388 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 3, NO.
4, DECEMBER 1995
to Selecti
in I ~ d ~ ~ t i
Marc Bodson, Member, IEEE, John N. Chiasson, Member, IEEE, and Robert T. Novotnak, Member, IEEE
Abstract-This paper addresses the problem of optimal selec-
tion of the flux reference in induction machines. The results are
based on a standard differential equation model of the induction
machine and give the value of the flux reference which maximizes
the torque at constant speed subject to voltage and current
limits. Both the motor and generator modes are considered. The
formulas are useful for the real-time programming of digital
controllers designed to achieve maximum performance of ac
drives at high speeds. Experimental results are given to validate
the analysis and demonstrate the usefulness of the optimal flux
reference in high-performance servo applications.
I. INTRODUCTION
NDUCTION motors have been used increasingly in a
number of variable-speed applications. Two main factors
for their use are cost and reliability. For example, induction
motors are replacing series dc motors in locomotives and
are being considered in electric cars. In such applications, it
is important that maximum performance be extracted from
the induction motors to limit their sizes. A goal of a high-
performance control system is therefore to ensure that, at any
given time, the maximum torque is available for acceleration
or deceleration.
It is well known that the flux reference used in a field-
oriented controller for induction machines is an extra degree of
freedom that can be used to optimize system performance. The
two objectives that are usually considered are maximum torque
and maximum efficiency. For torque maximization, which is
the objective considered in this paper, the flux reference is
decreased above some base speed (in inverse proportion to
the speed) io achieve higher speeds given a bounded source
voltage [ 11. This is the well-known field-weakening approach,
which limits the effect of the back-emf at high speeds by
reducing the flux level.
In this paper, we consider the problem of calculating the
flux value in an optimal manner, rather than in an ad hoc
procedure. The advantage of our approach is to provide a
systematic and rational basis for the choice of flux reference.
The formulas presented here are natural extensions of well-
known formulas for synchronous machines (cf. [1, p. 2661).
The optimal flux values are obtained by solving fourth-order
algebraic equations, and it is shown how this can be achieved
Manuscript received September 9, 1994. Recommended by Associate
Editor, J. Smith.
M. Bodson is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of
Utah, Salt Lake City UT 84112 USA.
J. Chiasson is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15261 USA.
R. Novotnak is with Aerotech Inc., Pittsburgh, PA 15238 USA.
IEEE Log Number 9415213.
1063-6536/95$04.00 0 1995 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Technische Universitaet Muenchen. Downloaded on February 20,2023 at 13:38:23 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
in a rapid and efficient manner so that real-time computations
would be possible. Further, as the flux values are calculated
as functions of the machine parameters, the computations may
also be adjusted on-line if a self-tuning or adaptive method
is used to identify the parameters in real time (cf. [2]).A
preliminary version of this work appeared in [13], and the
results were used in [9].
Previous work in the area of flux selection includes [3],
[lo], [ll], and [14]. The work [lo] addresses the problem
of torque maximization. Unfortunately, details omitted in the
paper (e.g., the saturation model, current limits) as well as a
lack of experimental results make a comparison difficult. In
contrast to [lo], this paper provides explicit formulas for the
calculation of the optimal flux reference. Also, in our work,
limits on the currents are taken into account in the calculation
and experimental results are presented.
The flux reference problem for obtaining maximum torque
has also been addressed in [3]. Only motoring torque pro-
duction was considered, and the problem was addressed by
analyzing equivalent circuits corresponding to three regions of
operation referred to as constant torque (low-speed), constant
power (midrange speed), and torque breakdown (high-speed).
In contrast, this paper considers the optimization of both
positive and negative torque production with bounded con-
straints on both current and voltage. This formulation leads
naturally to three regions of operation in which the motor is at
either the current constraint, the voltage constraint, or at both
simultaneously. As in [3], our formulation shows that during
motoring (positive torque), the standard flux reference (see
Section I for a precise definition) can achieve nearly optimal
torque capability over the entire speed range. It is shown here,
however, that there is a significant difference in the case when
the machine is generating (negative torque). Specifically, at
higher speeds, the optimal flux reference results in significantly
larger (in magnitude) torques than when using the standard
flux reference.
In [14], a method of generating large transient torques
was presented. The procedure involves putting the available
current into the direct axis to build up the rotor flux and
then rapidly switching the available current from the direct
axis to the quadrature axis to produce a large torque. This
is possible for only short periods of time determined by the
rotor time constant (i.e., before the rotor flux decays). Though
this might have applicability to the starting of a traction drive
with large static friction to overcome, it appears to have little
relevance to motion control type applications considered here.
Further, although saturation was considered in [ 141, voltage
 BODSON et al.: SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO SELECTING FLUX REFERENCES FOR TORQUE MAXIMIZATION 389

