The Emerging Role of Dead-beat, Direct Torque and Flux Control in the Future of Induction Machine Drives

R.D. Lorenz
University of Wisconsin-Madison Dept of Mechanical Engr. and Dept. of Electrical & Comp. Engr. Madison, WI 53706 lorenz@engr.wisc.edu ultimately has to fall back to dealing with voltage as manipulated input to obtain the best possible FOC open loop air gap torque performance under voltage-limited operation. Because DTC always uses voltage as the manipulated input, the changes in the control law for voltage-limited operation should generally be consistent with non-limited operation, making the transition easier to achieve. The fact that DTC also selects stator flux magnitude as a controls state variable also has a very direct bearing on the stator voltage limit. Since derivative of the stator flux linkage is generally the biggest component of the stator voltage (at least for high speed operation), controlling stator flux linkage magnitude allows the bus voltage utilization to be optimized. Since FOC generally leaves rotor (or stator) flux linkage as open loop states, the dynamic ability to vary flux linkage to optimize bus voltage utilization is generally more limited. Thus, one primary reason for the emerging role of DTC control is the potential advantage when controlling torque and flux linkage when operating in voltage-limited conditions. This issue is one key focus of this paper. The fact DTC simultaneously controls both air gap torque and stator flux whereas FOC simultaneously controls the dand q-axis components of stator current leads to the second major set of issues that this paper focuses on. In FOC, the current vector control techniques have evolved based on enhancements to classical control techniques. The synchronous frame PI current regulator [10] has evolved into the complex vector PI current regulator which properly decouples the frame dependent cross coupling terms [11]. By adding a virtual resistance state feedback gain, the complex vector current regulator is enhanced and made quite insensitive to stator resistance variations [12,13]. Each of these designs has migrated from early hardware implementations to digital software implementation, including FPGA/DSP configurations. Along with that migration, a number of detailed issues in properly forming discrete time models have limited the ultimate performance. However, attention to the discrete time modeling details have now yielded some significant improvements to the digital implementation [14] For FOC IM drives, the focus has typically been on regularly sampled operation, i.e. constant switching frequency. This has allowed optimization of thermal properties, EMI, properties, as well as being reasonable for real-time

Abstract Induction machine drives have the potential to be a highly efficient candidate for variable load power conversion applications dominated by low per unit torque, medium speed duty cycles. To achieve efficiency, the key control variable is flux linkage, which is central to direct torque and flux controlled (DTFC) drives. Deadbeat DTFC drives, by switching at fixed rates, can seamlessly handle voltage/current limits, as well as with zero speed self-sensing methods. This paper explores the methods to achieve true deadbeat, DTFC control, deal with voltage and current limits, and be suitable for loss minimizing control and zero speed self-sensing control. Keywords: induction machines, dead-beat (DB) control, direct torque control (DTC), direct torque and flux control (DTFC), voltage limits

I. INTRODUCTION Direct torque control (DTC) of induction machines has become a widely accepted alternative to field oriented (vector) control (FOC) [1-6]. Both control methods can provide good dynamic control of air gap torque, which is usually the primary input to the process or system that the motor is driving. FOC selects the d- and q-axis stator current vector components as control feedback variables and then uses slip with the closed loop currents as effective manipulated inputs to achieve decoupling state feedback (or feedforward) on estimated rotor (or stator) flux [7,8]. If the state feedback decoupling is reasonably well done, well-behaved open loop control of air gap torque is achieved. DTC selects estimated stator flux magnitude and estimated air gap torque as the two control state variables and applies a closed loop feedback control structure to regulate these states. The closed loop feedback controller uses the applied stator voltage vector as the sole manipulated input. The DTC use of the stator voltage vector as its manipulated input is advantageous since it is the only actual physical manipulated input in the system. Because FOC treats the stator current vector as if it were the manipulated input, non-ideal issues in current regulators will cause the FOC air gap torque performance to degrade. Such issues are generally observed in voltage-limited operation (base speed and above), when the current cannot easily be ideally regulated [9]. Despite many advances in current regulators, the challenge of dealing with current regulation

