42 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 37, NO.

1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001

Current and Flux Regulation in

Field-Weakening Operation
Fernando Briz, Member, IEEE, Alberto Diez, Michael W. Degner, Member, IEEE, and Robert D. Lorenz, Fellow, IEEE

Abstract—Field-weakening techniques have been developed voltage and accurate knowledge of the machine inductances was
which provide maximum torque capability above rated speed. Un- assumed.
fortunately, most of these techniques are valid only for steady-state A different approach to field-weakening operation consists of
operation and show significant sensitivity to dc-bus voltage and
machine parameters. This paper analyzes the requirements of using a voltage controller that sets the flux reference in such a
dynamically providing maximum torque under field-weakening way that the voltage required by the motor matches the voltage
operation. Three major issues are addressed: current regulator capability of the inverter [3], [4], which makes field weakening
design, saturation techniques for current regulators in order insensitive to the dc-bus variations.
to ensure best performance under voltage constraints, and flux Assuming that a proper flux reference is available, dynamic
regulator design to minimize transient errors when varying flux.
Maximum dc-bus utilization through the proper use of saturation field weakening relies on the dynamic response of both the flux
techniques, dynamic response, and reduced sensitivity are the and current regulators. At high speeds, the available voltage will
advantages of the proposed solution. mostly be used to counteract the back EMF.. Small transient er-
Index Terms—Current regulation, electric machine, field weak- rors in flux regulation could result in insufficient voltage margin
ening, flux regulation. to create the desired torque-producing current, dramatically af-
fecting the drive performance. Classical flux regulators are in-
adequate due to their intrinsic, error-based transient response.
I. INTRODUCTION The current loop is often the inner regulated loop in a
vector-controlled ac drive. The overall performance of the
M AXIMUM torque production in the field-weakening re-
gion is a desired property of vector-controlled induc-
tion motors in applications such as traction and spindle drives.
drive depends strongly on its performance. At high speeds, the
back EMF will approach the available inverter voltage and can
Field-weakening operation consists of two steps: the choice of make proper current regulation difficult due to a lack of the
the proper flux reference to get maximum torque and producing necessary voltage margin [3], [4]. Any regulator intended to
the necessary currents to meet the flux and torque references. work in field-weakening operation should, therefore, address
The classical field-weakening technique, , in rotor-field- two important issues: maximum dc-bus voltage utilization
oriented drives (RFOs) has been shown to provide flux refer- and the necessary bandwidth. In [5], the bus utilization by
ences that are too high, reducing the amount of current avail- delta modulators was analyzed, but the nonlinear nature of
able to produce torque and, therefore, the torque capability of such a regulator makes its dynamic properties difficult to
the drive [1], [2]. In [1], the optimal current references for max- evaluate, other than showing it to be strongly dependent on
imum torque were obtained by taking into account both cur- the switching frequency. Synchronous frame proportional plus
rent and voltage limits for the inverter and motor. In [2] it was integral (PI) current regulators are the most common option
shown that almost optimal flux current references could be ob- in field-weakening applications, but very few papers have
tained by applying to the stator flux. In these references, studied their saturation capability, i.e., the capability to use the
only steady-state operation was considered and constant dc-bus available voltage [6], [7].
In [4], the requirement of a voltage margin for current regu-
lation in field-weakening operation was introduced as a design
Paper IPCSD 00–046, presented at the 1998 Industry Applications Society
Annual Meeting, St. Louis, MO, October 12–16, and approved for publication in condition. It was not clear, however, how that margin should
the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS by the Industrial Drives be chosen. A voltage margin as low as 3% of the rated voltage
Committee of the IEEE Industry Applications Society. Manuscript submitted was reported in [3] to be enough with a stator-voltage-controlled
for review October 15, 1998 and released for publication September 26, 2000.
This work was supported by the University of Oviedo, the Ford Motor Com- field-weakened drive.
pany, and the Wisconsin Electric Machines and Power Electronics Consortium The design and tuning of flux and current regulators under
(WEMPEC) of the University of Wisconsin, Madison. voltage restrictions are presented in this paper. Since the cur-
F. Briz and A. Diez are with the Department of Electrical, Computer and
Systems Engineering, University of Oviedo, E-33204 Gijón, Spain (e-mail: fer- rent loop constitutes the inner loop, the first part of the paper is
[email protected]; [email protected]). devoted to the current regulators design and maximum dc-bus
M. Wegner is with the Ford Research Laboratory, Ford Motor Company, utilization through the proper use of saturation techniques. The
Dearborn, MI 48121-2053 USA (e-mail: [email protected]).
R. D. Lorenz is with ISEA-The Power Electronics and Drives Institute, Tech- final part of the paper analyzes the flux regulator design, empha-
nical university of Rhein-Westfalen, 52066 Aachen, Germany, on leave from the sizing that proper flux regulation strongly relies on the current
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Department of Electrical and Com- regulator performance. Maximum dc-bus utilization through the
puter Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 USA (e-mail:
[email protected]). proper use of saturation techniques, and improved dynamic re-
Publisher Item Identifier S 0093-9994(01)00892-1. sponse are the advantages of the proposed solution.
0093–9994/01$10.00 © 2001 IEEE
BRIZ et al.: CURRENT AND FLUX REGULATION IN FIELD-WEAKENING OPERATION 43

