THE DQ TRANSFORMATION AND FEEDBACK LINEARIZATION OF A PERMANENT MAGNET SYNCHRONOUS MOTOR

K S Low', MF Rahman and KW Lim School of Electrical Engineering, University of New South Wales Sydney, Australia 2052 Email: K.Lim@unsw.edu.au characteristics of these motors are considerably more complex [3]. It is these dynamic characteristics which must be precisely controlled in servo applications. a The dynamics of the PMSM is described by multivariable, coupled and nonlinear model [3]. The state equations are bilinear whilst the machine's torque is a nonlinear function of the states. One recently developed approach to the control of such systems is the feedback linearization technique [l]. Feedback linearization has attracted a great deal of research interest in recent years [4]. The central idea of the approach is to algebraically transform a nonlinear model into a (fully or partially) linear one, to which linear control techniques can be applied. A number of recent studies have examined the application of this t e c h q u e to switched reluctance motors, induction motors and brushless dc motors [5-81. This paper applies the technique to a surface magnet PMSM and demonstrates that the familiar dq transformation is a special case of feedback linearisation. The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 presents a dynam~c model for a surface magnet PMSM, first in terms of phase voltages and currents and then in the familiar dq orthogonal reference frame[3]. The exact feedback linearisation of this model is then presented in Section 3, based on the development in Hunt et al 111. Section 4 provides an interpretation of the feedback linearised model in terms of the dq model and decoupling compensation.

ABSTRACT
The dynarmcs of a permanent magnet synchronous motor can be described by a set of differential equations relating voltages and currents in each phase or equivalently by a set of differential equations in an orthogonal reference frame centred on the magnetic pole axis. In either case, the differential equations are coupled and nonlinear in the states. This paper applies the feedback linearisation technique of Hunt, Su and Meyer[l] to transform these nonlinear equations into a linear time invariant state model. Unlike conventional linearisation t e c h q u e s w h c h rely on small signal perturbations, h s t e c h q u e uses a nonlinear state transformation and a nonlinear feedback law. The contribution of this paper is to demonstrate that the state transformation is essentially the familiar dq transformation whilst the nonlinear feedback law performs decoupling and compensation for the mfluence of back emf in the motor.

Keywords
Feedback linearization, dq transformation, permanent magnet synchronous motor.

1.

INTRODUCTION

The Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor (PMSM) is an attractive alternative to DC motors in many low to m d u m power applications where precise servo or speed control is required. Using new magnet materials for field excitation, the PMSM allows a considerable reduction in motor size (volume) and inertia with attendant increases in specific power and torque[2]. Another advantage is that no mechanical brushes are required either in the armature or in the field circuits. These advantages, coupled with the availability of appropriate power electronics devices has resulted in widespread adoption of the PMSM for applications in machine tools, robotics, highdensity disk drives and other dnves used in automation applications. One of the most common PMSMs is the surface magnet motor with sinusoidal windmgs. Under ideal conditions, and driven by a current controlled inverter, the surface magnet PMSM has the torque characteristics, at steady state velocity, of a DC motor[3]. However, the dynamic

MODELOF THEPMSM

The 3 phase voltage equations of a surface magnet PMSM can be written as the following differential equations [3] relating phase currents I , ib, I , , voltages V, V, and V,, rotor velocity a and rotor position 0 in electrical u i s nt,

d i
dr

V
Ls
S

r and L, are the resistance and synchronous inductance of the windings and ,is the rotor flux constant. To complete I the model, we consider the equations of motion. For simplicity, we disregard friction so that the differential equations relating rotor velocity C,, and position Q,, are O,

' now at the School of Electrical and ElectronicEngineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
IEEE Catalogue No. 95TH8025 0-7803-2423-4/95/$4.000l995IEEE

292

Te

T~
J

di
- =

This will be assumed without loss of generality in the following discussion. From the symmetry of the stator windings and assuming a sinusoidal distribution of windings, the phase equations have the following form when transformed into the d-q reference frame[3]

dsm dr

Om

where J is the rotor inertia, Te is the developed torque and T,. is the load torque. 0 is related to S, by &pS, where p is the number of pole pairs. The torque developed by the motor is the sum of the products of current and back emf, which is assumed to be sinusoidal for an ideal motor. This can be expressed as [3] ,

where K f is the motor torque constant The motor dynamics described in Eqns 1-3 can be written in a state space form thus:
--I

where vd vq are the d- and q-axis components of the terminal voltage. This transformation also assumes that the magnetic circuit is linear and that the back emf and inductance variations are sinusoidal quantities. Neglecting rotational losses, the instantaneous developed torque depends only on the .quadraturecurrent I , ie 3 T, =-pAi 2 q (9)

d df

= @(-I)

+ Tu + HTL

(4)

where the states are defined as x = [io i, I C w BIT the input vector contains the voltages at each phase,
u=[Va Vb
VC]' andthematrix

