Journal of Engineering Research, 2023, 20(2),163-172

Improved ADRC-Based Integral Flux Observer for IPMSM Sensorless

Control
Sadiq Ur Rahman1*, Mahmood Ul Hassan 2, Yasir Iqbal 3, Muhammad Fahad 4
1 School of Electrical and Information Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China
2 Foshan Noah Electrical Co., Ltd, Chancheng, Foshan, Guangdong, China.

Key Focus: Proposed Flux Observer

Offset Error Reduction Goal: Eliminate DC Offset
Flux Stability Result: Accurate Flux Estimate
900 Actual speed id = 0
PI
Speed (RPM)

Estimated speed
600 2r/2s PWM

Zero DC-offset Injected 0.11 v DC-offset
 control
PI PI
300
vα vβ
0 iq id ˆ
0.0 0.5 1.0
Time(s)
1.5 2.0 ˆ
ya iα ia
0.2
yb 2s/2r 3s/2s
yab(wb)

0.1
iβ ib
0.0 ˆ Improved
AD RC -
-0.1
Based IPM SM
-0.2
Zero DC-offset 0.11 DC-offset added
̂ Integral Flux
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 Observer
Time(s)

ABSTRACT: An interior Permanent magnet synchronous motor (IPMSM) drive employing sensorless control
strategies offers to simplify the design of servo systems, reduce costs, and improve reliability, thus attracting
significant research attention from both academic and industrial sectors for decades. The straightforward
configuration and decreased application prerequisites make model-based sensorless control approaches highly
popular. Notably, the conventional first-order integrator flux observer technique exhibits remarkable robustness
owing to its minimal reliance on motor parameters. However, the conventional first-order integrator experiences a
DC drift and harmonics in the estimated rotor flux as a result of non-ideal factors, such as detection errors, integral
initial value, converter nonlinearities, and parameter mismatches. In this paper, an improved ADRC-based integral
flux observer capable of eliminating drift is developed to achieve high-accuracy flux estimation. The efficiency of the
proposed technique in eliminating the drift from the estimated flux, as evidenced by theoretical analysis, has no
detrimental effect on the amplitude or phase angle of the fundamental waveform. The validity of the proposed
improved ADRC-based integral flux observer is verified by sensorless vector control of a 7.5 [kW] three-phase IPMSM
motor via extensive numerical simulation.
Keywords: Active Disturbance Rejection Control (ADRC); DC drift; Phase shift; conventional first-order integrator
flux observer.
ُّ
َّ ‫تدفق تكامل ُم‬
‫الخال‬
‫ي‬ ‫لتحكم‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ابا‬‫ر‬ ‫االضط‬ ‫رفض‬ ‫ف‬
‫ي‬ ‫النشط‬ ‫التحكم‬ ‫منهجية‬ ‫عل‬ ‫يعتمد‬ ‫ن‬‫حس‬ ‫ي‬ ‫مراقب‬
‫الداخل‬
‫ي‬ ‫من الحساسات يف المحرك المتامن ذو المغناطيس الدائم‬
‫ محمد فهد‬،‫ يارس اقبال‬،‫ محمود الحسن‬،*‫صديق الرحمن‬
ً ً ّ ُ
‫مبتكرا لتبسيط تصميم أنظمة‬ ‫خيارا‬ ‫( مع استاتيجيات تحكم خالية من المستشعرات‬IPMSM) ‫داخل‬ ‫ي‬ ‫مغناطيس دائم‬
‫ي‬ ‫ يعد استخدام محرك تز ي‬:‫الملخص‬
‫امن‬
‫يتمت هذا النوع من المحركات‬ ‫ ر‬.‫حظ هذا المجال باهتمام واسع من األوساط األكاديمية والصناعية عل مدى عقود‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ وقد‬.‫ وتعزيز الموثوقية‬،‫ وخفض التكاليف‬،‫الستفو‬
‫ر‬
ُ ً ً ً
‫تظهر تقنية مراقبة‬. ‫شائعا وفعال‬ ‫خيارا‬ ‫ مما يجعل أساليب التحكم الخالية من المستشعرات المعتمدة عل النماذج‬،‫بتصميم بسيط ومتطلبات تشغيل منخفضة‬
‫ تواجه هذه التقنية تحديات تتمثل‬،‫ ومع ذلك‬.‫المكامل التقليدي من الدرجة األول كفاءة عالية بسبب اعتمادها المحدود عل معلمات المحرك‬ ُ ‫التدفق باستخدام‬
‫ وعدم خطية‬،‫ والقيم األولية للتكامل‬،‫ مثل أخطاء القياس‬،‫غت مثالية‬ ُ
‫( واضطرابات يف التدفق الدوار المقدر نتيجة عوامل ر‬DC drift) ‫يف حدوث انحراف مستمر‬
، (ADRC) ‫النسن المتقدم‬ ‫التحكم‬ ‫تقنية‬ ‫عل‬ ‫يعتمد‬ ‫ن‬ ّ
‫محس‬ ‫تكامل‬ ‫ تقدم هذه الدراسة مراقب تدفق‬،‫لمعالجة هذه التحديات‬. ‫ وعدم توافق المعلمات‬،‫المحوالت‬
‫ي‬ ‫ي‬
‫التأثت عل سعة‬
‫ر‬ ‫دون‬ ‫اف‬
‫ر‬ ‫االنح‬ ‫من‬ ‫التخلص‬ ‫ف‬‫ي‬ ‫حة‬‫المقت‬ ‫التقنية‬ ‫كفاءة‬ ‫ أظهرت التحليالت النظرية‬.‫حيث تم تطويره إلزالة االنحراف وتحقيق تقدير دقيق للتدفق‬
7.5 ‫ثالث األطوار بقدرة‬
‫ي‬ ‫امن‬
‫ي‬ ‫ز‬‫ت‬ ‫محرك‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ات‬‫ر‬ ‫المستشع‬ ‫من‬ ‫الخال‬
‫ي‬ ‫االتجاه‬
‫ي‬ ‫ وتم اختبار فعالية هذا النظام من خالل التحكم‬.‫الموجة األساسية أو زاوية طورها‬
.‫ باستخدام محاكاة رقمية دقيقة تؤكد جدوى الحل المقدم‬،‫كيلوواط‬
.‫ التحكم يف رفض االضطرابات النشطة انحراف التيار المستمر; انزياح الطور; مراقب التدفق التقليدي بتكامل من الرتبة األول‬:‫الكلمات المفتاحية‬

