This application is a national stage of International Application No. PCT/GB2008/002257 filed Jun. 30, 2008, the disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference, and which claimed priority to Great Britain Patent Application No. 0713239.2 filed Jul. 7, 2007, the disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference.
The present invention relates to the control of electric motors, and in particular to the detection of stalling in electric motors. It has particular application in permanent magnet AC motors but can also be used in other types of motor.
In order to control an electric motor, for example using closed loop velocity control or closed loop current control, it is necessary to know the rotational position of the motor. It is well known to use a dedicated position sensor to monitor the rotational position of an electric motor. An overview of a closed loop velocity control system utilising a position sensor is shown in
For a number of applications a diagnostic may be required that can detect if the motor is stalled, i.e. not rotating, or not rotating at sufficient speed, in response to the current passed through it. This may be because the load on the motor is too high, or because it has become completely locked due to some physical obstruction. The position sensor can be checked directly to determine whether the motor is rotating, for example if the position sensor includes hall sensors, they will not change state if the motor is stalled.
With a sensorless position determining system the position sensor is removed and the position determined by a sensorless position algorithm from knowledge of the voltage applied to the motor and the current measured in the motor. As there is no position sensor there is no method to determine directly if the motor is rotating. Therefore in order to monitor for stalling an alternative method of detection is required.
As mentioned above, the basic requirement of stall detection is that the diagnostic can reliably detect that the motor has locked or otherwise stalled. One example of a stalled motor condition is where the load applied to the motor is greater than the torque that the motor can generate, causing the motor speed to fall to around zero. It may move very slowly or sporadically. If the load is removed the motor will operate as normal. Another example of a stalled motor condition is where the rotor has been mechanically locked, e.g. due to debris in the mechanics. The motor will not rotate at all and is unlikely to unless the cause of the locked rotor can be removed.
Known sensorless position algorithms rely on the back EMF generated in the motor to allow the rotational position to be determined. At zero and low speeds there is no or little back EMF generated. The position generated at low speeds is therefore generally incorrect or very noisy as the algorithm attempts to operate without a sufficient level of back EMF. The estimated velocity derived from the position signal is therefore also extremely noisy and overly high in magnitude. The noise levels present on the estimated velocity signal are too high to allow a threshold to be used reliably, even with heavy filtering of the signal. Therefore these known algorithms are not suitable themselves for detecting stall conditions.
The present invention provides a control system for an electric motor, the system comprising processing means arranged to perform a control process which includes monitoring electrical voltages applied to the motor and electrical currents in the motor, and determining from them the rotational position of the motor, wherein the system is further arranged to monitor at least one parameter of the control process thereby to detect a stall condition of the motor.
The at least one parameter may be one used within a position determining process, for example an algorithm, which determines the motor position. For example the at least one parameter may include an estimated velocity, speed, or acceleration of the motor, or the voltages applied to, or currents measured in, the motor. Alternatively, or additionally, the at least one parameter may include a parameter used on the broader control of the motor, such as a demanded current. Where a plurality of parameters are monitored, a stall condition may be detected when only one of them is within a predetermined range, or it may be detected only when all of them are within respective ranges.
The control system may be arranged to monitor repeatedly for detection of a stall condition or fault, and to determine that a stall has occurred only if a stall condition or fault occurs a predetermined number of times within a predetermined period of time.
The control system may be arranged to perform a stall response action in response to detection of a stall condition. For example the stall response action may include providing a warning, and/or generating a predetermined control input.
A benefit of the locked rotor diagnostic of some embodiments of the present invention is that no additional hardware is required to fulfil the safety requirement of detecting a locked or otherwise stalled motor. Without additional hardware a cost saving will be made and potentially the reliability of the system increased.
Other advantages of this invention will become apparent to those skilled in the art from the following detailed description of the preferred embodiments, when read in light of the accompanying drawings.
a and 6b show the samples of
a and 7b show samples corresponding to those of
Referring to
As previously stated when the motor stalls, for example if the rotor is locked, the sensorless algorithm, because of the negligible back EMF, is unable to operate correctly to determine the rotor position. Therefore the operating parameters of the sensorless algorithm will be different from normal operation. For example the measured motor position will vary in an unusual way, the estimated motor speed and acceleration will also vary in unusual ways, and the voltages generated by the control system to control the motor will also vary in unusual ways. It is this change in operation that the stall detection algorithm is arranged to detect. The sensorless algorithm normally operates within a particular range of values of these and other parameters, but when a stall condition occurs, the ranges over which these parameters vary change, allowing detection by the stall detection algorithm.