The model of Eqn 8 shows the strong dynamic coupling between the currents in the two axes. This interaction is represented in Fig 1, a block diagram representation of Eqns 2 , 8 and 9 for a surface magnet machine. The figure shows that the instantaneous direct axis current, id while not contributing to developed torque, nevertheless affects the quadrature current and hence the dynarmcs of the PMSM. Under ideal steady state conhtions, where the stator currents are sinusoidal and in phase with the back emf, id, the d-axis component of the stator. currents is zero. Control of torque is then equivalent to controlling I, only. If it is also possible to control id instantaneously to zero, then the dynamic model of Eqn 8 will reduce to the following

S o S I , S2 are sin@,sin(B2d3), sin(Md3) respectively

1 r=-0

1 0 0
1 0

and H =

0 0 0

L"0

0 0

-P -

J
-

vq = ri4 i -Iq L,

-0 0 0

d . dt

+ Aw

(10)

The dynamic model of a PMSM is more elegantly described when the dynamic equations of (1) are transformed to an orthogonal reference frame fixed to the A popular reference frame is the d-q reference rotor. frame. The d-axis of the frame is oriented on the centre of the rotor flux. For this frame of axes [3], the quadrature currents id and I , are related to the phase currents by

whch is analogous to the dynamics of a conventional DC motor. Nevertheless, it is clear from Fig 1, that with the dynamic interaction between the d and q-axis currents, a conventional field oriented controller such as that described in [3], would have di&culty effectively decoupling the currents in the d and q-axes. This interaction is accounted for in the feedback linearisation approach to be discussed.

[+
' 0

2ff -sin B -sin(@ - -)

3

3 EXACT FEEDBACK LINEARIZATION

1 2 J

cos0 I 2

cos(@--) 2ff 3 1 2

i o is the zero sequence component of the phase currents which is zero when the motor has star connected windings.

The feedback linearisation procedure described in [l] is applied to the dynamic state model of Eqn 5 . Following the procedure in [l], it is straightforward (and tedious [9]) to show that the system of Eqn 1 is equivalent to a linear time invariant state model of the form

293

4. AN INTERPRETATION
Eqns 11-12 define a linear time invariant system which is a controllable system in the Brunovsky canonical form. It is straightforward to design a controller for this transformed system. Fig 2 shows a block diagram of the components of such a system. The linear controller on the left sees a linear state model with state vector z and input vector v (Eqns 11-12). The nonlinear transformation block realises Eqn 13 whilst the nonlinear feedback block represents Eqn 15. From the definitions of the transformations, measurements of all the state variables are required (full state feedback). In addition, the transformation requires knowledge of load torque TL. T h s is not desirable in practice and will be addressed in the remarks of Section 4.3

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 A = O O O O O , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

B = I O O 0 1 0 0 0 1

(12)

is

2x,
3R,
2x; -

4.1

The State Transformation

Consider the state transformation defined in Eqn 13

3K2
z = T(x)= .-(XISn 2

+ X2SI + x 3 q + --)L T
JK3

Result 1
The transformed state, z, is a vector containing the rotor position and velociv, in addition to the stator currents defined on the dq axis as follows:

where x, refer to the ith element of the original state vector defined in Eqn 4. Furthermore, the input vector v is defined by

+
Proo/ Substituting the definition of K3 in Eqn 5 into Eqn 13 yields the first two rows. Rows 4 and 5 follow from the definition of the state in Eqn 4 and the dq transformation defined in Eqn 7. Row 3 also follows from the dq transformation and and Eqn 9, where it is noted that with the amroDriate units. K,= h. The third element is the q-axis current produced by the machine minus the current required to drive the load. The net result is the current necessary for acceleration. From Result I , it is clear that the state transformation is essentially an augmented dq transformation.

3KzK3

where R

0
10

0"
0

-K, 0 0

0
-Kl 0

0
0
-Kl

-c1 -c2

-4 -s2]
0 0

4.2

The Feedback Transformation

and Cg C I , C2 are cos@, cos(@- 2&), cos(8 - 4 d 3 ) respectively. Eqn 15 is clearly a nonlinear function of the states of Eqn
4.

The model of the electrical variables in Eqn 8 can be regarded as that of a two input two output system where the manipulated variables are the d and q axes voltages. Here the goal is to achieve independent and decoupled dynamic control of i d and i,.

Result 2

294

For the motor described by Eqn 2 and 8. the nonlinear feedback transformation of Eqn I5 yields a set of independent decoupled diflerential equations as follows:
L,-lq= d .

wid has been included to remove the effects of the daxis current. Eqn 20 reveals a similar decoupling term, a , the effects of q-axis current on the d-axis ', for

V I

dynamics.

dt L,-I d . - v dtdJ-W d =-A --L 3 T d t " 2 ' p

where v, and v2 are defined in Eqn 15.