limits were not addressed, nor were any experimental results

given.
Another criteria that has been considered for choosing the
flux reference is the minimization of the required input power.
In [l I], this was accomplished by measuring the input power
and changing the flux so as to minimize this power. In
contrast, using our model-based approach, it is straightforward
to determine flux that should be used to minimize the input
power at any given speed (though this is not the point of
our work nor pursued any further here). Also, in [Ill, the
where p A 2(np/n,h)M/(JL,), 7 = 1/TR = RR/LR,
authors use the term “high dynamic performance” to mean
p = M / ( a L B L s )y, = M 2 R R / ( a L i L s ) + R s / ( a L s )With
.
that the speed is held constant while the field flux magnitude M = Lo,$d = M i m ~ these , equations are equivalent to
(12.26), (12.29), (12.50), (12.51), and (12.30), respectively,
is changing. In this work, we consider high performance to be
of [l].
the precise position and speed tracking of a rapidly changing
As pointed out in [l], transforming the system of (1) into
trajectory (i.e., one that requires optimum acceleration and
this coordinate system, denoted as the rotor-flux field-oriented
deceleration throughout the whole speed range) while the flux
coordinate system, results in a convenient simplification of the
varies widely according to our specified optimal flux reference.
original system equations. The standard field-oriented control
To achieve this tracking, a current-command input-output
method consists of using U d to hold i d constant and therefore
linearization controller is used (cf. [6]-[9] and [ 111).
$d = $do constant. Then, through the input uq,the quadrature
current i, and rotor speed w can be controlled as a linear time-
11. MATHEMATICAL
MODELOF THE INDUCTION MACHINE invariant system. If $d is maintained constant at higher speeds,
Let is, and i S b denote the stator currents of a two-phase however, the voltage uq must counteract a large back-emf
machine (or equivalent), Z R , and i R b denote the rotor currents, given by n,w$&f/LR x npw$d in ( 5 ) above (the other terms
0 be the rotor position, w be the rotor speed, and U S , and U S b in ( 5 ) being considerably smaller). The standard approach to
be the applied voltages to phases a and b of the stator. Then, field-weakening is to let $dref = $d&base/W where Wbase is
the dynamic equations of an induction motor are given by [ 1, the so-called base speed below which $d may be held constant
p. 1511 without saturating the phase voltages. In our approach below,
d the specification of Wbase follows naturally as consequence of
Rsis + Lsdis/dt + M - ( i t?pB) =t~s the analysis.
d t -R
d
R& + LRdiR/dt + M-(i
dt -’ =0
dw 111. FLUXREFERENCE
TRAJECTORIES
J - =2( np/n,h)MIm{YS(URe3npB)*}- TI, (1) We now discuss an optimal approach to choosing the
dt
d0
- flux reference $dref for $ d . Of course, such an optimization
=W
dt depends not only on the objectives that one seeks, but also
A . A . A on the type of solution desired, for example, simplicity of
whereis = Z S a f j i s b , i R = Z R a + j i R b , 2s u s a + j ~ s b , M implementation, etc. In other words, the formulation plays
is the coefficient of mutual inductance between the stator and
a key role in being able to solve the problem and obtain a
rotor, LR is the rotor inductance, LS is the stator inductance,
useful solution. Motivated by similar results that we applied
RR is the rotor resistance, RS is the stator resistance, J is for a permanent magnet stepper motor [4], we propose the
the rotor moment of inertia, TL is the load torque, np is the
following formulation:
number of pole-pairs, and nph is the number of phases. Also,
+
X R A X R ~ j X ~ b2 L& + MjSe-JnpBwhere X R ~and 1) Consider the system (2)-(6) in steady-state (constant
speed) to allow for a tractable solution.
X R b are the fluxes in the rotor phases a and b. To eliminate
the explicit dependency of the electrical equations on the rotor 2) Find the reference flux $dref for $d that optimizes
9
angle 0, a flux is defined as $ A $Ra + j $ R b 4 ARe3np%= (maximum for motoring or minimum for generating)
the torque 2 ( n , / n , h ) M $ ~ i q / L while
~
LRjRe3npB ~ + iFurther,
~ with. the definitions +
constraints, U ; U: 5 V;,, and a; +
satisfying the
i: 5 I:,, where
V,, and I,, are fixed voltage and current limits,
respectively.
Remark: Clearly, the true physical constraints are of the
form sal 5 V m a x , l u ~ b l I V m a x , l i S a I I Imax,li~bl S
Imax.If the voltage constraints are reached at constant speed,
however, the phase voltages u s , , u s b would be of the form
+ +
V,, cos(npw 4) and V,, sin(npw 4), respectively, with
similar expressions for the currents. Further, as +Uib =
+
V2ax= U ; U: and i i a + iib +
= I:,, = 2 2 2 2 , the bounds
are indeed given by condition 2) above.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Technische Universitaet Muenchen. Downloaded on February 20,2023 at 13:38:23 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 390 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 3, NO. 4, DECEMBER 1995

n,w + 6/T‘) given a fixed mechanical frequency. On the

other hand, the standard torquehpeed curves assume a fixed
electrical frequency and vary the speed w . Surprisingly, this
leads to interesting differences of characteristics in generator
mode.
The denominator of (15) is always positive, so that r > 0
for 6 > 0 and r < 0 for S < 0. Further, as the torque is
proportional to V 2 ,the optimum achievable torque is obtained,
by choosing S to optimize (15) with V = V,,. To locate the
maxima and minima of r, we solve

87/86 = (kV2/R:)p(S)/[(1- d‘,s6(npw +S/TR))~

+ (6+ Ts(n,w + S/TR))’] = o
where

A. Torque Optimization with Bounded Current

We now consider the flux references obtained by maximiz-
ing/minimizing r = kidiq, k A 2 ( n , / n , h ) M 2 / L ~subject to
ii+ig = I’ 5 I:&,. Defining S A &/id, we rewrite the torque
as r = kidiq = k126/(1 + s2), then, it is easily seen that the
min/max points correspond to S = 51 and I = Ima.The
direct current zd > 0 and the plus sign is taken if r > 0(6 1)
while the minus sign is taken for r < O(S -1). Further, by
The solutions to p ( S ) = 0 give the values of S corresponding to
local minima and maxima of the torque. Let So be a solution to
p ( S ) = 0. At such a point, the second derivative of the torque
with respect to S is given by
d 2 T / d 6 i o = ( k v 2 / R i ) p ’ ( 6 0 ) /[ (1 - aTSS(npw + s/TR))
2

checking the sign of d 2 r ( S ) / d S 2 ,it is easily seen that the plus (17)
sign corresponds to a unique maximum while the minus sign
corresponds to a unique minimum. This is the same result as
obtained in [SI.