Fig. 2. Complex vector block diagram of a current-regulated induction motor,

shown in a synchronous reference frame.

frame, which correspond to the complex block diagram shown

in Fig. 2 [11].
If the influence of the rotor flux in the stator current equation
Fig. 1. (a) Classical and (b) complex vector synchronous frame PI current
regulators. (c) Digital realization of a complex vector synchronous frame PI (2), i.e., back EMF, is separately decoupled [12], then the syn-
current regulator. Shown in a synchronous reference frame using complex vector chronous frame stator voltage equation can be seen to have an
notation. asymmetric complex pole at . The asym-
metric complex part of the pole, , is exactly known with no
II. DESIGN OF CURRENT REGULATORS FOR AC MACHINES parameter sensitivity, since it arises from the coordinate trans-
Much attention has been paid in recent years to the design form to the synchronous frame, not from physical properties
of current regulators for ac drives. A bandwidth high enough to
provide the required dynamic response to the drive is commonly
the major design goal.
(2)
The synchronous frame PI current regulator has become the
standard for current regulation of multiphase ac machines due (3)
to its capability of regulating ac signals over a wide frequency
range with zero steady-state error [8], [9]. Nevertheless, it is where
known that its transient response deteriorates as the synchronous
frequency increases due to the excitation frequency cross cou-
pling added to the machine model by the synchronous frame
transformation [10]. Both the classical and complex vector synchronous frame PI
To overcome this problem, alternative designs to the clas- current regulators add an integration pole at the origin (in a syn-
sical synchronous frame PI current regulator can be used. In chronous reference frame) providing zero steady-state error at
[10] it was demonstrated that this excitation frequency-depen- the synchronous frequency. However, the classical design places
dent cross-coupled property of the synchronous frame machine the regulator zero on the real axis, while the complex vector de-
model could be compactly represented using complex vectors sign implements an asymmetric complex zero. This implements
as an asymmetric complex pole (cross coupling). It was further an exact pole/zero cancellation of the asymmetric complex pole
shown that synchronous frequency invariant transient response (i.e., exactly decoupling the synchronous frequency cross cou-
could be achieved by complex vector design of the synchronous pling).
frame PI current regulator [7], [10]. Such design uses a corre- When errors in the parameters exists, exact pole–zero cancel-
sponding, excitation frequency-dependent asymmetric complex lation of the real components is not achieved and additional dy-
zero (controller cross coupling) to exactly decouple the asym- namics are created [7], [10], [12]. Although the parameter sen-
metric complex pole (machine cross coupling). Classical and sitivity analysis for the different current regulator designs is not
complex vector synchronous frame PI current regulators block approached in detail in this paper, some conclusions can be sum-
diagrams using complex vector notation are shown in Fig. 1(a) marized as follows.
and (b).
1) The cross-coupling decoupling design implements the
Complex vector notation will be used for equations
pole–zero cancellation at the synchronous frequency. An
throughout this paper, while both complex and scalar notation
incorrect pole–zero cancellation will create additional
will be used for block diagrams. The mapping of complex
dynamics at the synchronous frequency in a stationary
vector to scalar notation is shown in
reference frame, i.e., low-frequency oscillations when
(1) seen in a synchronous reference frame [10], [12].
2) The complex vector design implements the pole–zero
where represents a generic complex vector quantity. cancellation at dc. An incorrect pole–zero cancellation
The basis of the complex vector decoupled design is as fol- will give rise to low-frequency oscillations when seen in a
lows. The equations governing the dynamics of an induction stationary reference frame, i.e., close to the synchronous
motor with the stator current and rotor flux as the state vari- frequency when seen in a synchronous reference frame
ables are given in (2) and (3), shown in a synchronous reference [7], [10].
44 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 37, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001

Fig. 4. Overmodulation limits and methods. (a) SVM voltage limits. (b)
Minimum error v and minimum phase error v overmodulation.

the inverter output voltage limit. Even though at full load the
steady-state voltage moves along the voltage limit circle, the
necessary voltage to increase the torque up to its commanded
value forces the inverter to go into overmodulation during a brief
transient period, i.e., the current regulator is forced to work in
saturation. When a linear regulator works in saturation it be-
comes a nonlinear system and two conditions are desired of its
operation.
• Keep the saturation level at its output as long as possible
in order to minimize the settling time.
• Once it comes out of saturation it should behave as the
linear regulator was tuned for.
With this perspective, dc-bus utilization and saturation tech-
niques are analyzed in the following sections.