Corresponding author's e-mail: [email protected]

DOI:10.53540/tjer.vol.20iss2pp163-172
Journal of Engineering Research, 2023, 20(2),163-172

1. INTRODUCTION cumulative errors, noise, and time delays, which can lead
to inaccuracies in the feedback loop and potentially
compromise the accuracy of the speed and flux estimator
An IPMSM is widely used across various industrial sectors
over time.
due to its exceptionally high torque density and superior
Sadiq Ur Rahman et al. (2023) proposed two different
efficiency. To enhance efficacy in IPMSM speed drive
DC_{off} compensators: a PI correction method and an
systems, traditionally, a high-resolution mechanical
ADRC-based DC_{off} compensator, both designed for
sensor, such as a pulse encoder, is employed on the rotor
sensorless PMSM motor drives equipped with wide-speed
shaft to accurately determine the rotor's position.
range flux linkage observers. Both feedback
However, integrating mechanical sensors increases costs
compensators effectively remove the DC_{off} from the
and reduces reliability in speed drive systems. Therefore,
system. However, both depend heavily on the accuracy of
in many applications, sensorless control is often
the current flux linkage observer's estimation of the rotor
necessary for IPMSMs to improve reliability, eliminate
angle position.
sensor wiring, reduce the motor's size and expenses, and
In recent years, many new control strategies such as
achieve other related objectives (Wang et al., 2023;
Active Disturbance Rejection Control (ADRC), Extended
Woldegiorgis et al., 2023; Xiao et al., 2021).
State Observer (ESO) and Nonlinear Extended State
In recent decades, numerous back EMF observers
Observer (NESO) have achieved far beyond all existing
have been developed and utilized in commercial
linear optimal controllers. For instance, Han, Gao, and
applications. Nevertheless, the back EMF signal
Dai (2009) presented a more robust ADRC method to
deteriorates at low motor speeds, rendering these
improve fault tolerance against external disturbances.
approaches ineffective in the low-speed range (Feng, Lai,
Additionally, Gao et al. Then, Tang et al. (2024) proposed
& Mukherjee, 2017). Conversely, the flux estimator,
a more feasible approach to ESOs while taking system
which essentially integrates back EMF, can adeptly
uncertainties into account by giving conservative
circumvent this issue due to its speed-independent
estimates. Zhang and his group (2011) have also shown
amplitude. Despite this, a simple integrator is affected by
that NESO outperforms existing nonlinear control
drift problems since sensors consistently have a DC offset
techniques by large margins, in particular for high-order
(DC_{off} (Xu et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2018; Jiang et al.,
dynamics modelling and disturbance level-varied
2019). One common approach is to replace the pure
robustness.
integrator with a low-pass filter, which can minimize the
In the domain of flux linkage observers, the ADRC
DC offset from the flux linkage observer. However, the
feedback loop offers several advantages over conventional
low-pass filter has its limitations. When the motor speed
proportional-integral (PI) compensation loops. ADRC
is close to or below the filter's cutoff frequency, the
can handle a wider range of system dynamics and external
effectiveness of the low-pass filter significantly
disturbances without requiring accurate mathematical
diminishes, leading to inaccurate flux estimation and
models, making the control algorithm more robust,
reduced performance in sensorless control systems (Kim
adaptive, and fault-tolerant compared to standard PID
et al., 2020; Li, Yang, & Wu, 2013).
controllers. GAO (2003) indicated that ADRC effectively
Moreover, a flux observer based on SOIFO-FLL is
coordinates system uncertainties and external
suggested in (Kim et al., 2020; Li, Yang, & Wu, 2013), but
disturbances, achieving more accurate force flux
it magnifies the challenges concerning harmonics and
estimation compared to PI controllers. This technique is
DC_{off}. Theoretical analysis indicates that its capability
particularly beneficial for the sensorless control of
to eliminate DC is limited. A novel idea is introduced by
Interior Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motors
Xu, Wang, Liu, and Blaabjerg (2019) for a third-order
(IPMSMs), where model variations and environmental
generalized integrator flux observer to enhance the
perturbations are prevalent.
capability of eliminating flux drift and reducing high-
In this paper, an improved integrator is applied to
order harmonics in the estimated flux. Nonetheless, this
first-order ADRC to compensate for DC drifts in flux
approach is relatively complex to implement. A
estimation during the sensorless control of IPMSMs. The
frequency-adaptive observer is suggested by Marchesoni,
study verifies, both numerically and theoretically, that
Passalacqua, Vaccaro, Calvini, and Venturini (2020).
this method significantly reduces drift by incorporating a
Both techniques can be considered adaptive high-order
first-order ADRC feedback loop. The proposed method
filters, relying on speed estimation, which negatively
demonstrates advantages over standard rotor flux
impacts performance. Wei Xu et al. (2019) proposed an
estimators, particularly in saturation regions and under
enhanced rotor flux observer that incorporates a self-
disturbances where commonly used methods fail to
adaptive band-pass filter (SABPF) to attenuate high-
perform effectively. Consequently, the precision of
frequency components and drift from the estimated rotor
calculated flux, speed, and rotor position is greatly
flux linkage. However, the inclusion of SABPF results in
enhanced. The efficacy of the suggested flux observer is
angle shifts that necessitate the adaptation of rotor speed
validated through numerical simulation results. This
for precise flux angle estimation. This process of speed
work builds upon recent advancements in ADRC, ESO,
calculation, typically the final stage, is susceptible to
and NESO, incorporating their strengths while

