Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Motor
Sheng-Ming Yang, Member, IEEE and Pei-Der Su
position [3, 41. Since forth order models were used in these
methods, they were complex for implementation and the results
were dependent on the accuracy of motor parameters used.
More recently, several electronic control schemes were
reported to have achieved satisfactory damping control at a cost
much less than using external mechanical dampers. A scheme
that used a nonlinear microstepping waveforms in conjunction
with a positional controller was proposed in [SI. The position
control was used to prevent the dependence of closed-loop
eigenvalues on the level of external load torque. But the scheme
is suitable for low speed applications only, and a positional
sensor is required for the controller to work properly. Another
scheme involved estimation of motor torque and closing of a
torque control loop on velocity to actively damp the motor was
presented in [6]. Because the motor velocity is estimated via
integration of a signal analogous to motor torque, the
performance of this scheme is limited due to the low signal to
noise ratio.
In this paper, an alternative scheme for the damping control
of hybrid stepping motors is proposed. This scheme also uses'
microstepping for open loop position control. The motor
currents are controlled in a frame synchronously rotating with
the excitation frequency. This is quite different from the
majority of the previously proposed control schemes where the
d-q frame was aligned with the rotor position. Subsequently, the
direct axis current is setup to provide the torque required for the
external load, and the quadrature axis current is controlled to
damp the motor. The motor velocity is estimated via an observer
that tracks the angle of the motor back emf voltage.
observer.
I.
INTRODUCTION
11. MOTOR
MODEL
The d-q model of a two-phase hybrid stepping motor in the
stationary frame can be written as
where p = d/dt, V,, , Vd, and i,, , id, are the winding voltages
and currents,
and 0, are the rotor velocity and position,
respectively, r, L, and k, are motor parameters. Transforming
the above equation into a frame rotating synchronously with the
excitation current yields
0-7803-7233-6/01/$10.0002001 IEEE.
749
,.
rrip
--
where Vqe , vde and i,, , ide are the voltages and currents in
the synchronously frame, weis the excitation frequency, and Aee
is the angle between the current vector and the rotor, i.e. At& =
0, - 0,. The motor generated torque is
[:r]
(3)
Ge
Tx&$
t
de
111. CURRENT
CONTROL
cos
4s)
and
IV. ACTIVEDAMPWG
CONTROL
(6)
where kp and ki are the gains of the current controllers and A@)
is the characteristic equation.
750
v.
rotor angle
q axis
Fig. 3 Relationship between the current and the rotor vectors
SM
, v;.! .:lf
Y,
sync.
stat.
I
a c t ~ v edamping
I I
I t
ids
Vds
ESTIMATION
OF MOTORVELOCITY
Since sin(8, - O r )
The observer has two poles and a zero. In theory, its roots
can be stabilized and placed at any desired location by proper
selection of kopand koi.Nevertheless, bandwidth of the observer
is limited by the sampling rate and motor parameters.
Fortunately, there are many high-speed microprocessors
available today that can perform all the control actions in rather
'high sampling rate. In general, accurate velocity estimation can
be obtained when the observer is performed at high sampling
rate.
Fig. 7-8 show the experimental results when the motor was
running at 300 and IO Hz,respectively, withoutland with the
damping control. The responses when the motor was running at
300 Hz are similar to the simulation results shown in Fig. 6.
Without the damping control, the motor oscillated noticeably
before settled down to the target speed. But the oscillation was
damped out completely when the damping control was applied.
Notice in Fig. 7b) that iqc has a slight offset when the motor was
running at constant speed. This is because the speed observer
did not consider the actual damping of the motor. Therefore the
estimated speed has a slight error in it that caused an offset when
I , was controlled.
For the low speed results shown in Fig. 8, however, the
speed oscillations did not appeared to be caused by the
under-damp behavior of the motor since the oscillations were
cyclic and coincided with the current phase angle. It is believed
that these oscillations were due the electromagnetic
non-linearity of the motor. Consequently, the damping
controller was not able to damp out these oscillations since
linear model was used for the velocity estimation. Nevertheless,
the motor oscillated less and settled down much faster with the
damping control.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
752
( N 3OOJ
(Nm) 005
0
(rr) 0.4:
0
'qr
-0.4
(A) 2.54
0
-2.54
*o(w
Ihne(S@
b) With damping control
(A) 0
(A)
t.
'v
7
-
"?sAi%y
zH
(A) -2.54
0
(A)-2.54
2.94.
0 ::
iq,
w) 1.u
T , y b \ A
(A) -2.54
2.54,
0 ':
-2.54
0.05
0.1 0.15
0.2
025
0.3
0.35
0.4 0.45
0.5
0.05
%a=)
01
0 15
0.2
0.25
03
Ws=)
IOHz
Fig. 8 Experimental results when 4*=
753
0.35
0.4
045
0.5
REFERENCES
r11 Takashi Kenjo and Akin Sugawara, Stepping Motors and Their
r21
r31
[41
r51
[91
754