B. Torque Optimization with Bounded Voltage

We now consider the flux reference obtained by maximiz-
A
ing the torque r = 2 ( n , / n p h ) M $ d i q / L ~
= kidiq ( k =
2(n,/n,h) M2/L,) with U: +
U: = V 2 5 V;,. Again,
with 6 = iq/id, we have
V 2 / R i= (U: + u :)/ R i and the sign of ~’(60)determines whether a maximum or
= i: [(I - aTsS(n,w + s/TR))’ minimum is encountered.
Fig. 1 is a plot of the four roots of (16) for a given motor
+ + +
(6 T S ( ~ , W S/%))’]. (14) as the speed is varied from 0 to 8000 rpm (the arrows point
The torque is given by r = k&iq = kSz2 and, using the toward increasing speed). In this case, it is found that only
previous expression to eliminate i:, results in two roots are real and need to be further considered. The motor
parameter values used to generate Fig. 1 are np = 3, R s = 1.7
T ( 6 ) = (kv2/Rg)6/[(1 - aTsS(?ZpW +
6/TR))2 ohms, Ls .0014 H, M = .00767 H, LR = .0014 H,
1

+ +
(64- Ts(n,w ~ / T R ) ) ’ ] . (1.5) R R = 3.9 ohms. Although not needed here, for later reference
we note that the moment of inertia is J = .00011 kg-m2 and
This expression for the torque is comparable to the standard the viscous friction coefficient B = .00014 N-m/rad/sec.
torquehpeed equation for the induction motor. Specifically, The motor is rated to 400 Hz which corresponds to a
with we 2 npw + sp
A l/(OWeTR),s A (S/TR)/W, synchronous motor speed of 8000 rpm. These parameter
(the normalized slip) and Rs = 0, (15) for the torque reduces values are those of the motor used to do the experimental
to the standard expression (cf. [l, p. 1.571) work reported in Section I11 and were determined using the
technique developed in [121.
Solutions of (16): The polynomial p ( 6 ) is fourth-order in
S and our interest here is to determine which of the roots
The main difference is that here, the torque is considered as optimizes the torque. Specifically, for w > 0 and constant,
a function of the electrical frequency (through 6, as we = there are two cases to consider.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Technische Universitaet Muenchen. Downloaded on February 20,2023 at 13:38:23 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 BODSON et al.: SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO SELECTING FLUX REFERENCES FOR TORQUE MAXIMIZATION
3
' %
-3
, A
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
Real Pan
Fig. 1. The four roots of (16) for 0 rpm < w < 8000 rpm.
Case I: The first case is T > 0 so that the induction
machine is running as a motor. In this case, S must be positive
as id and i, are both positive. A straightforward application
of the Routh test shows that there is a unique root of p ( S )
in the right-half plane for w > 0 (the root must therefore
be real positive). Furthermore, d2,r/dS2 < 0, so that this
unique positive root corresponds to a global maximum. In
Fig. 1, this unique positive root starts at approximately .323
for w = 0 rpm and ends at approximately 2.2 for w = 8000
rpm. The asymptotic value of this root is found by dividing
(16) through by a 2 ( T s / T ~ ) 2 ( T ~ n p and
w ) 2letting w -+ CO.
It is then easily seen that the positive root S goes to l/a
(= 3.33 for this example). Also, as w + 00, T ( ~ / c T --+
(IcV2/Ri)/(2.(TS.pW)").
Case 11: The second case is when r < 0 so that the
induction machine is generating. In this case, note that we
are minimizing T (i.e., maximizing 17-1 with r < 0) and S
must be negative as zd > 0 and i, < 0. Since p ( 6 ) is fourth
order and one and only one root has a positive real part, there
is either one real negative root (single minimum) and two
complex roots (as in Fig. 1) or three real negative roots (two
minima and a maximum). In general, there is a unique negative
solution to (16) for sufficiently small speeds. To show this, let
w = 0 in (16) to obtain
3a2(TS/TR)'S4 + ((TS/TR)2
+ 2(1- Cr)(TS/TR) + 1)s' - 1 = 0.
with U = ~C'((TS/TR)~, b = (Ts/TR)"+2(1--o)(TS/TR)f
1, and c = -1, we then have 6 ' = (-b f d m ) / 2 a
and, as -4ac > 0, d m > b so that two of the roots are
purely imaginary corresponding to taking the minus sign in the
above expression for S2.For future reference, let Spos (=.323
in Fig. 1) and Sneg = -Spas be, respectively, the (unique)
positive and negative real roots of (16) for w = 0.
At high enough speeds, there are always two minima. This
is seen by computing the asymptotic roots of p ( S ) = 0 as
w -+ CO. Specifically, consider (16) rewritten as
p ( S ) = - 3 2 ( T S / T R ) 2 6 4 - 4a2(Ts/TR)2(TRnpw)S3
- (1 + 2(1- 4(TS/TR) + (Ww2 + a2(Ts/TR)2
x (TRnpW)2)S2 + 0 . S + 1+ (Ts/TR)2(TRnpw)2= 0.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Technische Universitaet Muenchen. Downloaded on February 20,2023 at 13:38:23 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
391
To show that one of the roots 6 -+ -TRnpw as w -+ CO, let
) above expression for p ( 6 ) and divide
x = 6 / ( T ~ n ~ inw the
through by -~C~(T,,/TR)~(TR~~W)~ to obtain
+ +
x4 ( 4 / 3 ) z 3 ( 1/3)x2
+ +
1 +a( 1- a )(TsI%) (Ts/ T R )-~1- (Ts/ T R ) (~ T R ~ ~ w ) ~
-3a2(Ts/TR)2(TR??,pw)4
= 0.
As w -+ 00,x -1 is a solution, that is, -TRnpw is an
-+
asymptotic solution to p ( S ) = 0 for large w. Using (17), it
is seen that d2r/36f6=-TEnpw> 0 thus corresponding to a
minimum. Also, r ( - T ~ n ~ w ) - ( k V 2 / R i ) / ( T ~ n p w )as
-+
w -+ CO. The other negative root corresponding to a minimum
4 is found by dividing (16) through by O ~ ( T S / T R ) ~ ( T R ~ ~ W ) ~
and letting w -+ 00 to find S -+ -l/a. Again using (17),
it is seen that this indeed corresponds to a minimum. Also,
~ ( - l / a ) - ( I c V 2 / ~ $ ) / ( 2 a ( T s n p w ) 2as) w -+ CO.
--f
Comparing the expressions for the torque at the two min-
ima, it is seen that for w sufficiently large, .r(-TRnPw) <
T ( - l/a). Consequently, - 1/a corresponds to an asymptotic
local minimum for the torque while -TRn,w corresponds
to the asymptotic global minimum for the torque. In general
then, at sufficiently high speeds, the complex conjugate pair of
roots must come together, so that there are three negative real
roots corresponding to two minima and one relative maximum.
From our calculations for specific motors, it appears that
the S corresponding to the global minimum is the negative
root that starts at Sneg for w = 0 and remains real and
negative throughout the speed range. Interestingly, when the
) current constraint is also taken into account, it can happen that
the relative minimum is the overall minimum, i.e., it gives
the global minimum torque when both voltage and current
constraints are considered (See Remark 3 below).
The motor corresponding to Fig. 1 shows that there is a
unique negative root for the speed range 0 rpm < w < 8000
rpm, that is, throughout frequency rating of the motor. This
depends, however, on the parameters of a specific motor
and is not true in general. That is, as explained above,
the complex conjugate roots can come together at speeds
below the frequency rating of the motor resulting in three
real negative roots. In this case, the roots then correspond
to a global minimum, a relative minimum, and a relative
maximum for the torque. Fig. 2 below is such a case where
the parameters of the motor are np = 3,nph = 3, Rs = 1.85
ohms, Ls = .244 H, M = .224 H, LR = .244 H, RR = 2.1
ohms, V,, = 225 V, and I,,, = 15 A. The plot shows the
torque versus S for a motor speed w = 200 radlsec. For S > 0
(motor mode), the torque is at a maximum for ,,S = 5.7, but
for 6 < 0 (generator mode) there is a minimum at 6, = -69,
a local minimum at S b = -8.8, and a relative maximum at
6, = -20.8. For future reference, the values S;", 6 ' in Fig. 2
;
are where both V = Vmaxand I = I,,. In particular, for 6
satisfying Sp" < 6 < ,';S it turns out that the I > I,, while
for S outside this interval I < I,,,. See Section 11-C.
Numerical Solution of the Fourth-Order Bounded Voltage
Equation: A closed-form approximate solution for S can be
found if the unnormalized slip s A i q / ( T ~ i dis) small
compared to the stator frequency. That is, suppose n p w +
 392 TEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL 3, NO 4, DECEMBER 1995

