectively. Fig. 5(b), (f) and (j) show the dynam-
ics of the d-q axes stator currents from which it can be seen that the d-q axes stator
currents accurately track their reference values. Nevertheless, unlike the ZDCC approach,
the MLMA and BSOLMA do seek the optimal value of the d-axis stator current so
as to minimize the total controllable electrical losses. The power losses in the SPMSM
drive employing ZDCC, MLMA and BSOLMA are shown in Fig. 5(c), (g) and (k),
respectively. Further, the efficiency plots for the SPMSM drive are also depicted in Fig.
5(d), (h) and (l). It can be seen that the efficiency is improved with the employment
of the LMA.
5.2. Reduced load-torque at rated speed
The load-torque on the motor drive rotating at 1750 rpm is halved at once at t = 1.0 s
and consequently, the rotor speed increases which, however, settles again to 1750 rpm
quickly as depicted in Fig. 6(a), (e) and (i). Further, as shown in Fig. 6(b), (f) and (j),
the q-axis stator current at steady-state corresponding to the rotor speed of 1750 rpm
and load-torque of 6.0 N-m also reduces. On the other hand, the MLMA and BSOLMA
seek out the optimal value of the d-axis stator current for the minimization of the
total controllable electrical losses. The power losses in the SPMSM drive corresponding
to all three approaches are shown in Fig. 6(c), (g) and (k). Moreover, Fig. 6(d), (h)
and (l) depict the efficiency plots for the SPMSM drive. Notice that the efficiency is
enhanced with the employment of the LMAs.
5.3. Increased load-torque at rated speed
Now, the load-torque on the motor drive rotating at 1750 rpm is increased to 12.0 N-m
at once at t = 2.0 s and consequently, the rotor speed decreases which, however, settles
again to 1750 rpm quickly as shown in Fig. 7(a), (e) and (i). Further, as shown in Fig.
7(b), (f) and (j), the q-axis stator current at steady-state corresponding to the rotor speed
of 1750 rpm and load-torque of 12.0 N-m also rises. On the other hand, the MLMA and
BSOLMA set the optimal value of the d-axis stator current. The power losses in the
SPMSM drive corresponding to all three approaches are shown in Fig. 7(c), (g) and
(k). Moreover, Fig. 7(d), (h) and (l) depict the efficiency plots for the SPMSM drive. It
a e i
1800 1800 1800
Speed Speed
Speed Speed*
Speed* Speed*
1780 1780 1780
Rotor Speed[rpm]
Rotor Speed[rpm]
Rotor Speed[rpm]
1760 1760 1760
1740 1740 1740
1720 1720 1720
1700 1700 1700

0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Time[sec] Time[sec] Time[sec]
b f 10 j
10 10
8 8 8
6 6 6
DQ Axis Current[A]
DQ Axis Current[A]
DQ Axis Current[A]
4 4 4
2 2 2
0 0 0
-2 -2 -2
id
-4 -4 id -4 id
id*
id* id*
-6 iq -6 iq -6 iq
iq* iq* iq*
-8 -8 -8
0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
c g k
375 375 375
300 300 300

Power Loss[Watts]
Power Loss[Watts]
Power Loss[Watts]
225 225 225
150 150 150
75 75 75
0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
d h l
0.96 0.96 0.96
0.94 0.94 0.94
0.92 0.92 0.92

Efficiency
Efficiency
Efficiency
0.9 0.9 0.9
0.88 0.88 0.88
0.86 0.86 0.86

0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Fig. 5. The dynamics of rotor speed and the d-q axes stator currents together with the power losses and
the drive efficiency when the SPMSM drive starts-up at rated load-torque of 12.0 N-m: (a)–(d) ZDCC (e)-(h)
MLMA (i)–(l) BSOLMA.
can also be noticed that the d-q axes stator currents, power losses and drive efficiency
corresponding to the rotor speed 1750 rpm and load-torque 12.0 N-m acquire the same
steady-state values as were in Condition–A.
a e i
1790 1790 1790
Speed Speed Speed
Speed* Speed* Speed*
1780 1780 1780
Rotor Speed[rpm]
Rotor Speed[rpm]
Rotor Speed[rpm]
1770 1770 1770
1760 1760 1760
1750 1750 1750
1740 1740 1740
1730 1730 1730

0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
b f j
10 8 8
8 6 6
6 4 4
DQ Axis Current[A]
DQ Axis Current[A]
DQ Axis Current[A]
4
2 2
2
0 0
0
-2 -2
-2
id id
-4 -4 id
-4 id* id* id*
-6 iq -6 iq -6 iq
iq* iq* iq*
-8 -8 -8
0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
c g k
375 375 375
300 300 300

Power Loss[Watts]
Power Loss[Watts]
Power Loss[Watts]
225 225 225
150 150 150
75 75 75
0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
d h l
0.95 0.95 0.95
0.9 0.9 0.9

Efficiency
Efficiency
Efficiency
0.85 0.85 0.85
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.75 0.75 0.75

0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Fig. 6. The dynamics of rotor speed and the d-q axes stator currents together with the power losses and the
drive efficiency when the load-torque on the SPMSM drive rotating at rated speed of 1750 rpm is reduced
from 12.0 N-m to 6.0 N-m: (a)–(d) ZDCC (e)–(h) MLMA (i)–(l) BSOLMA.
5.4. Speed reduction at rated load-torque
The speed command at the instant t = 3.0 s is changed to 500 rpm keeping the load-
torque constant as rated value (12.0 N-m). Therefore, the motor previously rotating at
1750 rpm starts decelerating and rapidly settles to the new command value of 500 rpm
a e i
1770 1770 1770
Speed Speed Speed
1760 1760 1760
Rotor Speed[rpm]
Rotor Speed[rpm]
Rotor Speed[rpm]
1750 1750 1750
1740 1740 1740
1730 1730 1730
1720 1720 1720
1710 1710 1710

