You are on page 1of 63

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Motivation

Modern surface mount machines, used in the placement of electronic circuit components onto circuit boards, use servo motors to rapidly position the machine axes. AC induction motors are commonly utilized in the surface mount machine due to their properties. AC induction motors have several characteristics superior to DC motor. Such as a maintenance free structure, relatively lower cost than equivalent size DC motors, and greater power output ranging from a fraction of a horsepower to 10,000hp. AC induction motor, indeed, are the workhorses of today's industry. Currently, the Proportional, Integral, and Derivative (PID) controller structure is the most common in use in industry, mainly due to the fact that it is relatively easy to design and implement. However, despite of its widespread use, the PID controller does have a number of limitations. One of the main drawbacks of PID controller is the task of tuning gains to achieve a set of desired dosed-loop performance specifications. Since performance specifications generally conflict with each other, the task of tuning gains to meet several closed-loop performance specifications simultaneously requires considerable time and experience. For the case of low performance specifications, tuning PID gains is not difficult. However, as performance specifications become more stringent, i.e. higher performance, the task of tuning gains becomes increasingly difficult due to the fact that multiple simultaneous specifications typically conflict with each other. Therefore, there exists a need for a reliable control design rnethod to systematically design closed loop controls to meet all specifications simultaneously. This, in fact, is the main goal of this thesis. In order to overcome some problems that faced by PID controller, the other type of control methods can be developed such as Linear-Quadratic Regulator (LQR) optimal control. LQR is a control scheme that gives the best possible performance
2

with respect to some given measure of performance. The performance measure is a quadratic function composed of state vector and control input.

1.2 Background of the Project:

Control engineering is one subject which is perceived as being the most theoretical and most difficult to understand. In industries, application of motor control system is important to operate some processes. An average home in some developed countries uses a dozen or more electric motors. In some application the Induction motor is required to maintain its desired speed when load is applied or disturbances occur. This kind of system can be controlled using PID, Fuzzy, LQR and other more. In this project, Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) controller is introduced in order to control the INDUCTION MOTOR performance as we required. MATLAB/ SIMULINK is used to design and tune the LQR controller and be simulated to mathematical model of the Induction Motor. From the simulation the LQR controller in MATLAB/SIMULINK can be interfaced with the actual Induction Motor using appropriate data acquisition card. The Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) controller is a new method of controlling the motor. Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) is theory of optimal control concerned with operating a dynamic system at minimum cost.

1.3 Proposed research

The nature of this research is to develop a control method for the optimization of performance of an AC Induction motor. The control method used in this project is a robust controller which is well known as Linear Quadratic Regulator or just LQR. The dynamic model of AC induction motor is developed in this thesis on which this control method is to be applied to develop a controller of our concern.

1.4 Objective of the Project

The main objective of this project is to build control system for controlling the speed of AC induction motor. The design procedure is as follows:

To Design and produce the simulation of the LQR controller.

To Implement LQR controller onto the dynamic mathematical model AC induction motor.

To implement another type of controller which is a well known PID controller onto the same dynamic model of AC induction motor.

To compare the simulation results of LQR with the results of PID in order to show that the proposed LQR controller model is better than the other controller model.

Chapter 2

Background Theory and Literature Review

2.1 Structure of the AC Induction Motor 2.1.1 Internal Structure of the AC Induction Motor
A motor basically consists of two parts. i.e. the stator and the rotor. The internal structure of AC induction motor is depicted in Figure 2.1. The stator is a stationary part that sets the magnetic field. The stator is a permanent magnet in brush type DC motors or a set of wire windings in AC induction motors. The rotor is a rotating part holding a shaft that couples mechanical load. A typical rotor of the squirrelcage type found in AC induction motor has aluminium bars connected to the rings that short the ends together.

Figure 2.1: Internal Structure of Squirrel-cage Type AC Induction Motor

2.1.2 Rotating Magnetic Field


Since the power source of the AC induction motor is three-phase alternating current (AC), the stator has three pairs of windings. These three pairs of windings create a set of magnetic poles (Figure 2.2). Each phase of current establish rotating field in the stator. In the squirrel cage rotor, the current is induced due to

the rotating field. Since the ends of the bars are shortened, the induced current creates a new magnetic field in the rotor and is attracted by the revolving field produced by stator currents. Consequently, as the magnetic field rotates, the rotor rotates.