164
Journal of Engineering Research, 2023, 20(2),163-172

addressing their limitations in practical applications to within a loop can introduce oscillation. The bode plot
IPMSMs. illustrating the characteristics of a pure integrator is
2. ROTOR FLUX ESTIMATION PROBLEM depicted in Figure 1.

In the α-β stationary coordinate frame, the estimation of

stator flux involves integrating the back EMF signal ( ess )
given by a mathematical expression (Xu et al., 2019):

t t
y ss =  ( uss − rsc iss ) =  ess (1)
0 0

where uss are stator voltage, rsc stator resistance, and

iss stator current, ess back-EMF, and yss is estimated
stator flux linkage?
The frequency response of the integrator of equation (1)
in the Laplace domain is as follows:

y ss ( s) 1 Figure 1. Bode plot of pure integrator.

= (2)
ess ( s ) s As per Figure 1, the existence of DC_{off} disrupts the
phase response of the pure integrator, leading to
1 inaccuracies in signal integration, especially at lower
where is the integral in the Laplace transform? The
s frequencies. This departure from the desired -90-degree
estimated rotor flux linkage in the α-β coordinate frame is phase response indicates a decline in the performance of
given by: the integrator, ultimately affecting its capability to
t  eradicate steady-state error and uphold stability in

0

y ra =  ( usa − rsc isa )  − Lq isa
 

control systems efficiently. To address these problems, a
frequently employed approach involves substituting the
(3) pure integrator with a first-order low-pass (LP) filter. The
t  calculated stator flux by the LP filter can be stated as:

0
(
y rb =  usb − rsc isb  − Lq isb


)
y ss ( s ) 1
= (5)
where yra , yrb are the estimated rotor flux linkage in ess ( s) s + a
the α and β axes, respectively? usa , usb Are the stator Where a is a pole. The phase shift and the gain of (5) is
voltages in the α and β axes, respectively? rsc Represents given as:
 
the stator resistance. isa And isb are the stator currents in  = − tan −1  est  (6)
 a 
the α and β axes, respectively. Lq Denotes the quadrature-
 y sp  1
axis inductance. A=   = (7)
 ess   + a2
2
^
The rotor position angle,  est , can then be estimated est