1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
b f j
8 8 8
6 6 6
DQ Axis Current[A]
DQ Axis Current[A]
DQ Axis Current[A]
4 4 4
2 2 2
0 0 0
-2 -2 -2
-4 id -4 -4
id id
id*
-6 -6 id* -6 id*
iq iq iq
-8 iq* -8 iq* -8 iq*
1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
c g k
375 375 375
300 300 300

Power Loss[Watts]
Power Loss[Watts]
Power Loss[Watts]
225 225 225
150 150 150
75 75 75
1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
d h l
0.94 0.94 0.94
0.92 0.92 0.92

Efficiency
Efficiency
Efficiency
0.9 0.9 0.9
0.88 0.88 0.88
0.86 0.86 0.86
1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
drive efficiency when the load-torque on the SPMSM drive rotating at rated speed of 1750 rpm is increased
from 6.0 N-m to 12.0 N-m: (a)–(d) ZDCC (e)–(h) MLMA (i)–(l) BSOLMA.
as shown in Fig. 8(a), (e) and (i). Consequently, the q-axis stator current slightly dips
until the rotor attains the speed of 500 rpm as clearly can be seen from Fig. 8(b), (f)
and (j). On the other hand, the optimal value of d-axis stator current increases with the
reduction in speed. It can also be seen from Fig. 8(c)–(d), (g)–(h) and (k)–(l) that at
a e1800 i 1800
1800 Speed
Speed Speed
1600 Speed* 1600 Speed*
1600 Speed*
1400
Rotor Speed[rpm]
1400
Rotor Speed[rpm]
1400
Rotor Speed[rpm]
1200 1200 1200
1000 505 1000 505

1000 505
500 500 500

800 800 800
495 495 495
600 490 600 490 600 490
400 400 400

2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6
b f j
8 8 8
6 6 6
4 4 4
DQ Axis Current[A]
DQ Axis Current[A]
DQ Axis Current[A]
2 2 2
0 0 0
-2 -2 -2
-4 id -4 id
-4 id
id* id* id*
-6 iq -6 iq -6 iq
iq* iq* iq*
-8 -8 -8
2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6
c g k
375 375 375
300 300 300

Power Loss[Watts]
Power Loss[Watts]
Power Loss[Watts]
225 225 225
150 150 150
75 75 75
2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6
d h l
0.95 0.95 0.95
0.9 0.9 0.9

Efficiency
Efficiency
Efficiency
0.85 0.85 0.85
0.8 0.8 0.8

2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6
Time Time[sec] Time[sec]
the drive efficiency when the rotor speed of SPMSM drive is reduced from 1750 rpm to 500 rpm at rated
load-torque of 12.0 N-m: (a)–(d) ZDCC (e)–(h) MLMA (i)–(l) BSOLMA.
lower speed, there is no significant minimization of losses and therefore the efficiency of
the SPMSM drive employing ZDCC, MLMA and BSOLMA remains almost the same.
5.5. Speed acceleration at rated load-torque
At the instant t = 4.0 s, the speed command is changed to 1200 rpm keeping the load-
torque constant as rated value (12.0 N-m). As a result, the motor previously rotating at
500 rpm starts accelerating and rapidly settles to the new command value of 1200 rpm
as shown in Fig. 9(a), (e) and (i). Consequently, the q-axis stator current slightly rises
until the rotor attains the speed of 1200 rpm as can easily be seen from Fig. 9(b),
(f) and (j). On the other hand, the optimal d-axis stator current decreases with the
acceleration in the rotor speed. Once again, as depicted in Fig. 9(c), (d), (g) (h) and
(k) and (l), the power loss is minimized to some extent and, thereby, the efficiency is
also better with the employment of the LMAs.
5.6. Speed acceleration while reduction in load torque
Now, the reference speed command is changed to 1750 rpm and the load-torque on
the motor drive is halved simultaneously at t = 5.0 s; therefore, the motor previously
rotating at 1200 rpm starts accelerating and rapidly settles to the new command value
of 1750 rpm as shown in Fig. 10(a), (e) and (i). The q-axis stator current at steady-state
corresponding to the rotor speed of 1750 rpm and load-torque of 6.0 N-m also reduces
(see Fig. 10(b), (f) and (j)). On the other hand, the optimal d-axis stator current
decreases with the acceleration in the rotor speed. The power losses in the SPMSM
10(d), (h) and (l). It can be seen that the efficiency is enhanced with the employment of
the LMAs. Furthermore, it is worth noticeable that the d-q axes stator currents, power
losses and drive efficiency corresponding to the rotor speed 1750 rpm and load-torque
6.0 N-m acquire the same steady-state values as were in Condition–B.
5.7. Speed reduction while increment in load torque
This time, the reference speed command is changed to 1000 rpm and the load-torque
on the motor drive is increased to 12.0 N-m simultaneously at t = 6.0 s; as a result, the
motor previously rotating at 1750 rpm starts decelerating and quickly settles to 1000 rpm
as shown in Fig. 11(a), (e) and (i). The q-axis stator current at steady-state correspond-
ing to the rotor speed of 1000 rpm and load-torque of 12.0 N-m also rises (Fig. 11(b),
(f) and (j)). On the other hand, the optimal d-axis stator current increases with the
deceleration in the rotor speed. The power losses in the SPMSM drive corresponding
to all three approaches are shown in Fig. 11(c), (g) and (k). Moreover, Fig. 11(d), (h)
and (l) depict the efficiency plots for the SPMSM drive. It can be seen that the power
loss is minimized slightly and, thereby, the efficiency is also improved a little with the
employment of the LMAs.
5.8. Speed reduction while reduction in load torque
Once again, the reference speed command is changed to 500 rpm and the load-torque
on the motor drive is reduced to 8.0 N-m simultaneously at t = 7.0 s; as a result, the
motor previously rotating at 1000 rpm starts decelerating with a swing near the beginning
a e i
1400 1400 1400
1215 1215
1200 1200 1215 1200
1210 1210
1210
Rotor Speed[rpm]
Rotor Speed[rpm]
Rotor Speed[rpm]
1205 1205
1205
1200 1200
1000 1000 1200 1000
1195 1195
1195
800 800 800
600 600 600

