Professional Documents
Culture Documents
6, JUNE 2014
8101314
I. I NTRODUCTION
0018-9464 2014 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
8101314
Fig. 1.
to model the stator and the rotor (air gap permeances are not
included in this figure).
The motor is designed to exhibit a large cogging torque
by means of an inhomogeneous construction of the air gap,
Fig. 1. This is due to the fact that the motor is used in
an application where external torques beyond a certain limit
should not yield large changes in the rotor angle . The
large cogging torque, however, makes the design of highperformance control strategies more involved. Thus, tailored
mathematical models which accurately describe the cogging
torque and the saturation are required for the controller
design.
A. Permeance Network
As already outlined in Section I, a network of nonlinear
permeances is utilized for the derivation of a model of the
motor. Fig. 2 shows the proposed permeance network of the
motor. The permeances describing the core of the stator and
the rotor are approximated by cuboids of length l and area A.
To account for saturation effects in the core, the relative
permeability r is defined as a function of the absolute value
of the magnetic field strength H = u/l, i.e., r (|u| /l),
where u denotes the magnetomotive force. Fig. 3 shows
the relative permeability r for the applied core material
M800-50A.
The nonlinear permeances of the stator teeth then read as
|u s j |
A
st 0 r
lst
Gs j us j =
j = 1, 2, 3
(1)
lst
with the area Ast , the length lst and the magnetomotive force
u s j of a stator tooth, and the permeability 0 of free space.
The permeances of the stator yoke can be found analogously
Fig. 2.
in the form
|u |
Asy 0 r lssyj k
Gs j k us j k =
lsy
(2)
8101314
permeance
Am 0 rm
Gm j um j =
lm
j = 1, 2
(9)
(10)
j = 1, 2, 3
(11)
Fig. 3.
B. Balance Equations
Again, Abr denotes the area, lbr the length, and u br j the
magnetomotive force of the radial bar element.
The air gap of the motor is modeled by two types of permeances: the permeances G l j k , j k {12, 23, 31}, describing
the leakage between adjacent stator teeth, and G a j k , j k
{11, 12, 21, 22, 31, 32}, describing the coupling between stator
and rotor. The leakage permeances are defined as
Gl j k =
A l 0
ll
(6)
with the effective area Al and length ll . The air gap permeances
G a j k are, of course, functions of the relative rotation of the
rotor with respect to the stator. A geometric model of these
permeances using an approximate air gap geometry is possible
but yields inaccurate results due to stray fluxes not covered
by the approximate air gap geometry. Therefore, a heuristic
approach, as has been proposed in [2] and [19], is used to
approximate the coupling between the rotor and stator, i.e.,
the air gap permeance G a
4
0
G a,max
(7)
G a () =
<
1 + cos
2
0
< 4 .
Therein, is the relative rotation mapped to the interval
(/4, /4) by means of a modulo operation. In addition,
is a parameter which can be approximately determined by the
geometrical overlap between a permanent magnet and a stator
tooth, and G a,max is the maximum value at = 0. Given G a
of (7), the air gap permeances between the individual stator
teeth and permanent magnets are defined as
(k 1)
( j 1)
Ga j k = Ga
(8)
6
4
with j = 1, 2, 3 and k = 1, 2.
The NdFeB-magnets exhibit an almost linear behavior in
the operating range, which can be modeled in the form of
a constant magnetomotive force u ms j , j = 1, 2 and a linear
Two approaches for the derivation of the balance equations (Kirchhoffs node and branch equations) are typically
used for magnetic reluctance networks: 1) mesh analysis
[33][35] and 2) node potential analysis [2], [19][21], [23],
[25][28]. While a proper choice of meshes, yielding a set
of independent equations might be tricky, the node potential analysis automatically guarantees the independence of
the resulting equations. Therefore, node potential analysis is
typically favored.
In this paper, an alternative approach for the systematic
derivation of a minimal set of independent equations based
on graph theory is proposed. It uses a tree, which connects all nodes of the network without forming any meshes.
This approach is well known from electric network analysis
[36][38], and can be, as will be shown in this paper, directly
applied to magnetic permeance networks, see also [29].
