This paper attempts to design and present a comparison of classical Direct Torque Flux Control (DTFC) for LineStart Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor (LSPMSM) and its equal Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor (PMSM). In order to present an indepth analysis, both motors for DTFC Voltage Source Inverter (VSI)fed in the same situations of different conditions are simulated and tested. The advantages of the proposed method for LSPMSM over the PMSM are discussed and analyzed.
1. Introduction
In the past, DC motors were highly used for speed control applications. However, thanks to recent advances in power electronic devices, AC motors are now extensively employed in Adjustable Speed Drives (ASD)
[1]
. In this regard, because of their simplicity, ruggedness, reliability, and volume manufacturing, IMs have widely been applied in these applications. Because of the heavy usage of electrical energy, the efficiency of IMs becomes a vital issue. In IMs, the existence of slip and rotor copper losses degrades the motor efficiency and Power Factor (PF)
[1

3]
.
Rotor slip power losses are absent for Synchronous Motors (SMs), and as a result, SMs which naturally are able to provide both reactive currents and synchronous speed (for different loads) have a higher efficiency and PF than IMs. Nevertheless, they have a higher volume and cost rather than IMs. That is why, PMSMs are employed, and decreasing price and improved performances of Permanent Magnets (PMs) make them more interesting than in the past
[1

4]
. On the other hand, PMSMs, albeit their higher performance, produce a magnet brake torque that has a repercussion on its starting. In this way, PMSMs are not able to start with the mains, and LSPMSMs which are synchronous hybrid PM / reluctance highefficient motors are designed to solve this issue
[5

6]
. The flux of PM materials is selected based on a compromise between its operation near the unity PF and solving starting issues.
LSPMSMs have a rotor cage for induction starting and PM materials, providing synchronous torque, and they are suitable candidates for substituting IMs and PMSMs. Recently, research accelerated to evaluate different performance aspects of LSPMSMs and equal IMs
[7

9]
. However, a comparison between LSPMSMs and PMSMs has not been reported yet.
LSPMSMs are also being developed for various applications, especially ASD applications
[9

10]
. However, as far as the authors are aware, so far any known controlbased measure in ASD applications for threephase LSPMSMs has not been designed yet. In
[10]
, a sensorless vector control has been designed just for a singlephase LSPMS. Unlike vector control, DTFC technique does not need any current controller or coordinate transformation. The DTFC, which is robust against the machine and load parameters, provides a fast torque response with a simple structure, and thus it has been much progress, developed, and improved during the past decades
[1
, 11]. Therefore, a classical DTFC method hereby is designed for LSPMSMs, and the application of this method for a threephase LSMPSM is analyzed and compared with the equal LSPMSMs. The simulation results of identical situations and equal controllers from MATLAB / Simulink software when these motors are connected to the same VSI show that particularly for LSPMSM, this method has a distinctive impact on its dynamic and steadystate performance.
This paper is organized as: in section two, modeling and description of LSPMSMs and PMSM principles are reviewed. Section 3 devotes to design a simple DTFC method for both PMSM and LSPMSM. In section 4, to verify the presented control system, model of a fourpole threephase PMSM and its equal LSPMSM along with the same situations are simulated for DTFC VSIfed in the MATLAB/SIMULINK software.
2. General Descriptions
Since LSPMSM employs a squirrel cage rotor of IM and PM materials, a prototype of the original model as well as rotor cross sections of IM and LSPMSM is shown in
Fig. 1
. In general, LSPMSMs unite the merits of IMs (robust construction with respect to disturbance and linestarting ability) and PMSMs (high values of torque per unit current density, PF, and efficiency).
a. A prototype of the original model, and rotor cross sections of b. IM, c. LSPMSM.
Although their selfstarting capability for fixed supply voltages is one of the most frequently cited advantages of LSPMSMs over PMSMs, these motors are hereby compared when they are connected to the same VSI. For this purpose, first, the models of these motors are reviewed. Then, the DTFC method for these motors is designed and simulated.