Speed Speed Speed
400 400 400
3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4
b f j
8 8 8
6 6 6
DQ Axis Current[A]
4
DQ Axis Current[A]
4
DQ Axis Current[A]
4
2 2 2
0 0 0
-2 -2 -2
-4 -4 -4
id id id
-6 id* -6 id* -6 id*
iq iq iq
-8 iq* -8 iq* -8 iq*
3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4
c g k
300 300 300
Power Loss[Watts]
Power Loss[Watts]
Power Loss[Watts]
225 225 225
150 150 150
75 75 75
3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4
d h l
0.95 0.95 0.95
0.9 0.9 0.9

Efficiency
Efficiency
Efficiency
0.85 0.85 0.85
0.8 0.8 0.8

3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6
the drive efficiency when the rotor speed of SPMSM drive is accelerated from 500 rpm to 1200 rpm at rated
a e i
1800 1800 1800
1765 1765
1700 1700 1760 1700 1760
1760
1755 1755
1600 1600 1600
Rotor Speed[rpm]
Rotor Speed[rpm]
Rotor Speed[rpm]
1300 1750 1750
1750
1745 1300 1745
1500 1250 1500 1500 1300
1740
1250
1250
1400 1200 1400 1400
1200
1200
1300 1300 1300
1200 Speed 1200 Speed 1200 Speed

1100 1100 1100
4.8 4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 4.8 4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 4.8 4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
b f j 8
8 8
6 6 6
4 4 4
DQ Axis Current[A]
DQ Axis Current[A]
DQ Axis Current
2 2 2
0 0 0
-2 -2 -2
-4 id -4 id
-4 id
id* id* id*
-6 iq -6 iq -6 iq
iq* iq* iq*
-8 -8 -8
4.8 4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 4.8 4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 4.8 4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
c g k
300 300 300
225 225 225

Power Loss[Watts]
Power Loss[Watts]
Power Loss[Watts]
150 150 150
75 75 75
0 0 0
4.8 4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 4.8 4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 4.8 4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
d h l
0.95 0.95 0.95
0.9 0.9 0.9

Efficiency
Efficiency
Efficiency
0.85 0.85 0.85
0.8 0.8 0.8

4.8 4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 4.8 4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 4.8 4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
the drive efficiency when the rotor speed of SPMSM drive is accelerated from 1200 rpm to 1750 rpm together
with reduction in the load-torque from 12.0 N-m to 6.0 N-m: (a)–(d) ZDCC (e)–(h) MLMA (i)–(l) BSOLMA.
a1800 e1800 i
1800
Speed Speed Speed
1700 Speed* 1700 Speed* 1700 Speed*
1600 1750 1600 1750 1600
1750
Rotor Speed[rpm]
Rotor Speed[rpm]
Rotor Speed[rpm]
1500 1700
1500 1700 1500
1700
1400 1400 1400
1650 1650
1650
1300 1300 1300
1005 1005 1005
1200 1000 1200 1000 1200 1000
995 995 995
1100 1100 990 1100
990 990
1000 985
1000 985 1000 985
900 900 900

5.8 5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 5.8 5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 5.8 5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4
b f 8
j
8 8
6 6 6
4 4 4
DQ Axis Current[A]
DQ Axis Current[A]
DQ Axis Current[A]
2 2 2
0 0 0
-2 -2 -2
-4 id -4 id -4 id
id* id* id*
-6 iq -6 iq -6 iq
iq* iq* iq*
-8 -8 -8
5.8 5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 5.8 5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 5.8 5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4
c g k
375 375 375
300 300 300

Power Loss[Watts]
Power Loss[Watts]
Power Loss[Watts]
225 225 225
150 150 150
75 75 75
0 0 0
5.8 5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 5.8 5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 5.8 5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4
d h l
0.95 0.95 0.95
0.9 0.9 0.9

Efficiency
Efficiency
Efficiency
0.85 0.85 0.85
0.8 0.8 0.8

5.8 5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 5.8 5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 5.8 5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4
drive efficiency when the rotor speed of SPMSM drive is reduced from 1750 rpm to 1000 rpm together with
the increment in the load-torque from 6.0 N-m to 12.0 N-m: (a)–(d) ZDCC (e)–(h) MLMA (i)–(l) BSOLMA.
a e i 1100
1100 1100
Speed Speed Speed
900
Rotor Speed[rpm]
900 900
Rotor Speed[rpm]
Rotor Speed[rpm]
1000 1000
1000
800 800 950 800 950
950
505 505
900 900 505 900
700 500 700 500 700
495 495 500
600 490 600 490 600 495
485 485 490
500 500 500
485
400 400 400

