2016
DOI: 10.1109/tie.2016.2558165
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

PMSM Model Predictive Control With Field-Weakening Implementation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
43
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 141 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
43
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…It uses the mathematical model of the control object to control the motion trend of the object through rolling prediction. The performance index function is used to narrow the error between the actual operation and the predicted trajectory to obtain the optimal control amount [8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. Currently, there are many articles about model predictive control of PMSM.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It uses the mathematical model of the control object to control the motion trend of the object through rolling prediction. The performance index function is used to narrow the error between the actual operation and the predicted trajectory to obtain the optimal control amount [8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. Currently, there are many articles about model predictive control of PMSM.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cascade control with PI still has problems related to impossible performance optimization and difficult fine tuning for improving the dynamic performance or the transient response of the motor. Because PMSM has nonlinear behavior, unmeasured disturbance like load torque, and parameter variations like friction force and rotor inertia, advanced nonlinear control, and disturbance rejection methods were proposed to compensate these disturbances and variations …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because PMSM has nonlinear behavior, unmeasured disturbance like load torque, and parameter variations like friction force and rotor inertia, advanced nonlinear control, and disturbance rejection methods were proposed to compensate these disturbances and variations. [1][2][3] Conventional predictive control (CPC) is basically evaluating the control signals based on minimizing the cost function which is a quadratic performance index of the error between the actual output and the predicted reference output to be tracked. This cost function cannot compensate this error completely for highly nonlinear processes, and in this case, CPC List of abbreviation and symbols: R, the stator resistance; L d , the d-axis stator inductance; L q , the q-axis stator inductance; J, inertia moment; B, viscous friction coefficient; i d , the d-axis stator current; i q , the q-axis stator current; v d , the d-axis stator voltage; v q , the q-axis stator voltage; ω s , the electrical rotor speed; λ af , the rotor permanent magnet flux; T e , the developed torque; T L , the applied load torque; k, the current sampling instant; k + 1, the sampling instant…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the flux observation is limited by the rotor position in this strategy. A linearized and constrained model predictive control is put forward to the flux-weakening control in [8]. However, this method involves a large amount of calculation and is extremely sensitive to parameter variation.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%