implementation. This was also made feasible by the relative ease with which the controlled currents could be used as effective manipulated inputs to perform state feedback (or feedforward) decoupling of the estimated rotor (or stator) flux [7]. Rotor flux generally yielded the simplest decoupling solution and has become the de facto standard for FOC industrial drives. For DTC, which to be precise, should be called direct torque and flux control (DTFC) since both torque and stator flux are simultaneously controlled, the nonlinear crosscoupling of the voltage manipulated input yielding both air gap torque and stator flux linkage was not directly solvable and could not be directly decoupled in continuous time. Because decoupling of the cross-coupling was not feasible in the continuous time a different control solution was necessary. The use of a bang/bang controller with a hysteresis band, (hysteresis band control) was a suitable methodology with very little knowledge of the IM physics and thus, this approach became the de facto standard for DTC drives [1,2,3,6]. These approaches achieve nearly simultaneous, dynamic control of air gap torque and stator flux linkage magnitude. For the normal operating space, estimated air gap torque and estimated stator flux linkage magnitude are regulated to stay within the hysteresis band and at all times, the stator voltage vector is the sole manipulated input. However, despite their conceptual simplicity, such bang/bang control methods are known to produce both ripple (chatter) and a variable switching frequency. In addition, they do not automatically lend themselves to a smooth transition during voltage-limited operation. Thus, despite the fact that the applied stator voltage vector is used as the sole manipulated input, the bang/bang control law must be modified to have well-behaved dynamics during voltage-limited operation. The ripple which is inherent with hysteresis band control on the air gap torque has some similarities to the current ripple on the regularly sampled current regulators used for FOC drives. For FOC drives, the switching (sampling) frequency is generally selected to be high enough so that for the stator transient inductance of the IM, a tolerable peak-to-peak torque ripple amplitude results, and the acoustic noise frequency and amplitude are acceptable. For DTC, the amplitude is bounded, but the switching frequency varies continuously and is also dependent on the hysteresis band, so that the noise spectral content varies. This distribution of the spectral content of the noise can be used to reduce the time average to acceptable bounds. The variable switching frequency also imposes limits on the additional features that can be added to DTC drives. For zero and low speed control in which the IM machine itself is used as a sensor (self-sensing = no additional motion sensor is added), the nearly universal solution is to inject some signal into the machine with the inverter and to track the saliency image (spatial inductance) of the machine. With regularly sampled FOC drives, this can be integrated quite easily by using superimposing (injecting) a voltage command on the fundamental voltage command. [14,15] If a constant injection frequency is used, then the resulting currents can be separated and the resulting image tracked.

For DTC with hysteresis control the switching frequency is varying continuously with the operating conditions. This makes it very challenging to integrate signal injection such that adequate bandwidth of the self-sensing can be guaranteed. Thus, for self-sensing of the IM drive, a form of DTC that operates with regular sampling would be much more compatible. For DTFC, the nonlinear cross-coupling of the voltage manipulated input yielding both air gap torque and stator flux linkage can not be solved explicitly in the continuous time. However, in the discrete time, the problem has been shown to be solvable in a variety of forms [17-22]. Thus, a discrete time control solution with regular sampling (fixed switching frequency) can be considered. In general, discrete time controllers can be designed to emulate their continuous domain counterparts, or they can developed in a form that is only possible in the discrete time. The well known Dead-beat discrete time controller is one such special case. It should cause the system to respond fully to a feasible command after just one sample (switching) period. (It requires a model inverse solution such that it is feasible to calculate the value of the manipulated input (applied stator voltage in this case) that will make the air gap torque and stator flux linkage magnitude both change in one period. In effect, a suitable dead-beat (DB) DTFC solution would correctly decouple the cross-coupling on the applied voltage and provide the energy input such that both states can be achieved. This fundamental approach has been developed and demonstrated, and alternative, simpler implementations have been proposed of the same dead-beat structure [17,18,23-25]. Although a number of papers have been written on this topic, most have not succeeded in producing true dead-beat response. For voltage-limited operation, this DB-DTFC architecture has also been demonstrated to use a very simple extension of the same control law used in the non-limited case. Robust properties of this voltage-limited DB-DTFC IM drive have been demonstrated and rigorous parameter sensitivity studies have shown it to have parameter sensitivity properties that are similar to FOC [23,24,25]. The importance of this DB-DTFC solution is that the ripple content is intrinsically reduced by keeping the torque and flux on the desired trajectory at each sample instant, the dynamics are optimized such that no other controller can have superior performance, and the switching frequency is constant, so that value-added features, such as signal injection for zero and low speed self-sensing can be integrated with relative ease. The DB-DTFC structure also has the intrinsic capability to deal with efficiency optimization when operating within the voltage and current limits. Air gap torque is the normal desired output of the drive as it performs its motion control task. In addition, flux linkage is a key variable in optimizing efficiency of the motor drive since iron losses must always be balanced against copper losses to achieve optimal efficiency. Techniques developed for FOC IM drives that manipulate the rotor flux linkage to minimize the total losses [26-30] are especially appropriate for the inherently fast flux linkage control that DB-DTFC has been shown to achieve.