Referring to
To perform step 204 and determine whether the sensorless algorithm is operating correctly a number of measures of performance can be used, and some of these will now be described.
Internally, the sensorless algorithm 112 in this embodiment uses an observer, which includes a model of the motor 110 and is arranged to predict operating parameters of the motor 110 and compare them with measured values. The differences between these, referred to as residuals, are used as part of the overall motor control process, but can also be used for stall detection. This is because when the motor 110 is operating normally, the residuals should be small. Under abnormal operation, where the observer is not operating correctly, the residuals will change and this can be used to detect the stalled motor condition.
Externally the inputs and outputs to the observer are shown in
Although the velocity signal may be used to detect stalling it has limitations. A more reliable method of detection is to use the estimated acceleration value. The estimated acceleration value is derived from the velocity measurement, which is in turn derived from the position signal. The jerk of the position estimate, i.e. the derivative of the acceleration with respect to time, can also be used as a parameter which provides useful information.
a and 7b show corresponding samples when the motor 110 is experiencing a locked rotor condition. As can be seen, the estimated acceleration, shown on the vertical axis, is much greater when the rotor is locked and the sensorless algorithm 112 is not operating correctly. The velocity is displayed on the horizontal axis and it can be seen that, when the rotor is locked, a velocity is still generated because of the false variation in the position estimation. However, the majority of motor speed values are below 1500 rpm, and a large number are below 1000 rpm, i.e. below the normal operating speed range of the motor. Also a large proportion of the samples have acceleration values of 200 rpm/ms or greater. Also the values for current are much higher than those in
This change in estimated acceleration magnitude can be used as an indication of stalling, and a threshold placed on the acceleration signal. If the absolute acceleration exceeds this specific threshold then the stall detection algorithm detects a stall condition. The estimated acceleration of the motor is defined as the change in motor velocity since the previous calculation divided by the time since the last velocity calculation, i.e.:
Motor Acceleration=(Motor Velocity−Previous Motor Velocity)/TIME SINCE LAST ACCEL CALC
Previous Motor Velocity=Motor Velocity
The stall detection diagnostic can then be defined as TRUE if the estimated acceleration exceeds a predetermined value:
IF (absolute(Motor Acceleration)>MOTOR STALL MAX ACCELERATION)
Stalled Rotor Diagnostic=TRUE
ELSE
Stalled Rotor Diagnostic=FALSE
ENDIF
In the simplest case this could be the complete diagnostic. However, in this embodiment, the TRUE and FALSE values are used in the algorithm of
To improve the robustness of the diagnostic and to prevent false triggers, the area of operation within which the diagnostic operates, i.e. the range of parameters over which the algorithm will detect a stall condition, can be reduced by means of a number of enhancements. Although each enhancement is applied cumulatively in this embodiment, they can be applied separately as required.
Although the speed estimate generated by the algorithm is very noisy during stall, it does average to a value close to zero. Therefore if the normal operating range is above a particular speed value the diagnostic can be limited to only operate below this speed limit.
IF ((absolute(Motor Acceleration)>MOTOR STALL MAX ACCELERATION) AND
(absolute (Motor Velocity<MOTOR STALL MAX VELOCITY))
THEN
Stalled Rotor Diagnostic=TRUE
ELSE
Stalled Rotor Diagnostic=FALSE
ENDIF
An additional enhancement is to use the current to further reduce the operating range. For a speed controller, where the speed drops below the speed demand such as in a stall condition, the controller will be applying maximum current to attempt to remove the velocity error.
IF ((absolute (Motor Acceleration)>MOTOR STALL MAX ACCELERATION) AND
(absolute (Motor Velocity)<MOTOR STALL MAX VELOCITY)
AND
(absolute (Q Axis Current)>MOTOR STALL MIN CURRENT))
THEN
Stalled Rotor Diagnostic=TRUE
ELSE
Stalled Rotor Diagnostic=FALSE
ENDIF
a shows the operating area, i.e. the ranges of operating parameters, of the stall detection algorithm in which the stalled rotor diagnostic with the enhancements described above are included. The rectangle in the top left hand corner defines the area of operation, with the limiting maximum speed being 1000 rpm and the limiting minimum acceleration being 200 rpm/ms.