The chosen tree has to connect all nodes of the network
without forming any meshes. In addition, all magnetomotive
force sources have to be included in the tree, which is always
possible for nondegenerated networks. It further turns out to
be advantageous to exclude as many air gap permeances from
the tree as possible. One possible choice of a tree is given
in Fig. 2 by the components depicted in black. The cotree is
then composed of all components which are not part of the
tree (depicted gray in Fig. 2). Adding one cotree element to
the tree yields a single mesh.
For the subsequent derivation, it is useful to subdivide the
elements of the tree into magnetomotive force sources of the
coils (index tc), magnetomotive force sources of the permanent
magnets (index tm), and permeances (linear, nonlinear, angle
dependent,
index tg).
Then, the overall vector of the tree fluxes
T
t = tTc , tTm , tg
is defined by
(12a)
t m = [ms1 , ms2 ]
(12b)
tg = [s1 , s2 , s3 , s12 , s23 , b1 , b2 , r11 , r12 ,
r21 , m1 , m2 , a11]T .
(12c)
8101314
(14a)
(14b)
(15a)
(15b)
(16a)
t c
T T T ut c
t m = DGc Dc , Dm , Dg ut m .
(17)
Gt utg
utg
If it is assumed that the coil currents ic = [i c1 , i c2 , i c3 ]T and
thus the magnetomotive forces ut c are given, the unknown
variables of (17) are t c , t m and utg . A simple reformulation
of (17) yields
I0
Dc Gc DTg
t c
T
0 I Dm Gc DTg t m = DGc DcT ut c + Dm
ut m
utg
0 0 Gt + Dg Gc DTg
(18)
with the identity
matrix I. It can be easily seen that a set
of dim utg = n = 13 nonlinear algebraic equations has
to be solved for utg . All other quantities of the network
can be calculated from simple linear equations. A proof of
the existence and uniqueness of a solution of the nonlinear
algebraic equations (18) is given in the Appendix.
C. Torque Equation
Starting from the magnetic coenergy of the permeance
network, the electromagnetic torque of the motor is defined
as
Gc
1
T Gt
utg + ucT
uc
(19)
= p utg
2
with the number p of pole pairs [2]. With the help of (14b)
this equation can be reformulated in the form
1
T Gt
T Gc T
utg + ut D
D ut
(20)
= p utg
2
T .
with utT = utTc , utTm , utg
D. Voltage Equation
The mathematical model (18) and (20) allows for a calculation of the magnetomotive forces, fluxes and the torque for
given currents ic . This model is useful for a static analysis
of the motor. In a dynamical analysis, however, the coil
voltages vc must be used as inputs. This relation is provided
by Faradays law
dc
(21)
= Rc ic vc
dt
with the flux linkage c = Nc t c , the winding matrix Nc =
diag[Nc , Nc , Nc ], the electric resistance matrix Rc =
diag[Rc , Rc , Rc ], and the electric voltages vc = [v c1 , v c2 ,
v c3 ]T . Here, Nc is the number of turns, Rc the electric
resistance, and v cj the voltage of the respective coil j =
1, 2, 3. Equation (21) links the fluxes t c of the coils with their
currents ic . Thus, either t c has to be defined as a function of
ic or vice versa. For nonlinear permeance networks, it proves
to be advantageous to express the coil currents ic as functions
of the fluxes by reformulating (18) in the form
Dc Gc DcT 0
Dc Gc DTg
ut c
Dm Gc DcT I Dm Gc DTg t m =
utg
Dg Gc DcT 0 Gt + Dg Gc DTg
K
1
t c
T
0 DGc Dm
ut m .
0
M2
(22)
M1
T
independent vectors of Dc (i.e., the kernel of Dc ). Then,
T
Dc Dc = 0 holds and the nonsingular matrix
T1c 0 0
I 0
T1 = 0
(23)
0
0 I
with
T1c
T
D
= cI T
Dc
(24)
ut c
(25)
T1 K1 T1 T1 t m = T1 M1 T1 M2
1
utg
K2
(26)
T
0
T
D
G
D
T1c Dc Gc DcT T1
1c
c
c
g
1c
I
Dm Gc DTg . (27)
K2 = Dm Gc DcT T1
1c
Dg Gc DcT T1
0 Gt + Dg Gc DTg
1c
It can be seen that the product
0
T1c Dc = I T
Dc Dc
T
bmm
=
where
a j Dc and b j DcI . The inverse T1
1c
=
I
and
v1 , . . . , vm , w1 , . . . , wmm has to meet T1c T1
1c
therefore
= jk
= jk
aTj wk =
bTj vk = 0
(30a)
(30b)
ut c
T1c ut c
(32)
T1 t m = t m
utg
utg
the multiplication of M1 with the transformation matrix results
in
T1c t c
t c
T1 0 = 0
(33)
0
0
and T1 used in combination with M2 yields
T1c Dc
T1 DGc DTg ut m = Dm Gc DTg ut m
Dg
(31)
(34)
T
DcI ut c
DcI t c
K2r t m =
0
utg
0
T
DcI Dc
T
Dm Gc Dg ut m .