10
I section, we show how the results of Sections 11-A and 11-B can
be combined to take into account any combination of voltage
and current limits. With

Q(S, w ) (SIR:)/ [(I - a T s S ( n p w + S / T R ) ) ~

+ (6 + Ts(.,w + S/TR))2]
we may rewrite (15) as r(6)= k V 2 Q ( S ,w ) . In Section 11-B,
it was shown that ~(6) +
= k 1 2 S / ( 1 S 2 ) . Consequently, we
may formulate the problem as follows.
Given that ~(6) +
= k V 2 Q ( S , w ) = k 1 2 S / ( 1 S2), find
6 such that 7 is optimized (maximum for motoring
or minimum for generating) with V 2 5 V2ax and
in N-m vs 6,w = 200 radkec.
Fig. 2. Plot of the torque ~(6) I 2 5 I:&
As V 2and I 2 appear linearly in these torque expressions, it
is clear that the optimal torque for any S results in either V 2=
zq/(T&)%,w so that (12) and (13) then simplify to
Vza or I 2 = I:,,, or both. We know that for a fixed V ,r is a
n
U d / R s = %d - oTsiqnpw (18) optimized for some 6 satisfying Q’(S, w ) = dQ(S, w ) / d 6 = 0,
+
Uq/Rs= i q TsidnpW (19) while for a fixed I , r is optimized for 6 = kl.Consider Sopt,
the value of S that optimizes
I o T s 6 n p w ) 2 + (6+ ~ s n , w ) ~ ]
T under both voltage and current
T = ( ~ V ~ / R ; ) S / [ (-
limits. Then, at each speed w , one of the following three cases
and setting d r / d S = 0 results in must hold:
Case I)
6’ = (I + ( T s n , w ) 2 ) / ( 1 + ( c r ~ s n ~ w ) ~ ) .(20)
I 2 = I,,2 v2< V,,2 + Sopt = 51
At high speeds where ( a T , n , ~ >>) ~1, this reduces further
to S2 Z 1/02.The solution 6 = l / o corresponds to a global or
maximum for the positive torque. The solution 6 = -l/o Case 11)
corresponds to a local minimum for the negative torque. As
V 2= Va:, I 2 < I:,, =+-Q’(60pt,w ) = 0
previously explained, the asymptotic solution for the global
minimum is S = -TRn,w where clearly the slip is not small or
compared to the stator frequency as assumed in (18) and (19). Case III)
The solutions of (16) can be found with a Newton-Raphson
algorithm using the above approximations to initialize the 12=’&x,V2=V&x * JCV&xQ(Sopt 7 W ) =kl&xSopt/( l-ts:pJ.
algorithm. It was found that five iterations led to a solution The following algorithm then gives Sopt and Topt for the
S > 0 for a speed range of 0-8000 rpm when the algorithm is
generator mode:
initialized with the positive square root of (20). For the neg-
ative root, which minimizes the torque, the Newton-Raphson Let 61 = -1 and compute r1 = kI:a61/(l + Sq) and
algorithm is initialized with Sneg for speeds below 1 rad/sec y2 r l / k Q ( & , w ) . If Vf 2 V:=, then r1 cannot be
and with -TRn,w for all higher speeds. This initialization the optimal torque and we proceed to step 2). Otherwise,
gave a solution 6 < 0 after five iterations for the speed range we store the pair ( 6 1 , r I ) as a possible candidate for
0-8000 rpm. ( 6 0 p t , ~ o p tand
) proceed to step 2).
Remark: If one considers the problem of minimizing U: + Solve Q’(S,w) = 0 for its roots. It either has i)
U: subject to a constant torque r = kidiq at constant speed, one negative real root S, and the other two complex
it is easy to show that this solution is the same as that ob- conjugate or ii) three negative real roots denoted as
tained above, consisting in maximizing the torque for bounded sa,s b ) 6,.
voltage. For subcase i), compute rz = kV&xQ(Su,w) and
+
I,” 6 ~2 (1 S?)/kS,. If I,” 2 I:ax, then proceed to
C. Torque Optimization with Bounded step 3). Otherwise, store the pair (6,,7 2 ) as a possible
Voltage and Bounded Current candidate for (Sopt, rapt) and proceed to step 3).
Typically, the induction motor is used in such a way For subcase ii), let 6, denote the global minimum,
that both voltage and current contraints are encountered. For 6, the relative minimum, and 6, the relative maximum.
example, when the motor starts to rotate from rest, there is very Computer, = kV2,,Q(SU, w ) and I,” r,(l+S:) / k S ,
little “back-emf,’’ and consequently a large inrush of current ) I; fi r b ( ~ + ~ : ) / ksince
and 7 b = ~ V : ~ , Q ( S ~ , Wand ~b
results in current limits being reached. At high speeds, the in this case (where V 2= V:,,, I 2 < I&ax)these are the
“back-emf’ dominates and voltage limits are met. Between only two possible candidates for the minimum torque.
these two limiting cases, it is not surprising that the voltage If I: < I:ax, then store (6,) 7,) as a possible candidate
and current limits can be simultaneously encountered. In this and go on to step 3). Otherwise, check if I t 5 I :, is