A. DC-Bus Utilization
Fig. 3. Simulated rated torque step at rated speed and rated flux with no voltage The fundamental component terminal voltage fed by the
constraint and with three different saturation techniques, using a complex vector inverter is limited by the dc-bus voltage and the modulation
synchronous frame PI current regulator. Torque and q–d currents (left), voltage technique. This limit is for space-vector modulation
(middle), and current (right) complex vectors.
(SVM) in linear operation [Fig. 4(a)], i.e., before overmodula-
tion. Two different overmodulation techniques are considered
3) These oscillations have not been seen to compromise the
throughout this paper, as shown in Fig. 4(b). Once the voltage
current regulator stability. If so, they could easily be re-
vector goes outside the hexagon, by limiting it to its intersection
duced by adding active resistance as detailed in [12].
with the hexagon, minimum phase error overmodulation is
Fig. 1(c) shows the digital implementation of a complex obtained, while projecting the voltage vector on the hexagon
vector synchronous frame current regulator. Note that the dig- side, minimum error overmodulation is obtained [13]. This
ital controller PI gains depend on the sampling period and that technique provides a transition to “six step” as the
the derivative approximation, , was used voltage-vector modulation increases.
to transform from the continuous to the discrete time domain. Restricting the voltage vector to the inscribed circle, allowing
The corresponding block diagram for the classical synchronous it to reach the hexagon limit, or even six-step operation is a de-
frame PI current regulator is obtained by just removing the signer task, which involves a tradeoff between the maximum
term. The following analysis is restricted to these two fundamental voltage obtained in six step versus minimum cur-
current regulator designs. rent distortion obtained in linear operation. The utilization of
these overmodulation techniques with sine-triangle modulators
III. SATURATION TECHNIQUES FOR CURRENT REGULATORS is explained in the Appendix.
The analysis of current regulators found in the literature is
commonly carried out considering only their linear operation. B. State versus Output Limitation
Working in the field-weakening region will imply the use of all Fig. 5 shows the scalar q–d digital representation of a
(or almost) of the inverter available voltage. Since the inverter complex vector synchronous PI current regulator including
voltage is commanded by the current regulator, the current reg- the output voltage limitation. Two different blocks that could
ulator’s capability to use the available voltage and its behavior potentially implement the voltage limitation are shown with
under voltage constraints become major issues that need to be and as their respective limited outputs.
addressed to ensure its proper performance. Using only “output limitation” the current regulator equations
Fig. 3(a) shows a simulation of an RFO drive’s response to using complex vector notation become
a step variation in the commanded torque, up to its rated value,
while rotating at rated speed without taking into consideration (4)
BRIZ et al.: CURRENT AND FLUX REGULATION IN FIELD-WEAKENING OPERATION 45

Fig. 5. Digital realization of a complex vector synchronous frame PI current

regulator with state and output saturation, using q–d scalar notation, shown in a Fig. 6. Digital realization of a complex vector synchronous frame PI current
synchronous frame. regulator with “realizable references” saturation, using q–d scalar notation,
shown in a synchronous reference frame.