To properly implement such drives, the key variables are stator and rotor flux linkage, which can not be measured, but can be estimated by properly formed discrete time observers [31-35]. A correct formulation and implementation of these observers is required for any form of DTC, including DBDTFC. However, due to the regular sampling (switching) frequency of the DB-DTFC IM drive system, a highly accurate form of these observers has been developed, such that true dead-beat performance in air gap torque and stator flux linkage magnitude has been demonstrated [23,24,25] Based on this systematic introduction to the reasons why DB-DTFC should begin to emerge as a major drive topology , the following sections will focus on each of the key technology areas that are required for this emergence. The sections will cover the possible DB-DTFC voltage calculation models, the DB-DTFC operation when not voltage-limited, and when voltage-limited, the flux observer models and their discrete time formulation, sensitivity to parameter errors. II. DEAD-BEAT DIRECT TORQUE & FLUX CONTROL The complex vector model of the induction machine can be described by (1), (2), and (3) [10] using d-q vector notation, whereby a complex vector fqd is defined as fq jfd. The differential operator has been defined as p, while represents the reference frame velocity. (1) and (2) are the stator and rotor flux linkage differential equations respectively for the standard case of no applied rotor voltage. (3) is the air gap torque equation using the rotor and stator flux vectors. pqds = Vqds - Rs

In the volt second space (vqs(k)ts , vds(k)ts), this a straight line which depicts the various voltage vectors that could achieve the desired change in torque [17-18]. It should be noted that the key variables in this equation are the flux linkages. The formulation of proper flux observers is critical to a correct solution to (5). Assuming that the stator resistance is negligible and that the sample rate is fast, the stator flux linkage can be approximated by (6). qds(k+1) = Vqds(k) ts + qds(k) (6)

When translated into a stator flux linkage magnitude, (6) becomes the equation of a circle as shown in the quadratic form of (7).

(qds(k+1) qds(k))2 = (Vqds(k) ts)2

(7)

Any Volt-sec vector which falls on this stator flux linkage circle will generate the requested stator flux linkage magnitude by the next sample time, thus achieving dead-beat flux control. A. Simultaneous Stator Flux and Air Gap Torque Solution Fig. 1 shows the torque line of (5) and the stator flux circle of (7) for a given operating point.

Rr Lm Rr pqdr = L L qds - L + (j - jr) qdr s r r 3 P Lm ( ds qr) Te = 2 2 LsLr qs dr The instantaneous rate of change of the air gap torque is (4) 3 P Lm Te = 2 2 v v r (qsqr + dsdr)] LsLr [ qs dr ds qr Rr Ls + Rs Lr Te Lr Ls

(2) (3)

d axis (Volt-sec)

Ls

Rs Lm + j qds + Ls Lr qdr

(1)

q axis (Volt-sec) Figure 1. Graphical dead-beat direct torque & flux control (DB-DTFC)

(4)

In the discrete time, (4) can be solved for the stator voltage needed to produce the change in torque, Te(k) over the next sample (switching) period, ts , vqs(k)ts = qr(k) v (k)t dr(k) ds s 4LsLr Rs Rr + T (k)t +Te(k) + 3PLmdr(k) Ls Lr e s ds(k) dr(k) +qs(k) qr(k) + r(k)ts dr(k) (5)

The plot has been offset by the present value of the stator flux linkage, which has been aligned with the d-axis. It can be observed that two Volt-sec vectors simultaneously solve both (5) and (7). This graphical solution represents the basis of the DB-DTFC in [17-18]. In addition to the flux linkages, the voltage limits of the inverter can also shown graphically. In this space, the voltage limits (again Volt-sec over the ts sample time interval) appear as a hexagon with peaks at two-thirds of the DC bus voltage. This hexagon will rotate about the origin at the synchronous frequency. As shown in Fig. 2, the voltage vector which falls inside of the voltage limits is the obvious choice to achieve the dead-beat direct airgap torque and stator flux control.

-0.02

-0.01

The second option (labeled 2.) is to apply the voltage vector which maintains the flux command while developing the maximum torque under these conditions. This mode would have the advantage of maintaining at least one of the desired values.

d axis (volt-sec)

0.01

0.02 -0.02

-0.01

0.01

0.02

q axis (volt-sec) Figure 2. DB-DTFC votlage vector within the voltage limits

If the transient dynamic terms are sufficiently slow that their dynamics can be ignored, this DB-DTFC simultaneous solution model can be simplified further. In [22], the simplified solution for that case was shown to be (8) and (9).
e vds(k) = e vqs(k) e |s|*(k) ds(k) s(k) = t ts s

d axis (volt-sec)

q axis (volt-sec) Figure 3. Graphical representation of voltage vector options when operational voltage limits dominate

(8)

