2016 24th Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation (MED) 2016
DOI: 10.1109/med.2016.7535951
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dynamic analysis of induction machine driven electric vehicles based on the nonlinear accurate model

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As shown in Figure 5, the power injected to the system by Source 1 changed from 80% to 90% of , , i.e., became 0.9 from an initial value of 0.8, at t = 10 s, while the supply provided to the system by source 2 changed from 60% to the 80% of , , i.e., became 0.8 from an initial value of 0.6, at t = 20 s. In a similar way, and taking into account the local constant power loads, changes occurred with the source currents around their nominal values I in,1 , I in,2 , by varying the coefficients a 1 and a 2 . As shown in Figure 5, the power injected to the system by Source 1 changed from 80% to 90% of I in,1 , i.e., a 1 became 0.9 from an initial value of 0.8, at t = 10 s, while the supply provided to the system by source 2 changed from 60% to the 80% of I in,2 , i.e., a 2 became 0.8 from an initial value of 0.6, at t = 20 s. The system parameters were taken from [34,35] and are provided in Table 1, while all of the controllers' gains are given in Table 2. The system parameters were taken from [34,35] and are provided in Table 1, while all of the controllers' gains are given in Table 2.…”
Section: The Examined Case Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As shown in Figure 5, the power injected to the system by Source 1 changed from 80% to 90% of , , i.e., became 0.9 from an initial value of 0.8, at t = 10 s, while the supply provided to the system by source 2 changed from 60% to the 80% of , , i.e., became 0.8 from an initial value of 0.6, at t = 20 s. In a similar way, and taking into account the local constant power loads, changes occurred with the source currents around their nominal values I in,1 , I in,2 , by varying the coefficients a 1 and a 2 . As shown in Figure 5, the power injected to the system by Source 1 changed from 80% to 90% of I in,1 , i.e., a 1 became 0.9 from an initial value of 0.8, at t = 10 s, while the supply provided to the system by source 2 changed from 60% to the 80% of I in,2 , i.e., a 2 became 0.8 from an initial value of 0.6, at t = 20 s. The system parameters were taken from [34,35] and are provided in Table 1, while all of the controllers' gains are given in Table 2. The system parameters were taken from [34,35] and are provided in Table 1, while all of the controllers' gains are given in Table 2.…”
Section: The Examined Case Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As shown in Figure 5, the power injected to the system by Source 1 changed from 80% to 90% of I in,1 , i.e., a 1 became 0.9 from an initial value of 0.8, at t = 10 s, while the supply provided to the system by source 2 changed from 60% to the 80% of I in,2 , i.e., a 2 became 0.8 from an initial value of 0.6, at t = 20 s. The system parameters were taken from [34,35] and are provided in Table 1, while all of the controllers' gains are given in Table 2. The system parameters were taken from [34,35] and are provided in Table 1, while all of the controllers' gains are given in Table 2. Table 1.…”
Section: The Examined Case Studymentioning
confidence: 99%