Dg
(28)
gives m zero rows. Of course, the right-hand side multiplication with an arbitrary matrix does not change the zero rows. To
prove the zero columns in K2 , the product DcT T1
1c is analyzed.
The matrix T1c can be written in the form
T
a1
..
.
T
a
m
T1c =
(29)
bT
1
.
..
a Tj vk
bTj wk
8101314
(35)
H1r 0 0
I 0
H1 = 0
(37)
0
0 I
H1r T1c ut c
H1r T1c t c
H1 T1 M2 (38)
0
H1 K2 HT t m =
1
utg
0
K
2r
8101314
with
K2r
T
H1r T1c Dc Gc DcT T1
1c H1r
1 T
T
Dm Gc Dc T1c H1r
T
Dg Gc DcT T1
1c H1r
0
I
0
Dm Gc DTg
Gt + Dg Gc DTg
(39)
ut c
H1r T1c ut c
H1 T1 t m = t m .
(40)
utg
utg
In a further step, the electrical connection of the coils will be
considered by means of the interconnection matrix Vc , that is
ut c = Vc u t c .
(41)
1 0
i c1
i c2 = 0 1 i c1 .
(42)
i c2
i c3
1 1
Thus, u t c = Nc [i c1 , i c2 ]T has been chosen as the vector of
independent currents. Replacing ut c by (41) in the reduced
vector of unknowns (40) results in
H1r T1c ut c
H1r T1c Vc u t c
t m =
.
t m
(43)
utg
utg
If the matrix H1r T1c Vc is nonsingular, u t c can be used as
the new vector of independent unknown coil currents and no
further action is necessary. In cases where the matrix is not
square, the resulting nonlinear set of equations is overdetermined, i.e., there are more equations than unknowns. This can
directly be seen by calculating the left-hand
side of
the reduced
T
set of equations (38) in the form K3 u tTc , tTm , utg
given by
Dm Gc DTg
K3 = S21 I
T
S31 0 Gt + Dg Gc Dg
, with K3
(44)
where
T
S11 = H1r T1c Dc Gc DcT T1
1c H1r H1r T1c Vc
T
S21 = Dm Gc DcT T1
1c H1r H1r T1c Vc
T
S31 = Dg Gc DcT T1
1c H1r H1r T1c Vc .
(45a)
(45b)
(45c)
I
of S11 and S
11 is the orthogonal complement to S11 , is used
to introduce a transformed vector t c in the form
T2 t c = S
0] +S I [0, I] = H1r T1c t c . (46)
11 [I,
11 t c
H3r
H4r
I
H3r t c
S11 H4r t c
u t c
H1 T1 M2 (47)
S2 K3
0
t m =
0
utg
T
T
, 0, 0 . Obviously, H3r t c is obtained as
with S2 = S
11
a solution of (47) and H4r t c has to be used as independent
state in the dynamical equation [see (21), (38), and (41)]
d
1
1
R
. (48)
H4r t c = H4r T1
H
T
N
N
V
u
v
1r
1c
c
c
t
c
c
c
c
2
dt
As a result of this modeling framework we get the DAE system
(47), (48) which is of minimal dimension and systematically
accounts for the electric interconnection of the coils.
E. Simulation Results
To evaluate the behavior of the PSM, simulations of the
mathematical model were performed. In a first step, the
torque and the magnetomotive forces for fixed currents were
investigated using (18) and (20). Fig. 4(a) shows the cogging
torque, i.e., the torque for zero currents i cj = 0, j = 1, 2, 3.