Referring back to
Once a locked or otherwise stalled motor has been detected there are a number of possible actions that the system can take in response, some of which attempt to overcome the stall condition, and some of which do not. Referring to
The stalled, or locked, rotor action can include any one or more of the following steps.
A warning may be raised for external action. For example, referring to
The motor control system may respond to stall detection by entering a predefined routine in an attempt to remove the stall condition. For example for a pump application the motor may be caused to change direction, to run, and hence drive the pump, in the opposite direction to normal or the opposite direction to that in which it was previously running, in an attempt to remove any potential debris. Other controlled variations in the operation of the motor could also be implemented to try to remove the debris. Referring to
Referring to
As a further possibility, on detection of stall, the motor control may be disabled, i.e. power to the motor may be cut off. Alternatively the system may do nothing and continue to control the motor.
The actions may be applied indefinitely, for a fixed period of time or until the stalled rotor diagnostic shows that normal operation has been resumed.
In accordance with the provisions of the patent statutes, the principle and mode of operation of this invention have been explained and illustrated in its preferred embodiment. However, it must be understood that this invention may be practiced otherwise than as specifically explained and illustrated without departing from its spirit or scope.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
0713239.2 | Jul 2007 | GB | national |
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/GB2008/002257 | 6/30/2008 | WO | 00 | 3/18/2010 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2009/007681 | 1/15/2009 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4725765 | Miller | Feb 1988 | A |
5008608 | Unsworth et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
5076761 | Krohn et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
5151642 | Lombardi et al. | Sep 1992 | A |
5367236 | Salazar | Nov 1994 | A |
5600218 | Holling et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5637976 | Chen et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
5672945 | Krause | Sep 1997 | A |
5744921 | Makaran | Apr 1998 | A |
5821713 | Holling et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5917296 | Frey et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
6469462 | Shimane et al. | Oct 2002 | B2 |
6548975 | Kleinau et al. | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6838847 | Dragoi et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6900607 | Kleinau et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6943676 | Mack | Sep 2005 | B2 |
7071649 | Shafer et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7116070 | MacKay | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7163080 | Fardoun et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7196491 | Mayhew et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7199549 | Kleinau et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7224177 | Kim et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7383902 | Matsuzaki et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7397212 | Turner | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7423394 | Collins | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7443116 | Kutsuna et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7511474 | Washington | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7521884 | Filippenko | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7535684 | Ganev et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7633251 | Collins | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7633252 | Maue et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7642676 | Washington | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7668690 | Schneider et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7911167 | Takeuchi | Mar 2011 | B2 |
8080964 | Hudson et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8390235 | Bagarelli et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
20010015631 | Shimane et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20030001533 | Kleinau et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030034793 | Lee et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030071594 | Kleinau et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030076061 | Kleinau et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030076064 | Kleinau et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030076065 | Shafer et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030127289 | Elgas et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030130772 | Yanagida et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030210011 | Dragoi et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040056629 | Maeda et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040057171 | Mayhew et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040061603 | Mack | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040155622 | Mayhew et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040163860 | Matsuzaki et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040211200 | McMillan et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20050007044 | Qiu et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050156556 | Hermann et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050212548 | Kim et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050258581 | Tanaka | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060038517 | MacKay | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060201736 | Fardoun et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060232896 | Maue et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060273747 | Takeuchi | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070114965 | Kutsuna et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070132446 | Kleinau et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070159123 | Collins | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20080100146 | Washington | May 2008 | A1 |
20080100245 | Turner | May 2008 | A1 |
20080100248 | Filippenko | May 2008 | A1 |
20080116898 | Washington | May 2008 | A1 |
20080165456 | Ganev et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080290828 | Haas et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080297083 | Collins | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080315811 | Hudson et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090071594 | Johnson et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090254300 | Schneider et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20100289445 | Bagarelli et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110089876 | Patel et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110093167 | Williams et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110181229 | Galic et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110184560 | Brickell et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20120056570 | Hudson et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120217908 | Wu et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1674431 | Sep 2005 | CN |
4419813 | Dec 1995 | DE |
1271762 | Jan 2003 | EP |
1670134 | Jun 2006 | EP |
2238920 | Jun 1991 | GB |
10304694 | Nov 1998 | JP |
2007072033 | Jun 2007 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Chinese Search Report, Application No. CN200880105404.X dated Nov. 23, 2012. |
Patent Act 1977: Search Report under Section 17, Application No. GB0713239.2 dated Sep. 19, 2007. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20100194325 A1 | Aug 2010 | US |