6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6 6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6 6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6
b f j 8
8 8
6 6 6
4 4 4
DQ Axis Current[A]
DQ Axis Current[A]
DQ Axis Current[A]
2 2 2
0 0 0
-2 -2 -2
-4 id -4 id
-4 id
id* id* id*
-6 iq -6 iq -6 iq
iq* iq* iq*
-8 -8 -8
6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6 6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6 6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6
c 300
g 300
k 300
225 225 225

Power Loss[Watts]
Power Loss[Watts]
Power Loss[Watts]
150 150 150
75 75 75
0 0 0
6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6 6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6 6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6
d h l
0.94 0.94 0.94
0.92 0.92 0.92
0.9 0.9 0.9

Efficiency
Efficiency
Efficiency
0.88 0.88 0.88
0.86 0.86 0.86
0.84 0.84 0.84
0.82 0.82 0.82

6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6 6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6 6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6
the drive efficiency when the rotor speed of SPMSM drive is further reduced from 1000 rpm to 500 rpm
together with the reduction in the load-torque from 12.0 N-m to 8.0 N-m: (a)–(d) ZDCC (e)–(h) MLMA (i)–(l)
BSOLMA.
and settles to 500 rpm as shown in Fig. 12(a), (e) and (i). The q-axis stator current
at steady-state corresponding to the rotor speed of 500 rpm and load-torque of 8.0 N-m
also reduces though its value is lower than the that was in Condition–D on account
of reduced load-torque as can clearly be observed from Fig. 12(b), (f) and (j). On
the other hand, the optimal d-axis stator current increases with the deceleration in the
rotor speed. It can also be seen from Fig. 12(c)-(d), (g)-(h) and (k)-(l) that at lower
speed, there is no significant minimization of losses and therefore, the efficiency of the
SPMSM drive employing ZDCC, MLMA and BSOLMA remains almost the same.
5.9. Speed acceleration while increment in load torque
Now, the reference speed command is changed to 1750 rpm and the load-torque on the
motor drive is increased to 12.0 N-m simultaneously at t = 8.0 s; accordingly, the motor
previously rotating at 500 rpm starts accelerating and settles to 1750 rpm as shown in
Fig. 13(a), (e) and (i). The q-axis stator current at steady-state corresponding to the
rotor speed of 1750 rpm and load-torque of 12.0 N-m also rises as can be observed
from Fig. 13(b), (f) and (j). On the other hand, the optimal d-axis stator current
decreases with the acceleration in the rotor speed. The power losses in the SPMSM
13(d), (h) and (l). It can be seen that the efficiency is enhanced with the employment of
the LMAs. Furthermore, it is worth noticeable that the d-q axes stator currents, power
losses and drive efficiency corresponding to the rotor speed 1750 rpm and load-torque
12.0 N-m acquire the same steady-state values as were in Conditions–A and C.
5.10. Speed-reversal at rated load-torque
At last, the speed reference of the motor rotating at 1750 rpm at rated load-torque
(12.0 N-m) is reversed at t = 9.0 s by setting it as –1750 rpm. Accordingly, the drive
control system commences braking operation followed by the reverse motoring so as to
attain the new speed reference. The outer speed PI controller forces the rotor to track
the reference speed value without exceeding the reasonable overshoot limit as depicted in
Fig. 14(a), (e) and (i). The dynamics of the d-q axes stator currents is depicted in Fig.
14(b), (f) and (j) from which it can be seen that the d-q axes stator currents accurately
track their reference values. The power losses in the SPMSM drive corresponding to all
three approaches are shown in Fig. 14(c), (g) and (k). Further, the efficiency plots for
the SPMSM drive are also shown in Fig. 14(d), (h) and (l). It can be seen that the
efficiency of the SPMSM drive firstly drops off severely and then again rises until the
rotor attains the speed of set speed reference value of –1750 rpm. Further, at steady-state
the efficiency of the SPMSM drive employing ZDCC, MLMA and BSOLMA differ a
little.
6. Discussions
Because of no saliency (Ld ≈ Lq ), there happens no reluctance torque in the SPMSM.

The torque production in the SPMSM is only governed by the q-axis stator current, and
is unaffected from the negative d-axis stator current. Further, in the closed-loop speed
control of SPMSM drive, the torque condition is forced by a speed PI controller via
controlling q-axis stator current only, so as to ensure that the rotor speed is accurately
being tracked to the reference. As can be seen from the Figs. 5–14, the outer speed PI
controller forces the rotor to settle at its reference value for variations in the load-torque
a 1800 e1800 i1800

1765
1765 1765
1600 1760 1600 1600
1760 1760
1755
1755 1755
1400 1400 1400
Rotor Speed[rpm]
Rotor Speed[rpm]
1750
Rotot Speed[rpm]
1750 1750
1745
1745 1745
1200 1200 1200
1000 1000 1000
800 800 800
600 Speed 600 Speed 600 Speed

400 400 400
7.8 8 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 7.8 8 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 7.8 8 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8
b f j
8 8 8
6 6 6
DQ Axis Current[A]
DQ Axis Current[A]
4 4 4
DQ Axis Current[A]
2 2 2
0 0 0
-2 -2 -2
-4 -4 -4
id id id
-6 id* -6 id* -6 id*
iq iq iq
-8 iq* -8 iq* -8 iq*
7.8 8 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 7.8 8 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 7.8 8 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8
c g 375
k375
375
300 300 300