It can be seen that a pronounced cogging torque with a
periodicity of 15 is present in the motor. The results given in
Fig. 2(b)(d) were obtained for i c2 = i c3 = 2.5 A,
i c1 = 0 A, which approximately corresponds to the nominal
value. A closer look at the torque in Fig. 4(b) shows that the
characteristics of the torque is far from being sinusoidal, which
would be expected for an ideal PSM. The magnetomotive
forces in the stator teeth and yoke depicted in Fig. 4(c) and (d)
further reveal that the magnetomotive forces in the yoke are
much smaller than for the teeth.
This fact gives rise to the development of a simplified
permeance network, which covers the essential effects of the
complete model. A simplified model of reduced dimension and
complexity is especially desirable for a prospective controller
design. Thus, the following simplifications will be made: 1) the
permeances G s12 , G s23, and G s31 of the stator yoke are
neglected, i.e., set to . 2) Simulations show that the fluxes in
the radial rotor bars are very small compared to the fluxes in
the rest of the motor. Thus, the simplification G b1 = G b2 = 0
is used. 3) With the last simplification, the circumferential
rotor bars and the center of the rotor can be modeled by a
single equivalent permeance G b and G r , respectively.
In the subsequent section, the simplified model will be
presented in more detail. A comparison of simulation results
of the complete with the reduced model will justify the
simplifying assumptions being made.
8101314
Fig. 5.
Gb =
Gr =
Abc 0 r
|u b |
2lbc
lbc
Ar 0 r |u2lrr|
lr
(49a)
(49b)
while all other components remain the same as for the complete model.
Given the tree in Fig. 5, the flux vector of the tree permeances tg reads as
tg = [s1 , s2 , s3 , b , m1 , m2 , a11 ]T
(50)
Fig. 4. Simulation results of the complete model (a) for zero currents and
(b)(d) for ic2 = ic3 = 2.5 A, ic1 = 0 A.
(52b)
8101314
0 1
0 1 0 1
0 0 1
Dc = 0 1 1
0 0 1 1 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dm =
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 1 0 1
0 1 1 0 0 1
0 0 1 1 0 0
Dg =
1 0 0 0 1 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 1
matrix read as
1 1 1
1
0
0 (53a)
0
1
1
0
(53b)
0
1
1
1
1 0
0
0 1 1
1 0
1
. (53c)
0 0
0
0 0
0
1 1 1
1 0
DcI = 0 1
1 1
(54b)
(55)
T
with the orthogonal complement D
c = [1, 1, 1] . Thus, the
transformation matrix T1c according to (24) is given by
1 1 1
T1c = 1 0 1
(56)
0 1 1
(57)
Fig. 6.
T
and the constraint D
t c = cs1 + cs2 + cs3 = 0 has to
c
be met.
The coils of the motor are connected in delta connection,
Fig. 6, which does not directly imply an additional constraint
on the currents. The electric voltages, however, have to meet
v c1 + v c2 + v c3 = 0. Using this constraint in the ode
Nc
d
(cs1 + cs2 + cs3 ) = Rc (i c1 + i c2 + i c3 )
dt
(60)
+ v c1 + v c2 + v c3
2 1
1
(62)
Vc = 1 2
3 1 1
Nc
and u t c = Nc [i c1 i c3 , i c2 i c3 ]T .
C. Comparison With Complete Model and Measurements
To prove that the reduced model captures the essential
behavior of the complete model with sufficient accuracy, a
comparison of the torques for zero current [Fig. 7(a)] and for
i c2 = i c3 = 2.5 A, i c1 = 0 A [Fig. 7(b)] is given. It can be
seen that almost perfect agreement between the two models
can be achieved. The comparison of the magnetomotive force
u s3 in Fig. 7(c) shows some minor differences between the
complete and reduced model, which, however, do not significantly influence the torque. Therefore, the simplifications of
the reduced model can be considered feasible.
For the evaluation of the model quality in comparison with
the behavior of the real motor, measurements at a test bench
were performed. The test bench given in Fig. 8 is composed
of: 1) the PSM; 2) a torque measurement shaft; 3) a highly
accurate resolver; 4) an inertia disk; and 5) a harmonic drive.
The PSM is connected to a voltage source, where the terminal
voltage v c is adjusted to obtain a desired current i c while
Fig. 7. Comparison of the complete with the reduced model (a) for zero
currents and (b) and (c) for ic2 = ic3 = 2.5 A and ic1 = 0 A.
