Centralized optimal position control for active magnetic bearings: comparison with decentralized control

Jastrzębski, Rafał P.; Pollanen, R.

doi:10.1007/s00202-009-0121-2

Cited by 34 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For testing the flux-based zero-bias control, a Linear-quadratic-Gaussian (LQG) outer position controller is synthesized [8,17]. The weighting matrices for both centralized LQG (flux and current) controllers have been optimized to achieve maximum bandwidth and minimum sensitivity peaks.…”

Section: Comparison Of Current-and Flux-controlled Amb Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cascaded Position-Flux Controller for an AMB System Operating at Zero Bias

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper reports on the implementation and the design of a controller for a fuel cell blower (FCB) with active magnetic bearings (AMBs). The cascaded position-fluxcentralized controller is comprised of a centralized position control loop and an inner flux control loop. The last one is based on state estimation without explicit flux measurements. As the position control is not dependent on the magnetic field nonlinearities, such a control structure enables operation under a zero bias. The practical working implementation of a flux control for the industrial levitated rotor is shown for the first time. The flux control gives better results than current control for both normal and zero bias operation. The system is analyzed fully, combining rotor dynamics and power amplifier analyses simultaneously. The importance of using the coil voltage in addition to current and practical treatment of the flux control is revealed. The centralized position-flux controller is compared with a state-of-the-art cascaded position-current control, which has inner current control loops. The proposed control solution with a zero bias can achieve a dynamic performance comparable that of a controller with the classical bias current.

show abstract

Section: Comparison Of Current-and Flux-controlled Amb Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The dynamics of the current control loop, the PWM delay and the position sensors are approximated as transfer functions and added to the complete linear plant model that is used for the iterative centralized controller synthesis and verification [17].…”

Section: Outer Position Control For Current-controlled Ambmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cascaded Position-Flux Controller for an AMB System Operating at Zero Bias

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The algorithm is an improved version of the one presented in [7]. A single cost function (fitness function) that maps the chromosomes into the fitness values comprises multiple sub-functions f n .…”

Section: Selection Of Design Weights Based On Genetic Algorithmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, in [7], the coupled LQG control was compared to a decoupled PID and PI/PD controllers. This paper focuses on the comparison between two H ∞ control design approaches.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Case study comparison of linear H<inf>∞</inf> loop-shaping design and signal-based H<inf>∞</inf> control

Jastrzębski

Hynynen

Смирнов

2009

2009 XXII International Symposium on Information, Communication and Automation Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper focuses on the design of a linear robust controller for a mechatronic system in the presence of real parametric and non-parametric frequency-dependent uncertainties. An H ∞ loop-shaping control design procedure is compared with a signal-based H ∞ control. The comparison of the robust controllers is carried out in the context of an active magnetic bearing rotor system. Experimental results demonstrate the better robust stability of the signal-based approach. A genetic algorithm is essential to credible comparison of different design approaches.

show abstract

“…The technical details of the plant are given by Jastrzebski (2007), Jastrzebski & Pöllänen (2009) and Jastrzebski et al (2010). The plant model comprises the actuator model and the rotor model.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%