Lr + (k)e (k) (9) Te(k) e e = c t vds(k)Lsi qs(k) Lmdr(k) r ds s

3P 1 where c = 2 2 Ls In non-limited operation, the DB-DTFC drive can thus select the voltage vector to simultaneously achieve the desired change in air gap torque and stator flux linkage magnitude during the next sampling (switching) period. This assumed that sufficient voltage is available such that the torque and flux trajectory is feasible. The following section will evaluate operation under voltage-limited conditions. B. DB-DTFC under Voltage Limits Fig. 3 shows the graphical voltage vector choices of the DB-DTFC for the case when the torque line and stator flux linkage circle intersect outside of the voltage limits. There are three different base solutions shown each having at least two relevant voltage vector options. The first option (labeled 1.) utilizes the intersection solution which is calculated under normal operating conditions. When using this option there are two choices of voltage vector. The first is to simply scale the voltage vector back to the edge of the voltage hexagon (shown with a solid line). The other option is to apply the nearest primary voltage vector which is a six-step mode (shown with the dashed line). The choice between these options is dependent on the system. While the six-step methodology can develop more torque, it will contain more ripple.

The third option (labeled 3.) is to apply the voltage vector orthogonal to the torque line. This should develop the maximum possible torque over the next sample instant; however, this solution completely disregards the stator flux linkage magnitude command. Similar to the intersection solution, this option is shown with two voltage vector choices: the scaled (solid line) version and six-step (dashed line) version. This set of options is invoked at the limits of the available voltage. The control law is functionally consistent with the stator voltage vector decisions made within the reachable voltage plot. III. DB-DTFC FLUX OBSERVER FORMULATION Stator and rotor flux linkage are needed to implement DBDTFC. Since they cannot be measured directly, estimates must be formulated. Observers as real-time models of a physical system are well suited. They use the same inputs given to the system and use the feedback signals from the available sensors as tracking inputs for closed loop control. Closed loop observers act as zero lag filters on the estimated flux signals. In a digital system, a properly formed observer estimates values at the next sample instant based on the present values. This property is very important for a deadbeat control system. When forming the models for deadbeat control, it is often assumed that the sampling and computation take zero time. Consequently, the manipulated output is applied at the sampling instant and no lag is present. In reality, a finite amount of delay will be present because of the sampling, estimation and control law computation times (Fig. 4) and will impart undesirable dynamics into the system. By using

observers, this delay can be effectively removed if the estimated states at the next sample instant are used.

low as 15 degrees of vector angular position error [31]. Its discrete time implementation is critical for DB-DTFC. B. Discrete Time Current Model To implement the discrete time current model portion of the observer, the behavior of the system as seen at the sample instants (index k) must be carefully examined. This model only estimates the present (kth) value of the rotor flux linkage. It should not be utilized to estimate the next sample (k+1) as it has no advanced information for accomplishing this. A sinusoidal stator current, when viewed in the rotor reference frame will appear to be a very slow moving sinusoid rotating at the slip frequency. Therefore, instead of modeling the current as being constant during a sample interval, an additional integration process is inserted, which then effectively models it as a ramp between the prior (k-1) and present (k) samples. The estimated rotor time constant ^ is defined as follows:
r

Figure 4. Sequence and timing of events between sample instants

A. Gopinath Style Observer with Current and Voltage Model Classical open loop current and voltage model observers have been combined into a single closed loop observer [31] and shown in Fig. 5. The resultant closed loop observer is similar to a Gopinath style with gains Ko and Kio which dictate the frequency range for the transition between the two models [31]. This observer is primarily sensitive to only the magnetizing inductance. For a 50% deviation, it has been shown to yield as

^ ^ ^ = L /R r r r

(10)

For the current model, either measured or estimated position can be used.

Figure 5. Closed loop stator and rotor flux linkage observer based on combing the voltage and current models [ ]
r(k)

Stator Current Observer

Vqds(k) iqds(k) +
s s*

Lm Rr Lr 1 Req

+ K1 T K2 1 z
-1

(L

-j

r)

s qdr(k)

z-1

+ +

z-1(1-e-T/ eq) 1 z-1e-T/ eq

s iqds(k+1)

Stator and Rotor Flux Linkage Observer

s iqds(k)

Rs Vqds(k)+ T/ re-T/ r e-T/ r)z-1]

r qdr(k) s* qdr(k) s*

Ls + +

e-j

r iqds(k)

Lm[(1-T/ r+T/ re-T/ r ) + (T/

+
Ko T Kio 1 z-1

1-(e-T/ r)z-1

ej

Tz -1 1 - z -1

Lr Lm

s qdr(k+1)

r(k)

s qds(k+1)

Figure 6. Discrete time model of the closed loop observer system implemented for properly estimating stator and rotor flux linkages