using the arctangent function, which relates the α and β where est is an estimated synchronous angular
components of the rotor flux linkage: frequency? Figure 2 displays the phase lag ysp as
determined by the LPF, as well as the phase lag yss as
^ y rb
 est = arctan (4) calculated by the integrator. The phase delay yss equates
y ra
The derivation of the stator flux linkage vector entails the  1
to , with a gain of . However, it should be noted
integration of the EMF, as depicted in equation (1). 2 est
However, two primary challenges arise: firstly, any offsets 
in voltage or current measurements result in substantial that the phase delay of the LP filter is not , nor is the
drifts in the calculated stator flux linkage, and secondly, 2
initializing the simple integrator with an incorrect value 1
gain . As a result of this discrepancy, an error will
(e.g., Initial rotor phase) introduces a DC_{off} at the est
output of the integrator. The presence of a DC component
arise due to the impact of the LP filter. This error becomes

165
Journal of Engineering Research, 2023, 20(2),163-172

more pronounced when the IPMSM frequency falls below The quality factor q determines the bandwidth and
the corner frequency of the LP filter. The LP filter in (4) selectivity of the filter. The bandwidth of the filter is
must possess an extremely low cutting frequency to rectify inversely proportional to the quality factor:
this error. Nevertheless, the drift issue persists due to the
LP filter's substantial time constant. In order to achieve r
an accurate estimation of the stator flux, it is imperative  =
q
 (12)
that the phase delay and gain of ysp in (5) are set at 
2 Q= r =q

1
and , respectively.
est A higher q factor in a SABPF filter results in a
b narrower bandwidth, enhancing selectivity and better
rejecting unwanted frequencies. Conversely, a lower q
ess factor broadens the bandwidth, reducing selectivity and
allowing more frequencies to pass. The filter's selectivity
is defined by its ability to sharply distinguish between
o desired and undesired frequencies. This is often
 a
1
measured by the filter's Q-factor. Higher Q means higher
y sp selectivity.
y ss The SABPF filter's ability to attenuate unwanted
frequencies is also influenced by q . The SABPF filter's
gain at a given frequency  is:
Figure. 2. Vector diagram of pure integrator and LP filter.
qr 
The Self-Adaptive Band-Pass Filter (SABPF) is G ( j) = (13)
( )
2
+ ( qr )
2 2 2
designed to remove the DC component and high- − r
frequency harmonics from the estimated rotor flux
linkage. The SABPF is designed using the following
transfer function [9]: For effective attenuation of unwanted frequencies, q
vˆ qr s should be chosen such that the response is minimized at
G (s) = = 2 (8)
those frequencies. Variations in r or q can lead to
v s + qr s + 2r
deviations in the filter's frequency response, affecting its
ability to accurately filter the desired signal components.
where v is the input of the SABPF, v̂ is the output of the
From Equation (10), the phase shift may be generated due
SABPF, q is the quality factor, and r is the self-adaptive to the mismatch of self-adaptive resonant angular
resonance angular frequency? The amplitude-frequency frequency and estimated rotor angular frequency.
characteristic of the SABPF is given by: Therefore, the phase shift can be compensated by
qr  Equation (14), obtain the estimated rotor position as
G ( ) = (9) follows:
( )
2
+ ( qr )
2 2 2
− r  2 r − 2 
ˆ = ˆ − tan −1   (14)
 qr  
where  is the rotor angular speed? The phase-
frequency characteristic of the SABPF is: The performance of the SABPF is highly sensitive to
 2 − 2  the accurate tuning of the resonance angular frequency
G ( ) = tan −1  r  (10)
Variations r and the quality factor q . A slight mismatch
 qr  
can result in significant errors and the estimated rotor
The SABPF is applied to the output of the conventional position ˆ will be incorrect, leading to rotor position and
flux observer: speed errors.
qr s In this work, to address this issue, a specialized Active
yˆ ra = G ( s ) .y ra = y ra Disturbance Rejection Control (ADRC) feedback
s + qr s + 2r
2
(11) approach will be incorporated to counterbalance the
qr s DC_{off} and establish stability in the estimation of the
yˆ rb = G ( s ) .y rb = y rb
s 2 + qr s + 2r stator flux.
The transfer function of the disturbance and controller
observer of ADRC is given by:

166
Journal of Engineering Research, 2023, 20(2),163-172

0 lower frequency ranges, the phase tends asymptotically

GD ( s ) = towards zero degrees, indicative of minimal phase
s + 0
(15) deviation. As frequency escalates, the phase shift
c s + 1
Gc ( s ) = progressively trends towards more negative values,
s + c culminating at -180 degrees for stable systems operating
where, 0 , c are a disturbance and controller observer. at high frequencies. Notably, at 1000 Hz, the phase plot
The composite transfer function of the feedback ADRC attains a phase shift of precisely -180 degrees, mirroring
system, derived from the product of the controller and the behaviour of a pure integrator. Concurrently, the
disturbance observer transfer functions, is presented as magnitude plot registers a descent to -100 dB at this
follows: frequency, reflecting pronounced attenuation in the input
0 c s + 1 signal.
Gadrc ( s ) = . (16)
s + 0 s + c
A first-order ADRC centred on an Extended State
The closed-loop transfer function with ADRC is obtained Observer (ESO) and a feedback control law. The observer
by connecting the ADRC system in feedback with the is designed to estimate the system state, the stator flux,
transfer function of the pure integrator with the DC_{off}. and the combined disturbance, i.e., the DC_{off}. The
Mathematically, it’s represented as:
ESO is mathematically represented as follows:

