Field-Weakening Control for SPMSM Based on

Final-State Control Considering Voltage Limit

Takayuki Miyajima
1
, Hiroshi Fujimoto
1
, and Masami Fujitsuna
2
1
The University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha Kashiwa Chiba, Japan
2
DENSO CORPORATION, 1-1 Syouwacho Kariya Aichi, Japan
AbstractSPMSMs (Surface Permanent Magnet Synchronous
Motors) are employed for many industrial applications. SPMSM
drive systems should achieve fast torque response and wide
operating range. In this paper, in order to fulll fast response in
eld-weakening region, eld-weakening control based on nal-
state control (FSC) is proposed. FSC settles state variables in a
nal state from an initial state with feedforward input during
nite time. Previously, in the single-input single-output system,
FSC considering input limit with linear matrix inequality was
proposed. It is adapted to SPMSM which is the two-input two-
output system in this paper. Finally, simulations and experiments
are performed to show that the proposed method can achieve fast
eld-weakening control.
Index TermsSPMSM, voltage limit, PWM hold model, nal-
state control, linear matrix inequality
I. INTRODUCTION
Permanent magnet synchronous motors (PMSMs) are
widely employed in many industries because of high ef-
ciency and high power density. Especially, surface PMSMs
(SPMSMs) are used as machine tool and electric power
steering. In these applications, SPMSM drive systems are
demanded high speed operation and fast torque response
but output voltage is limited. Thus, in order to expand the
operating range, eld-weakening control applies in the linear
range of inverter.
Under the voltage limit, the manipulated variable is volt-
age phase only. However, conventional current vector control
determines d-axis and q-axis voltage independently but it
cannot operate voltage phase directly. Therefore, in eld-
weakening range, fast torque response is not achieved. Authors
proposed control methods for Interior PMSM (IPMSM) based
perfect tracking control [1] and PWM hold model [2] in
overmodulation range [3][4]. These methods improve torque
response with feedforward (FF) controller but these methods
operate d-axis and q-axis voltage independently too. Thus, if
output voltage is limited, it is not desired that FF controllers
mend response.
Control method which can operate voltage phase directly is
necessary. Many methods for fast torque response under the
voltage limit had been studied in IPMSM. Methods which op-
erate voltage phase with the voltage limiter [5][6][7], methods
which control torque and modulation index by torque loop
[8][9], and methods which operate voltage phase directly by
feedback (FB) controller [10][11] were proposed.
In this paper, for the fastest response under voltage limit,
a eld-weakening control based on nal-state control (FSC)
[12] is proposed. In [13], FSC considering input limit with
linear matrix inequality (LMI) was proposed for single-input
single-output system. However, in the case of vector control,
SPMSM is the two-input two-output system as dq-axis voltage
and current. In this paper, eld-weakening control is solved
in form of programming program whose evaluation function
and constraint functions are quadratic function and quadratic
inequality, respectively. This proposed method determines
voltage phase directly but the FF input is generated considering
the voltage limit. Thus, the proposed method takes voltage
phase in consideration. In addition, the proposed method
considers the voltage limit circle with transient term because
it consists of PWM hold model.
II. MODEL AND DISCRETIZATION
A. dq Model of SPMSM
The voltage equation of SPMSM in dq-axis is represented
in the form of state equation as y = x = [i
d
i
q
]
T
and u =
[v
d
v
q
]
T
by
x(t)=A
c
(
e
)x(t)+B
c
_
u(t)
_
0
e
K
e