2.2 Dynamic Modeling of AC Induction Motor


In AC machines, all signals exhibit a sinusoidal wave form. In other words, in three-phase AC machines, the space vector, such as the flux linkage vector, the voltage vector and the current vector are sinusoidal wave forms. Unfortunately, alternating properties are not convenient for control analysis purposes. This problem can be solved by introducing rotating transformed d-q coordinates (D-Q coordinates) with arbitrary speed. This results in signals which are time-varying DC signals, and hence are easier to analyze and manipulate in control schemes than AC signals. Based on this coordinates transformation, the flux vector control method is developed (Trzynadlowski, 1994). In this section, a coordinate transformation will be discussed first. Dynamic modeling of the AC induction motor will then be addressed. and has been applied to AC induction motors

Figure 2.2: Current Phasors and Space Vectors at t =

and a

= 60

2.2.1 d-q Coordinate Transformation


In AC machines, the space vectors can be described as follows:

Figure 2.3: Space Vector Components in the d-q Axes

Q axis circuit

D axis circuit Fig. 2.4 D-Q Equivalent Circuit on a Synchronous Frame

.. (2.1)

Where :

F = vector representing space vector superscript s represents stationary reference frame


9

subscript s represents stator


, constitute one vector, it can

Since the three components of the space vector,

be projected in the complex plane which has a real component and an imaginary component (Figure 2.3). Therefore if we define the real axis as the d-axis and the imaginary axis as the q-axis then the transformation of "abc" phases into "dq" axis is possible.

For instance, three-phase currents that have magnitude b, and c, respectively, can be expressed as follows:

and

of phases a,

.(2.2)

Figure-2.5. d-q - axis superimposed into a three-phase induction motor.

10

The transformation abc to d-q is performed as:

In these equations, the axis reference frame has been transformed. Therefore, the stator axis as well as the rotor axis is transformed to a reference axis rotating with an arbitrary angular velocity. In this way, the sinusoidal coupling between the rotor and the stator circuit with the rotor position can be eliminated, if the stator and the rotor both refer to the same reference frame. Here, we assume that the referred frame of reference is rotating with the synchronous speed.

Figure 2.6: Currents Transformation


11

2.2.2 Electromechanical Dynamic Modeling of AC Induction Motor


AC induction motors are described by nonlinear dynamic equations, which can be expressed as a set of differential equations representing both the electrical system dynamics and the mechanical system dynamics. The dynamic behaviour of a balanced three phase induction motor in the electromechanical model consists of five ordinary differential equations given below, expressed in stator fixed d-q coordinates (Atkinson et al., 1991). A two phase d-q model of an Induction machine rotating at the synchronous speed is introduced which will help to carry out the decoupled control concept to the induction machine. This model can be summarized by the following equations

...............................(2.3)

..........................(2.4)

The stator and rotor fluxes are given by the following relations:

.......................................(2.5)

.......................................(2.6)

12

In equations 1 to 4, the voltages, currents and fluxes space vectors are function of the corresponding three-phase variables. As an example, the stator current space vector is linked to the corresponding three phase currents by the following relation:

...................(2.7)

Where a =

. The produced electromagnetic torque is given by

....................................(2.8)

Figure 2.7: Reference frames and space vector representation

Using the d-q coordinate system, as illustrated in Figure 2.7, and separating the machine variables state vectors into their real and imaginary parts, the well-known Induction motor model expressed in terms of the state variables is obtained from equations 2.3 to 2.8 and is given by:
13

..........(2.9)

In equation (2.9 coefficient of dispersion is given by:

......................................(2.10)

As shown in Figure 2.7, the d-axis is aligned with the rotor flux space vector. Under this condition we have; qr = 0 and dr = r. Consequently, the induction motor model established in the rotor flux field coordinate is then given by the equations 2.11 to 2.14.

14

...(2.11)

.....................................(2.12)

..................................(2.13)

...................................(2.14) In ordinary use, only stator voltages, currents and rotor speed are available for measurement. In this case, the d-q stator voltages and currents are obtained from the corresponding stationary reference frame variables through an appropriate transformation involving rotor flux space vector angle Figure 2.7. This transformation is given by: , as shown in

........................(2.15)

15

In equation 2.15, "x" is a voltage, a current or a flux. As mentioned before,

is the

rotor flux space vector angle. In direct vector control, the rotor flux is available for measurement or is estimated from measured stator voltages and currents. The rotor flux angle is then given by:

..................................(2.16)

The rotor flux amplitude is obtained by solving equation 2.13, and its spatial position is given by:

............................(2.17)

The Indirect vector control strategy can now satisfactorily be achieved since both amplitude of rotor flux vector and its spatial position are known. As in DC machines, the torque and the flux are controlled independently: The

electromagnetic torque Te is controlled by Iqs (torque producing current), and the flux is controlled by Ids (flux producing current).

2.3 Literature Review of AC Induction Motor Control


In the AC induction motor control area, many control methods have already been developed. Induction motor scalar control with variable frequency has been investigated by some authors (Mixon, 1984). However, it has been shown that the steady-state torque under scalar control can be controlled accurately, but the transient torque response is unsatisfactory. To obtain high performance of AC
16