 2.1 PMSM model
A threephase PMSM, is modeled as
[2]
:
where the
d – q – 0
axes stator variables (
V_{ds}, V_{qs}, V_{0s}
), (
i_{ds}, i_{qs}, i_{0s}
), and (
λ_{ds}, λ_{qs}, λ_{0s}
), are the stator voltage, current, and flux, respectively. The equivalent magnetizing flux and current of the PM referred to the stator side are
i′_{m}
and
λ′_{m}
. In addition,
p
is the derivative operator, and
r_{s}
and
L_{ls}
are stator resistance and leakage inductance, and
L_{md}
and
L_{mq}
are magnetizing inductances of direct and quadratic axes, respectively. Eqs. (1)(2) put forward the equivalent circuits shown in
Fig. 2
. The mechanical equations are also expressed as:
Rotor reference frame of equivalent circuit of threephase PMSM (a): qaxis, (b): daxis, (c): 0axis.
where
ω_{m}
and
P
are the angular speed and the pole numbers, respectively. Finally,
T_{e}
,
T_{Load}
,
B
, and
J
are the electromagnetic and load torques, friction coefficient, and moment of inertia, respectively. In addition,
T_{exc}
and
T_{Rel}
, which are respectively excitation and reluctance torques, are defined as:
Eqs. (3)(5) show that the generated electromagnetic torque of PMSM contains excitation and reluctance torques. Excitation torque is produced thanks to the field of PM material, and reluctance torque is formed due to the motor saliency. Clearly, both terms, caused because of the PM materials, are zero for an IM.
 2.2 LSPMSM model
Because of the rotor windings, the equations of stator voltage, rotor voltage, stator flux, and rotor flux for LSPMSM are obtained as:
The equivalent circuits shown in
Fig. 3
are obtained based on (6)(9). In
[2]
, the rotor windings shown by notation
r
have not been used. Instead, the damper windings and notation
k
were employed. Again, the mechanical equations of LSPMSM are expressed as:
Rotor reference frame of equivalent circuit of threephase LSPMSM (a): qaxis, (b): daxis, (c): 0axis.
The electromagnetic torque of LSPMSM, expressed in (10), can be rewrittent as (11), and it is developed into three components: reluctance, excitation, and induction torques.
where
T_{ind}
is the induction torque in LSPMSM, and it is defined as follows:
Clearly, equations of reluctance and excitation torques are the same as those of PMSMs, and induction one is also called asynchronous or cage torque, and this term is zero for the PMSM, so it has a vital role for selfstarting capability of LSPMSMs.
3. SwitchingTable Based DTFC
Since DTFC method can provide an accurate and fast decoupled control of the stator flux linkage and the electromagnetic torque without current regulators
[1]
, it has been employed extensively in the past three decades
[1
, 1114]. In this section, this wellknown technique is briefly discussed, and the reader is referred to
[1]
for more details. Because the goal of this work is to compare and test the effects of the DTFC scheme on LSPMSMs and PMSMs performance, we intentionally have employed a simple classical SwitchingTable based Direct Torque Flux Control (STDTFC) , and any of the known improved methods did not have been employed hereby. For this purpose, a block diagram of the STDTFC scheme, applicable for PMSM and LSPMSM, is shown in
Fig. 4
.
A block diagram of STDTFC for threephase PMSM and LSPMSM drive.
The torque error signal (
e_{T}
) is selected as the input of a threelevel hysteresis comparator, and as shown in
Fig. 5 (a)
C_{T}
is its output. The error between the estimated stator flux magnitude (
λ_{S est}
) and the reference stator flux magnitude (
λ_{S ref}
) is the input of a twolevel hysteresis comparator, and as shown in
Fig. 5 (b)
C_{λ}
is the output of the flux hysteresis comparator. The output voltage vectors which are shown in
Fig. 5 (c)
are selected based on the switching table given in
Table 1
. The stator flux sector,
C_{T}
, and
C_{λ}
are the input quantities.
A threelevel torque hysteresis compensator, (b): a twolevel flux hysteresis compensator, (c): Inverter output voltage space vectors [1].
Switching Table used in the STDTFC.
Switching Table used in the STDTFC.
Eq. (13) is used for estimating stator flux linkage of both motors, and the value of the initial stator flux vector
depends on the magnetizing flux of PM material.
where
and
denote the stator voltage and current space vectors, respectively.
