Comparative Analysis of Three PI Tuning Methods

for Speed and D-Q Axis Current Controllers in

PMSM Speed Control Using FOC
2024 4th International Conference on Emerging Frontiers in Electrical and Electronic Technologies (ICEFEET) | 979-8-3315-2861-4/24/$31.00 ©2024 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/ICEFEET64463.2024.10866858

Fayyaz E Nikhil Sasidharan Suchithra K S

Student, Department of Electrical Assistant Professor, Department of Specialist, Transportation Business
Engineering Electrical Engineering Unit
National Institute of Technology National Institute of Technology Tata Elxsi Limited
Calicut, India Calicut, India Trivandrum, India
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Abstract— The paper presents a comparative study of three are robust, and require low maintenance. However, they have
methods used for the Field Oriented Control (FOC) of lower efficiency and perform poorly at high power factors
Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motors (PMSM). The under high-speed conditions. Vector control techniques can
presented work explores three tuning methods (i) manual tuning improve the dynamic performance and expand the constant
(ii) mathematical equation-based tuning based on literature and power region of induction motors. Additionally, recent
(iii) Autotuner from MathWorks for the speed, d-axis, q-axis advances, such as pole-changing induction motors, dual-
control of PMSM motors. The steps for each tuning method are converter strategies for improving power factor at high speeds,
explained in detail along with their performance comparison.
and lightweight axial flux induction motors with excellent
The conclusion highlights the trade-offs in performance and
mechanical properties, enhance the performance of induction
effort for each method, offering insights to help users select the
most suitable approach.
motors. However, these advances come at the cost of
increased system size and cost. Switched reluctance motors
Keywords—Field Oriented Control (FOC), Permanent (SRMs) offer a wide constant power region and exhibit
Magnet Synchronous Motor (PMSM), PI controller tuning, characteristics that are well-suited for EVs. However, they
MATLAB Simulink, Autotuning suffer from torque ripple, leading to acoustic noise, as well as
excessive current ripple. Among these motor types, PMSMs,
I. INTRODUCTION while also lacking a wide constant power region and requiring
Since the last decade, environmental pollution has power converters, offer superior efficiency, smooth torque,
increased severely owing to the emission of various gases like high power density, and improved heat dissipation. The
carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, etc., enhanced efficiency of PMSMs reduces energy consumption,
which are detrimental to human health. Vehicle engines are thereby lowering the required battery capacity for a given
one of the most significant sources of these emissions, range. This reduction in battery size offsets the higher cost of
accounting for 30% to 50% of total road transport-related CO2 PMSMs, improving the vehicle’s range-to-cost ratio [10].
emissions. Along with the problem of pollution, which is To fully leverage the advantages of PMSMs, accurate
exacerbated by population growth and urbanization, the control strategies are essential. Various methodologies are
scarcity of traditional fossil fuels and innovations in employed for speed control of PMSMs, including Field
rechargeable batteries and alternative energy storage Oriented Control (FOC), Direct Torque Control (DTC),
technologies have accelerated the adoption of Electric Sliding Mode Control (SMC), Model Predictive Control
Vehicles (EVs) for transportation [1][2][3][4]. EVs produce (MPC), Fuzzy Logic Control (FLC), and Iterative Learning
fewer or zero emissions compared to their internal combustion Control (ILC) [11][12]. The predominant strategy is Field
engine (ICE) counterparts [5]. The transition to EV Oriented Control (FOC), a vector control method that
technology is also driven by environmental concerns over typically employs PI-type controllers in the current and speed
greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, economic advantages control loops. FOC is recognized for its excellent dynamic
such as reduced operational expenses – due to the simpler performance and ease of implementation. It enables
mechanical design of EVs compared to traditional ICE independent control of torque and flux, improving torque
vehicles – alongside incentives from local governments, and response and overall system efficiency.
competitive pricing due to market competition, make EVs a
highly attractive choice for both the present and future In FOC, motor performance is significantly influenced by
[5][6][7][8]. the tuning of Proportional-Integral (PI) controllers that
regulate motor speed and the D- and Q-axis currents. Proper
The electric motor, together with the battery pack, forms adjustment of the PI controller gains, Kp and Ki, is critical to
the cornerstone of an electric vehicle's propulsion system [9]. ensuring system stability, responsiveness, and robustness.
Various motor types are employed in electric propulsion, each Manually tuning these controllers can be a laborious process,
offering unique advantages. Commonly used motors in EVs often requiring weeks of experimentation. This paper presents
include the Brushless DC Motor (BLDC), Permanent Magnet alternative tuning approaches to streamline the process.
Synchronous Motor (PMSM), Induction Motor (IM), and Specifically, it evaluates three methods for tuning PI
Switched Reluctance Motor (SRM) [10][12]. controllers: manual tuning, a mathematical approach based on
Although BLDC motors are well-suited for EVs due to existing literature [13], and the MathWorks Autotuner
their high power density and torque capabilities, they lack a [14][15]. The paper compares the effectiveness of each
wide constant power region because of their limited flux- approach and the effort required for implementation, offering
weakening capability. Induction motors, on the other hand, engineers and researchers insights into the strengths and
offer easier control owing to their flux-weakening capability, weaknesses of each method. This knowledge will assist them