induction motors, fast torque response is required. Thus, for fast response of torque, the Flux Vector Control Method, originally introduced by Blaschke (1971), has been employed by many authors to control AC induction motors (Ho and Sen. 1988). It has been shown that the flux vector controlled AC induction motors have better performance than scalar controlled motors by comparing the behaviour of an induction motor driven by flux vector control with a motor driven by scalar control (Finch et al., 1998). Recently, Direct Torque Control Method is developed by Tiitinen et al. (1994) for better torque response and it is an ongoing research area. For position control of AC induction motors, many authors have conducted experiments of AC induction motor position control with flux vector control theory (Vukosavic and Stojic, 1993). Some of authors have employed a fuzzy sliding control scheme for AC induction motor position control (Chen and Hsu, 1994). Generally, Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) controller is widely used in industry for position control. However, PID controller has a number of disadvantages. The main disadvantage of PID-type control is its gain-tuning nature. To tune the gains properly to achieve better performance requires extensive time and experience. In fact, it is tedious and time consuming to tune the PID gains so that all desired performance specifications are met simultaneously (Liu, 1998 Control theory has been a classical conceptualisation of feedback and control of the physical system, from an engineering point of view. This theory needs a rigorous definition of many mathematically complex tools. However, different classical and robust control algorithms have been proposed for the optimisation control law computing. The most common ones are LQR, LQG, H2, H control and eigen structure assignment [Chiappa (1998), Kubika and Livet (1994), Kucera (1986), Kucera (1992), Sobel and Shapiro (1985), Tsui (2001)]. But recently, it has been verified that the approaches issued from the soft computing such as Fuzzy Logic, Genetic Algorithms, Neural Network and Ant System are simple, practical, adaptable and computationally efficient to solve several practical optimisation problems including
17

hard industrial objectives. Moreover, the infinite horizon linear quadratic regulator (LQR) and the eigen structure assignment (EA) are among the most popular controller design techniques for MIMO (Multi Input Multi Output) systems. The advantage of EA is that if the specifications are given in terms of system eigen structure, the eigen structure can be achieved exactly for the desired stability and dynamic performance. However, the EA suffers from some limitations as that the system performance may not be optimised in some practical cases, such as minimum control effort, and that the system requirements are often not easily specified in terms of eigen values/vectors. Furthermore, the LQR could be used to optimise the controller design by minimizing a quadratic cost function of system response and control energy. For deterministic system, the LQR-based control design generally guarantees the closed loop stability and certain degrees of robustness, but may not easily achieve specific system performances due to the difficulty in the selection of the synthesis matrices Q and R. Hence, via the EA techniques, the choice of the LQR design matrices Q and R presents a nice problem to be studied by applying the efficient heuristics and methods inspired from Natures Laws, especially the ant system optimisation metaheuristic. Initially, submitted to application by Dorigo et al [Colorni et al. (1992), Davis and Clark (1995), Sttzle and Dorigo (2002)], the ant system optimisation presents a class of general algorithms of optimisation. The main underlying idea, essentially inspired from the behaviour of real ants, represents a parallel search of several constructive computational solutions. These latter are based on the problem characteristic data and on a dynamic structure memory containing information on the quality of previous solutions. Moreover, the ant system metaheuristic has been successfully applied to a variety of combinatorial optimization problems such as the travelling salesman problem and different variants of the scheduling problem. Convergence proofs for the Ant Colony Optimization algorithms can be found in [Gutjahr (2003), Sttzle and Dorigo (2002)].

18

CHAPTER 3 LINEAR QUADRATIC REGULATOR

19

Linear Quadratic Regulator 3.1 Introduction


The theory of optimal control is concerned with operating a dynamic system at minimum cost. The case where the system dynamics are described by a set of linear differential equations and the cost is described by a quadratic functional is called the LQ problem. One of the main results in the theory is that the solution is provided by the linear-quadratic regulator (LQR), a feedback controller whose equations are given below. The LQR is an important part of the solution to the LQG problem. Like the LQR problem itself, the LQG problem is one of the most fundamental problems in control theory. In layman's terms this means that the settings of a (regulating) controller governing either a machine or process (like an airplane or chemical reactor) are found by using a mathematical algorithm that minimizes a cost function with weighting factors supplied by a human (engineer). The "cost" (function) is often defined as a sum of the deviations of key measurements from their desired values. In effect this algorithm therefore finds those controller settings that minimize the undesired deviations, like deviations from desired altitude or process temperature. Often the magnitude of the control action itself is included in this sum so as to keep the energy expended by the control action itself limited. In effect, the LQR algorithm takes care of the tedious work done by the control systems engineer in optimizing the controller. However, the engineer still needs to specify the weighting factors and compare the results with the specified design goals. Often this means that controller synthesis will still be an iterative process where the engineer judges the produced "optimal" controllers through simulation and then adjusts the weighting factors to get a controller more in line with the specified design goals. The LQR algorithm is, at its core, just an automated way of finding an appropriate state-feedback controller. And as such it is not uncommon to find that control
20

engineers prefer alternative methods like full state feedback (also known as pole placement) to find a controller over the use of the LQR algorithm. With these the engineer has a much clearer linkage between adjusted parameters and the resulting changes in controller behaviour. Difficulty in finding the right weighting factors limits the application of the LQR based controller synthesis. This chapter will explain the literature study that is related to the project task. The information gets from several sources such as websites, journals, books, magazines, handout and others.