Authorized licensed use limited to: Technische Universitaet Muenchen. Downloaded on February 20,2023 at 13:38:23 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 BODSON er al.: SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO SELECTING FLUX REFERENCES FOR TORQUE MAXIMIZATION
satisfied. If so, store (Sb, 7-b) as a possible candidate for
minimum torque. If not, proceed to step 3).
3) Solve V:,Q(S, +
w) = Ikax6/(1 S2)= q / k and pick
the value 63 giving the minimum value of 7-3 and store
( 7 3 , s ~as
) a possible candidate for the mimimum torque.
4) Choose TOpt as the minimum torque of the candidates
from steps (1)-(3) and Sopt as the corresponding value
of S.
The algorithm is similar (but much simpler) for the motor
mode where in step 1) 61 = 1 is used, in step 2) there is a
unique positive root, and in step 3) the value of S3 is chosen
giving the maximum value of r 3 .
Remark 1: The algorithm above can be simplified slightly.
A
In step 1) with 61 = -1, if Vf = q/,kQ(61,w) 5 V,;
+
then 7-1 = ,kI&,&/(l Sf) = -kIi,,/2 < 0 is the
minimum torque and there is no reason to check Cases 11)
or 111). This follows because proceeding to step 2), it would
be impossible to find a 62 such that 7-2 = kV:,,Q(S2, w ) < TI
A
+
with I:(&) = 72(l S $ ) / k S 2 < I:,,, since otherwise a
would contradiction result. Specifically, 7 2 could be written as
7-2 = kI~(62)62/(1 6,”) + which is minimized for I = I,,,,
and 6 = -1. A similar argument shows that if 6, in step 2)
does not cause the current constraint to be violated, then it
must be the overall minimum.
Remark 2-Base Speeds: For low enough speeds, the mo-
tor is invariably at the current limit. The base speed can be
defined as that speed where the flux is first decreased to avoid
the voltage limit. A natural procedure to determine a base
speed Wbase for motoring or generating is as follows. Below
the base speed (where 61 = 1 for motoring or 61 = -1 for
generating), the torque is given by 71 = kI~,,61/(1 +
Sf) =
61,kIkax/2. The voltage required to achieve this torque (in
which I = I,,,) is then Vf 7-l/kQ(61,~)or
1
VF = -I2 Rg [(l- d!‘,sSi(npw &/TR))
2 +2
+ (61 + Ts(n,w + Sl/TR))2]. (21)
To satisfy the voltage constraint, it must be that Vf 5 V .,:
To find the upper bound on speeds satisfying this constraint,
set V: = V:,, and note that (21) is then a second-order
polynomial in w. It is straightforward to show that this equation
has two real roots with one positive and the other negative.
With 61 = 1, the positive root of (21) for the motor used in the
experimental work is Wbase = 5410 rpm as seen in Fig. 4. This
is the base speed when the machine is motoring. Similarly,
with 6 = -1, one finds the positive root to be Wbase = 2990
rpm as seen in Fig. 4 and is the base speed when the machine
is generating.
Remark3: Step 2) is quite interesting in the kind of so-
lutions one obtains. In either subcase i) or ii), the global
minimum 6, (see Fig. 2) will typically result in 1; > I,&.
In subcase ii), however, the relative minimum ( a b , 7-b) (under
the bounded voltage constraint only) can turn out to be the
global minimum when the current constraint is also taken into
account. For example, this is the situation depicted in Fig. 2.
That is, at w = 200 rads/sec, Case I), step 1) violates the
voltage constraint while the global miminum in Case II), step
Authorized licensed use limited to: Technische Universitaet Muenchen. Downloaded on February 20,2023 at 13:38:23 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
393
2) occuring at 6, = -69 violates the current constraint (it can
be shown that for Sp‘ < S < S;‘,I > I,,,). The relative
mimimum at = -8.8 producing the torque T ( & ) = -4.44,
A
however, results in I t ( & ) = ~b(Sb)(l +
S?)/kSb < I:,, and
thus is a candidate for the overall minimum. Going on to Case
111) where V = V, I = I,, (step 3 of the algorithm), it is
found that the real roots of V:,Q(S, w ) = IkaxS/( 1 S2) +
give 6;‘ = -22.9, ~(67‘) = -4.06, and 6 ;‘ = -116.4,
~(6;‘) = -.8 as shown in Fig. 2 (the other two roots being
complex conjugates). Consequently, S = S b = -8.8 produces
the overall minimum torque T ( & ) = -4.44.
Numerical Solution of the Fourth-Order Bounded Current
and Voltage Equation: In Case 111) or step 3) of the above
algorithm, a Newton-Raphson algorithm was used (as in
Section 11-B) to solve for the optimum angle 6,that is, the
value for S when both voltage and current constraints were
encountered simultaneously. To determine this 6,it is required
to solve
A
where c = V ~ , / ( R ~ I ~ a xUnfortunately,
). this equation does
not lend itself to as complete an analysis as (16) because the
coefficient of S is not zero as is the case in (16). A plot of
the four roots of (22) for 0 rpm < w < 8000 rpm is given
in Fig. 3. By computing the torques corresponding to these
critical values of 6, it was found that the positive real root
approximately between 1 and 1.5 in Fig. 3 is the root cor-
responding to the maximum torque for speeds between 2940
rpm and 3330 rpm (cf. with Fig. 5). Similarly, it was found
that the negative real root approximately between -1 and -2
in Fig. 3 corresponds to the minimum torque (max 17-1,7- < 0)
for speeds greater than 5410 rpm (cf. Fig. 5). These two roots
are easily found using the Newton-Raphson technique by
initializing the algorithm with S = 1 and S = -1 to achieve
the maximum and minimum torques, respectively.
D.Numerical Results
Using the algorithm of the previous section, a plot of the
maximum torque for motoring vs. speed that the machine con-
sidered in Fig. 1 can produce taking into account both voltage
and current constraints is given in Fig. 4. The constraints were
set as V, = 80 volts and I,, = 6 amperes. This maximum
torque is limited by the current constraint up to a speed of
2990 rpm and by the voltage constraint for speeds above 3330
rpm. There is a small speed range from 2990 rpm to 3330
rpm where both voltage and current limits are encountered.
Although this is not evident in Fig. 4, this can be ascertained
in Fig. 5 which is a plot of the optimum S = &/id versus
speed. In the speed range 0-2990 rpm Case I) is in effect,
while from 2990 rpm to 3330 rpm Case 111) is in effect, and
for all higher speeds, Case 11) is in effect.
 394 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 3, NO. 4, DECEMBER 1995