T
_
(1)
y(t)=C
c
x(t) (2)
_
A
c
(
e
) B
c
C
c
0
_
:=
_
_

R
L

e

e

R
L
1
L
0
0
1
L
I 0
_
_
(3)
where v
d, q
are d-axis and q-axis voltage, R is stator winding
resistance, L is inductance,
e
is electric angular velocity, i
d, q
are d-axis and q-axis current, and K
e
is back EMF constant.
The motor torque T is given by
T = K
mt
i
q
(4)
where K
mt
= PK
e
and P is the number of pole pairs. In this
paper, 2-phase/3-phase transform is absolute transformation.
B. Discretization Based on PWM Hold
In order to discretize a plant, a zero-order hold is generally
applied. However, in the case of single-phase inverter, it
cannot output arbitrary voltage but only 0 or E (E is dc-
bus voltage of single-phase inverter). Therefore, in order to
control instantaneous values precisely, the zero-order hold is
not suitable. When the pulse is allocated in the center of
control period T
u
, the plant in inverter drive system can be
discretized as follows [2].
1
i

d
[k]
i

q
[k]
T
d
[k]
T
q
[k]
i
u
[k]
i
w
[k]

e
[k]
uw
dq i
q
[k]
i
d
[k]
SVM
C[z]
C[z]

Decoupling Control
SPMSM
+
INV
T

[k]
Tu
V
dc
Tu
V
dc
Current
Reference
Generator

+
+
+
+
+
+

e
[k] +
e
[k]
Fig. 1. Block diagram of conventional method 1.
daxis
qaxis
T

K
mt
i
q max
i
q min
voltage limit circle
Fig. 2. Point at the intersection of voltage
limit circle with constant torque line.
A continuous-time state equation of a plant is given by
x(t) = A
c
x(t) +B
c
u(t), y(t) = C
c
x(t). (5)
The precise discrete model in which the input is the ON time
T[k] is obtained as
x[k + 1] = A
s
x[k] +B
s
T[k], y[k] = C
s
x[k], (6)
A
s
:= e
A
c
T
u
, B
s
:= e
A
c
T
u
/2
B
c
E, C
s
:= C
c
. (7)
In derivation of (6) and (7), the voltage amplitude is consid-
ered +E only. Therefore, if T[k] is negative, the voltage
amplitude is E.
C. PWM Hold Model of SPMSM
(1) is discretized based on PWM hold. Here, it is assumed
that the speed variation during one control period can be
neglected. Hence, the back EMF
e
K
e
can be presumed as the
zero-order hold. Therefore, the PWM hold model of SPMSM
is designed as E = V
dc
in (5) as follows:
x[k + 1] = A
s
(
e
)x[k] +B
s
(
e
)T[k]
B
s2
(
e
)
_
0
e
K
e

T
, (8)
y[k] = C
s
x[k], (9)
A
s
(
e
) := e
A
c
(
e
)T
u
, B
s
(
e
) := e
A
c
(
e
)
T
u
2
B
c
V
dc
,
B
s2
(
e
) := A
1
c
(
e
)
_
e
A
c
(
e
)T
u
I
_
B
c
, (10)
where V
dc
is dc-bus voltage of three-phase inverter, T =
[T
d
T
q
]
T
, and T
d, q
are d-axis and q-axis ON time.
A
s
(
e
), B
s
(
e
), and B
s2
(
e
) are functions of
e
. Thus,
these functions are calculated again when rotor speed is
changed.
Here, in SPMSM drive systems with three-phase inverter,
input of three-phase can be generated based on space vector
modulation (SVM) [15].
III. CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN
A. Conventional Method 1
Fig. 1 shows the block diagram of conventional method 1.
The decoupling control which is given by (11), (12) is applied.
v
ref
d
[k] = v

d
ref
[k]
e
[k]L
q
i
q
[k] (11)
v
ref
q
[k] = v

q
ref
[k] +
e
[k](L
d
i
d
[k] + K
e
) (12)
The current PI controller is designed with pole-zero cancella-
tion as follows:
C(s) =
Ls + R
s
, = 10T
u
(13)
By discretizing (13), C[z] is obtained by Tustin transformation
with control period T
u
. Here, if V
a
:=

v
2
d
+ v
2
q
> V
max
(V
a
is the voltage amplitude and V
max
:=

3
2
V
dc

3
is the maximum
value of voltage amplitude.), the integrator of C[z] is stopped.
Current reference generator generates d-axis and q-axis
current references i

d
and i

q
from the point at the intersection
of voltage limit circle with constant torque line to make current
amplitude minimum as Fig. 2. Here, T