Power Loss[Watts]
Power Loss[Watts]
Power Loss[Watts]
225 225 225
150 150 150
75 75 75
0 0 0
7.8 8 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 7.8 8 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 7.8 8 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8
d h l
0.9 0.9 0.9

Efficiency
Efficiency
Efficiency
0.85 0.85 0.85
0.8 0.8 0.8
7.8 8 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 7.8 8 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 7.8 8 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8
the drive efficiency when the rotor speed of SPMSM drive is further accelerated from 500 rpm to 1750 rpm
together with the increment in the load-torque from 8.0 N-m to 12.0 N-m: (a)–(d) ZDCC (e)–(h) MLMA (i)–(l)
BSOLMA.
a e i
2000 2000 2000
Speed Speed Speed
1000 1000 1000
Rotor Speed[rpm]
Rotor Speed[rpm]
Rotor Speed[rpm]
500 500 500
0 0 0
-1740
-500 -500 -1740 -500 -1740
-1750
-1000 -1000 -1750 -1000 -1750
-1760
-1760 -1760
-1500 10.58 10.6 10.62 -1500 -1500
10.6 10.65 10.6 10.65
-2000 -2000 -2000
9 9.5 10 10.5 11 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 9 9.5 10 10.5 11
b8 f j 8
8
6 6 6
4 4 4
DQ Axis Current[A]
DQ Axis Current[A]
DQ Axis Current[A]
2 2 2
0 0 0
-2 -2 -2
-4 id -4
-4 id id
id*
id* id*
-6 iq -6 iq -6 iq
iq* iq* iq
-8 -8 -8
9 9.5 10 10.5 11 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 9 9.5 10 10.5 11
c g k
375 375 375
300 300 300

PowerLoss[Watts]
Power Loss[Watts]
Power Loss[Watts]
225 225 225
150 150 150
75 75 75
0 0 0
9 9.5 10 10.5 11 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 9 9.5 10 10.5 11
d 1
h 1
l 1
0.8 0.8 0.8

Efficiency
Efficiency
0.6
Efficiency
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2
0 0 0
9 9.5 10 10.5 11 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 9 9.5 10 10.5 11
the drive efficiency when the rotor speed of SPMSM drive is reversed from 1750 rpm to −1750 rpm at rated
Fig. 15. Controllable losses in the SPMSM drive versus d-axis stator current at different rotor speeds while
retaining the load-torque constant (in this case at 12 N-m).
within the prescribed overshoot / undershoot limit and the dynamics of the rotor speed
of the SPMSM drive employing individually the ZDCC, MLMA and BSOLMA are
quite similar. It is also realized that the steady-state value of the q-axis stator current
corresponding to different transient conditions stated aforesaid, rises / reduces with the
increment / reduction in the load torque.
In addition, the dynamics of the q-axis stator current of the drive employing indi-
vidually the ZDCC, MLMA and BSOLMA are also comparable. Further, the optimum
d-axis stator current as estimated by the MLMA or directly found by the BSOLMA for
the minimization of the total controllable electrical losses are nearly the same, thereby,
the drive efficiency corresponding to both LMAs are also comparable.
The curves characterizing the relationship between the controllable losses in the
SPMSM and the d-axis current are shown in Figs. 15–17 for various operating con-
ditions. As depicted in Fig. 15, a significant increase in core loss as compared to the
copper loss (which being almost of identical value) can be recognized with increase in
rotor speed while retaining the load torque constant (in this case at 12 N-m). For that
reason, the enhancement in the efficiency of the SPMSM drive employing either MLMA
or BSOLMA is being highest in the upper range of the rotor speed (see Fig. 18);
however, the effectiveness of the LMAs meant for the minimization of the controllable
electrical losses is not much significant at the lower range of the rotor speed and there-
fore, the drive efficiency is of almost similar value for ZDCC, MLMA and BSOLMA
cases, as depicted in Fig. 18.
For id∗ ≤ id < 0, as depicted in Fig. 16, the core loss becomes more intense in con-
trast to the copper loss with increase in load torque in the upper speed range (in this
case at 1750 rpm). Therefore, the enhancement in the efficiency of the SPMSM drive
employing either MLMA or BSOLMA can easily be noticed at various load torque val-
ues in the upper range of the rotor speed (see Fig. 19). On the other hand, as depicted
in Fig. 17, a significant increase in the copper loss as compared to the core loss (which
being almost of identical value) can be recognized with increase in load torque in the
Fig. 16. Controllable losses in the SPMSM drive versus d-axis stator current at different load torque values
while retaining the rotor speed constant in the upper range (in this case at 1750 rpm).
Fig. 17. Controllable losses in the SPMSM drive versus d-axis stator current at different load torque values
while retaining the rotor speed constant in the lower range (in this case at 500 rpm).
lower speed range (in this case at 500 rpm). For that reason, the MLMA and BSOLMA
are not found much effective in the minimization of the controllable electrical losses at
various load torque values in the lower range of the rotor speed (see Fig. 20).
Further, as can be seen in Fig. 19, the efficiency of the SPMSM drive increases
with the increasing load-torque while retaining the rotor speed constant in the upper
range (at 1750 rpm). On the other hand, the drive efficiency drops-off dramatically with
the increasing load-torque while keeping the rotor speed constant in the lower range (at
500 rpm) as illustrated in Fig. 20. The reason behind it can be understood by rewriting
the expression for drive efficiency (39) as follows:
1
η= (40)
1+r
Fig. 18. Drive efficiency versus rotor speed while retaining the load-torque constant (in this case at 12 N-m).
Fig. 19. Drive efficiency versus the load-torque while retaining the rotor speed constant in the upper range
(in this case at 1750 rpm).
where,
W
r= (41)
Pout
This way, Eq. (40) gives an understanding that the drive efficiency is inversely cor-
related with the ratio (r) of the power loss and the output power of the drive.
Clearly, as depicted in Fig. 21, the ratio of power loss to the output power of the
drive is lower at the lower torque value and goes on increasing with increase in the
load torque, while the rotor speed has been retained in the lower range. In contrast,
on the other hand, the ratio of power loss to the output power of the drive is higher
at the lower torque value and goes on decreasing with the increase in the load torque,
while the rotor speed has been retained in the upper range.
Fig. 20. Drive efficiency versus the load-torque while retaining the rotor speed constant in the lower range
(in this case at 500 rpm).
Fig. 21. Variation of the ratio of power loss to the output power of the drive as well as the drive efficiency
with increasing load-torque values––Curve - A: W / Pout @ 500 rpm; Curve - B: W / Pout @ 1750 rpm;
Curve - C: Efficiency @ 500 rpm; Curve - D: Efficiency @ 1750 rpm.
In PMSM drive system employing LMA, d-axis stator current component goes to
more negative and hence, this does cause the increase in the stator current, which in turn
results in bigger copper loss; but reduces the stator phase voltage due to the reduction
in total machine flux. Further, the LMA causes a significant reduction in the core loss
by means of the negative d-axis stator current, which ultimately offers smaller total
power loss [7] despite the bigger copper loss. Furthermore, ignoring of the mechanical
losses, additional losses and inverter losses does not influence the conclusions drawn in
this paper since the analyses have been presented using same simulation models built
in MATLAB/Simulink. Accordingly, the comparative analyses of the detailed simulation
Table 1
Summary of different transient conditions.
Parameter ZDCC MLMA BSOLMA
(A) Speed: 0 to 1750 rpm at Load-torque: 12 N-m