(5) (10)
(6) Fixing the limitation so the state moves outside but
close to the hexagon will avoid windup problems. As in (6),
where computes the actual commanded voltage vector computes the actual commanded voltage vector taking
taking into consideration the inverter voltage limit, according into consideration the inverter voltage limit. Since the regulator
to the previous section. By limiting the output, the voltage internal state is limited to a value close to the hexagon with this
feeding the motor is limited but not the regulator internal type of limitation, minimum error overmodulation will be un-
state. During transients the integrator output (i.e., the regulator able to provide six-step operation.
internal state) will increase beyond realistic voltage commands
(i.e., the well-known integrator windup). In addition, once the D. Limitation Using Realizable References
actual current reaches the commanded current the integrator
will need a noticeable time to “unwind” and this will give rise Opposite to classical saturation techniques, the “realizable
to undesirable overshoots in the current, as seen in Fig. 3(b). references” technique can be used (Fig. 6) [14]. This technique
The current regulator internal state, instead of the output, can has been previously applied to ac drives current regulation in [7]
also be limited according to (7) and (8) (called “back calculation”).
This method works as follows. In each sampling period, the
regulator equation is computed in the regular way [(11)–(13)],
assuming that the actual current command is a realizable refer-
(7)
ence, i.e., it will not saturate the output voltage
(8)
(11)
This corresponds to only using the state limitation block in
Fig. 5. Though the integrator windup is avoided, undesirable ef- (12)
fects in the current regulation can arise. From (5), it is seen that
if the synchronous frequency is assumed to be constant, which (13)
is very reasonable for current regulator transient dynamic anal-
ysis, the voltage vector is obtained through a linear equa- If the obtained voltage does not need to be limited, no further
tion. In each sampling period, both the previous current error action is required. On the other hand, if the output voltage is
and voltage output are used. If the voltage vector was limited out of bounds, and therefore limited (14) (whatever overmodu-
as in (7), it will not correspond to the current error in the reg- lation method is used), a new realizable reference is computed
ulator equation anymore, creating an incoherence between the by using the regulator equations backward, (15) and (16). The
inputs and outputs of the regulator and giving rise to a different equations are written trying to clarify the technique rather than
response from the designed response of the current regulator. with an optimal implementation.
In fact, this type of limitation fails in using all the available If is limited
voltage, i.e., it is unable to properly move along the established
voltage limit, resulting in oscillations and unnecessary long set- (14)
tling times, as shown in Fig. 3(c).
(15)
C. State and Output Limitation
(16)
State and output limitations can be combined to improve the
regulator response, according to the following equations: After computing equations (15) and (16), the current error
and the output voltage will be consistent when used in the next
sampling period. Notice that the realizable reference reflects a
(9) current command consistent with the controller and physical
46 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 37, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001

voltage limits but deviant from the actual desired current com- that only a few volts will actually be used to produce the -axis
mand. Because of its design basis, the realizable reference does current. This difference in the voltage necessary to produce the
not depend on any load parameter. Its simulated response is desired - and -axes current plays a critical role in determining
shown in Fig. 3(d). the behavior of the current regulators when they are under a
voltage constraint.
IV. CURRENT REGULATION UNDER VOLTAGE CONSTRAINTS A. Classical Synchronous Frame PI Current Regulator
Fig. 3(a) showed that increasing the -axis current requires, With the classical synchronous frame PI current regulator a
during the transient response, additional voltage with respect to flux reference ( -axis current command) that is too high satu-
the final steady-state voltage. During this transient period nei- rates the -axis voltage due to the back EMF. This results in not
ther the flux nor the speed change significantly, so the tran- enough remaining voltage margin to create the desired torque
sient voltage depends mainly on the stator transient impedance current because the -axis regulator has no means of compen-
and the synchronous frequency (2). Notice that, even though sating for the flux reference being too high [1] (i.e., no cross
field-weakening techniques are designed to keep the steady- coupling between the - and -axes current regulators). If the
state voltage below the inverter voltage limit, the necessary tran- -axis current command is produced by a velocity loop, the
sient voltage to create the -axis current increases proportion- system will be unable to reach the commanded speed and in
ally to , independent of the flux level. This transient lack of the limit will reach a speed where the back EMF matches the
voltage affects each current regulator design differently. While available -axis voltage. The conclusion of this behavior is that
the complex vector design reacts by slightly decreasing the flux when the - and -axes current commands cannot be simulta-
level to get the necessary transient voltage to drive the -axis neously met, the classical synchronous frame PI design follows
current, the classical design keeps the flux level constant and the commanded flux, reducing the torque current as necessary.
requires considerably more time to reach the desired -axis cur- To overcome this problem, a back-EMF decoupling-based over-
rent. modulation strategy with a compensating capability between
So far, it has been assumed that the current regulator will and axes was proposed in [16]. Including a crossed path so
reach a final operating point characterized by zero steady-state that the -axis current error decreases the -axis current com-
error. However, such a zero steady-state error condition may be mand was suggested in [17].
unreachable if the commanded flux and torque can not be simul-
taneously satisfied with the available bus voltage, forcing the B. Complex Vector Synchronous Frame PI Current Regulator
current regulator to work with steady-state error. The voltage Unlike the classical synchronous frame PI, the complex
commands generated by the current regulator could be used to vector design includes a cross-coupling path between and
dynamically adapt the current or the flux commands in such a -axes (i.e., the term). This controller cross coupling
way that a voltage margin for a proper current control is main- effectively reduces several negative aspects of the system cross
tained [3], [4], [15]. This paper instead will focus on the capa- coupling which can be viewed as follows.
bility of the current regulator to handle these errors and their The biggest negative effect of the cross coupling in the syn-
influence on the drive performance. chronous frame machine model is the fact that the voltage nec-
Steady-state errors can be modeled as a lack of voltage to essary to produce the desired -axis current is predominantly
drive the motor. Notice that this may be due to facts like a dc determined by the back EMF (proportional to the -axis cur-
voltage lower than expected, an incorrect field-weakening tech- rent). The controller cross coupling in the complex vector syn-
nique (like when applied to the rotor flux), or a value too chronous frame PI current regulator effectively provides a path
high for the rated flux. for the -axis regulator to reduce the -axis current when the
Quasi-steady-state errors that change slowly with respect to -axis regulator goes into saturation. From Fig. 5, it is seen that
the current regulator dynamics can also be modeled as interme- errors in the desired -axis current will decrease (through the
diate term voltage limits. Sources for such errors can be transient cross-coupling gain ) the voltage driving the -axis in-
errors in the flux regulator (analyzed in a following section) and tegrator and errors in the -axis current will boost the voltage
transient variations in the dc voltage when an unregulated recti- driving the -axis integrator. Thus this cross coupling tends to
fier is used to feed the inverter. In these cases the lack of voltage compensate for situations when the flux reference is too high.
is a transient condition that fades away once the system reaches It is important to note that, under this working condition,
its steady state, but still can disturb the current regulator for a steady-state errors in the current regulator exist and steady-state
considerable amount of time. errors in the torque will result. With a velocity controller, zero
To understand the effects of a lack of voltage on the current velocity error at steady-state is still obtained.
regulator it is important to understand how the stator voltage is From the previous analysis, it is seen that the complex vector
distributed between the and axes. According to (2), the axis synchronous frame PI current regulator intrinsically provides
is relatively unaffected by the rotor flux (especially at high syn- a form of field weakening. This suggests the possibility of
chronous frequencies). The necessary voltage required to pro- keeping the flux reference constant and allowing the current
duce the -axis current is basically determined by the stator tran- regulator to take care of automatically fixing the flux level as a
sient impedance. On the other hand, the -axis voltage has to function of the available voltage. Although this is a possibility,
compensate for the back EMF, which at high synchronous fre- it gives rise to an undesirable coupling between flux and torque
quencies accounts for almost all of the stator voltage, meaning and, in general, poor overall dynamic response. In addition, at
BRIZ et al.: CURRENT AND FLUX REGULATION IN FIELD-WEAKENING OPERATION 47