3.2 Working Principle of Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR):


The linear quadratic regulator (LQR) is a well-known design technique that provides practical feedback gains. For the derivation of the linear quadratic regulator, assume that the plant to be written in state-space form as:

.........................................(3.1)

And that all of the n states x are available for the controller. The feedback gain is a matrix K of the optimal control vector

....................................................(3.2)

so as to minimize the performance index

.......................................(3.3)

21

Where Q is a positive-definite (or positive-semi definite) Hermitian or real symmetric matrix and R is a positive-definite Hermitian or real symmetric matrix. Note that the second term on the right-hand side of the Equation 3 accounts for the expenditure of the energy of the control signals. The matrices Q and R determine the relative importance of the error and the expenditure of this energy. In this problem, assume that the control vector u(t) is unconstrained.

As will be seen later, the linear control law given by equation (2) is the optimal Therefore, if the unknown elements of the matrix K are determined so as to minimize performance index, then is optimal for any initial state

x(0). The block diagram showing the optimal configuration is shown in Figure below :

Figure 3.1: Optimal Regulator System

Now let solve the optimization problem. Substituting Equation 3.2 into Equation 3.1

............................(3.4)

In the following derivations, assume that the matrix A-BK is stable, or that the eigen values of A-BK have negative real parts.

22

Substituting Equation 2 into Equation 3 yields:

..................................(3.5)

Let set,

..................................(3.6)

Where P is a positive definite Hermitian or real symmetric matrix. Then obtain

..(3.7)

Comparing both sides of this last equation and noting that this equation must hold true for any x, it require that

...................... (3.8)

It can be proved that if A-BK is a stable matrix, there exists a positive-definite matrix P that satisfies Equation 8. Hence the next procedure is to determine the elements of P from Equation 8 and see if it is positive definite. (Note that more than one matrix P may satisfy this equation. If the system is stable, there always exists one-positive matrix P to satisfy this equation. This means that, if to solve this equation and find one positive-definite matrix P, the system is stable. Other P matrices that satisfy this equation are not positive definite and must be discarded.

23

The performance index J can be evaluated as

.........................(3.9)

Since all eigen values of A-BK are assumed to have negative real parts, it have x() 0. Therefore, J can be obtain

..............................................(3.10)

Thus, the performance index J can be obtained in terms of the initial condition x(0) and P. To obtain the solution to the quadratic optimal control problem, proceed as follows: Since R has been assumed to be a positive-definite Hermitian or real symmetric matrix, it can be written

R=T.T ........................................................(3.11)

Where T is a non-singular matrix. Then Equation 3.8 can be written as

.................... (3.12) This can be rewritten as:

..(3.13)

The minimization of J with respect to K requires the minimization of

...................(3.14)
24

with respect to K. Since this last expression is non negative, the minimum occurs when it is zero, or when

...........................................(3.15)

Hence .................................(3.16)

Equation 3.16 gives optimal matrix K. Thus, the optimal control law to the quadratic optimal control problem when the performance index is given by Equation 3.3 is linear and is given by

................................. (3.17)

5equation:

............................... (3.18)

Equation 3.18 is called the reduced-matrix Riccati equation. The design steps may be stated as follows:

1. Solve Equation 3.18, the reduced-matrix Riccati equation, for the matrix P. 2. [If a positive-definite matrix P exists (certain systems may not have a positivedefinite matrix P), the system is stable, or matrix A-BK is stable.] 3. Substitute this matrix P into Equation 3.16. The resulting matrix K is the optimal matrix.

25

Note that if the matrix A-BK is stable, the present method always gives the correct result. Finally, note that if the performance index is given in terms of the output vector rather than the state vector, that is

....................................(3.19)

Then the index can be modified by using the output equation

Y=CX....................................................(3.20)

To

................................(3.21)

and the design steps presented in this part can be applied to obtain optimal matrix K.

26

CHAPTER 4 INDUCTION MOTOR

27

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Induction motors are widely used in industry, for their simple and robust structure, higher torque-to-weight ratio, higher reliability and ability to operate in hazardous environment. However, unlike DC motor, their dynamic response is sluggish and control is a challenging task, because of the inherent coupling between rotor current and air gap flux, responsible for the torque production. The control of IM in field coordinates using vector control (also known as field oriented control), leads to decoupling between the flux and torque, thus, resulting in improved dynamic torque and speed responses. Significant advances have been made in vector Control of induction motors since its inception.

A disadvantage of the conventional field-oriented controller is, the method assumes that, the magnitude of the rotor flux is regulated to a constant value. Though good dynamic current (or torque) and speed responses are obtained with vector control, the torque is only asymptotically decoupled from the flux, i.e., decoupling is obtained only in steady state, when the flux amplitude is constant. Coupling is still present, when flux is weakened in order to operate the motor at higher speed within the input voltage saturation limits, or when flux is adjusted in order to maximize power efficiency. This has led to further research on application of differential geometry, to develop the control techniques for linearization and decoupling control.

After the theory was proposed, it has drawn attention of many researchers for further development and implementation. These techniques have resulted in solutions to several problems, including feedback linearization, input-output linearization and decoupling control. Reference achieved decoupling of torque and flux by a static multivariable state-feedback controller. Decoupling is also obtained in by a static state-feedback controller using the amplitude and frequency of the supply voltage as inputs. A voltage command input-output linearization controller is

28

developed and a current command input- output linearization controller is reported. Feedback linearizing control technique is used in to design a controller for switched reluctance motor.