The model including the ramp term translates into the following recursive discrete time equation for the current model whereby T is the observer sample period [23-24]. ^ ^ r ^ ^ ^r qdr(k) = ( 1 r/T + r/T e-T/ r ) Lm iqds(k) ^ ^ ^ r ^ ^ + ( r/T r/T e-T/ r e-T/ r ) Lm iqds(k-1) ^ ^ + ( e-T/ r ) r (k-1)
qdr

instant, shown in Fig. 11. The discrete time equations for this implementation are (22), (23), and (24) [23-24].
s s iqds-error(k) = iqds(k) ^qds(k) is

(11)

(22)

C. Discrete Time Voltage Model Discrete time implementation of the voltage model of the observer is more challenging than the current model and has some caveats that are critical to its proper function. This portion of the observer inherently estimates the next sample instant (k+1). Therefore, the inputs start at the present value (k) while the outputs occur at the next value (k+1). As shown in the Fig. 8, the stationary frame voltage input is taken to be latched (zero order hold). This allows the stator flux linkage to be properly modeled at the next sample instant using (15) [2324]. ^s ^ s ^s s* qds(k+1) = qds(k) + T Vqds(k) Rs iqds(k)

s s Vsum(k) = (K1+T K2) iqds-error(k) K1iqds-error(k-1) ^ ^ ^s Lm Rr s* + Vqds(k) + ^ ^ jr(k) qdr(k) Lr Lr

(23)

1 ^ ^ ^ s (k+1) = V ^s i qds sum(k) ^ (1 e-T/ eq) + i qds(k) e-T/ eq (24) Req E. Closed Loop Observer Controller The discrete time implementation of the closed loop controller for the combined observer is based on (17) and the voltage model input is expanded to include the controller (18). ^ s* ^s V-error(k) = (Ko+T Kio) qdr(k) - qdr(k) ^ ^ K s* (k1) - s (k1)
o

(15)

A problem arises, however, when attempting to estimate the rotor flux linkage using the proper model (16). ^ ^ s (k+1) = Lr qdr ^ L ^ ^ i (qsds(k+1) Ls ^qsds(k+1)) (16)

( qdr

qdr

) )

(17)

^s ^s qds(k+1) = qds(k) ^ s s* +T Vqds(k) Rs iqds(k) + V-error(k)

(18)

In order to be consistent (and avoid unwanted lagging response), the value of current at next sample instant is required. Since this value is not available, it must be estimated. Development of the stator current observer is needed for this. D. Stator Current Observer Development Shown in (19) and Fig. 10 is a model of the stator current which is cross-coupled with the rotor flux linkage [6]. In order to form a discrete time model, the stator voltage is assumed to be latched (zero order hold). For simplicity, an equivalent resistance and time constant have been defined, (20), (21). (19) p iqds = Lm Rr Lm2 1 R + jLsiqds + L L - jr qdr V - R + Ls qds s Lr r r r Req = Rs + Lm2 R Lr2 r (20)

F. The Flux Observer with the Current Observer Fig. 6 shows the entire block diagram of the observer system [23-24]. Although fairly large in appearance, it can be implemented by the recursive equations presented in this paper and it produces the correctly estimated flux linkages needed for accurate DB-DTFC implementation.

IV. DB-DTFC EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION A induction machine DB-DTFC system was implemented at 10 kHz sampling (switching) frequency. The flux linkage estimates were taken from a properly formed stator and rotor flux linkage observer system [23-24]. The data for the induction machine used in the experimental work are listed in the appendix. The discrete time control system was implemented using a Freescale DSP56F805EVM and a Semikron 202 GDL 061-457 CTV, SkiipPack IGBT inverter. A. Experimental Verification under Non-Limited Conditions Fig. 7 shows a step change in torque command at the 19th sample instant in the time domain, while Fig. 8 shows graphically the voltage vector choices made by the control algorithm [23-24].

eq =

Ls Lm2 Rs+ L 2 Rr r

(21)

With this model, a stationary frame current observer can be formed which will estimate the stator current at the next sample

Flux Linkage [V-sec]

instant where the command occurred. Both of the options were evaluated under the two voltage vector choices. The option which maintained the stator flux linkage magnitude was not evaluated. As shown in Fig 9, the six-step voltage choices had considerably more ripple than the scaled back voltage vectors [23-24]. This is an expected result due to the harmonic nature of a six step voltage waveform. It can also be observed that the intersection methodology outperforms the orthogonal methodology in torque production. Fig. 10 provides an experimental justification for the results. As shown, the stator flux linkage magnitude begins increasing with the orthogonal methodology. This changes the operating condition and the controller begins devoting more voltage to the stator flux linkage and less to torque production. Another way to understand this is to actually look at how different stator flux linkage magnitude alters the operating points. Fig. 11 shows simulated graphical results for a step change in torque under the previous experimental conditions.