is torque reference.
The generation of current references is represented by
i

d
[k] =

2
e
K
e
L
R
2
+
2
e
L
2
+

(i
q max
i

q
)(i

q
i
q min
), (14)
i

q
[k] =
_
_
_
i
q max
if T

[k] > K
mt
i
q max
i
q min
elseif T

[k] < K
mt
i
q min
T

[k]
K
mt
otherwise
, (15)
i
q max
:=

e
K
e
R V
a

R
2
+
2
e
L
2
R
2
+
2
e
L
2
, (16)
i
q min
:=

e
K
e
R + V
a

R
2
+
2
e
L
2
R
2
+
2
e
L
2
. (17)
If i

d
[k] strengthens the eld ux, i

d
[k] = 0.
In SVM,
e
(= 0.5
e
T
u
) is added to
e
of the dq/2-phase
transform for sampling error compensation [16]. The ON time
limit in SVM is described by

T[k] =
_
T[k]
|T[k]|
T
max
if |T[k]| > T
max
T[k] otherwise
, (18)
where T
max
_
:=

3
2
T
u

3
_
is the maximum value of dq-axis
ON time vector amplitude and

T[k] is the limiter output. In

this paper, all limiters calculate in the same way as (18).
B. Conventional Method 2
The block diagram of conventional method 2 is shown in
Fig. 3. It consists of the 2-DOF control system.
The inverse system of (8) is obtained as
T
ff
[k] =B
1
s
(
e
)A
s
(
e
) x[k]+B
1
s
(
e
)x
d
[k + 1]
+B
1
s
(
e
)B
s2
(
e
)
_
0
e
K
e

T
. (19)
2
i

[k]
C2[z]
+
+
+
i[k]
e[k]

Tff [k]
x[k]
uw
dq S
(Tu)
(SVM)
HPWM
e[k]
Tu
Vdc
I
+e[k]
e[k]
Pn[z]
Current
Reference
Generator
T

[k]
B
1
s
(e)As(e) x[k] +B
1
s
(e)i

[k]

Tff [k]
SPMSM
INV
+
T[k]
C1[z]
+B
1
s
(e)Bs2(e) [0 eKe]
T
Fig. 3. Block diagram of conventional method 2.
i

[k]
C
2
[z]
+
+
+
i[k]
e[k]

T
ff
[k]
x[k]
uw
dq
S
(T
u
)
(SVM)
H
PWM

e
[k]
T
u
V
dc
I
+
e
[k]

e
[k]
P
n
[z]
Current
Reference
Generator
T

[k]

T
ff
[k]
SPMSM
INV
+
T[k]
C
1
[z]
Fig. 4. Block diagram of proposed method.
From this stable inverse system, the FF controller C
1
[z] is
designed. Therefore, if the plant is nominal and the input is
not limited, C
1
[z] assures the perfect tracking at the sample
time. Here, x[k] := [

i
d
[k]

i
q
[k]]
T
in Fig. 3 is the nominal
output which takes the input limit in consideration. If the input
is limited, x[k] do not equal to the current reference delayed
one sample i

[k 1].
The FB controller C
2
[z] suppresses the error e[k] between
x[k] and

i[k]. Here, C
2
[z] is same as the FB controller of
conventional method 1. However, in conventional method 2,
anti-windup control is not necessary because x[k] considers
the input limit.
C. Proposed Method
Fig. 4 and 5 show the block diagrams of the proposed
method and FF controller C
1
[z], respectively. The proposed
method has two FF controllers. In steady state and transient
state which does not cause the voltage limit, the FF controller
which is represented by (19) applies. In the other state, the FF
input is generated with FSC trajectory generator. The proposed
method switches two types of FF controller but the inverse
system is FSC as prescribed time interval is one. Therefore,
the stability is assured.
FSC transits an initial state to a nal state by prescribed
time interval. Here, FSC considering the voltage limit is ex-
pressed as a programming program whose evaluation function
and constraint functions are quadratic function and quadratic
inequality in the form of LMI. The FF input called FSC
trajectory is generated by solving these LMIs.
In PWM hold model of SPMSM, a nal state x[N] is
i