4.2 Mathematical Modeling of Induction Motor


4.2.1 STATE SPACE MODEL From the voltage equations of the induction motor in the synchronously rotating dq axes reference frame, the state space model with stator current and rotor flux components as state variables is:

..(4.1) The stator current which is measurable is taken as the output, which is expressed as

=[
Where,

][

] (4.2)

and

=-

I-

J,

29

= = =c I.

IP I, I( -P

J,

) J,

and C= =c =c =c = = / / , / , : Motor parameters ( given in appendix ) P : Number of pole pairs, : Mechanical rotor angular velocity, : Synchronous electrical angular velocity, , , , : d-q axis stator phase voltages, : d-q axis stator phase currents, : d-q axis rotor fluxes. /( +c / , -

), / , ,

The torque developed by the motor is:

30

= Where,

/2 .

)..(4.3)

= 3P

4.2.2 Controller Design 4.2.2.1 Linearizing Control


The conditions required for vector control [1] are: = 0 and

From (1), (4.4) Indirect vector control is obtained, when =( Or, =P + / ..(4.6) P ) ...(4.5)

When the above equation is satisfied, the dynamic behaviour of the induction motor is: .(4.7)

(4.8) .(4.9)
31

..(4.10)

The concept behind field oriented control is that rotor flux can be controlled according to (4.9), with ids acting as the control input. The q-axis current component iqs serves as an input in order to control the torque (4.10) as a product of and iqs. Even the field oriented induction motor model described by (4.7-

4.10) has nonlinearity and interaction. The speed emf term ((Or Idr) appearing in (4.8) makes the current dynamics nonlinear and speed dependent. Equations

(4.7) and (4.8) show that interaction between current components exists, in the rotating reference frame. The transition from field oriented voltage components, vds and vqs to current components as in (4.7) and (4.8) involves leakage time constants and interactions. During the flux transient period (4.9), coupling of flux and torque is apparent from (4.7) to (4.10). The interaction between current components and nonlinearity in the overall system is eliminated by using the linearization control approach. This approach consists of change of coordinates and use of nonlinear inputs to linearize the system equations. The developed torque, Te is considered as a state variable, replacing iqs in the induction motor model. Differentiating (4.10) and simplifying with substitution of(4.6), (4.8), (4.9):

.(4.11)

The nonlinearities in (4.7) and (4.11) are put together and then replaced by nonlinear functions of the form u1 and u2 respectively. With these linearizing inputs u1 and u2, (4.7) and (4.11) are then modified to (4.12) and (4.14) respectively. The Induction motor system is now transformed into two linear and decoupled subsystems: electrical and mechanical. Electrical subsystem is represented by the state equation: ..(4.12)

32

.(4.13) Mechanical subsystem is represented by the state equation: ...(4.14) ..(4.15)

The stator input voltage components

and

in terms of u1 and u2 are:

=(= [

)/ c(4.16) ].(4.17)

The transformed model given above is valid only for

0. Since the induction

motor system described by (4.12)-(4.15) is linear and decoupled, the developed torque (or the speed) and the rotor flux are independently controlled. LQR Controller is designed to improve the performance of induction motor.

33

CHAPTER 5 CONTROLLER DESIGN AND ANALYSES

34

5.1 Mechanical subsystem of induction motor:


As I have derived the equations for the mechanical subsystem of induction motor in the last chapter4, are given as: = -( =( + ) + .(5.1)

)/ J.....(5.2)

These above written equations can be shown in state space equation form like shown below: [ ]=[ ][ ]+[ ] .(5.3)

Comparing the above equation with the standard state space equation: =Ax+Bu we get, A=[ B=[ ] For the electrical subsystem: u= , y= , ]

Thus for output equation: Y=cx =[ ][ ]

Thus we get,
35

C=[

5.2 Rating & Parameters of the motor:


Let us take following ratings for our use,

3- , 50 hz, 0.75 kw, 220 v, 3A , 1440 rpm

Stator and Rotor Resistances: Rs = .6 ohms, Rr = .6 ohms

Self inductance: Ls = Lr = 0.26 H

Mutual Inductances: Lm = 0.24 H

Moment of inertia of motor and load : J = 0.0088kg.m2

Viscous friction coefficient = 0.003 N.m.s/rad.

Now substituting these values in the parameters:

C = 26, = 28.89, = 2.3075, 1/J = 113.6363, /J = 0.3409,

36

Thus matrices become: A=[ B=[ ] C=[ ] ]

5.3 Algebraic Riccati Equation (ARE)


The Algebraic Riccati Equation is:

P+PA+Q-PB

P=0.(5.4)

There are three kinds of symmetric solutions to the ARE. The stabilizing solution P+, the anti-stabilizing solution P_ , and the mixed solutions with both negative

and positive eigen value real parts. All three solution types are needed to know the complete phase portrait of the Riccati differential equations. Given a symmetric solution for the ARE, Bucy in [4] calls a solution structurally stable if it is continuously deformed and keeps the same closed-loop stability properties (inertia) under data perturbation. It can easily be shown that P+ and P_ are structurally stable. However, P_ may or may not be structurally stable depending on how the RHP and LHP eigen values of the corresponding Hamiltonian are combined. Bucy's main result in [4] relates the invertibility of Jacobian matrix J to the structural stability of the solutions to ARE.

