Comparison of Sensorless Control Methods for Interior Permanent Magnet Motor

This study compares the sliding mode control (SMO) and luenberger observer (LO) methods for sensorless control of interior permanent magnet (IPM) synchronous motors. In the SMO method, a low-pass filter (LPF) is used to minimize the chattering induced by the sign function, but this also introduces phase lag, impacting accuracy. On the other hand, LO eliminates the need for filters to avoid this disadvantage of SMO, but it is more challenging to model as it includes two additional parameters. Additionally, this approach enables extraction of the back electromotive force (EMF) without distortion while reducing chattering. Both SMO and LO use a normalized phase-locked loop (PLL) to accurately predict position and speed. Finally, simulations are conducted using an IPM motor, and the results compare both of the methods.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2024-12-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1109/gec61857.2024.10880874
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Sensorless Control of Electric Motors
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.21
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of Sensorless Control Methods for Interior Permanent Magnet Motor

Tunahan Sapmaz, Ahmet Bakan
1 citations
Sensorless Control of Electric Motors
0.21
article

Comparison of Sensorless Control Methods for Interior Permanent Magnet Motor

Tunahan Sapmaz, Ahmet Bakan
article en
1 citations

Abstract

This study compares the sliding mode control (SMO) and luenberger observer (LO) methods for sensorless control of interior permanent magnet (IPM) synchronous motors. In the SMO method, a low-pass filter (LPF) is used to minimize the chattering induced by the sign function, but this also introduces phase lag, impacting accuracy. On the other hand, LO eliminates the need for filters to avoid this disadvantage of SMO, but it is more challenging to model as it includes two additional parameters. Additionally, this approach enables extraction of the back electromotive force (EMF) without distortion while reducing chattering. Both SMO and LO use a normalized phase-locked loop (PLL) to accurately predict position and speed. Finally, simulations are conducted using an IPM motor, and the results compare both of the methods.

Yıldız Technical University (TR)
Affordable and clean energy
Openalex Percentile: Top 44%
Sensorless Control of Electric Motors
0.21
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.