979-8-3315-2861-4/24/$31.00 ©2024 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: Cape Peninsula University of Technology. Downloaded on August 11,2025 at 10:40:12 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 in making informed decisions when selecting a tuning method
for PI controllers in their PMSM vector control experiments.
II. MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF PMSM
A. Mathematical equations
The dynamic model of the PMSM in the dq coordinate
Fig. 1. FOC of PMSM in MATLAB Simulink
system can be described as [16]:
𝑉 =𝑅 𝑖 +𝐿 −𝜔 𝐿 𝑖    During field weakening, the d-axis current may be
assigned a negative value while the motor operates over its
base speed to diminish the magnetic field and facilitate
  𝑉 = 𝑅 𝑖 + 𝐿 +𝜔 𝐿 𝑖 +𝜔 𝜑  
increased rotational speeds. In contrast, the d-axis current may
The electromagnetic torque is given by: be assigned a positive value in particular control situations,
such as braking or certain low-speed activities, where
𝑇 = 𝜑 𝑖 + 𝐿 − 𝐿 𝑖 𝑖    enhanced flux is required for improved control. The speed PI
controller often functions in the outer loop, producing a
The mechanical equation describing the behaviour of the reference for the q-axis current. The q-axis PI controller,
motor is given by: situated in the inner loop, juxtaposes the reference with the q-
axis stator current feedback to reduce the error and regulate
𝑇 = 𝑇 +𝐽 + 𝐵𝜔     the motor torque [19].
Where: 𝑉 , 𝑉 are stator voltages in d, q axes (volt), III. TUNING METHODS
𝑖 , 𝑖 are stator currents in d, q axes (amp), This paper examines three tuning strategies for optimising
Proportional-Integral (PI) controllers in the Field Orientated
𝑅 is the stator resistance (ohm), Control (FOC) of Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motors
𝐿 , 𝐿 are stator inductances in d, q axes (henry), (PMSM): Manual Tuning, Equation-Based Tuning, and the
MATLAB Simulink FOC Autotuner. Manual tuning entails
𝜔 is the electrical rotor angular speed (rad/s), the adjustment of proportional and integral gains by a trial-
and-error methodology. Equation-based tuning utilises
𝜔 is the mechanical rotor angular speed (rad/s),
mathematical models to determine controller improvements,
𝜑 is the permanent magnet flux linkage (weber), offering a more systematic and theoretical methodology.
Ultimately, the Field Orientated Control Autotuner automates
𝑇 is the electromagnetic torque (newton meter), the tuning procedure by dynamically optimising the gains
𝑇 is the load torque (newton meter), according to real-time system performance.