5.3.1: Theorem 13 (Bucy)

A solution P of the ARE is structurally stable if and only if J is invertible. Structurally unstable solutions are good candidates for bifurcation. Depending on
37

the Eigen structure of the associated Hamiltonian matrix, a mixed solution may be structurally unstable. In fact from Bucy's work, it can be shown that repeated eigen values of the Hamiltonian matrix is a necessary condition for the mixed solution of the ARE to be structurally unstable. Therefore, for these solutions we can define a Riccati map such that the solution is a critical point of the Riccati map and we can further analyze the solution to decide its infinitesimal V -stability. That criterion will determine whether that particular mixed perturbation. Mixed solutions, solution bifurcates under data s, have an application in smoothing problems

when we need to estimate the state of the system using both past and future measurements. The potential instability of the smoothing solution can be justified from the fact that smoothing requires a choice (of past and future observations) and that it might not be possible to make that choice continuously under data perturbation.

5.4 Derivation of transfer function of induction motor:


The closed loop transfer function of the induction motor can be derived using these two equations (5.1-5.2):

= -(

.(5.1)

=(

)/ J..(5.2)

Taking laplace transform in both equations, we get

= -(

) =

+ (s),

(s), .(5.5)

Or,

(s) =

And,
38

={ = (Js+) (s) =

(s) =

(s)}/ J, (s), , , ..(5.6)

Dividing equation (5.6) by (5.5), we get

(5.7)

Above is the transfer function of induction motor. Now after putting the values of parameters, we get 113.6 T(s) = --------------------------------- .(5.8) s^2 + 31.54 s + 124.3

Now as we have the transfer function of the system this is nothing but the induction motor, we will concentrate on solving the Algebraic Riccati Equation (ARE): P=0.(5.4)

P+PA+Q-PB

As we know that in the ARE we have to choose the values of Q and R by hit and trial method or with the help of some advanced techniques like ANT and GA techniques. But we have the limitations of using these techniques so we will go with the hit and trial method.

After many trials I have come with these values of Q and R:

39

Q= [0.25 0; 0 .30] and R= [.3] Usually Q is a function of C and is related as:

Q=

*C

Where C is [0 1], so Q should have been: Q = [0 0; 0 1] But different systems respond differently with different values, so I had to manipulate the value of Q near about this calculated value to become Q = [0.25 0; 0 0.30].

Using the function built in MATLAB for solving continuous time ARE which is:

[KK,S,e] =lqr(A,B,Q,R) Or, [KK,S,e] =care(A,B,Q,R) Here S = Arbitrary matrix P, And KK = system gain matrix K A=[ B=[ ] C=[ ] ]

This gives the values as:

S= 0.9415 0.2704 0.2704 0.0825


40

e = -30.9973 -3.6820 As the value of K gives U as,

U = - K.x =P.x .(5.9) P.(5.10)

Thus K is given by, K=

Putting the values in (5.10) gives,

K=[

[ ] [ 0.9014]

= [3.1384 = [k1 k2]

input

Induction Motor model output

Figure 5.1 Expected Induction Motor Model In this model, the induction motor is represented in its state space model form i.e. =Ax+Bu And Y=Cx And K is also in matrix form.
41

After applying the step signal, the system response which is also known as step re is given by as follows:

Fig.5.2: Time response of the closed-loop system with proposed LQR controller

5.5.1. LQR response specifications:

Eigenvalue

Damping

Frequency

-3.68e+000 -3.10e+001

1.00e+000 1.00e+000

3.68e+000 3.10e+001

(Frequencies expressed in rad/seconds)

42

Rise Time: 0.8124 Settling Time: 1.0969 Settling Min: 0.9461 Settling Max: 0.9949 Overshoot: 0 Undershoot: 0 Peak: 0.9949 Peak Time: 1.9776

After seeing the response of induction motor using LQR technique, it is obvious that the response of the system is critically damped. This means that the i.e. damping ratio is unity which is its maximum value and it shows fastest response to reach unity which is its desired final value.

5.5: Induction motor model with unity feedback

Induction input Motor model output

Figure 5.3 Induction motor model with unity feedback

43

Step response of closed loop unity feedback system is shown below:

Fig.5.4: Time response of the closed-loop system without proposed LQR controller

5.5.1. Closed loop response specifications without using LQR:

Rise Time: 0.6564 Settling Time: 0.8884 Settling Min: 0.8696 Settling Max: 0.9138 Overshoot: 0 Undershoot: 0 Peak: 0.9138 Peak Time: 1.6162
44

From the above response curve it clear that this response is a critically damped response but there is steady state error which can be calculated as:

[ r(t)-c(t) ]

Where, r(t)=1, And c(t)= 0.9138 Thus = 0.0862.