2. Result 2 shows that one effect of the feedback linearisation is to transform the control design problem for the plant described in Fig 1 into that for a plant described set of decoupled Merential equations (Eqn 17) which are either single integrators (for the currents) or a double integrator for the velocity.
3. vj is not si@icant

'roof
n Eqn 15c, note that the matrix A is a scaled version o f he dq transformation defined in Eqn 7. Furthermore, he matrix Y is also the dq transformation rearranged to w e the d axis terms on top. Thus substituting into Eqn 5 , the dq transformed variables and the definitions o f tate z in Eqn 16, Eqn 15 becomes
~w,-K

in the star connected motor because it manipulates the zero sequence current, which is zero in this case. transformation of Eqn 13 can be modified to exclude TL. [IO] describes a procedure for designing a control system where a req~rement the upper bound of the on rate of change of load torque is used instead of the load torque.

4. Where it is not realistic to m e m e load torque, the

-3K2K3 25 2 3K,

--

2 3pK, TL)
t W

5 . The exact feedback linearisation described above

-Klid

-K&

regards the control of the electrical and mechanical states of the motor as one integrated problem. In a conventional control system for a PMSM drive, a set of cascaded loops with the current loops as the innermost loops is popular. Result 2 can be extended to UUSapproach as follows: Regard Eqns 19 and 20 as the definition of a set of auxilliary inputs. Combine these definitions with the model of Eqn 8. We will then have the current dynarmcs described by the first two rows of Result 2. With the known model parameters and a known velocity o, the auxilliary inputs can always be computed. We thus have a decoupled system for the current dynamics only, whch does not require measurements of load torque. llus decoupled inner loop design then allows for the design of the outer mechanical loops to cater for the existence of friction and other nodinear elements.

hbstituting the values for K,, K2 and K3 defined in Eqn 5, v have from the first row e

:omparing with Eqn 8, the first row of Result 2 follows. lepeating the procedure for the second row in Eqn 18, we lave
v -r v2= -~,i,+wi,+> = -i Ls Ls
d

5.
+wi q +%
Ls

CONCLUSIONS

(201

:omparing with Eqn 8, the second row of Result 2 follows. low 3 follows from the definition of the transformed state n Eqn 16.

4.3

Remarks

1. Companng Eqn 19 with the block hagram of Fig 1 or

the model of Eqn 8, it is clear that the feedback linearisation has included a decoupling mechanism . , which removes the effect of the back emf term, 10on the q-axis current. Furthermore, a decoupling term,

This paper has demonstrated that the feedback linearisation approach to PMSM drive design may be regarded as a generalisation of conventional control in a dq reference frame. The state transformation is shown to be an augmented dq transformation. The linearisation is achieved by nonlinear feedback which has been shown to have a decoupling function. As is typical of model based control methods, the usefulness of feedback linearisation depends on the availability of accurate model parameters. The paper concludes with remarks which suggest that less demanding versions of the feedback linearised controller may be a practical alternative to the full exact linearisation.

295

6.
[I]

REFERENCES

[2]

[3] [4]

[SI

[6]

Hunt L R., Su R, Meyer G (1983), "Design for multi-input nonlinear systems". Differential Geometric Control Theory, New York: Burkhauser, pp. 268-298 Miller T J E (1989) "Brushless permanent-magnet and reluctance motor drives'' Oxford University Press, New York, 1989 Vas P (1992), "Electrical machines and drives: A space-vector theory approach", Oxford University Press, New York Isidori A, "Nonlinear control systems: An introduction", Springer-verlag, New York, 1989 Bodson, M, Chiasson J and Novotnak R "High Performance induction motor control via inputE E E Control Systems output linearization" Magazine, Vol 14 No 4 Aug 1994 pp 25-33 Kim D I, Ha I I and KO M S (1990), "Control of induction motors via feedback linearization with

input4utput decoupling", Int. J. Control, Vol. 51, NO.4, pp. 863-883 Taylor D G and Ilic-spong M (1987), "Linearization [7] and control of switched reluctance motors", Proc. of 16th Incremental Motion Control System and Devices, pp. 175-182 Hemati N, Thorp J S, Leu M G, (1990), "Robust (81 nonlinear control of brushless dc motors for directdrive robotic applications". IEEE Trans. on Industrial Electronics, vol. 37, No. 6, pp. 460-468 [9] Low KS (1994) "Control Strateges for High Performance Permanent magnet synchronous motor brushless dnve" Doctoral dissertation, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia [lo] Low K S, Lim K W and Rahman M F (1992e), "A robust BLDC sew0 mechanism without acceleration measurement", Proc. of Seventh Annual International Conference of IEEE Region IO (TENCON), 11 13 November, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 1033-1037

rotor velocity

Fig 1 Block diagram of PMSM dynamics in dq reference frame

Nonlinear Reference signal Linear controller

V '

a "c

PWM
NdinW
fadback
InVeM

transformation

Liiearized system

Fig 2 Control with a Feedback Linearised Model

296