B is damping constant (N/rad/s), A. Manual Tuning

Manual tuning is an experimental approach for calibrating
P is the number of poles,
the Proportional (Kp) and Integral (Ki) gains of the PI
𝐽 is the moment of inertia (kg m2) controllers employed in the Field Orientated Control (FOC) of
Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motors (PMSM). The
B. Field oriented Control of PMSM in MATLAB Simulink procedure is methodically adjusting the gain settings while
Field Orientated Control (FOC) is a vector control monitoring the system's reaction to guarantee stability and
methodology that represents machine currents, voltages, and satisfactory performance. The tuning process often
fluxes as spatial vectors within a rotating reference frame commences with the augmentation of the proportional gain
(RRF) [17]. In synchronous machines such as Permanent until the system attains the required response time, thereafter
Magnet Synchronous Motors (PMSM), the stator and rotor altering the integral gain to eradicate steady-state error. This
fluxes rotate in unison [18], therefore it is rational to align the method offers direct insight into system dynamics; but, it can
rotor reference frame's d-axis with the rotor flux. The primary be laborious and may not produce ideal outcomes, particularly
benefit of FOC is its capacity to decouple torque and flux in intricate systems or under fluctuating operating conditions.
control, enabling independent torque regulation without However, manual tuning is often preferred for its
influencing the magnetic flux. This is achieved by converting straightforward approach, especially when precise system
the three-phase stator currents into the d-q reference frame by models aren't available.
Clarke and Park transformations. To accurately orient the
RRF, the rotor location must be determined, either by an B. Finding Kp and Ki using mathematical equations
encoder or by employing sensor less estimate methods. Literature [13] presents a method for calculating the
proportional and integral gains of the current and speed PI
In Field Orientated Control (FOC), Proportional-Integral controllers utilised in the field-oriented control of a surface-
(PI) controllers are employed to govern the d-axis and q-axis mounted permanent magnet synchronous motor. The
stator currents, in addition to motor speed. The q-axis current equations for calculating the proportional and integral gains of
(iq) regulates the motor's torque, whereas the d-axis current (Id) the PI current controller (5) & (6) and the speed controller (7)
governs the magnetic flux. In standard operation, the d-axis & (8) are:
current reference is established at 0 amps to provide optimal
torque per amp. The block diagram below (Fig. 1) illustrates 𝐾 = (5)
the implementation of PMSM speed control using Field-
Oriented Control (FOC). 𝐾 = (6)

Authorized licensed use limited to: Cape Peninsula University of Technology. Downloaded on August 11,2025 at 10:40:12 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 𝐾 = (7)

𝐾 = (8)

The MATLAB code developed for calculating these gains is

provided in the Appendix.
C. Tuning the PI controllers using MATLAB Simulink FOC
Autotuner
The Field Orientated Control Autotuner block [14][15]
automatically calibrates the PI controllers in a closed-loop
Field Orientated Control (FOC) system for Permanent Magnet
Synchronous Motors (PMSM), according to designated
bandwidths and phase margins. It facilitates the adjustment of Fig. 2. Mathematical model of PMSM with FOC Autotuner
the PI controllers for the Direct-axis (d-axis) current loop,
Quadrature-axis (q-axis) current loop, Speed loop, and Flux
loop. The autotuner performs a closed-loop experiment on
each control loop in succession, introducing sinusoidal
perturbation signals at frequencies of [1/10, 1/3, 1, 3, 10] times
the desired bandwidth (𝜔 ) throughout the experiment. Upon
completion, the block computes the PI gains utilising the
estimated frequency response. The tuning procedure aims to
optimise performance and resilience, guaranteeing that the
control system satisfies the defined bandwidth and phase
margin criteria. The bandwidth of the current controller can be
up to 2π * switching frequency, with a sample time up to
1/switching frequency. In the Simulink experiment, the
sample time matches that of the current controller.
Meanwhile, the speed controller’s bandwidth should be up to
one-tenth of the current controller’s bandwidth, and its sample Fig. 3. Signal profile for Auto tuning
time can be up to 10 times the current controller’s sample
time. The autotuner’s sample time can be up to 10 times the The sampling interval is established to be less than or
speed controller’s sample time. The implementation of the equal to the reciprocal of ten times the switching frequency.
autotuner in MATLAB Simulink is provided in Fig. 2 for A. Manual Tuning
reference. A tailored speed profile must be used in the The Kp and Ki values for the current PI controllers were
experiment like shown in Fig. 3. The motor is initially set to established as 6 and 105, respectively, whilst the values for the
1000 rpm, followed by a step increase to 2750 rpm at t = 3, speed PI controllers were identified as 1 and 25. The
which is maintained until t = 4. At t = 4, the speed is stepped simulation results are presented in Figures 4, 5, and 6 below.
down to -1500 rpm and held until t = 5, after which it is The motor successfully tracked the step speed input from 0 to
stepped up again to 1000 rpm, where it remains constant from 50 rad/s, as shown in Fig. 4. The corresponding Torque vs.
t = 5 to t = 12. It is between t = 5 and t = 12 the FOC autotuner Time and Current vs. Time waveforms are also included,
performs tuning. The recommended duration for each of the demonstrating satisfactory performance overall, with only a
tuning experiments is calculated as 550 divided by the Target minimal overshoot observed during the speed step.
Bandwidth, in seconds. Stop the experiment once
convergence consistently nears 100% or let the experiment
run the whole duration of the speed profile given; that is 15
seconds. Specifically, the d-axis current loop is tuned between
t = 6 and t = 7, the q-axis current loop between t = 7 and t = 8,
and the speed loop from t = 8 to t = 12. After the tuning is
completed at t = 12, the motor is run through the entire speed
profile until t = 15 to verify proper operation.
IV. EXPERIMENTS AND RESULTS
Experiments were conducted utilising the proportional and
integral gain values obtained from the three tuning
methodologies examined. The outcomes of these trials are Fig. 4. Speed vs Time – Manual Tuning
detailed below. The simulation results are displayed as images
in the subsequent sequence: (a) the motor's reaction to a
sudden rise in speed from 0 to 50 rad/s, (b) the impact of the
step response on torque, and (c) the influence of the step
response on the motor's stator currents (phases a, b, and c).
The x-axis denotes time, whilst the y-axis illustrates the
measured variables: motor speed (both reference and real, in
rad/s) for (a), torque (load and generated) for (b), and stator
currents for (c). The load torque is maintained at 10 Nm.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Cape Peninsula University of Technology. Downloaded on August 11,2025 at 10:40:12 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Fig. 5. Torque vs Time – Manual Tuning Fig. 8. Torque vs Time – Mathematical equation-based tuning