Overshoot (%) 0.510 0.570 0.560
Drive settling time (s) 0.858 0.854 0.855
Efficiency (%) 89.03 90.33 90.34
(B) Speed: 1750 rpm and Load-torque: 12 to 6 N-m
Overshoot (%) 2.070 2.060 2.040
Efficiency (%) 87.80 90.05 90.07
(C) Speed: 1750 rpm and Load-torque: 6 to 12 N-m
Undershoot (%) 2.090 2.080 2.080
Efficiency (%) 89.03 90.33 90.34
(D) Speed: 1750 to 500 rpm at Load-torque: 12 N-m
Undershoot (%) 1.880 1.946 1.940
Efficiency (%) 83.42 83.70 83.72
(E) Speed: 500 to 1200 rpm at Load-torque: 12 N-m
Overshoot (%) 0.812 0.803 0.810
Efficiency (%) 88.95 89.65 89.67
(F) Speed: 1200 to 1750 rpm and Load-torque: 12 to 6 N-m
Overshoot (%) 0.568 0.560 0.558
Efficiency (%) 87.80 90.05 90.07
(G) Speed: 1750 to 1000 rpm and Load-torque: 6 to 12 N-m
Undershoot (%) 0.985 0.990 0.980
Efficiency (%) 88.46 88.93 88.94
(H) Speed: 1000 to 500 rpm and Load-torque: 12 to 8 N-m
Undershoot (%) 2.024 1.936 1.974
Efficiency (%) 87.43 87.51 87.52
(I) Speed: 500 to 1750 rpm and Load-torque: 8 to 12 N-m
Overshoot (%) 0.532 0.550 0.536
Efficiency (%) 89.03 90.33 90.34
(J) Speed: 1750 to −1750 rpm at Load-torque: 12 N-m
Undershoot (%) 0.536 0.562 0.554
Efficiency (%) 90.42 91.01 91.03
studies made on the dynamics and efficiency of a SPMSM drive making use of these
LMAs and the conventional-ZDCC individually, for a variety of transient conditions,
can be treated as serious, significant and fair as well. This way, the different plots for
the power losses as well as the efficiency along with the facts tabulated in Table 1
show that the drive efficiency is enhanced in all transient conditions under both MLMA
and BSOLMA than the efficiency under ZDCC without much affecting the dynamic
performance of the SPMSM drive.
7. Conclusion
A closed-loop scheme of the vector controlled VSI-fed SPMSM drive employing two
loss minimization algorithms viz. MLMA and BSOLMA was discussed. A steady-state
model of the SPMSM drive was presented by taking into account the core losses as
well. Extensive digital computer simulations were carried out using MATLAB so as
to compare the dynamic performance of the drive employing individually the MLMA
and BSOLMA with that employing conventional-ZDCC. While investigating the dynamic
performance of the SPMSM drive, an immediate change in the q-axis stator current
component was noticed compliant with any change in the load-torque condition thereby,
assuring the fast dynamic response of the SPMSM drive. The d-axis stator current
component of the SPMSM was actively controlled in consistent with the operating rotor
speed and the load-torque conditions either as estimated by the MLMA necessitating
complex derivations and calculations or as directly found by the BSOLMA. The drive
control under all three approaches viz. ZDCC, MLMA and BSOLMA forbade the tran-
sient current exceeding beyond the permissible value and therefore, took care of the
over-current of the VSI devices. Simulation results also demonstrated the reduction in
power losses in the SPMSM drive employed with the LMA. Hence, the efficiency en-
hancement of the SPMSM drive was noticed while the dynamic performance of the
drive was not affected as compared to the conventional-ZDCC approach. Further, the
drive efficiency corresponding to both LMAs were also found comparable.
Acknowledgment
The work presented in this paper was supported by the World Bank assisted Technical
Education Quality Improvement Programme (WBTEQIP–II) at KNIT, Sultanpur, India by
providing seed money grant for the P.G. project under ‘Research Promotion Scheme’
(No. 369/WBTEQIP/2015).
Appendix: PARAMETERS OF THE SPMSM [30]
Po = 2.2 kW
Rs = 1.72
Ld = 20.5 mH
Lq = 20.5 mH
Rc = 700
P = 10
= 0.244 Wb
J = 0.007 Kg-m2 .
References
[1] C.C. Mi, G.R. Slemon, R. Bonert, Minimization of iron losses of permanent magnet synchronous ma-
chines, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 20 (1) (2005) 121–127.
[2] R. Aparnathi, V.V. Dwivedi, Electrical Machine and Drive (Introduce Advance Control), Lulu Engineering
academic Publication, USA, 2013 ISBN: 978-1-304-50491-3.
[3] M. Ahmed, High Performance AC Drives Modelling Analysis and Control, Springer, 2010.
[4] C. Mademlis, J. Xypteras, N. Margaris, Loss minimization in surface permanent-magnet synchronous motor
drives, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 47 (1) (2000) 115–122.
[5] J-J Chen, K-P Chin, Minimum copper loss flux-weakening control of surface mounted permanent magnet
synchronous motors, IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 18 (4) (2003) 929–936.
[6] W. Hassan, B. Wang, Efficiency Optimization of PMSM based drive system, in: Proceedings of the
IEEE 7th International Power Electronics and Motion Control Conference – ECCE Asia, China, 2012,
pp. 1027–1033.
[7] T. Barisa, D. Sumina, M. Kutija, Comparision of maximum torque per ampere and loss minimization
control for the interior permanent magnet synchronous generator, in: Proceedings of the 2015 International
Conference on Electrical Drives and Power Electronics (EDPE), Slovakia, 2015, pp. 21–23.
[8] G. Zhou, J-W Ahn, A novel efficiency optimization strategy of IPMSM for pump application, J. Electr.
Eng. Technol. 4 (4) (2009) 515–520.
[9] J-G. Lee, K-H. Nam, S-H. Lee, S-H. Choi, S-W Kwon, A lookup table based loss minimizing control
for FCEV permanent magnet synchronous motors, J. Electr. Eng. Technol. 4 (2) (2009) 201–210.
[10] G-W. Cho, C-M. Kim, G-T. Kim, The maximum efficiency driving in IPMSM by precise estimation of
current phase angle, J. Electr. Eng. Technol. 8 (5) (2013) 1221–1226.
[11] L.J. Camurça, J. Lago, M.L. Heldwein, High efficiency wind energy conversion system based on the
three level delta-switch T-type converter and PMSG model-based loss minimization, in: Proceedings of the
2015 IEEE 13th Brazilian Power Electronics Conference and 1st Southern Power Electronics Conference