Torque [N-m]

Sample instants (10 kHz sampling = 0.0001 sec) Figure 7. Experimental flux and torque results from DB-DTFC algorithm Conditions: |*ds| = 0.03 [V-sec], Rotor Speed = 116 rad/s q

-0.01

-0.01

-0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

d-axis [V-sec]

0.01 -0.01

-0.005

0.005

0.01

0.01 -0.01

-0.005

0.005

0.01

Sample instant 18
-0.01

Sample instant 19 Sample instants (10 kHz sampling = 0.0001 sec)

-0.005

Conditions: |*ds| = 0.03 [V-sec], q Rotor Speed = 116 rad/s

0.005

Sample instant 20 q-axis [V-sec]

-0.005

0.005

0.01

Figure 8. Graphical representation of voltage vector selection results from DB-DTFC algorithm during a dead-beat, single step response interval

B. Experimental Results under Voltage Limited Conditions To force operation at the limits, the DC bus voltage of the inverter was limited while the rotor speed was increased. Fig. 9 shows the average results for two of the aforementioned options: intersection solution and orthogonal torque line solution. Each of the torque results presented is the average of five sets of data. This was done because results varied depending on the position of the voltage hexagon at the sample

Flux Linkage [V-sec]

The figures show that at the 19th sample instant, the control applies the correct voltage vector to drive the air gap torque to the new commanded value in just one sample time interval, while simultaneously regulating the stator flux linkage magnitude to the same value. Physically this translates to increasing the angle between the stator and rotor flux linkage vectors, which can also be seen in both plots.

Flux Linkage [V-sec]

0.01 -0.01

Torque [N-m] Figure 9. Experimental torque results for operation at the voltage limits using several possible voltage vector decisions. Conditions: Average of 5 sets of data shown; |*ds | = 0.03 [V-sec], q rotor speed = 565 rad/s, Vdc = 42 V

a) Intersection solution (six-step voltage vector)

b) Orthogonal solution (six step voltage vector) Sample instants (10 kHz sampling = 0.0001 sec) Figure 10. Experimental results for operation at the voltage limits. Voltage Conditions: 1 set of data shown; |*ds | = 0.03 [V-sec], q Rotor Speed = 565 rad/s, Vdc = 42 V

-0.01

-0.01

-0.005

-0.005

0.005

0.005

q-axis [V-sec]

0.01 -0.01

-0.005

0.005

0.01

0.01 -0.01

-0.005

0.005

0.01

-0.01

-0.005

0.005

Conditions: T*=1.0 N-m, e Rotor Speed = 565 rad/s, Vdc = 40 V

0.01 -0.01

-0.005

0.005

0.01

|*ds | = 0.04 q d-axis [V-sec] Figure 11. Theoretical representation of operating point for various stator flux magnitudes

The plots show the angle of the torque line changing drastically for the different operating points. The line is much steeper at smaller magnitude than at greater magnitude. These results highlight the fact that the stator flux linkage magnitude command should be appropriately paired with a torque command. If torque production is the most important result, then a stator flux linkage magnitude exists which will maximize the torque. Likewise if another item such as efficiency were most important, this magnitude should be appropriately selected V. PARAMETER SENSITIVITY Parameter sensitivity evaluation of DB-DTFC can use the command tracking frequency response functions of the system. To experimentally extract this information, each parameter in the control system is varied. The flux or torque command was then given a sinusoidal trajectory and the system response was observed to extract the magnitude and phase errors. A. Flux Command Tracking Fig. 12 shows frequency response functions (FRF's) for the flux magnitude command tracking under loaded conditions at 314 rad/s. rotor speed [23-24]. It can be observed that the system is affected at low frequencies by the magnetizing inductance and rotor resistance at mid frequencies. In both cases, the worst case deviation in magnitude is 40% while the worse phase error is very small. It should be noted that the command tracking FRFs mirror the estimation accuracy FRFs of the observer system which estimates the flux linkages [31]. This reinforces the expectation that a system is limited by the accuracy of its inputs.

B. Torque Command Tracking Fig. 13 shows the FRFs for torque command tracking under loaded conditions at 314 rad/s. rotor speed [23-24]. The plots show the torque magnitude tracking is sensitive to the magnetizing inductance. For a 50% error in the estimated value, the system shows about a 40% decrease in magnitude tracking. However, the system was not sensitive to any of the other parameter estimates when the stator flux linkage command was held constant. The phase tracking for both torque and stator flux linkage is seen to be nearly ideal under virtually all circumstances, confirming the command tracking dynamics expected of deadbeat control systems.