8101314
Fig. 9. Comparison of the reduced model with measurements (a) for zero
currents, (b) for ic2 = ic3 = 2.5 A, ic1 = 0 A, and (c) for ic2 = ic3 =
7.5 A, ic1 = 0 A.
The main reason for the model errors are the inaccuracies
in the air gap permeances G a j k . Thus, the following strategy
is introduced for the identification of the air gap permeances.
1) The torque is measured for fixed currents i cs1 = 0,
i cs2 = i cs3 = i cs and a fixed step size in the angle ,
resulting in a measurement vector mk , k = 1, . . . , N with the
8101314
N
N
(m 1)
1, N + 1. (63)
lm = mod k (l 1)
3
2
3) For each angle k , the relation
k
T
Gt + Dg Gc DTg utg
= Dg Gc DcT ut c + Dm
ut m
(64)
k ) and G ( k , uk ) has to be fulfilled, see (18).
with Gt ( k , utg
c
tg
4) The derivation G a /, needed for the calculation of
the torque, see (20), is approximated by
$
G k+1
G ka
G a $$
a
.
(65)
=
$ k +
2
k
u k+1
alm + u alm
2
(66)
with l = 1, 2, 3 and m = 1, 2.
With these prerequisites, N torque equations in the form
k = mk and 7N nonlinear equations defined by (64), are
given. The N unknown values of G ka and the 7N unknown
k are given as the solution of this set of equations.
vectors utg
This solution is found numerically using, e.g., MATLAB and
results in the desired corrective term G ka as a function of .
Fig. 10 shows a comparison of the nominal air gap permeance G a () model adopted from [2] with the identified values,
where measurements with fixed currents i cs1 = 0, i cs2 =
i cs3 = i cs = 5 A were used for the identification. It can be seen
that the basic shape is equal to the nominal characteristics,
only the maximum value is reduced and the transition phase is
slightly changed. The identified shape seems to be reasonable
since the changes might account for unmodeled leakages.
In Fig. 11, the torque of the calibrated model is compared
with measurement results. These results show a significant
improvement to the uncalibrated model in Fig. 9 and a very
good agreement in the complete operating range of the motor.
Thus, it can be deduced that both the inhomogeneous air gap
as well as saturation in the motor are adequately represented
by the proposed model. It is worth noting that an even better
agreement between measurement and model could be achieved
for the cogging torque if the calibration would have been
performed at a lower current, e.g., i cs = 2.5 A. Then, however,
the results for high currents would be worse such that the
presented results are a good compromise between the accuracy
for low and high currents.
Fig. 10.
G a ().
i dt
c
J
8101314
Fig. 12. Comparison of the induced voltages of the calibrated model with
measurements for = 120 rad/s.
Given these results, the voltage equation (21) can be formulated in the well-known form
L ()
d
ic = J () + Rc ic vc .
dt
(74)
Note that the inductance matrix L and the vector J are both
nonlinear functions of the rotor angle . According to (20), the
torque of the motor in the magnetic linear case is given by
=
1 T
1
T
put c Dc T J DcT ut c + putTm Dm T J Dm
ut m
2
2
+
r
T
put m Dm T J DcT ut c .
p
(75)
with
Lm
12 L m 12 L m
Gc T
Gc
Gc
L = 12 L m
(76)
Lm
12 L m
TJ =
Dg H5 Dg Gc Gc DTg H5 Dg
1
1
2 Lm 2 Lm
Lm
Gt
Gc T
T
+ Dg
D H5 Dg Gc (72) with the constant main inductance L m . The term J reduces to
+ Gc D g H5
sin
and
( p)2
1
J () = J sin p 3
(77)
H5 = Gt + Dg Gc DTg
.
(73)
sin p 43
8101314
4
cos ( p) cos p 2
3 cos p 3
. (80)
K () = sin ( p) sin p 2
sin p 4
3
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
d
2 1
3
id =
L m pi q + Rc i d v d
(81a)
dt
3 Lm
2
2 1 3
3
d
iq =
L m pi d J + Rc i q v q (81b)
dt
3 Lm 2
2
and the torque is given by
ms1 Nc i q .
= 2 p Mu
(82)
Fig. 13. (a) Entry L 11 of the inductance matrix L, (b) J1 of the vector J, and
(c) Mcm,11 of the matrix Mcm for the magnetically linear and the fundamental
wave model.