[k]
FSC Trajectory Generator
T
ff
[k]
C
1
[z]
B
1
s
(
e
)A
s
(
e
) x[k] + B
1
s
(
e
)i

[k]
Inverse system
+B
1
s
(
e
)B
s2
(
e
) [0
e
K
e
]
T
Fig. 5. Feedforward controller C
1
[z] of proposed method.
represented with an initial state x[0] as follows:
Y = U (20)
Y := x[N] A
N
s
x[0]
2
U
EMF
(21)
:=
_
A
N1
s
B
s
A
N2
s
B
s
B
s
_
(22)

2
:=
_
A
N1
s
B
s2
A
N2
s
B
s2
B
s2
_
(23)
U :=
_
T
T
[0] T
T
[1] T
T
[N 1]
_
T
(24)
U
EMF
:=
e
K
e
_
0 1 0 1

T
(25)
Here, it is assumed that
e
is constant in this derivation.
The FF input U which satises (20) is not determined
uniquely. Thereupon, the square sum of the current error is
minimized. The evaluation function J is represented by
J = E
T
QE, Q > 0, (26)
E := [e
T
[1] e
T
[2] e
T
[N]]
T
, (27)
e[k] := i

x[k] =
_
i

d
i

T
x[k]. (28)
From
A :=
_
A
s
A
2
s
A
N
s
_
T
, (29)
B :=
_

_
B
s
0 0
A
s
B
s
B
s
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A
N1
s
B
s
A
N2
s
B
s
B
s
_

_
, (30)
B
2
:=
_

_
B
s2
0 0
A
s
B
s2
B
s2
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A
N1
s
B
s2
A
N2
s
B
s2
B
s2
_

_
, (31)
I

:=
_
(i

)
T
(i

)
T
(i

)
T
_
T
, (32)
E is given by
E = I

Ax[0] BU B
2
U
EMF
. (33)
Moreover, (8) is controllable. Thus, is full row rank. There,

R
2N(2N2)
and

R
2N2
that fulll

= 0
and

= I are dened. In addition,

U is obtained by
U := [

]

U. (34)
3
By assigning (34) to (20), Y = [I 0]

U is given. Therefore,

U is represented by

U =
_
Y q

T
, (35)
where q R
(2N2)1
is a free parameter.
By substituting (33), (34), and (35) to (26), the evaluation
function J is transformed as follows:
J = R(q) +S
T
(q)QS(q), (36)
Z := I

Ax[0] B

Y B
2
U
EMF
, (37)
R(q) := Z
T
QZ 2Z
T
QS(q), (38)
S(q) := B

q. (39)
With LMI, the condition which satises J < for provided
is given by (40) [13].
_
R(q) S(q)
T
S(q) Q
1
_
> 0. (40)
Next, the voltage limit is described with LMI. Voltage limits
at each sampling points are described as
T
T
[k]T[k] = T
2
d
[k] + T
2
q
[k]
T
2
max
(k = 0, 1, , N 1). (41)
Here, g(i) R
22N
(i := 2k + 1) of which (1, i) th and (2,
i + 1) th entries are 1 and other entries are 0 is dened. g(i)
separates input vector T[k] as follows:
T[k] = g(i)U(q). (42)
With g(i), (41) is transformed as
{g(i)U(q)}
T
{g(i)U(q)} T
2
max
. (43)
(43) is expressed with N LMIs by
_
T
2
max
U(q)
T
g(i)
T
g(i)U(q) I
_
0, (44)
where i = 2k + 1, k = 0, 1, , N 1.
By minimizing under (40) and (44), the FF input which
drives an initial state x[0] to a nal state x[N] within the
prescribed time interval N for PWM hold model of SPMSM
and minimizes square sum of current error to fulll voltage
limit is obtained. Moreover, the proposed method takes volt-
age limit circle with transient term in consideration exactly
because PWM hold model treats transient term as difference.
IV. SIMULATION
The parameters of SPMSM for the simulation are shown in
Table I. The dc-bus voltage of the three-phase inverter V
dc
is
36 [V]. The control period T
u
is 0.1 [ms].
Fig. 6 shows simulation results when step torque reference
was given and the rotor velocity was 1000 [rpm]. Here, the
voltage amplitude of current reference generator was set to be
0.98V
max
. The dq-axis ON time vector amplitude T
a
and the
TABLE I
PARAMETERS OF SPMSM
Inductance L 1.80 [mH]
Resistance R 0.157 []
Pairs of poles P 4
Back EMF constant K
e
74.6 [mV/(rad/s)]
dq-axis ON time vector phase (voltage phase) are represented
by
T
a
=