Gadrc ( s ) .Gint ( s )
( )
•
G (s) = (17) z^1 = z^2 + L1 y − z^1
1 + Gadrc ( s ) .Gint ( s ) (18)
( )
•
z^2 = L2 y − z^1
where Gint ( s ) is the transfer function of the integrator
with the DC_{off}? In the absence of ADRC, system where z^1 represents the estimated stator flux, z^2
stability is contingent solely upon the dynamics of the includes the overall estimated disturbance, and y or
integrator with the DC_{off}. The presence of DC_{off} corresponds to the measured stator flux. The observer's
can potentially introduce additional poles in the right-half gains L1 and L2 are carefully adjusted in order to comply
plane, thereby impacting system stability. The ADRC
methodology introduces supplementary dynamics with an observer bandwidth, guaranteeing a timely and
through its controller and disturbance observer. By precise measurement of the flux and disturbances. The
integrating feedback from the disturbance observer, feedback control mechanism of the ADRC utilizes the
ADRC aims to alleviate the disruptive effects of estimation of disturbances to produce a control action
disturbances, including DC_{off}, on system ( ucmp ) that effectively nullifies the direct current offset,
performance. Operating in real-time, the ADRC system thus enhancing the estimation of stator flux. The control
dynamically adjusts system response to effectively law can be concisely stated as follows:
mitigate disturbances, consequently enhancing both
stability and overall performance.
1
ucmp = − ^ z^2
b
( ) (19)

^
where b , is the input gain, preset to unity. This control
input is then used to adjust the back electromotive force
(EMF), directly impacting the stator flux estimation by
removing the unwanted DC_{off}. By incorporating this
control measure into the voltage model of the IPMSM
within the feedback loop, to calculate the adjusted rotor
flux ( yra , yrb ):
t 
y ra =  ( usa − rsc isa ) − (ucmp )  − Lq isa

 
0  (20)
 t 
( )
y rb =  usb − rsc isb − (ucmp )  − Lq isb
 
0 

Utilizing the feedback ADRC-based strategy has

Figure 3. Bode plot of Integral flux observer with ADRC significantly enhanced the drift issue. It has resulted in
feedback loop. accurately estimating the stator flux across a wide range
of speeds. In a traditional flux observer, the rotor position
As per Figure 3, the phase plot elucidates the system's can solely be acquired through equation (4). However,
phase shift characteristics across varying frequencies. At motor control also necessitates knowledge of the rotor

167
Journal of Engineering Research, 2023, 20(2),163-172

speed. When differentiation is applied to generate the Table 1. Parameters of IPMSM and ADRC-controller.
rotor speed, it may produce high-order harmonics in the Parameter Value
projected rotor speed. Consequently, PLL is employed to Nominal speed 3.0e3 RPM
acquire both the projected rotor position and speed. The STATOR D-AXIS INDUCTANCE 0.000348H
schematic overview of the feedback ADRC and integral Stator phase resistance 0.1 Ω
flux observer with PLL is depicted in Figure 4. Pole pairs 3
isα Stator q-axis inductance 0.000558 H
rsc Lq sin(ˆ)
Rated power 7500 W
usα esa 1 y sα y rα
 
1 ̂ 1 ˆ
s

ki ADRC observer bandwidth 20 rad/s
 s s
( ) ADRC controller bandwidth 10 rad/s
2
ADRC (y rα ) + y rb
2
kp
usb esb 1 y sb y rb