8101314
the use of the models derived in this paper for nonlinear and
optimal controller design is an ongoing topic of research.
Here, first results show a high potential of the modeling
approach and a significant improvement in comparison to
control strategies using classical dq0-models.
A PPENDIX
E XISTENCE AND U NIQUENESS OF S OLUTION
The set of nonlinear equations in (18) has to be solved
numerically. Thus, it is interesting to examine if a solution
exists and if it is unique. The matrices Gt and Gc are positive
semidefinite matrices for all utg and . This can be easily
seen since the entries of these diagonal matrices are positive
except for the air gap permeances, which can become zero
for certain angles . In addition, a suitable construction of
the permeance network ensures that Dg has independent rows
such that Dg Gc DTg is also positive semidefinite. To show that
the sum of this term with Gt is even positive definite, consider
the vector x which fulfills
xT Gt x = 0.
(83)
(84)
(85)
j =1
where u tg, j describes the j th entry of utg . Using the fact that
Fig. 14. Comparison of the measurement results with the nonlinear, the
magnetically linear and the fundamental wave model for (a) for zero currents,
(b) ic2 = ic3 = 2.5 A, ic1 = 0 A, and (c) for ic2 = ic3 = 7.5 A,
ic1 = 0 A.
VI. C ONCLUSION
A systematical modeling framework for PSM with internal
magnets was outlined in this paper. Different from existing
works, the balance equations were derived based on graphtheory, which allows for a systematic calculation of the minimum number of nonlinear equations. Furthermore, the choice
of a suitable state and the systematic consideration of the electrical connection of the coils were discussed. The quality of the
calibrated model was shown by a comparison with measurement results. Finally, a magnetically linear and a dq0-model
have been derived and compared with the nonlinear model.
Future work will deal with the application of the methodology to other motor designs as, e.g., PSM with surface magnets,
reluctance machines or asynchronous machines. In addition,
r (H )
>0
(86)
H
holds, it can be shown that the Jacobian (85) indeed is positive
definite for all utg and . It can be further shown that
lim F utg utg =
(87)
r (H ) + H
utg
8101314
Wolfgang Kemmetmller (M04) received the Dipl.-Ing. degree in mechatronics from Johannes Kepler University Linz, Linz, Austria, in 2002, and the
Ph.D. degree in control engineering from Saarland University, Saarbrcken,
Germany, in 2007.
He was a Research Assistant with the Chair of System Theory and
Automatic Control, Saarland University, from 2002 to 2007. From 2007
to 2012, he was a Senior Researcher with the Automation and Control
Institute, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria, and he has been
an Assistant Professor since 2013. His current research interests include
physics based modeling and the nonlinear control of mechatronic systems
with a special focus on electrohydraulic and electromechanical systems.
Dr. Kemmetmller is an Associate Editor of the IFAC Journal
Mechatronics.
David Faustner received the Dipl.-Ing. degree in electrical engineering from
the Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria, in 2011.
He has been a Research Assistant with the Automation and Control
Institute, Vienna University of Technology, since 2011. His current research
interests include physics based modeling and the nonlinear control of electrical
machines.
Andreas Kugi (M94) received the Dipl.-Ing. degree in electrical engineering
from the Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria, in 1992, and the Ph.D.
degree in control engineering and the Habilitation degree in automatic control
and control theory from Johannes Kepler University (JKU), Linz, Austria, in
1995 and 2000, respectively.
He was an Assistant Professor with JKU from 1995 to 2002. In 2002, he
was a Full Professor with Saarland University, Saarbrcken, Germany, where
he was the Chair of system theory and automatic control in 2007. Since 2007,
he has been a Full Professor of complex dynamical systems and the Head
of the Automation and Control Institute, Vienna University of Technology,
Vienna, Austria. He is involved in several industrial research projects in the
field of automotive applications, hydraulic and pneumatic servo-drives, smart
structures, and rolling mill applications. His current research interests include
physics-based modeling and control of (nonlinear) mechatronic systems,
differential geometric and algebraic methods for nonlinear control, and the
controller design for infinite-dimensional systems.
Prof. Kugi is an Editor-in Chief of the IFAC Journal Control Engineering
Practice and he has been a Corresponding Member of the Austrian Academy
of Sciences since 2010.