(COBEP/SPEC), Fortaleza, 2015, pp. 1–6.
[12] Y. Lee, J-Ik Ha, Minimization of stator currents for mono inverter dual parallel PMSM drive system, in:
Proceedings of the 2014 International Power Electronics Conference (IPEC-Hiroshima 2014–ECCE ASIA),
Hiroshima, 2014, pp. 3140–3144.
[13] L.T. Beti, U. Schafer, Loss minimization algorithm of an IPMSM based on analytical expression, in:
Proceedings of the 2014 16th European Conference on Power Electronics and Applications (EPE’14-ECCE
Europe), Lappeenranta, 2014, pp. 1–7.
[14] G. Gallegos-López, F.S. Gunawan, J.E. Walters, Optimum torque control of permanent magnet AC ma-
chines in the field weakened region, in: Conference Record of the 2004 IEEE Industry Applications
Conference, 39th IAS Annual Meetin, 2004.
[15] M.A. Mannan, T. Murata, J. Tamura, T. Tsuchiya, Efficiency optimized speed control of interior permanent
magnet synchronous motor drives based on optimal regulator theory, in: Proceedings of the ICCE, 1,
Japan, 2004, pp. 601–606.
[16] F.F. Bernal, A. Garcia-Cerrada, R. Faure, Loss minimization control of synchronous machines with con-
stant excitation, in: Proceedings of the PESC 98 Record. 29th Annual IEEE Power Electronics Specialists
Conference (Cat. No.98CH36196), Fukuoka, 1998, pp. 132–138. vol.1.
[17] F.F. Bernal, A.G. Cerrada, R. Faure, Model-based loss minimization for DC and AC vector-controlled
motors including core saturation, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 36 (3) (2000) 755–763.
[18] M.N. Eskander, Minimization of losses in permanent magnet synchronous motors using neural network,
J. Power Electr. 2 (3) (2002) 220–229.
[19] R. Ni, D. Xu, G. Wang, L. Ding, G. Zhang, L. Qu, Maximum efficiency per ampere control of perma-
nent-magnet synchronous machines, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electr. 62 (4) (2015) 2135–2143.
[20] M. Nasir Uddin, Ronald S. Rebeiro, Online efficiency optimization of a fuzzy-logic-controller-based
IPMSM drive, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 47 (2) (2011) 1043–1050.
[21] M. Nasir Uddin, HonBin Zou, F. Azevedo, Online loss minimization based adaptive flux observer for
direct torque and flux control of PMSM drive, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 52 (1) (2016) 425–431.
[22] S. Toosi, M.R. Mehrjou, M. Karami, M.R. Zare, Increase performance of IPMSM by combination of
maximum torque per ampere and flux-weakening methods, ISRN Power Eng. vol. 2013 (2013) 187686.
[23] G. G-Lopez, F.S. Gunawan, J.E. Walters, Optimum torque control of permanent-magnet AC machines in
the field-weakened region, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 41 (4) (2005) 1020–1028.
[24] C. Cavallaro, A.O.Di Tommaso, R. Miceli, A. Raciti, G.R. Galluzzo, M. Trapanese, Efficiency enhance-
ment of permanent-magnet synchronous motor drives by online loss minimization approaches, IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electr. 52 (4) (2005) 1153–1160.
[25] W. Qiao, L. Qu, R.G. Harley, Control of IPM synchronous generator for maximum wind power generation
considering magnetic saturation, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 45 (3) (2009) 1095–1105.
[26] Y.K. Chin, J. Soulard, Modeling of iron losses in permanent magnet synchronous motors with field
weakening capability for electric vehicles, Int. J. Automot. Technol. 4 (2) (2003) 87–94.
[27] N. Urasaki, T. Senjyu, K. Uezato, A novel calculation method for iron loss resistance suitable in mod-
elling permanent magnet synchronous motors, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 18 (1) (2003) 41–47.
[28] N. Urasaki, T. Senjyu, K. Uezato, Relationship of parallel model and series model for permanent magnet
synchronous motors taking iron loss into account, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 19 (2) (2004) 265–270.
[29] C. Dutta, S.M. Tripathi, Comparison between conventional and loss d-q model of PMSM, in: Proceedings
of the International Conf. on Emerging Trends in Electrical, Electronics and Sustainable Energy Systems
(ICETEESES-16), 2, Sultanpur, India, 2016, pp. 160–164.
[30] J.O. Estima, A.J.Marques Cardoso, Efficiency analysis of drive train topologies applied to electric/hybrid
vehicles, IEEE Trans. Vehicular Technology 61 (3) (2012) 1021–1031.
[31] S.M. Tripathi, A.N. Tiwari, Deependra Singh, Optimum design of proportional-integral controllers in
grid-integrated PMSG-based wind energy conversion system, Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. 26 (5) (2016)
1006–1031.
[32] J.W. Umland, M. Safiuddin, Magnitude and symmetric optimum criterion for the design of linear control
systems: what is it and how does it compare with others? IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 26 (3) (1990) 489–497.
[33] M. Gecic, Petar Matic, K. Vladimir, I. Kremar, D. Marcetic, S. Cveticanin, Evaluation of energy efficiency
of high speed PMSM drives, in: Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Power Electronics,
Serbia, 2013.
[34] M. Caruso, A.O. Di Tommaso, R. Miceli, C. Nevoloso, C. Spataro, F. Viola, Characterization of the
parameters of interior permanent magnet synchronous motors for a loss model algorithm, Measurement
106 (2017) 196–202.
[35] S.C. Wedum, Rotor Design of Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machine for Pumped-storage Plant Master
Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2015.
[36] D. Sato, Jun-ichi Itoh, Total loss comparision of inverter circuit topologies with interior permanent magnet
synchronous motor drive system, ECCE Asia IEEE (2013).
[37] F. Abrahamsen, F. Blaabjerg, J.K. Pedersen, P.B. Thoegersen, Efficiency-optimized control of medium-size
induction motor drives, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 37 (6) (2001) 1761–1767.