Fig. 6. Motor's stator currents (phases a, b, and c) – Manual Tuning Fig. 9. Motor's stator currents (phases a, b, and c) – Mathematical equation-based tuning

B. Finding Kp and Ki using mathematical equations

The Kp and Ki values for the existing PI controllers were
established as 14.13 and 1863.33, respectively, whilst the
values for the speed PI controllers were identified as 0.1784
and 6.4650. The motor effectively tracked the speed step input
from 0 to 50 rad/s, as illustrated in Fig. 7. The Torque vs. Time
and Current vs. Time waveforms, shown in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9,
respectively, also indicate satisfactory performance, apart
from a slight overshoot observed during the speed transition.
C. Tuning the PI controllers using MATLAB Simulink FOC
Autotuner Fig. 10. Speed vs Time – FOC Autotuner
The Kp and Ki values for the d-axis current PI controller
were established as 1.2 and 36.9541, respectively, whereas for
the q-axis current PI controller, they were 0.1315 and
229.4812, respectively. The Kp and Ki values for the speed PI
controllers were determined to be 0.9849 and 7.6904,
respectively. The simulation results are illustrated in Figures
10, 11, and 12. As shown in Figure 10, the motor successfully
tracks the step input speed change from 0 to 50 rad/s. The
Torque vs. Time and Current vs. Time waveforms, presented
in Figures 11 and 12, also demonstrate satisfactory
performance, with only a minor overshoot observed during the
speed step transition.
Fig. 11. Torque vs Time – FOC Autotuner

Fig. 7. Speed vs Time – Mathematical equation-based tuning

Fig. 12. Motor's stator currents (phases a, b, and c) – FOC Autotuner

Authorized licensed use limited to: Cape Peninsula University of Technology. Downloaded on August 11,2025 at 10:40:12 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 V. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORKS (c) Exploring alternative tuning methods and optimization
This work offers a comparative examination of three PI algorithms for highly nonlinear systems.
tuning methodologies—manual tuning, equation-based (d) Simulating the system on hardware to validate the tuning
tuning, and the MATLAB Simulink FOC autotuner – results in a real-world setting.
pertaining to speed, D-axis, and Q-axis controllers in the Field
Orientated Control (FOC) of Permanent Magnet Synchronous TABLE II. SIMULATION SETTINGS
Motors (PMSM). Each approach was evaluated based on
tuning effort, performance, and its ability to achieve the Sample time (s) 5e-5
desired control response. Overall, the observations highlight Switching frequency (Hz) 20000
that both equation-based tuning and FOC autotuner-based
tuning offer notable advantages over manual tuning, Solver Selection Fixed-Step
especially in terms of time efficiency, as manual tuning Solver and Fixed Step Size Auto
generally requires weeks to complete. While both manual and
equation-based methods enabled the system to reach the Simulation type Discrete
desired behaviour, equation-based tuning demonstrated Target bandwidth (rad/sec)
superior performance with minimal tuning effort, particularly 1000
Current loops (D & Q)
from a total time investment standpoint. This method achieved Target phase margin (degrees)
accurate speed tracking with fewer transient spikes in speed, Current loops (D & Q)
60
torque, and current waveforms. It is also worth noting that the Target bandwidth (rad/sec)
FOC autotuner can operate very quickly on computers with Speed Loop
100
high processing power, such as those with Intel i7 or Apple M
series processors. Table 1 provides a comparison of the Target phase margin (degrees) 60
discussed tuning methods and Fig. 13 provides a quick
snapshot on the results.
TABLE III. PMSM PARAMETERS [20]
TABLE I. TUNING METHODS COMPARED
Computational d-axis inductance (Ld) 0.00424 H
Tuning Method Complexity Total time spent resources
q-axis inductance (Lq) 0.00424 H
required
Manual Tuning Low Weeks Medium Stator resistance (Rs) 0.559 Ω
Mathematical Back EMF @1000rpm 141 V
equation-based Medium Days Medium
tuning PM flux linkage (𝜑𝑓 ) 0.2748 Wb
MathWorks FOC
Medium Days High Poles 8
Autotuner
Rated line voltage 400 V