T
2
d
+ T
2
q
, (45)
= tan
1
T
d
T
q
. (46)
Dotted lines in Fig. 6(c), 6(g), and 6(k) are described T
max
.
Conventional method 1 cannot operate the voltage phase
because it consists of current vector control. Therefore, the
voltage phase variation was slow and fast response was not
achieved. In addition, when the voltage amplitude was not lim-
ited, current response still is slow because anti-windup control
made closed-loop discontinuous and conventional method 1 is
only composed with FB controllers. Conventional method 2
uses a FF controller and does not apply anti-windup control
because nominal output takes voltage limit in consideration.
Thus, it controlled faster than conventional method 1 but it
cannot operate voltage phase. Therefore, by operating voltage
phase, settling time should be able to be shortened.
In the proposed method, Q = I and the FSC trajectory was
made to be the shortest trajectory. The prescribed time interval
was N = 40. During the beginning of response, variation of d-
axis current is larger by decreasing q-axis current. This made
d-axis current lager than d-axis current reference quickly.
Furthermore, excess d-axis current made variation of q-axis
current large. Finally, the proposed method achieved the fastest
response and the proposed method shortened the settling
time a half as short as conventional method 2. In general,
this operation is executed on experiential grounds or by FB
controller but the proposed method optimally operates with
nal-state control.
V. EXPERIMENT
Experimental results are shown in Fig. 7. Experiments
were performed in the same condition as simulations. The
parameters of SPMSM and the control period were same too.
From a point of view of velocity control by load motor, V
dc
was set to be 80 [V]. In the controller calculation, the nominal
three-phase inverter dc-bus voltage was V
dcn
= 36 [V] and the
input was multiplied by V
dcn
/V
dc
to compensate the difference
between V
dc
and V
dcn
in SVM. in experiments is 0.9
e
T
u
to consider the computational time 0.4T
u
.
Variations of d-axis reference in all experimental results are
due to speed variation. In conventional method 1, the voltage
phase variation was slow and anti-windup control deteriorates
current response. Conventional method 2 improved the settel-
ing time a little by FF controller.
4
0 10 20 30 40
25
20
15
10
5
Time [ms]
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

[
A
]


i
d
i
d
*
(a) i
d
(Conventional 1)
0 10 20 30 40
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Time [ms]
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

[
A
]


i
q
i
q
*
(b) i
q
(Conventional 1)
0 10 20 30 40
0.06
0.065
0.07
0.075
0.08
Time [ms]
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

o
f

i
n
p
u
t

[
m
s
]
(c) T
a
(Conventional 1)
0 10 20 30 40
0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
Time [ms]
A
n
g
l
e

o
f

I
n
p
u
t

[
r
a
d
]
(d) (Conventional1)
0 10 20 30 40
25
20
15
10
5
Time [ms]
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

[
A
]


i
d
i
d
*
(e) i
d
(Conventional 2)
0 10 20 30 40
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Time [ms]
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

[
A
]


i
q
i
q
*
(f) i
q
(Conventional 2)
0 10 20 30 40
0.06
0.065
0.07
0.075
0.08
Time [ms]
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

o
f

i
n
p
u
t

[
m
s
]
(g) T
a
(Conventional 2)
0 10 20 30 40
0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
Time [ms]
A
n
g
l
e

o
f

I
n
p
u
t

[
r
a
d
]
(h) (Conventional 2)
0 10 20 30 40
25
20
15
10
5
Time [ms]
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