Tripathi 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tripathi 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

Journal of the Franklin Institute 355 (2018) 2392–2423

Enhanced efficiency in vector control of a

so as to improve the performance of the interior-PMSM. Furthermore, Ref. [23] is also

2. Steady-state SPMSM model including core loss resistance

The equivalent circuits representing steady-state SPMSM model as presented in various

id = iod + icd (4)

iq = ioq + icq (5)

3. Vector control of SPMSM drive

4. Loss minimization algorithms (LMAs)

Wmech = kmech × ωe2 (8)

The controllable copper losses can be expressed as

Thus, the existence of the loss minimum can be concluded.

if W (x − d ) < W (x + d ) then id max = x (23)

if W (x − d ) > W (x + d ) then id min = x (24)

W (id min ) = W (id max ) (25)

Fig. 4. Flowchart of the BSOLMA.

5. Dynamic performance analysis

In order to compare the efficiency enhancement in the SPMSM drive employing

(A) Start-up at rated load-torque

(H) Speed reduction while reduction in load torque

5.1. Start-up at rated load-torque

5.2. Reduced load-torque at rated speed

5.3. Increased load-torque at rated speed

1740 1740 1740

1720 1720 1720

1700 1700 1700

300 300 300

225 225 225

150 150 150

0.94 0.94 0.94

0.92 0.92 0.92

0.9 0.9 0.9

0.88 0.88 0.88

0.86 0.86 0.86

1760 1760 1760

1750 1750 1750

1740 1740 1740

1730 1730 1730

300 300 300

225 225 225

150 150 150

0.9 0.9 0.9

0.85 0.85 0.85

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.75 0.75 0.75

5.4. Speed reduction at rated load-torque

1740 1740 1740

1730 1730 1730

1720 1720 1720

1710 1710 1710

300 300 300

225 225 225

150 150 150

0.92 0.92 0.92

0.9 0.9 0.9

0.88 0.88 0.88

0.86 0.86 0.86

1200 1200 1200

1000 505 1000 505

500 500 500

400 400 400

300 300 300