3.1 Simulated Data Analysis



isb
s
rsc Lq cos(ˆ)
ADRC
Figure 6 presents the simulation outcomes with respect to
PLL
the calculated stator flux linkage utilizing a traditional
flux observer at a speed of 700 r/min in the absence of any
Figure. 4. Structure diagram of enhanced flux observer with ADRC load.
for DC_{off} compensation loop. Figure 6 (a) illustrates that without any DC_{off}, the
conventional flux observer effectively estimates the stator
3. SIMULATION RESULTS flux with no observable drift phenomenon. However, in
Figure 6(b), when a 0.1 V DC_{off} is injected into the
The diagram shown in Figure 5 illustrates the sensorless stator voltage on the alpha-axis, as is common in practical
control system based on the proposed method. The scenarios due to the presence of a DC_{off} in the
foundational control method used is the FOC scheme. measured motor back EMF, the pure integrator can be
Initially, the sampled voltage and current undergo αβ driven into saturation, even with a small DC_{off}.
transformation to derive the αβ axis current and voltage Figure 7 depicts the computer simulation results for
components. Subsequently, the calculated angular speed the estimated speed and rotor position using a
and motor rotor position are determined utilizing the conventional flux observer at 700 (r/min) under no-load
proposed methodology. Concurrently, the calculated conditions. Figure 7(a) shows the injected DC_{off},
angular speed is integrated into the angular speed loop, actual rotor speed, estimated rotor speed, and speed
while the estimated motor rotor position facilitates the estimation error in RPM. Figure 7(b) displays the injected
execution of dq transformation and inverse Park DC_{off}, actual angle, estimated angle, and angle
transform operations. Additionally, Table 1 enumerates estimation error in degrees. As observed from Figure 7,
the parameters pertinent to the tested motor. when there is no DC_{off}, the conventional flux observer
effectively estimates rotor speed and position with a
i*d = 0 steady-state error around zero. However, when a
PI DC_{off} is injected at 1.505 seconds, oscillations in the
2r/2s PWM
*
 control estimated speed and rotor angle are observed, which can
PI PI ultimately drive the pure integrator into saturation.
id ^ va vb
iq ^  Figure 8 depicts the simulation results for the
 estimated stator flux linkage using a proposed flux
ia ia
observer at 700 r/min under no-load conditions. Figure
2s/2r ib 3s/2s ib 8(a) illustrates that without any DC_{off}, the proposed
flux observer effectively estimates the stator flux with no

^ y ra observable drift phenomenon. However, in Figure 8(b),
Propose d some drift is observed when a 0.2 V DC_{off} is added to
PLL y rb flux Motor
^ observer the stator voltage on the alpha-axis. Nevertheless, due to
the ADRC feedback loop, the drift phenomenon is
effectively eliminated.
Figure 5. Diagram illustrating sensorless control Figure 9 illustrates simulation results for speed and
strategy utilizing proposed flux observer. rotor position estimation using an ADRC algorithm with
DC_{off} compensation in the flux observer at 700 r/min
under no-load conditions. Figure 9(a) shows injected
DC_{off}, actual and estimated rotor speed, and speed
estimation error in RPM. Figure 9(b) displays the injected
DC_{off}, actual and estimated angle, and angle
estimation error in degrees.

168
Journal of Engineering Research, 2023, 20(2),163-172

Rotor_flux α Rotor_flux β Rotor_flux α Rotor_flux β

0.10 0.15

0.10
0.05

0.05
Wb

Wb
0.00

0.00

−0.05
−0.05

−0.10 −0.10
1.00 1.05 1.10 1.5 1.6 1.7
Time(s) Time(s)
(a) Estimated rotor flux waveform,when no DC-offset is injected into (b) Estimated rotor flux waveform,when 0.1V DC-offset is injected into
the stator voltage signal the stator voltage signal on a-axis

Figure 6. Simulation results of stator flux estimation with conventional flux observer at 700 r/min under no-load conditions.

800
Injected DC offset
1750 Speed estimation error
Actual rotor speed
Estimated rotor speed 600
0.10
1400

Speed(RPM)
400
Speed(RPM)

1050
Voltage(v)

0.05 200
700
0
350

0.00 −200
0
1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Time(s) Time(s)
Time(s) (a)

Injected DC offset
Actual angle
40 Angle estimation error
Estimated angle
0.10 360
20
Angle(degree)

Angle(degree)

270
0
Voltage(v)

0.05
180 −20

90 −40

0.00 −60
0
1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
1.90 1.92 1.94 1.96 1.98 2.00 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Time(s)
Time(s) Time(s)
(b)

Figure 7. Simulation results of estimated speed and rotor position using conventional flux observer at 700 r/min without load
condition.

rotor_flux α rotor_flux β rotor_flux α rotor_flux β

0.10 0.10

0.05 0.05
Wb

0.00
Wb

0.00

−0.05 −0.05

−0.10 −0.10
1.50 1.55 1.60 1.65 1.70 2.00 2.02 2.04 2.06 2.08 2.10 2.12 2.14
Time(s) Time(s)
(a) Dynamic waveform of rotor flux When the 0.2 v Dc-offset injected at stator voltage (b) Steady state waveform of rotor flux When the 0.2 v Dc-offset injected at stator voltage
signal on a−axis signal on a−axis

169
Journal of Engineering Research, 2023, 20(2),163-172

Figure 8. Simulation findings of stator flux estimation with the proposed observer at 700 r/min under no-load conditions.