2.5 I
I

-2.5
0 lD00 2000 3000 4ooo 5000 6000 7000 8000
Real Part
Fig. 5. Optimum 5 = z q / z d to achleve maximudminimum torque vs. speed
in rpm.
Fig. 3. Plot of the four roots of (21) for 0 < w < 8000 rpm.
-5

Mirdmum Torque with Bounded Voltage Conuamt Only

-10

-0.2 -
Minimum Torque using the Standard Flux Ref

-0.4 - ..-
.....
,__-

..:
. . .. . ... .. .... ...
.. ..... . .'. 4 5I I
0 loo0 2000 3000 4ooo 5000 6000 7000 8000
-0.6 I , Min Torque using,Optimal FJux Ref ,'
0 1000 2000 3000 4ooo 5000 6ooo 7000 xooo Fig. 6. Minimum torque (N-m) with bounded voltage constraint only vs.
Fig. 4. Maximum and minimum torque in N-m with bounded voltage and speed in rpm.
current vs. speed in rpm.
direct current was chosen as 6 / f i amps to make the torque
Fig. 4 also shows the minimum torque versus speed which equal to that of the optimal flux reference below base speed.
the motor can achieve under both voltage and current Emits. The base speed was chosen to coincide with the speed where
Interestingly, the torque is determined by the current limits the maximum torque obtained using the optimal flux reference
[Case I)] up to a speed of 5410 rpm and then it is determined starts to decrease (see Remark 2 in Section 11-C).
by current and voltage limits [Case III)] for all higher speeds. To provide a fair comparison of the two approaches, it
That is, the minimum torque under the voltage constraint aloneis necessary to determine the maximum torque that can be
is never achieved because it requires too much current. The delivered under the standard field weakening approach while
minimum torque versus speed under the voltage constraint satisfying the constraints. The motor torque is J p + d i , and,
alone is found as shown in Section 11-B and is given in Fig. since the flux '7,6d is completely determined by (23) at any
6. Comparing this with Fig. 4, it is clear that the current constant speed, the optimum torque is found by optimizing
limit prevents these large negative torques from ever being 2, subject to the voltage and current constraints. To do so,
achieved. one sets V = Vmax,id(w) = $ J d r e f ( W ) / M and computes the
roots of (14). With,,,S the maximum real root of (14),
E, Comparison with the Standard Approach the maximum i, subject to the voltage constraint is simply
to Field-Weakening Smaxzd. Similarly, with 6,,, the minimum real root of (14),
The standard approach to field weakening is to define the 6mlnZd is the minimum i, subject to the voltage constraint. To
flux by account for the current constraint, one simply takes the values
of zq determined as just enunciated and tests if /iql is greater
Gdref (U) = +do w I Wbase n
that I,,,, = J1LaX - i;(w).If l z q l < I,,, then i, is left
= +doWbase//W/ w > Wbase (23) unchanged and it is at its optimum value, otherwise i, is set
where +do Mido. For the machine under consideration, to &Iqmax where the sign taken if i, > 0 and the - sign +
i d 0 = 6 / 8 amp and Wbase = 2990 rpm ( ~ 3 0 radshec).
0 The taken if i, < 0.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Technische Universitaet Muenchen. Downloaded on February 20,2023 at 13:38:23 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 ~

BODSON et al.: SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO SELECTING FLUX REFERENCES FOR TORQUE MAXIMIZATION 395

700
*O0 t 350 -

300 -

I;ii
250 -

200 -

150 -
300

200 100 -

100 50 -

0" I 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Fig. 7. Estimated (solid) and reference speed (dashed) in Raddsec versus Fig. 8. Measured and reference position in radians versus time in seconds.
time in secs.

0.6

Fig. 4 shown earlier gives the maximum and minimum

torques obtained using the standard flux reference. It is inter-
esting to note that the maximum torque is essentially the same
as that produced by the optimal flux reference. In contrast,
the minimum torque based on the optimal flux reference is
significantly better for speeds above 3000 rpm.