Fig. 7. Complex vector synchronous frame PI current regulator with realizable

references saturation, modified to handle errors. Digital implementation, shown
in a synchronous reference frame using complex vector notation.
Fig. 8. PI flux regulator with a feedforward path.
high speeds the current regulator would force the maximum
inverter fundamental voltage, i.e., the inverter would tend to TABLE I
INDUCTION MOTOR PARAMETERS
work in the six-step mode.
The capability of the complex vector design to provide field
weakening is lost when the realizable references limitation is
used. This is due to the realizable reference limiting the cur-
rent error as seen in Fig. 6, and the cross coupling between
and axes being driven by this error signal. To circumvent
this problem, a modified design (Fig. 7) can be used, where the
cross-coupling path is driven by the actual error instead of the
corrected error. The equations governing the regulator still cor-
respond to (11)–(16), but with (15) replaced by (17)

filter (20-Hz bandwidth) was included in the implementation

to reject the noise coming from the flux command. The PI
regulator was tuned with its zero canceling the rotor pole
(17) ( ) and the gain tuned for the desired
bandwidth of 2 Hz.
In spite of this modification, the realizable reference keeps its This flux regulator topology will provide zero error between
meaning as an auxiliary variable that absorbs any inconsistency the command and feedback signal below the PI regulator band-
between commanded and actual currents and the output voltage width, with errors due to the parameter sensitivity of the feedfor-
limit. ward term at frequencies above. As with current, and other vari-
ables that are indirectly measured or estimated, offsets are com-
V. FLUX REGULATOR DESIGN monly present. This will force the flux regulator accuracy to be
that of the flux estimator. Different open-loop and closed-loop
RFO drives are commonly intended to work over a wide range
observer topologies can be used for estimating flux. However,
of speeds with high acceleration rates. Above rated speed, fast
all of them will show some static and dynamic parameter sensi-
variations in the rotor speed force fast variations in the com-
tivity [19]. An open-loop current-model flux observer was used
manded flux. In field-weakening operation the flux command
for the experiments included in this paper.
varies approximately inversely with the rotor speed. If transient
lagging (tracking) errors exist in the flux, then as the motor ac-
celerates the excessive flux could cause the current regulator to VI. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
run out of voltage margin. Conversely, as the motor decelerates, The techniques presented heretofore were tested using an in-
the lagging flux buildup will reduce the torque capability. Be- duction motor drive. The motor parameters are shown in Table I.
cause of this, feedback regulators such as PI controllers, are not A flux-observer-based direct RFO controller was implemented
sufficient for flux regulation since they are error driven. Tran- as well as speed and flux control loops. The current regulators
sient errors intrinsic to feedback based designs can be dramat- were tuned for a 400-Hz bandwidth. An unregulated rectifier
ically reduced by including a feedforward path [18], as shown was used to feed the inverter. A technique applied to the
in Fig. 8. rotor flux, with r/min as the base speed, was used
According to (3), the flux dynamics correspond to a for field weakening. Although it is recognized that this tech-
first-order system with a characteristic time constant equal to nique is not optimal, it was considered helpful in order to show
the rotor time constant . Since the feedforward the performance of the different current regulator designs with
path is designed to compensate for these dynamics, it will have incorrect flux references. It is noted that because an unregulated
a high-pass filter characteristic, which might make it sensitive rectifier was used, computing optimal flux references would re-
to fast variations in the flux command or to noise. The usual quire precise measurements of the dc voltage in addition to pre-
rotor flux commands in field-weakening are well suited for cise estimates of the motor parameters.
feedforward, since they change with (or closely related to) the Fig. 9 shows the -axis current transient response for three
rotor speed, which results in smooth variations. A low-pass different saturation techniques, with the motor rotating at an ini-
48 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 37, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001