Angular position (phase) error [deg] Figure 13. Experimental command tracking frequency response function of torque command under load Conditions: Rotor Speed = 314 rad/s, Vdc =100 V, |*ds | = 0.03 [V-sec] q T* AC-component = 1 N-m e

Te * Te

Angular position (phase) error [deg] Figure 12. Experimental command tracking frequency response function of stator flux linkage magnitude command under load Conditions: Rotor Speed = 314 rad/s, Vdc =100 V, T* = 0.5 N-m, e |*ds | DC-offset = 0.03 [V-sec], AC-component = 0.005 [V-sec] q

|*ds | = 0.02 q

|*ds | = 0.03 q

|qds |

|qds|

VI.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper has presented a comprehensive discussion of the technology issues causing DB-DTFC to emerge as a dominant future drive technology for induction machines. It presented the control laws and discrete time observer formulation needed for proper DB-DTFC implementation. Experimental results were presented on a properly implemented DB-DTFC drivc switching (sampling) at 10 kHz. Voltage limited operation was evaluated experimentally. Several options for voltage vectors were presented. It was shown that the stator flux linkage magnitude and torque are equal in importance when operating at these limits. Finally, parameter sensitivity of the DB-DTFC system was evaluated. It was shown that the system tracks the torque and flux commands with low phase error but with magnitude errors coming from accuracy limitations of the stator and rotor flux linkage observer and not from the DB-DTFC algorithm itself. APPENDIX
Induction Machine: [35] NASA Redundant Electromechanical Actuator for Expendable Launch Vehicle with Resolver Feedback 2-pole; 96 V-rms l-n; 23,400 RPM; 1 N-m; Rs 0.09 Lls 0.125mH Lm 1.9mH Lls 0.125mH J 1.6e-3kg-m2 Rr 0.105

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author wishes to acknowledge the Wisconsin Electric Machines and Power Electronics Consortium (WEMPEC) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison for its support. REFERENCES
I. Takahashi and T. Noguchi, A new, quick-response and highefficiency control strategy of an induction motor, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. IA-22, pp. 820827, Sept./Oct. 1986. [2] M. Depenbrock, Direct self-control (DSC) of inverter-fed induction machine, IEEE Trans. on Power Elect., vol. 3, pp. 420429, Oct. 1988. [3] P. Tiitinen, The next generation motor control method, DTC, direct torque control, Proc. 1996 Int. Conf. Power Electronics, Drives and Systems, New Delhi, India, Jan. 811, 1996, pp. 3743. [4] D. Casadei, G. Serra, and A. Tani, Analytical investigation of torque and flux ripple in DTC schemes for induction motors, Proc. IEEE IECON97, vol. 2, New Orleans, LA, Nov. 914, 1997, pp. 552556. [5] Peter Vas, Sensorless Vector and Direct Torque Control, Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 1998. [6] I. Takahashi, Y. Ohmori, Take a look back upon the past decade of Direct Torque Control, Proc. of IEEE IECON 1997, New Orleans, Vol. 1, pp. 16-26. [7] R.D. Lorenz and D.W. Novotny, "A Control Systems Perspective of Field Oriented Control for AC Servo Drives", Proc. of the Controls Engineering Conf., June 6-11, 1988, Chicago,pp. XVIII-1 - XVIII-11. [8] D.W. Novotny and T.A. Lipo, Vector Control and Dynamics of AC Drives. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1996. [9] D.R. Seidl, D.A. Kaiser, and R.D. Lorenz, "One-Step Optimal Space Vector PWM Current Regulation using a Neural Network", Proc. of IEEE-IAS Conf., 1994, pp. 867-874. [10] T.R. Rowan and R.L. Kerkman, A new synchronous current regulator and an analysis of current-regulated PWM inverters, IEEE Trans. on Ind. Appl., vol. IA-22, no. 4, July, 1986, pp. 678-690. [11] F. Briz, M.W. Degner, and R.D. Lorenz, "Dynamic Analysis of Current Regulators for AC Motors Using Complex Vectors", IEEE Trans. on Ind. Appl, Nov./Dec. 1999, pp. 1424-1432. [12] F. Briz, A.B. Diez, M.W. Degner, and R.D. Lorenz, "Current and Flux Regulation in Field-Weakening Operation", IEEE Trans. on Ind. Appl,, Vol. 37, No. 1, Jan./Feb. 2001, pp.42-50. [1]