Rated power 4.8 kW

Rated torque 22.8 Nm

Rated speed 2000 rpm

Rated current 11.2 A

Maximum torque 68.4 Nm

Maximum speed 2750 rpm

Fig. 13. Tuning results comparison
Maximum current 34.9 A
From a practical perspective, this means that newcomers Moment of Inertia (J) 0.00406 kg m2
to PMSM control can easily start with any recommended
tuning method, aside from manual tuning, allowing them to Vdc 600 V
focus on refining the model for their specific application rather
than spending excessive time on manual plant tuning. These APPENDIX – MATLAB CODE
methods are simple, less complex, cost-effective, and % Define the parameters
intuitive. For developers working on electric vehicle solutions,
the following future work directions could be valuable for Lq = 4.24e-3; % Stator inductance in d axis (in Henries)
creating a robust system, as the methods discussed only Rs = 0.559; % Stator resistance Rs (in Ohms (Ω))
support a quick start to development:
K_PWM = 1; % VSI gain (dimensionless)
(a) Utilizing gain scheduling techniques (if needed) to
replicate drive cycles and ensure stable performance across K_mc = 1; % measurement gain of the current
varying operating conditions, alpha = 2; % factor affects rise time and overshoot (α)
(b) Extending the model to include field weakening and
regenerative braking to broaden the operating range and Kmw = 1; % measurement gain of the speed (Kmw)
improve energy efficiency, p = 4; % Number of pole pairs (p) (No of poles/2)