Fig. 9. Torque current (i and i ) response for a complex vector

synchronous frame PI current regulator, with three different saturation
techniques, with an initial speed of 4500 r/min and rotor flux current Fig. 11. Torque current (i and i ) response for a classical and a complex
 =L = 9 A. vector synchronous frame PI current regulator, with an initial speed of 4500
r/min, for three different values of steady-state rotor flux. Realizable references
(Fig. 7) and minimum error overmodulation were used.

Fig. 10. PI versus PI with feedforward flux regulator comparison. Rotor

flux current  =L = 11:2 A. A classical synchronous frame PI current
regulator with state and output saturation (the state limited to a 2/3 V circle
and minimum error overmodulation for the output) was used.

tial speed of 4500 r/min. A similar response is observed for the

combined state and output saturation, and realizable reference
techniques, with the obvious poor performance of the state sat-
uration technique.
Fig. 10 shows a 4500 r/min speed step response. The effects Fig. 12. 3000-r/min speed step response with three different values of rotor
in the generated torque due the transient flux error for the case flux, for the classical and complex vector synchronous frame PI current
of a PI flux regulator and the superior performance when a feed- regulators. Realizable references as shown in Fig. 7 and minimum error
overmodulation were used.
forward path is added is evident. This last design will be used
for the remainder of the paper.
The -axis current response of the classical and complex value, [Fig. 12(a)], both designs provide a similar response. As
vector current regulator designs is shown in Fig. 11. The the rotor flux increases [Fig. 12(b)], the classical design suffers
comparative plots include three levels of steady-state rotor flux a deterioration in its transient response due to a reduction in the
at an initial speed of 4500 r/min. dc-bus voltage when the inverter demands maximum current.
As the rotor flux increases, the available voltage for the cur- The complex vector design is less affected by this transient lack
rent regulator transient operation decreases, seriously affecting of voltage.
the classical design’s capability to create the -axis current. The For the higher flux level [Fig. 12(c)], the classical design
complex vector design reacts by slightly decreasing the flux (not uses all the available voltage to compensate the back EMF, not
shown in the figure), enabling a faster response in the -axis cur- leaving any voltage to create the -axis current and, therefore,
rent. is unable to reach the commanded speed. The complex vector
Fig. 12 shows the drive response to a velocity step command design is not significantly affected by having too high of a flux
with three different values of steady-state rotor flux, for both reference, decreasing the flux to create or maintain the -axis
the classical and the complex vector designs. For the lower flux current.
BRIZ et al.: CURRENT AND FLUX REGULATION IN FIELD-WEAKENING OPERATION 49

triangular carrier limits will extend the maximum voltage in

linear operation from to (top of Fig. 13). After
injecting the homopolar component, the modulator will come
into overmodulation when two phase voltages touch the trian-
gular carrier limits, which corresponds to touching the hexagon
limit in SVM. If after injecting the homopolar component
two phase voltages go outside the triangular carrier bounds
[Fig. 13(a)], they will be physically limited. If the third phase
voltage, in Fig. 13, remains unchanged [Fig. 13(b)], the
resultant voltage vector will correspond to the minimum error
SVM voltage vector, while if it is reduced proportionally to
the other two components reduction [Fig. 13(c)], the minimum
phase error SVM voltage vector is obtained.