[13] H. Kim and R.D. Lorenz, "Synchronous Frame PI Current Regulators in a Virtually Translated System", Proc. of IEEE IAS 2004 Conf., Oct. 3-7, 2004, Seattle, WA, pp. 856-863. [14] K. Huh, R.D. Lorenz, "A Discrete Time Domain Modeling and Design for AC Machine Current Regulation", Proc. of IEEE IAS Conf. Sep. 2327, 2007, New Orleans. [15] P.L. Jansen, The Integration of State Estimation, Control, and Design for Induction Machines, Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 1993. [16] P.L. Jansen and R.D. Lorenz, "Transducerless Position and Velocity Estimation in Induction and Salient AC Machines", IEEE Trans. on Ind. Appl., March/April 1995, pp. 240-247. [17] B. H. Kenny, Deadbeat direct torque control of induction machines using self-sensing at low and zero speeds, Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 2001. [18] B.H. Kenny and R. D. Lorenz, Stator- and Rotor-Flux-Based Deadbeat Direct Torque Control on Induction Machines, IEEE Trans. Ind. App., vol. 39, pp. 10931100, July/Aug. 2003. [19] A. Tripathi, A. M. Khambadkone, S.K. Panda, Space-vector based, constant frequency, direct torque control and dead beat stator flux control of AC machines, Proc. of IEEE IECON '01, vol. 2, Nov. 29 Dec 2, 2001, pp. 1219-1224. [20] J. Lee, C. Kim, M. Youn, A Dead-Beat Type Digital Controller for the Direct Torque Control of an Induction Machine, IEEE Trans. On Power Elect., vol. 17, no 5, pp. 739746, Sept. 2002. [21] N. R. Idris, C. L. Toh, M. E. Elbuluk, A New Torque and Flux Controller for Direct Torque Control of Induction Machines, IEEE Trans. Ind. App., vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1358-1366, Nov/Dec 2006. [22] Joon Hyoung Ryu, "A unified flux and torque control method for DTCbased induction-motor drives," IEEE Trans. On Power Elect., vol. 21, pp. 234-242, 2006 [23] N.T. West, Effective Real Time Implementation of Deadbeat Direct Torque Control for AC Induction Machine, Master of Science thesis, Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 2006. [24] N.T. West, R.D Lorenz Digital Implementation of Both a Stator and Rotor Flux Linkage Observer and Stator Current Observer, Proc. of IEEE IAS Annual Meeting, September 23-27, 2007. [25] B.E. Heinbokel, Robustness Analysis and Evaluation of Deadbeat Direct Torque and Flux Control for Induction Machines, Master of Science thesis, Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 2008. [26] S.K. Sul and M.H. Park, "A Novel Technique for Optimal Efficiency Control of Current Source Inverter Fed Induction Motor", Proc. of IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conf., 1986, pp.486-493. [27] D.S. Kirschen, D.W. Novotny and T.A. Lipo, "Optimal Efficiency Control of an Induction Motor Drive", IEEE Trans. on Energy Conversion, Vol. EC-2, No.1 Mar. 1987. pp. 70-76. [28] R.D. Lorenz and D.W. Novotny, "Optimal Utilization of Field Oriented Induction Machines in Field Oriented Drives", Journal of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 2, June, 1990. pp. 95-101. [29] R.D. Lorenz and S.M. Yang, "Efficiency Optimized Flux Trajectories for Closed Cycle Operation of Field Oriented Induction Machine Drives", IEEE Trans. on Ind. Appl., May/June 1992, pp. 574-580. [30] R.D. Lorenz and S.M. Yang, "AC Induction Servo Sizing for Motion Control Applications via Loss Minimizing Real-Time Flux Control", IEEE Trans. on Ind. Appl., Vol. 0 No. 0 May/June 1992, pp.589-593. [31] P.L. Jansen and R.D. Lorenz, A Physically Insightful Approach to the Design and Accuracy Assessment of Flux Observers for Field Oriented Induction Machine Drives, IEEE Trans. Ind. App., vol. 30, pp. 101-110, Jan/Feb 1994. [32] P.L. Jansen, R.D. Lorenz, D.W. Novotny, Observer-Based Direct Field Orientation: Analysis and Comparison of Alternative Methods, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 30, pp. 945-953, July/Aug 1994. [33] K.D. Hurst, T.G. Habetler, G. Griva, F. Profumo, P.L. Jansen, A selftuning closed-loop flux observer for sensorless torque control of standard induction machines, IEEE Trans. On Power Elect., vol 12, no 5, pp. 807-815, Sept 1997. [34] T.G. Habetler, F. Profumo,G. Griva, M. Pastorelli, A. Bettini, Stator resistance tuning in a stator-flux field-oriented drive using an instantaneous hybrid flux estimator, IEEE Trans. On Power Elect., vol 13, no 1, pp. 125-133, Jan 1998. [35] R. Habib-ur, A. Deriyok, M. K. Guven, L. Xu, A New Current Model Flux Observer for Wise Speed Range Sensorless Control of an Induction Machine, IEEE Trans. on Power Elect., vol. 17,no. 6, pp. 1041-1048, Nov. 2002. [36] G.S. Lancaster, Evolutionary ELV System Modernization Program, Task 5, Develop and Test Redundant Electromechanical Actuator for Expendable Launch Vehicle, Final Test Summary Report, NASA Contract #NAS3-27015, September, 1998