IV. EXPERIMENTAL
RESULTS
The algorithm for determining S = i q / z d resulting in opti-
mum (maximum or minimum) torque satisfying given voltage
and current constraints is obtained under the assumption of
constant speed. Torque maximization, however, is particularly
useful for high performance servo applications where the
speed varies widely. To evaluate the applicability of the Fig. 9. Plot of optimum (solid) and reference (dashed) torque in N - m
results in such cases, we performed experiments under variable vs time in secs.
speed conditions using a two-phase, six pole, 1/12 horsepower
induction motor whose parameters were given in Section 11-A.
Referring to Fig. 4, it is seen that the optimal flux reference the currents can be changed relatively fast, however, it may
can be expected to show a significant advantage during decel- take time to build up the flux. Therefore, the desired flux
eration. To demonstrate this, a speed trajectory was designed to reference was chosen as the solution to [cf. (3)]
accelerate the motor from 0 to 8000 rpm in .38 seconds and to
decelerate it from 8000 rpm to 0 rpm in .265 seconds (shown in d$dref/dt = -(1/TR)$dref + (I/TR)Midref

Fig. 7). The motor was also required to track a corresponding
position reference (shown in Fig. 8). The quadrature current
reference was chosen as
iqref Tref/(Jp$dref)
where rrefis the dashed curve in Fig. 9. It is important to note
that the trajectory nearly requires the optimal torque capability
of the machine throughout most of the speed range. The direct
current reference is then
idref = iqref/S(Wref) = rref/( JpS(Wref)$dref) (24)
with S(wref) the optimal &/id to optimize the torque and
shown in Fig. 10. This derivation has been done under the
assumption of constant speed. Consistent with this assumption,
one may use $dref = M i d r e f in (24) to solve for $dref. While
= -(I/TR)$dref
+ (l/TR)M7,ef/(J/*.S(W,,f)$~ref). (25)
The solution to (25) was found to work satisfactorily in the
experimental results reported below.
A current-command input-output linearization controller
[6]-[9], [ 113 (which is a variation of the standard field-oriented
controller) was used to force the flux $d to track the flux
reference $dref while decoupling this varying flux from the
speed dynamics.
Fig. 9 is a plot of the torque reference and the optimum
torque achievable under the assumption of constant speed.
It can be seen that the torque required by this trajectory is
very close to the optimum torque achievable by the motor.
The constraints were formulated as U: +
U: 5 V;,, and
+
ii ii 5 I&x with V,, = 80 volts (= voltage phase limit)

Authorized licensed use limited to: Technische Universitaet Muenchen. Downloaded on February 20,2023 at 13:38:23 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 396 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 3, NO. 4, DECEMBER 1995

0.5 1
0-

-0.5 -

-1 -

-1.5 -

-2 -

-2.5
0
' 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
4'
0
"
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
I
0.8

Fig. 10. The optimal 6 = i q / i d versus time in seconds. Fig. 12. Phase current is, in amps versus time in seconds.

60

40

20

-20

-40

0.m I'
-60

I u0 0.1 0.2 0.3 04 05 0.6 0.7 0.8

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Fig. 13. Estimated 7b (solid) and reference $dcef (dashed) in webers vs time
Fig. 11. Phase voltage usa in volts versus time in seconds in secs.