REFERENCES
Fig. 13. Top: homopolar harmonic injection for maximum dc—bus utilization. [1] S. H. Kim and S. K. Sul, “Maximum torque control of an induction
Bottom: a) unlimited voltage vector, b) minimum error, and c) minimum phase machine in the field weakening region,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat., vol.
error overmodulation in a sine-triangle modulator. 31, pp. 787–794, July/Aug. 1995.
[2] X. Xu and D. W. Novotny, “Selection of the flux reference for induc-
tion machine drives in the field weakening region,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Applicat., vol. 28, pp. 1353–1358, Nov./Dec. 1992.
Looking at the classical current regulator design, it is ob- [3] H. Grotstollen and J. Wiesing, “Torque capability and control of sat-
served that in Fig. 12(a) the -axis current is easily created with urated induction motor Over a wide range of flux weakening,” IEEE
the motor being at zero speed, where the voltage limit is not Trans. Ind. Applicat., vol. 42, pp. 374–381, July/Aug. 1995.
[4] B. J. Seibel, T. M. Rowan, and R. J. Kerkman, “Field oriented control
important. In Fig. 11(c), for the same initial flux, but with the of an induction machine with DC link and load disturbances rejection,”
motor working in field weakening, the lack of voltage seriously IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat., vol. 33, pp. 1578–1584, Nov./Dec. 1997.
restricts the current regulator transient response. [5] X. Xu and D. W. Novotny, “Bus utilization of discrete CRPWM in-
verters for field-oriented drives,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat., vol. 27,
pp. 1128–1135, Nov./Dec. 1991.
[6] J. K. Seok and S. K. Sul, “A new overmodulation strategy for induction
VII. CONCLUSIONS motor drives using space vector PWM,” in Proc. IEEE APEC’95, 1995,
pp. 211–216.
Current and flux regulation requirements for dynamic field- [7] L. Harnefors and H. P. Nee, “Model-based current control of AC ma-
weakening operation were presented. chines using the internal model control method,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Ap-
Saturation techniques for current regulators are a major plicat., vol. 34, pp. 133–141, Jan./Feb. 1998.
[8] C. D. Schauder and R. Caddy, “Current control of voltage-source in-
issue in determining the performance that can be expected verters for fast four-quadrant drive performance,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Ap-
when working close to the inverter voltage limit. The best plicat., vol. IA-18, pp. 163–171, Mar./Apr. 1982.
performance has been shown by either combining both state [9] T. R. Rowan and R. L. Kerkman, “A new synchronous current regulator
and an analysis of current-regulated PWM inverters,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
and output saturation or by using realizable references. Both Applicat., vol. IA-22, pp. 678–690, July/Aug. 1986.
techniques have similar computational requirements. [10] F. Briz, M. W. Degner, and R. D. Lorenz, “Analysis and design of current
The complex vector synchronous frame PI current regulator regulators using complex vectors,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat., vol. 36,
pp. 817–825, May/June 2000.
with back-EMF decoupling has been shown to be an attrac- [11] D. W. Novotny and T. A. Lipo, Vector Control and Dynamics of AC
tive solution for current regulation in field-weakening operation. Drives. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1996.
The synchronous frame decoupling that it implements has been [12] F. Briz, M. W. Degner, and R. D. Lorenz, “Dynamic analysis of current
regulators for AC motors using complex vectors,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Ap-
shown to have intrinsically attractive properties when operating plicat., vol. 35, pp. 1424–1432, Nov./Dec. 1999.
in the field-weakening region. [13] D. R. Seidel, D. A. Kaiser, and R. D. Lorenz, “One-step optimal space
Transient errors in flux regulation have been shown to de- vector PWM current regulation using a neural network,” in Conf. Rec.
IEEE-IAS Annu. Meeting, 1994, pp. 867–874.
grade the field weakening performance of field-oriented drives. [14] M. V. Kothare, “Control of systems subject to constraints,” Ph.D. dis-
It was further shown that a flux regulator with feedforward can sertation, California Inst. Technol., Pasadena, CA, 1997.
substantially mitigate this problem. [15] S. H. Kim and S. K. Sul, “Voltage control strategy for maximum torque
operation of an induction machine in the field weakening region,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 44, pp. 512–518, Aug. 1997.
APPENDIX [16] J. K. Seok, J. S. Ki, J. W. Choi, and S. K. Sul, “Overmodulation strategy
for high performance torque control,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol.
DC-BUS VOLTAGE UTILIZATION WITH 13, pp. 786–792, July 1998.
SINE-TRIANGLE MODULATORS [17] J. W. Choi and S. K. Sul, “Fast current controller in three-phase ac/dc
boost converter using d-q axis cross-coupling,” IEEE Trans. Power Elec-
Sine-triangle pulsewidth modulation (PWM) has been tron., vol. 13, pp. 179–185, Jan. 1998.
widely used in industrial drives. In its basic implementation, [18] R. L. Lorenz, T. A. Lipo, and D. W. Novotny, “Motion control with
induction motors,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 82, pp. 1215–1240, Aug. 1994.
the maximum output voltage in linear operation is limited [19] P. L. Jansen and R. D. Lorenz, “A physically insightful approach to the
to (as opposed to the for SVM). The dc-bus design and accuracy assessment of flux observers for field oriented IM
utilization by sine-triangle modulators can be increased to drives,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat., vol. 30, pp. 101–110, Jan./Feb. 1994.
[20] V. Blashko, “"Analysis of a hybrid PWM based on modified space-
that of SVM through the use of triplen harmonic injection vector and triangle—Comparison methods,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat.,
[20], [21]. Balancing the phase voltages with respect to the vol. 33, pp. 756–764, May/June 1997.
50 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 37, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001