4. Simulation Results
In this section, simulation results of a 1KW, fourpole, 50 Hz, and 380 Volt threephase PMSM and the equal LSPMSM of VSIfed STDTFC method under the same conditions (, i.e., the same load torque, speed references, DC link, rectifier, threephase supply, and VSI) using identical controllers are provided. The simulation parameters are given in the appendix. However, to verify its operation, different conditions are tested. For example, different reference fluxes and torques are selected for a fan load. Stator current of phase “
a
” (
i_{a Stator}
), electromagnetic, load and reference torques (
T_{e}
,
T_{Load}
, and
T_{e ref }
), motor speed (
ω_{m}
), and stator flux (
φ_{S}
) of both motors for STDTFC method are presented in
Fig. 6
and extended in
Figs. 7

8
. Besides, for a better comparison, transient and steadystate parameters are listed in
Table 2
.
Stator current of phase "a" (i_{a Stator}), electromagnetic and reference torques (T_{e} and T_{e Ref}), motor speeds (ω_{m}), and stator flux (φ_{S}) of STDTFC drive performance.
The extension of Fig. 6 in the time intervl (00.3) seconds (the first and second stages).
The extension of Fig. 6 in the time intervl (0.30.6) seconds (the third and fourth stages).
Transient and steadystate data obtained fromFigs. 68.
Transient and steadystate data obtained from Figs. 68.
In order to present a thorough comparison for an indepth analysis, torque and flux ripples are distinguished as: maximum and average ripples. For example, maximum torque ripple (
T _{ripple max}
) is defined as:
Where
T_{max}
and
T_{min}
are, respectively, the maximum and minimum torques in the steadystate. However, average ripple is the average value of ripple in the steadystate.
The simulation includes startup process with a 5 (N.m.) reference torque and a 0.85 (Wb) reference stator flux. To evaluate the impact of the flux stator, at 0.2 second the reference flux is changed from 0.85 to 0.7 (Wb). Compare to the PMSM, LSPMSM has a better dynamic response. As can be observed in
Fig. 7
, LSPMSM tracks instantaneously reference torque. Clearly, induction torque of LSPMSM provides its linestarting capability. Similarly, this capability is conducive to provide a better dynamic response rather than the PMSM. However, torque ripple in low speed and starting current of the LSPMSM is higher than those of PMSM, due to its induction behavior.
It is noticeable that average ripple is far more important than the maximum one. For example, speed vibration is mainly determined based on average torque ripple. For this reason, LSPMSM has a lower speed vibration rather than the PMSM, despite its larger maximum torque ripple. It is down the fact that the average torque ripple of the LSPMSM is lower than that of PMSMS. In other words, the rotor windings of the LSPMSM reduces average torque ripple and speed vibrations for high speeds, and as a result, the LSPMSM operates better than the PMSM. Damping the induction torque in the steadystate, both motors operate almost equally. For example, their efficiency and PF in the steadystate are the same.
After the motors have stabilized at the steadystate speed, at t=0.3 (s), the reference torque and consequently the generated electromagnetic torques are inverted abruptly, passing from 5 (N.m) to 5 (N.m), so the motor torque is decreased. As shown in
Figs. 7
and
8
, the main drawback of the LSPMSM is its high torque ripples in low speed, which may cause some problems. However, the modified methods of DTFC can easily solve these issues
[1
, 11]. For example, it is expected that using Space Vector Modulation (SVM) technique, torque ripple reduces significantly rather than classical one, due to its lower harmonic current. Moreover, this high ripples can also be reduced by multilevel converters since more and different voltage vectors are available to control flux and torque [11].
Finally, to evaluate different conditions, the reference flux torque is changed from 0.7 to 0.85 (Wb). Again,
Fig. 8
confirms the proposed superiority of the LSPMSM against the PMSM, due to the lower flux and torque ripples and better dynamic responses. Nevertheless, the stator currents of the LSPMSM have a higher Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) than that of the PMSM, and it has a repercussion on the motor efficiency in the steadystate.