[
A
]


i
d
i
d
*
(i) i
d
(Proposed)
0 10 20 30 40
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Time [ms]
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

[
A
]


i
q
i
q
*
(j) i
q
(Proposed)
0 10 20 30 40
0.06
0.065
0.07
0.075
0.08
Time [ms]
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

o
f

i
n
p
u
t

[
m
s
]
(k) T
a
(Proposed)
0 10 20 30 40
0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
Time [ms]
A
n
g
l
e

o
f

I
n
p
u
t

[
r
a
d
]
(l) (Proposed)
Fig. 6. Simulation results.
In the proposed method, previously, the FSC trajectory
whose the prescribed time interval is N = 40 was calculated
off-line. When torque reference was obtained, the FSC trajec-
tory was output as FF input. If the response is not settled,
FF input was generated from (19). When torque reference
was obtained, q-axis current was decreased. Therefore, during
the beginning of response, q-axis current raised the slowest
response. However, this made larger variation of d-axis cur-
rent. Therefore, q-axis response was fast by excess d-axis
current. d-axis and q-axis current were not settled within the
prescribed time interval because of speed variation but the
proposed method achieved the fastest response.
VI. CONCLUSION
Field-weakening control for SPMSM based nal-state con-
trol considering voltage limit was proposed in this paper.
The FF controller of proposed method is composed with
PWM hold model. Therefore, the proposed method can take
voltage limit circle with transient term in consideration strictly.
Simulations and experiments were performed to show that
current responses remarkably are deteriorated on voltage limit
in conventional methods. On the other hand, the proposed
method can achieve fast response on voltage limit because
feedforward input operates voltage phase quickly.
In our future paper, current response of PMSM on voltage
limit will be analyzed. In this paper, prescribed time interval N
was provided previously and FF input was calculated off-line.
In our future work, online calculation will be realized.
REFERENCES
[1] H. Fujimoto, Y. Hori, and A. Kawamura: Perfect Tracking Control
based on Multirate Feedforward Control with Generalized Sampling
Periods, IEEE Trans. Ind. Eletron., Vol.48, No.3, pp.636644, 2001.
[2] K. P. Gokhale, A. Kawamura, and R. G. Hoft: Deat beat microprocessor
control of PWM inverter for sinusoidal output waveform synthesis,
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., Vol.23, No.3, pp.901910, 1987.
[3] T. Miyajima, H. Fujimoto, and M. Fujitsuna: Control Method for
IPMSM Based on Perfect Tracking Control and PWM Hold Model
in Overmodulation Range, The 2010 International Power Electronics
Conference, pp.593-598, 2010.
[4] T. Miyajima, H. Fujimoto, and M. Fujitsuna: Control Method for
IPMSM Based on PTC and PWM Hold Model in Overmodulation
Range -Study on Robustness and Comparison with Anti-Windup
Control-, The 2010 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposi-
tion, pp.28442850, 2010.
[5] J.-K. Seok, J.-S. Kim, and S.-K. Sul: Overmodulation Strategy for
High-Performance Torque Control, IEEE Trans. Power Electronics,
Vol.13, No.4, pp.786792, 1998.
5
0 10 20 30 40
25
20
15
10
5
Time [ms]
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

[
A
]


i
d
i
d
*
(a) i
d
(Conventional 1)
0 10 20 30 40
0
5
10
15
Time [ms]
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

[
A
]


i
q
i
q
*
(b) i
q
(Conventional 1)
0 10 20 30 40
0.06
0.065
0.07
0.075
0.08
Time [ms]
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

o
f

i
n
p
u
t

[
m
s
]
(c) T
a
(Conventional 1)
0 10 20 30 40
0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
Time [ms]
P
h
a
s
e

o
f

i
n
p
u
t

[
r
a
d
]
(d) (Conventional 1)
0 10 20 30 40
25
20
15
10
5
Time [ms]
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