= 0.0862* 100 = 8.62 %

45

CHAPTER 6

CONTROLLER DESIGN WITH PID

46

6.1: PID Controller

A proportionalintegralderivative controller (PID controller) is a generic control loop feedback mechanism (controller) widely used in industrial control systems a PID is the most commonly used feedback controller. A PID controller calculates an "error" value as the difference between a measured process variable and a desired set point. The controller attempts to minimize the error by adjusting the process control inputs. The PID controller calculation (algorithm) involves three separate constant parameters, and is accordingly sometimes called three-term control: the proportional, the integral and derivative values, denoted P, I, and D. Heuristically, these values can be interpreted in terms of time: P depends on the present error, I on the accumulation of past errors, and D is a prediction of future errors, based on current rate of change.[1] The weighted sum of these three actions is used to adjust the process via a control element such as the position of a control valve, or the power supplied to a heating element. In the absence of knowledge of the underlying process, a PID controller has historically been considered to be the best controller.[2] By tuning the three parameters in the PID controller algorithm, the controller can provide control action designed for specific process requirements. The response of the controller can be described in terms of the responsiveness of the controller to an error, the degree to which the controller overshoots the set point and the degree of system oscillation. Note that the use of the PID algorithm for control does not guarantee optimal control of the system or system stability. Some applications may require using only one or two actions to provide the appropriate system control. This is achieved by setting the other parameters to zero. A PID controller will be called a PI, PD, P or I controller in the absence of the respective control actions. PI controllers are fairly common, since derivative action
47

is sensitive to measurement noise, whereas the absence of an integral term may prevent the system from reaching its target value due to the control action.

Figure 6.1: PID controller

Proportional term: The proportional term produces an output value that is proportional to the current error value. The proportional response can be adjusted by multiplying the error by a constant Kp, called the proportional gain constant. The proportional term is given by:

A high proportional gain results in a large change in the output for a given change in the error. If the proportional gain is too high, the system can become unstable (see the section on loop tuning). In contrast, a small gain results in a small output response to a large input error, and a less responsive or less sensitive controller. If the proportional gain is too low, the control action may be too small when

48

responding to system disturbances. Tuning theory and industrial practice indicate that the proportional term should contribute the bulk of the output change. Droop Because a non-zero error is required to drive the controller, a pure proportional controller generally operates with a steady-state error, referred to as droop.[note 1] Droop is proportional to the process gain and inversely proportional to proportional gain. Droop may be mitigated by adding a compensating bias term to the setpoint or output, or corrected by adding an integral term. Integral term: The contribution from the integral term is proportional to both the magnitude of the error and the duration of the error. The integral in a PID controller is the sum of the instantaneous error over time and gives the accumulated offset that should have been corrected previously. The accumulated error is then multiplied by the integral gain ( ) and added to the controller output.

The integral term is given by:

The integral term accelerates the movement of the process towards setpoint and eliminates the residual steady-state error that occurs with a pure proportional controller. However, since the integral term responds to accumulated errors from the past, it can cause the present value to overshoot the setpoint value (see the section on loop tuning). Derivative term: The derivative of the process error is calculated by determining the slope of the error over time and multiplying this rate of change by the derivative gain . The
49

magnitude of the contribution of the derivative term to the overall control action is termed the derivative gain, .

The derivative term is given by:

The derivative term slows the rate of change of the controller output. Derivative control is used to reduce the magnitude of the overshoot produced by the integral component and improve the combined controller-process stability. However, the derivative term slows the transient response of the controller. Also, differentiation of a signal amplifies noise and thus this term in the controller is highly sensitive to noise in the error term, and can cause a process to become unstable if the noise and the derivative gain are sufficiently large. Hence an approximation to a differentiator with a limited bandwidth is more commonly used. Such a circuit is known as a phase-lead compensator.

6.2: Step response of induction motor when applied with PID controller:
For calculating the step response we need to tune PID parameters that is setting P,I and D gains. According to our requirements, I have chosen some specifications as follows: Kp = 5 Ki = 150 Kd = .5

50

Fig.6.2: Time response of the closed-loop system with PID controller

Rise Time: 0.0991 Settling Time: 2.5936 Settling Min: 0.6993 Settling Max: 1.4184 Overshoot: 41.8368 Undershoot: 0 Peak: 1.4184 Peak Time: 0.2303

51

CHAPTER 7

COMPARISON RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

52

7.1: Comparing graphs of all the three responses:

Fig.7.1: Time response comparison between closed loop, proposed LQR and PID controller

53

Fig.7.2: Impulse response comparison between proposed LQR and PID controller

7.2: Comparison table:

Parameters Rise Time(sec) Settling time(sec) Settling Min(sec) Settling Max(sec)

LQR 0.8124 1.0969 0.9461 0.9949

PID 0.0991 2.5936 0.6993 1.4184


54

Overshoot Undershoot Peak Peak time(sec)