[21] A. Hava, R. J. Kerkman, and T. A. Lipo, “A high performance gener- Robert D. Lorenz (M’84–SM’91–F’98) received the
alized discontinuous PWM algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat., vol. B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees from the University of
34, pp. 1059–1071, Sept./Oct. 1998. Wisconsin, Madison, in 1969, 1970, and 1984 respec-
tively.
Since 1984, he has been a member of the faculty
of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, where he
Fernando Briz (A’96–M’99) received the M.S. and is the Consolidated Papers Foundation Professor
Ph.D. degrees from the University of Oviedo, Gijón, of Controls Engineering in both the Mechanical
Spain, in 1990 and 1996, respectively. Engineering and Electrical and Computer Engi-
He was a Visiting Researcher at the University neering Departments. In this position, he acts as
of Wisconsin, Madison, from June 1996 to March Co-Director of the Wisconsin Electric Machines
1997. He is currently an Associate Professor in and Power Electronics Consortium. He is also an active consultant to many
the Electrical Engineering Department, University organizations. He was a Visiting Research Professor in the Electrical Drives
of Oviedo. His interests include control systems, Group, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, in the summer of
high-performance ac drives control, sensorless 1989 and in the Power Electronics and Electrical Drives Institute, Technical
control, and digital signal processing. University of Aachen, Aachen, Germany, in the summers of 1987, 1991, 1995,
Prof. Briz was the recipient of a Prize Paper Award 1997, and 1999. In 1969–1970, he conducted his M.S. thesis research at the
from the Industrial Power Converter Committee of the IEEE Industry Applica- Technical University of Aachen. From 1972 to 1982, he was a member of
tions Society. the research staff at the Gleason Works, Rochester, NY. His current research
interests include sensorless electromagnetic motor/actuator technologies,
real-time signal processing and estimation techniques, precision multi-axis
Alberto Diez received the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees motion control, and ac drive and high-precision machine control technologies.
from the University of Oviedo, Gijón, Spain, in 1983 Dr. Lorenz is currently the IEEE Industry Applications Society (IAS) Vice
and 1988, respectively. President/President Elect, a Distinguished Lecturer of the IAS for 2000/2001,
He is currently an Associate Professor in the Elec- the immediate Past Chair of the IAS Awards Department, and past Chairman
trical Engineering Department, University of Oviedo. of the IAS Industrial Drives Committee. He is a member of the IAS Industrial
In October 1998, he was nominated as a Member of Drives, Electrical Machines, Industrial Power Converter, and the Industrial Au-
the Executive Committee D2 “Rolling-flat products” tomation and Control Committees. He is a member of the IEEE Sensor Council
by the European Commission. His interests include AdCom and the IEEE Neural Network AdCom. He is a Registered Professional
control systems, high-performance ac drives control, Engineer in the States of New York and Wisconsin. He is also a member of the
and industrial automation process. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Instrument Society of America,
and Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers.

Michael W. Degner (S’95–A’98–M’99) received the

B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in mechanical engi-
neering from the University of Wisconsin, Madison,
in 1991, 1993, and 1998 respectively.
Since 1998, he has been the the Vehicle Electronic
Systems Department, Research Laboratory, Ford
Motor Company, Dearborn, MI, where his research
is focused on the use of power electronics and
electric machines in automobile applications. His
interests include control systems, electric machine
drives, electric machines, power electronics, and
mechatronics.
Dr. Degner received the Second Prize Paper Award from the Industrial
Drives Committee and the Third Prize Paper Award from the Industrial Power
Converter Committee at the 1997 IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual
Meeting.