[
A
]


i
d
i
d
*
(e) i
d
(Conventional 2)
0 10 20 30 40
0
5
10
15
Time [ms]
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

[
A
]


i
q
i
q
*
(f) i
q
(Conventional 2)
0 10 20 30 40
0.06
0.065
0.07
0.075
0.08
Time [ms]
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

o
f

i
n
p
u
t

[
m
s
]
(g) T
a
(Conventional 2)
0 10 20 30 40
0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
Time [ms]
P
h
a
s
e

o
f

i
n
p
u
t

[
r
a
d
]
(h) (Conventional 2)
0 10 20 30 40
25
20
15
10
5
Time [ms]
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

[
A
]


i
d
i
d
*
(i) i
d
(Proposed)
0 10 20 30 40
0
5
10
15
Time [ms]
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

[
A
]


i
q
i
q
*
(j) i
q
(Proposed)
0 10 20 30 40
0.06
0.065
0.07
0.075
0.08
Time [ms]
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

o
f

i
n
p
u
t

[
m
s
]
(k) T
a
(Proposed)
0 10 20 30 40
0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
Time [ms]
P
h
a
s
e

o
f

i
n
p
u
t

[
r
a
d
]
(l) (Proposed)
Fig. 7. Experimental results.
[6] B.-H. Bae and S.-K. Sul: A Novel Dynamic Overmodulation Strategy
for Fast Torque Control of High-Saliency-Ratio AC Motor, IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., Vol.41, No.4, pp.10131019, 2005.
[7] S. Lerdudomsak, S. Doki, and S. Okuma: Voltage Limiter Calcula-
tion Method for Fast Torque Response of IPMSM in Overmodulation
Range, The 35th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics
Society, pp.13851390, 2009.
[8] K. Kondo, K. Matsuoka, Y. Nakazawa, and H. Shimizu: Torque feed-
back control for salient pole permanent magnet synchronous motor at
weakening ux control range, IEEJ Tran. IA , Vol.119, No.10, pp.1155
1164, 1999 (in Japanese).
[9] T.-S. Kwon, G.-Y. Choi, M.-S. Kwak, and S.-K Sul : Novel Flux-
Weakening Control of an IPMSM for Quasi-Six-Step Operation, IEEE
Trans. Ind. Appl., Vol.44, NO.6, pp.17221723, 2008.
[10] H. Nakai, H. Ohtani, E. Satoh, and Y. Inaguma: Development and
Testing of the Torque Control for the Permanent-Magnet Synchronous
Motor, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., Vol.52, No.3, pp.800806, 2005.
[11] W. Hatsuse, Y. Notohara, K. Ohi, K. Tobari, K. Tamura, C. Unoko,
and Y. Iwaji: A Stable Field-Weakening Control Using Voltage Phase
Operations in the High-Power Region, The 2010 International Power
Electronics Conference, pp.599604, 2010.
[12] T. Totani and H. Nishimura: Final-State Control Using Compensation
Input, Trans. of the SICE, Vol.30, No.3, pp.253260, 1994.
[13] M. Hirata, T. Hasegawa, and K. Nonami: Seek Control of Hard Disk
Drives Based on Final-State Control Tracking Account of the Frequency
Compensates and the Magnitude of Control Input, The 7th International
Workshop on Advanced Motion Control, pp.4046, 2002.
[14] S. Boyd, L. E. Ghaoui, E. Feron, and V. Balakrishnan: Linear Matrix
Inequalities in System and Control Theory, Society for Industrial and
Applied Mathematics, 1994.
[15] K. Sakata and H. Fujimoto: Perfect Tracking Control of Servo Motor
Based on Precise Model with PWM Hold and Current Loop, The Forth
Power Conversion Conference, pp.16121617, 2007.
[16] J. Kudo, T. Noguchi, M. Kawakami, and K. Sano: Mathematical Model
Errors and Their Compensations of IPM Motor Control System, IEE
of Japan Technical Meeting Record, IEE Japan, SPC-08-25, pp.25-31,
2008 (in Japanese).
6