800 100
Injected DC offset Actual rotor speed Speed estimation error
Estimated rotor speed 75
0.2
50

Speed(RPM)

Speed(RPM)
Voltage(v)

700 25

0.1 0

−25
600 −50
0.0
−75
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Time(s) Time(s) Time(s)
(a)

Actual angle 9 Angle estimation error

Injected DC offset
Estimated angle
0.2 360 6

Angle(degree)
Voltage(v)

270
Angle(degree)

0
0.1
180
−3

90 −6
0.0 −9
0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Time(s) Time(s) Time(s) (b)

Figure 9. Simulation results of speed and rotor position estimation with First-Order ADRC and DC_{off} compensation.

Actual rotor speed Actual angle 60 Stator current(Ia)

Estimated rotor speed Estimated angle
3000 360 Stator current(Ib)
40
Stator current (A)

270 20
Angle (degree)
Speed(RPM)

2500
0
180
−20
2000
90 −40

1500 −60
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 1.96 1.98 2.00 2.02 2.04 2.06 2.08 2.10 2.12 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time(s) Time(s) Time(s)

3 40
8 Speed estimation error Angle estimation error
2
20
4
1
Stator current (A)
Angle (degree)
Speed(RPM)

0 0 0

−1
−4 −20
−2
−8
−3 −40
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1.96 1.98 2.00 2.02 2.04 2.06 2.08 2.10
Time(s) Time(s) Time(s)
(a) (b) (c)

Figure. 10. Performance evaluation of proposed method with speed step change and constant load torque.

170
Journal of Engineering Research, 2023, 20(2),163-172

12
810 Load Torque
Actual rotor speed Actual angle
Estimated rotor speed Estimated angle 10
360

800 8
Speed (RPM)

270

Angle (degree)
6

(N.m)
790 180 4

2
90

780 0
0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 2.0 2.1 2.2
Time(s)
Time(s) Time(s)

10 40
Speed estimation error Angle estiamtion errror
4 20
0
5
2 −20
Angle (degree)
Speed(RPM)

Current (A)
−40
Stator current (Ia) 20
0 0 −60 Stator current (Ib) 10
−80 0

B
−2 −10
−5 −100
−20
−120
3.95 4.00 4.05
−4
−140
−10 2.0 2.1 2.2
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Time(s) Time(s) Time(s)
(a) (b) (c)

Figure. 11. Simulation results of the proposed method under sudden load changes.

In the absence of DC_{off}, the flux observer torque waveform and the motor stator current in the
accurately estimates rotor speed and position with alpha-beta frame when the load is suddenly applied and
minimal steady-state error. However, with a 0.2 V removed.
DC_{off} injected at 1.505 seconds, estimated speed and Figure 11(a) shows that when the load is applied, the
rotor angle oscillations occur. The ADRC feedback loop estimation error does not exceed 2.5 rpm, and the steady-
effectively removes the DC_{off}, ensuring system state error is close to zero, indicating that the proposed
stability. This approach estimates and mitigates unknown method effectively estimates the actual rotor speed.
disturbances, such as the DC_{off} in stator flux. Figure 11(b) shows that the maximum error when the
A speed step change was implemented to verify its load is applied and removed does not exceed 0.5 degrees,
effectiveness with a constant load torque of 10 Nm. further confirming the effectiveness of the proposed
Initially, the IPMSM motor operated at 1500 rpm. At 2.05 method. Figure 11(c) illustrates that when the load is
seconds, the speed stepped to the rated speed of (3000 suddenly applied and removed, the motor stator current
rpm), then reduced back to 1500 rpm at 4.8 seconds, as is sinusoidal with no overshoot.
shown in Figure 10. Performance Evaluation of Proposed
Method with Speed Step Change and Constant Load
Torque. 4. CONCLUSION
Figure 10(a) depicts the actual speed, estimated speed,
and speed estimation error in rpm. The speed estimation The paper presents a proposed integration algorithm with
error did not exceed 5 rpm during speed transitions. First Order ADRC to compensate the DC_{off} loop for
Figure 10(b) presents the actual angle, estimated angle, estimating motor flux. The algorithm is thoroughly
and angle estimation error in degrees. Remarkably, the examined and compared. Its development is aimed at
angle estimation error remained below 0.2 degrees. addressing practical issues associated with pure
Figure 10(c) shows the motor stator currents in the alpha- integrators for IPMSM flux estimation. Compared to the
beta waveform when the IPMSM speed stepped with low-pass filter and the SABPF, the proposed method does
constant load. Figure 10(c) illustrates that when the speed not cause any angle shift. Therefore, there is no need for a
changes to 3000 rpm and reduces to 1500 rpm, the motor compensation block, making this method simpler and
more accurate. The simulation results demonstrate the
stator current is sinusoidal with no overshoot. Figure
proposed method's superior dynamic and steady-state
11(a) presents the actual rotor speed, estimated rotor
performance. Its robust performance under varying
speed, and the estimation error between the actual and conditions supports its suitability for dynamic motor
estimated speeds. control systems. The proposed algorithm is well-suited
Figure 11(b) depicts the actual angle, estimated angle, for high-performance sensorless IPMSM drivers that may
and angle estimation error when the load is suddenly encounter variations in motor flux during operation.
applied at 2 seconds. Figure 11(c) demonstrates the load Future research could focus on improving the accuracy of