0 0 0.9949 1.9776

41.8368 0 1.4184 0.2303

7.3: Result:
From the above graphs and tables it is clear that the Fig.5.4 demonstrates the stable but the error prone behaviour of the closed loop induction motor. The time response of the closed loop system with the simulated PID controller and LQR controller are shown in Fig.5.2 and Fig.6.2 respectively. In order to investigate and evaluation the performance of theses controllers easily, the step response and the impulse response of closed-loop system with both controllers are shown in Fig.7.1 and 7.2 respectively. From figures 5.2 and 6.2 it can be realized that both of these controllers are suitable to utilize to control the induction motor due to both can give almost zero steady-state error, fast response and no overshoots at the transient response. However, the results has proven that the LQR method acts better than the PID controller in terms of its faster response.

7.4: Conclusion
In this study, based on the mathematical model of induction motor, two controllers, PID and LQR are designed and compared to investigate a more appropriate control method. The simulation results demonstrate that both of these controllers are effective and suitable for improving the time domain characteristics of system response, such as settling time and overshoots. According to the results, LQR method gives the better performance compared to PID controller. However, as a method, the determination of PID parameters are easier to obtain using LQR method.

55

REFERENCES

56

[1] Dawson, D.M., Hu, J., Burg, T.C., Nonlinear Control of Eiectric Machinery, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1998 [2] Ho, E.Y.Y, Sen, P.C., "Decouplhg Control of Induction Motor Drives", IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 3 5, no. 2, pp. 25 3 - 262, 1988. [3] W. Leonhard, Control of Electrical Drives, Springer Verag Berlin, 1990. [4] D. I. Kim, I. J. Ha and M. S. Ko, "Control of induction motors via feedback linearization with input-output decoupling," Int. Journal of Control, 51 (4), 1990, pp. 863-883. [5] A. Isidori, A. J. Krener, C. Gori-Giorgi, and S. Monaco, "Nonlinear decoupling via feedback: A differential-geometric approach," IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, vol. 26, 1981, pp. 331-345. [6] T. J. Tarn, A. K. Bejczy, A. Isidori and Y. Chen, "Nonlinear feedback in robot arm control," Proceedings of 23 Conference on Decision and Control, December 1984, pp.736-751. [7] Z. Krzeminski, "Nonlinear control of induction motor," IFAC 10t World Congress on Automatic Control, vol. 3, Munich, 1987, pp. 349-354. [8] A. De Luca, and G. Ulivi, "Design of exact nonlinear controller for induction motors," IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, 34 (12), Dec. 1989, pp 1304-1307. [9] R. Marino, S. Peresada, and P. Valigi, "Adaptive input-output linearizing control of induction motors," IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, vol. 38, no. 2, 1993, pp. 208-221. [10] M. Illic'-Spong, R. Marino, S. M. Peresada and D. G. Taylor, "Feedback linearizing control of switched reluctance motors," IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, vol. 32, no. 5, May 1987, pp. 371-379. [11] W. H Wonham, "On pole assignment in multi input controllable linear systems," IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, vol. 12, December 1967, pp. 660665. [I2] H. W. Smith and E. J. Davison, "Design of industrial regulators", Proc. IEE,vol. 119, no. 8, August 1972, pp. 1210-1216. [13]. Fatima Gurbuz, Eyup Akpinar, Stability Analysis of a closed-loop control for a Pulse Width Modulated DC Motor Drive", Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering, vol. 10, No.3, 2002.

57

[14]. Bimal K. Bose," Modern Power Electronics & ACDrives, Pearson Education, 2002. [15]. Katsuhiko Ogata, Modern Control Engineering, Prentice-Hall of India Pvt. Ltd, 2000. [16]. Design and Analysis of Control Systems, Arthur G.O. Mutambara, CRC Press, London, 1999. [17]. Linear Control Systems Engineering, Morris Driels, McGraw Hill international edition, 1995. [18]. Modern Control Design with Matlab and Simulink, Ashish Tewari, John Wiley and Sons Ltd., 2002. [19]. The Induction Motor Herbert Vicker [20]. Generalized Theory of AC Machinery P.S.Bimbhara

58

APPENDICES

59

Appendix A.
1: abc to dq0 transformation Vd= 2/3 (Va*sinwt + Vb*sin(wt-2pi/3) + Vc*sin(wt+2pi/3) Vq= 2/3 (Va*coswt + Vb*cos(wt-2pi/3) + Vc*cos(wt+2pi/3) V0= 1/3 (Va + Vb + Vc )

Figure (i.1): Simulation Model for abc to dq0 transformation

60

2. dq0 to abc transformation Va= Vd*sinwt + Vq*cos(wt) + Vo Vb= Vd*sin(wt-2pi/3) + Vq*cos(wt-2pi/3) + Vo Vc= Vd*sin(wt+2pi/3) + Vq*cos(wt+2pi/3) + Vo

Figure (i.2): Simulation Model for dq0 to abc transformation

61

Appendix B.

NOMENCLATURE

62

63

You might also like