Torque components of both motors and load torque (
T_{Load}
) are shown in
Fig. 9
. Compared to the PMSM, excitation and reluctance torque ripples of the LSPMSM are significantly higher than those of PMSM. Nevertheless, interaction of induction torque between the other torque components of LSPMSM reduces the average torque ripple of LSPMSM, since the rotor windings of LSPMSM operate as damper ones. In addition,
T_{exc}
and
T_{rel}
of the LSPMSM in the transient state are higher than those of PMSM, due to the adverse effect of induction torque.
Load torque (T_{Load}) and torque Components of LSPMSM and PMSM for DTFC method shown in Fig. 6.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, a simple and wellknown classical DTFC based on switching table was designed for LSPMSM, and it was compared with the same PMSM. The high performance of the STDTFC method indicates the possibility for the replacement of IMs and PMSMs with LSPMSMs in the ASD applications, and LSPMSM performance would be more improved if various known methods such as Field Oriented Control, intelligent, and nonlinear controllers were applied. For this purpose, further research might investigate LSPMSM performance under ASD techniques by an experimental method.
BIO
Mohsen Hosseinzadeh Soreshjani: He received B.S and M.S degrees in electrical engineering from Shahrekord university, in 2009 and 2012, respectively. His research interests are electrical drives, nonlinear and intelligent control, FACTS, and power systems.
Reza Heidari: He received B.S and M.S degrees in electrical engineering from Islamic Azad Najafabad and Shahrekord universities, in 2008 and 2011, respectively. His research interest is electrical drives.
Ahmad Ghafari: He received B.S and M.S degree in electrical engineering from Islamic Azad Najafabad and ShahidChamran universities, in 2009 and 2012, respectively. His main research interest is power electronics, drives, and power systems.
Peter Vas
1998
“Sensorless vector and direct torque control”
Oxford university press
Oxford, UK
Ong CheeMun
1998
“Dynamic simulation of electric machinery: using MATLAB/Simulink”
Prentice Hall PTR
Upper Saddle River
Melfi Michael J.
,
Steve Evon
,
Robbie McElveen
2009
“Induction versus permanent magnet motors”
IEEE Industry Applications Mag.
15
(6)
28 
35
DOI : 10.1109/MIAS.2009.934443
Melfi Michael J.
,
David Rogers S.
,
Steve Evon
,
Martin Bill
2006
“PermanentMagnet Motors for Energy Savings in Industrial Applications”
In Petroleum and Chemical Industry Conference
1 
8
Kazumi Kurihara
,
Azizur Rahman
2004
“Highefficiency linestart interior permanentmagnet synchronous motors”
IEEE Trans. Industry Applications
40
(3)
789 
796
DOI : 10.1109/TIA.2004.827476
Arash Hassanpour Isfahani
,
Sadegh VaezZadeh
2009
“Linestart permanent magnet synchronous motors: Challenges and opportunities”
Energy
34
(11)
1755 
1763
DOI : 10.1016/j.energy.2009.04.022
Fei W.
,
Luk Patrick
,
Ma J.
,
Shen JianXin
,
Yang G.
2009
“A highperformance linestart permanent magnet synchronous motor amended from a small industrial threephase induction motor”
IEEE Trans. Magnetics
45
(10)
4724 
4727
DOI : 10.1109/TMAG.2009.2022179
Bojan Stumberger
,
Tine Marcic
,
Miralem Hadziselimovic
2012
“Direct Comparison of Induction Motor and LineStart IPM Synchronous Motor Characteristics for SemiHermetic Compressor Drives”
IEEE Trans. Industry Applications
48
(6)
2310 
2321
DOI : 10.1109/TIA.2012.2227094
Tine Marcic
,
Bojan Stumberger
,
Gorazd Stumberger
2012
“Comparison of Induction Motor and LineStart IPM Synchronous Motor Performance in a VariableSpeed Drive”
IEEE Trans. Industry Applications
48
(6)
2341 
2352
DOI : 10.1109/TIA.2012.2227095
Taravat Sajad
,
Niasar Abolfazl Halvaei
,
Rabiee Ahmadreza
2012
“Sensorless Vector Control of Single Phase Line Start Permanent Magnet Motors (LSPMs)”
Int. J. Science Advance and Technology
2
126 
131