171
Journal of Engineering Research, 2023, 20(2),163-172

the position estimation, primarily when the motor Xu, W., Wang, L., Liu, Y., & Blaabjerg, F. (2019).
operates at low speeds or during startup conditions, Improved rotor flux observer for sensorless control of
where sensorless control methods typically face PMSM with adaptive harmonic elimination and phase
challenges. Another area for future work could be the compensation. CES Transactions on Electrical
implementation of the proposed method in real-world Machines and Systems, 3(2), 151–159.
applications to test its robustness and reliability under Marchesoni, M., Passalacqua, M., Vaccaro, L., Calvini,
various operating conditions, such as changes in load or M., & Venturini, M. (2020). Performance
the presence of electrical noise. improvement in a sensorless surface-mounted PMSM
drive based on rotor flux observer. Control
Engineering Practice, 96, Article 104276.
CONFILCT OF INTEREST Adelekan, D. S., Ohunakin, O. S., & Paul, B. S. (2022).
Artificial intelligence models for refrigeration, air
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest conditioning, and heat pump systems. Energy
regarding this article. Reports, 8, 8451–8466.
Sadiq Ur Rahman, et al. (2023). DCoff compensators for
FUNDING sensorless PMSM motor drives equipped with wide
speed range flux linkage observers. Journal of
Physics: Conference Series, 2591, Article 012048.
The authors did not receive any funding for this research.
Han, J., Gao, Z., & Dai, H. (2009). Active disturbance
rejection control: A paradigm shift in feedback control
system design. IEEE Transactions on Industrial
REFERENCES Electronics, 56(3), 900–906.
Wang, G., Xue, W., Peng, H., Yang, Z., & Zhao, Y. (2024).
Wang, J., Ma, J., Zhao, X., Meng, D., Xu, K., & Guo, D. Parallel multiple extended state observers based
(2023). Sensorless control strategy for interior ADRC with application to high-speed precision motion
permanent magnet synchronous motors in the full- stage. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics,
speed section. Energies, 16(7701), 1-16. 71(8), 9639–9648.
Hu, J., & Wu, B. (1998). New integration algorithms for Zhang, Y., & Sun, Q. (2011). Nonlinear extended state
estimating motor flux over a wide speed range. IEEE observer for multivariable nonlinear systems with
Transactions on Power Electronics, 13(6), 969–977. coupled uncertainties. Journal of Control Theory and
Xiao, D., Nalakath, S., Filho, S. R., Fang, G., Dong, A., Applications, 9(4), 362–366.
Sun, Y., Wiseman, J., & Emadi, A. (2021). Universal Li, X., Yang, S., & Wu, Z. (2013). Limitations of low-pass
full-speed sensorless control scheme for interior filters in sensorless control of IPMSM. IEEE
permanent magnet synchronous motors. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 60(9), 3800–
Transactions on Power Electronics, 36(6), 4723– 3809.
4737. Gao, Z. (2003). An active disturbance rejection control
Feng, G., Lai, C., & Mukherjee, K. (2017). Online PMSM approach to tension and speed regulation in the
magnet flux estimation for rotor magnet condition coiling-uncoiling process. Proceedings of the IEEE
monitoring using harmonics in speed measurements. 30th Annual Conference of Industrial Electronics
IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, 53(5), Society, 2, 1551–1557.
2786–2794.
Xu, W., Jiang, Y., Mu, C., & Blaabjerg, F. (2019).
Improved nonlinear flux observer-based second-order
SOIFO for PMSM sensorless control. IEEE
Transactions on Power Electronics, 34(2), 565–579.
Liu, K., Feng, J. H., Guo, S. Y., Xiao, L., & Zhu, Z. Q.
(2018). Identification of flux linkage map of
permanent magnet synchronous machines under
uncertain circuit resistance and inverter nonlinearity.
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 14(2),
556–568.
Jiang, Y., Xu, W., Mu, C., Zhu, J., & Dian, R. (2019). An
improved third-order generalized integrator flux
observer for sensorless drive of PMSMs. IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 66(11),
9149–9160.
Kim, H.-S., Sul, S.-K., Yoo, H., & Oh, J. (2020).
Distortion-minimizing flux observer for IPMSM based
on frequency-adaptive observers. IEEE Transactions
on Power Electronics, 35(3), 2077–2087.

172