and Imax = 6 amps (= current phase limit) as explained in V. CONCLUSION

the first remark of Section 11.
Fig. 7 shows the excellent tracking of the speed reference.
Here, the speed is estimated (as shown in [15]) rather than
measured as only position (encoder) measurements were avail-
able. Fig. 8 shows the excellent tracking performance of the
motor to its position reference. Although not shown here, the
position error for the last 100 samples in Fig. 8 was less than
one encoder count (1 count = 2n/2000 rads) showing that the
motor comes into final position at a complete stop.
Fig. 11 i s a plot of the required phase voltage commanded
to the amplifier. Note that the voltage stays quite close to the
80 volt limit as the motor goes from 0 to 8000 rpm.
Fig. 12 is the phase current isa versus time. It is interesting
to note that between .55 and .6 secs, the voltage (Fig. 11) and
current (Fig. 12) are both close to their respective limits. This
is expected since, as Fig. 9 shows, the reference torque is close
to its optimum value and it was shown that both constraints
must be in effect to achieve the minimum torque. The dashed
curve in Fig. 13 is the flux reference found by solving (25).
The flux $d is referred to as the estimated flux as no flux
measurements were available so that qhd was estimated using
an observer [l], [15].
We have presented a systematic approach to determining
the optimal flux reference to optimize the torque for either
its maximum or minimum value while accounting for voltage
and current constraints. This procedure entailed considering
three cases in which the motor is at I) the current limit,
E) the voltage limit, or 111) both simultaneously. The latter
two cases involved finding the appropriate roots of fourth-
order polynomials. This was easily accomplished by running
a Newton-Raphson algorithm with proper initialization.
An interesting result was the significant increase in the
torque available for decelerating the motor (compared to the
standard approach) when using the optimal flux reference. For
the particular motor used in this work, this deceleration torque
was limited by the current contraints up to a fixed speed
(5410 rpm). Above this speed, it turned out that to achieve
the minimum torque for deceleration, the motor was at both
the voltage and current limits.
We have presented experimental work demonstrating the ap-
plicability of the proposed optimal flux reference in achieving
high-performance point-to-point motion control. In particular,
we were able to decelerate the motor from 8000 rpm to rest
35% faster than accelerating it from 0 to 8000 rpm.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Technische Universitaet Muenchen. Downloaded on February 20,2023 at 13:38:23 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 BODSON et al.: SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO SELECTING FLUX REFERENCES FOR TORQUE MAXIMIZATION
The mathematical model used in this paper is simple, but
adequate for control purposes [l]. If a more precise model is
available, a more complex and time-consuming optimization
procedure can be followed to solve the problem. Because
both voltage and current limits are taken into account in our
algorithm, the results do not assume unrealistic flux levels
and will be useful in many applications. Even in cases where
more precise solutions can be calculated, based on a more
detailed model and a complex nonlinear optimization program,
the approximate results which are found easily and rapidly
by our algorithm will be useful for initialization purposes.
Generalization of this work to the case where the main
magnetic path of the motor undergoes significant saturation
has been considered by the authors in [16] and [17].
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Aerotech, Inc. for supplying
the hardware used to carry out this research. In particular, a
very special thanks to M. Aiello, Industrial Controls Manager,
for his help with building and debugging the hardware. The
authors gratefully acknowledge the University of Pittsburgh’s
Center for Motion Control Research under former director
E. W. Kamen for supporting the early stages of this work.
The authors are also grateful for the ongoing support of
the Pitt University-Industry Collegium. J. Chiasson expresses
his gratitude to Professor Werner Leonhard of the Technical
University of Braunschweig, Germany, and his Ph.D. students
for their helpful discussions on induction motor control during
his visit to their Institute. The authors would also like to thank
V. R. Stefanovic for bringing to their attention his paper [lo].
Finally, the authors are indebted to the Motorola Corporation
for donating to them the DSP56001 Development System used
in this research.
REFERENCES
W. Leonhard, “Control of Electrical Drives.” New York, Berlin:
Springer-Verlag, 1985.
S. Sastry and M. Bodson, “Adaptive Control: Stability, Convergence,
and Robustness.” Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1989.
X. Xu and D. W. Novotny, “Selection of the flux reference for induction
machines drives in the field weakening region,” ZEEE Trans. Ind.
Applicat., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 1353-1358, 1992.
M. Bodson, J. Chiasson, R. Novotnak, and R. Rekowski, “High perfor-
mance nonlinear control of a PM stepper motor,” IEEE Trans. Contr.
Syst. Technol., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 5-14,-1993.
F. M. H. Khater, R. D. Lorenz, D. W. Novotny, and K. Tang, “Selection
of flux level in field-oriented induction machines controllers with
consideration of magnetic saturation effects,” IEEE Trans. Znd. Applicat.,
vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 276-282, 1987.
R. Marino, S. Peresada, and P. Valigi, “Adaptive partial feedback
linearization of induction motors,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol.
38, no. 2, pp. 208-221, 1993.
A. Sabanovic and D. B. Izosimov, “Application of sliding modes to
induction motor control,” IEEE Trans. Znd. Applicat., vol. 17, no. 1, pp.
4 1 4 9 , 1981.
Z. Krzeminski, “Nonlinear control of the induction motor,” in Proc. 10th
IFAC World Congr., Munich, Germany, 1987, pp. 349-354.
M. Bodson, J. Chiasson, and R. Novotnak, “High-performance induction
motor control via input-output linearization,” IEEE Contr. Syst. Mag.,
vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 25-33, Aug. 1994.
V. R. Stefanovic and T. H. Barton, “Static torque characteristics of an
induction motor with a variable frequency supply,” in Proc. IEEE PES
Winter Meet., New York, 1972, pp. 1-3.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Technische Universitaet Muenchen. Downloaded on February 20,2023 at 13:38:23 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
391
[ll] G.-S. Kim, 1.-J. Ha, and M.-S. KO, “Control of induction motors for both
high dynamic performance and high power efficiency,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 323-333, 1992.
[12] J. Stephan, M. Bodson, and J. Chiasson, ‘‘Real-time estimation of
induction motor parameters,” in Proc. 27th Annual Meet. Ind. Applicat.
Soc., Houston, TX, 1992, pp. 578-585.
[13] M. Bodson and J. Chiasson, “A systematic approach to selecting optimal
flux references in induction motors,” in Proc. 27th Annu. Meet. Ind.
Applicat. Soc., Houston, TX, 1992, pp. 531-537.
1141 I. T. Wallace, D. W. Novotny, R. D. Lorenz, and D. M. Divan,
“Increasing the dynamic torque per ampere capability of induction
machines,” ZEEE Trans. Znd. Applicat., vol. 30, no. I, pp. 146-153,
Jan./Feb. 1994.
[15] M. Bodson, J. Chiasson, and R. T. Novotnak, “Nonlinear speed ob-
server for high-performance induction motor control,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 42, no. 4, Aug. 1995.
[16] R. T. Novotnak, “Nonlinear control of an induction motor by in-
put-output linearization: theory and experiment,” Ph.D. dissertation,
Univ. Pittsburgh, PA, Apr. 1995.
[17] M. Bodson, J. Chiasson, and R. T. Novotnak, “Nonlinear servo control
of an induction with saturaton,” in Proc. 33rd IEEE Con$ Decision
Contr., Lake Buena Vista, FL, Dec. 1994, pp. 1832-1838.
Marc Bodson (S’82-M’86) received the electrical
and mechanical engineer degree from the Universite
Libre de Bmxelles, Belgium, in 1980, the M.S. de-
gree in electrical engineering and computer science
and the M.S. degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics
from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA, in 1982, and the Ph.D. degree in
electrical engineering and computer science from
the University of California at Berkeley in 1986.
Currently he is an Associate Professor in the
DeDartment of Electrical Engineering. University of
Utah, Salt Lake City. He is coauthor with S. Sa& of t i e book A&
tive Control: Stability, Convergence, and Robustness (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1989.)
Dr. Bodson was a Belgian American Educational Foundation Fellow in
1980, a Visiting Lecturer at the University of California at Berkeley in 1987,
and a Lady Davis Fellow at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa,
Israel, in 1990.
John N. Chiasson (S’82-M’84) received the B.S.
degree in mathematics from the University of A r -
zona, Tucson, the M.S. degree in electrical engi-
neering from Washington State University, Pullman,
and the Ph.D. degree in control sciences from the
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis/St. Paul.
Since 1988 he has been an Assistant Professor
in the Department of Electrical Engineering at the
University of Pittsburgh, PA. His current research
interests include applications of geometric nonlinear
theory to electromechanical systems.
Robert T. Novotnak (M’92) received the B.S.,
M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering
all from the Univerisity of Pittsburgh, PA, in 1989,
1991, and 1995, respectively.
He is currently employed by Aerotech, Inc., Pitts-
burgh, where he is actively involved in the de-
sign and implementation of controllers for high-
performance motion control systems.