Authorized licensed use limited to: Cape Peninsula University of Technology. Downloaded on August 11,2025 at 10:40:12 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 phi_f = 0.2748; % P M flux linkage (V/rad/s) Vehicles,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 36, no. 6, pp.
1169–1180, Feb. 2002, doi: 10.1021/es0108077.
J = 0.00406; % Inertia (J) (is a sum of the moments of inertia [3] O. A. Towoju and F. A. Ishola, “A case for the internal combustion
from motor Jm, wheel Jw and the one associated with the engine powered vehicle,” Energy Reports, vol. 6, pp. 315–321, Feb.
vehicle Jv) (Kgm^2) J = Jm + Jw + Jv 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2019.11.082.
[4] Y. Van Fan, S. Perry, J. J. Klemeš, and C. T. Lee, “A review on air
% Time constants (in seconds (s)) emissions assessment: Transportation,” Journal of Cleaner Production,
vol. 194, pp. 673–684, May 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.151.
T_CAN = 2000e-6; % CAN communication delay (T_CAN)
[5] R. Vidhi and P. Shrivastava, “A review of electric vehicle lifecycle
T_d2 = 100e-6; % Delay in calculating algorithms in the emissions and policy recommendations to increase EV penetration in
India,” Energies, vol. 11, no. 3, p. 483, Feb. 2018, doi:
digital signal controllers 10.3390/en11030483.
T_mw = 2500e-6; % delay in filtering of speed [6] S. Z. Rajper and J. Albrecht, “Prospects of Electric Vehicles in the
Developing Countries: A literature review,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no.
T_d1 = 100e-6; % Delay in calculating algorithms in the 5, p. 1906, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12051906.
digital signal controllers [7] G. L. Brase, “What Would It Take to Get You into an Electric Car?
Consumer Perceptions and Decision Making about Electric Vehicles,”
T_PWM = 50e-6; % Delay caused by a pulse width modulator The Journal of Psychology, vol. 153, no. 2, pp. 214–236, Sep. 2018,
doi: 10.1080/00223980.2018.1511515.
% Calculate Tc
[8] N. Rietmann, B. Hügler, and T. Lieven, “Forecasting the trajectory of
Tc = Lq / Rs; electric vehicle sales and the consequences for worldwide CO2
emissions,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 261, p. 121038, Mar.
% Calculate Kc 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121038.
[9] M. Ehsani, K. V. Singh, H. O. Bansal, and R. T. Mehrjardi, “State of
Kc = (K_PWM * K_mc) / Rs; the art and trends in electric and hybrid electric vehicles,” Proceedings
of the IEEE, vol. 109, no. 6, pp. 967–984, May 2021, doi:
% Calculate TcΣ 10.1109/jproc.2021.3072788.
Tc_Sigma = Td1 + T_PWM; [10] S. Madichetty, S. Mishra, and M. Basu, “New trends in electric motors
and selection for electric vehicle propulsion systems,” IET Electrical
% Calculate Kpc and Kic (Current controller gains) Systems in Transportation, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 186–199, Apr. 2021, doi:
10.1049/els2.12018.
Kpc = Tc / (2 * Kc * Tc_Sigma); [11] P. Stumpf and T. Tóth-Katona, “Recent achievements in the control of
interior Permanent-Magnet Synchronous Machine Drives: A
Kic = 1 / (2 * Kc * Tc_Sigma); comprehensive overview of the state of the art,” Energies, vol. 16, no.
13, p. 5103, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.3390/en16135103.
% Display the results
[12] D. Mohanraj, J. Gopalakrishnan, B. Chokkalingam, and L. Mihet-Popa,
fprintf('Kpc = %.6f\n', Kpc); ‘Critical Aspects of Electric Motor Drive Controllers and Mitigation of
Torque Ripple—Review’, IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 73635–73674,
fprintf('Kic = %.6f\n', Kic); 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3187515.
[13] P. Rumniak, ‘Tuning of PI regulators in distributed control system for
% Calculation of the sum of small time constants an electric vehicle’, ELECTROTECHNICAL REVIEW, vol. 1, no. 9,
pp. 292–296, Sep. 2015, doi: 10.15199/48.2015.09.70.
T_vSum = 2*T_CAN + T_d2 + T_mw + 2*(T_d1 +
T_PWM); [14] “Field Oriented Control Autotuner - Automatically and sequentially
tune multiple PID control loops in field-oriented control application -
% Calculation of the gain of the plant (Kv) Simulink - MathWorks India.”
https://in.mathworks.com/help/mcb/ref/fieldorientedcontrolautotuner.
Kv = (Kmw * 1.5 * p * phi_f) / (Kmc * J); html.
[15] “How to use field oriented Control AutoTuner Block - MATLAB &
% Calculation of the proportional gain (Kpw) Simulink - MathWorks India.”
https://in.mathworks.com/help/mcb/ug/how-to-use-field-oriented-
Kpw = 1 / (alpha * Kv * T_vSum); control-autotuner.html.
% Calculation of the integral gain (Kiw) [16] P. Pillay and R. Krishnan, ‘Modeling of permanent magnet motor
drives’, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 35, no. 4, pp.
Kiw = 1 / (alpha^3 * Kv * T_vSum^2); 537–541, Nov. 1988, doi: 10.1109/41.9176.
[17] N. P. Quang and J.-A. Dittrich, Vector control of Three-Phase AC
% Display the results (Speed Controller gains) machines: System Development in the Practice. Springer, 2015.
fprintf('Proportional Gain (Kpw): %.4f\n', Kpw); [18] S. N. Vukosavic, Electrical machines. Springer Science & Business
Media, 2012.
fprintf('Integral Gain (Kiw): %.4f\n', Kiw); [19] V. M. Bida, D. V. Samokhvalov, and F. Sh. Al-Mahturi, ‘PMSM vector
control techniques — A survey’, in 2018 IEEE Conference of Russian
REFERENCES Young Researchers in Electrical and Electronic Engineering
(EIConRus), Moscow: IEEE, Jan. 2018, pp. 577–581. doi:
[1] C. D. Cooper and F. C. Alley, Air pollution control: A Design 10.1109/EIConRus.2018.8317164.
Approach, Fourth Edition. Waveland Press, 2010.
[20] imperix.com, “Motor Testbench datasheet.” Aug. 31, 2023. [Uploaded
[2] J. J. Schauer, M. J. Kleeman, G. R. Cass, and B. R. T. Simoneit, content from the website imperix.com]. Available:
“Measurement of Emissions from Air Pollution Sources. 5. https://imperix.com/wp-
C1−C32Organic Compounds from Gasoline-Powered Motor content/uploads/document/Motor_testbench_Datasheet.pdf.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Cape Peninsula University of Technology. Downloaded on August 11,2025 at 10:40:12 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.