IET Electric Power Applications

Research Article

Improved current control scheme with online ISSN 1751-8660

Received on 10th May 2017
Revised 25th September 2017
current distribution and DFA regulation for Accepted on 13th November 2017
E-First on 2nd January 2018
switched reluctance generator doi: 10.1049/iet-epa.2017.0295
www.ietdl.org

Qing Wang1, Hao Chen1 , Yuyu Dou1, Saleem Abbas1

1School of Electrical and Power Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, People's Republic of China
E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: In this study, an improved phase current control scheme (CCS) for switched reluctance generator is developed and
evaluated. The objective of proposed CCS is to find the most efficient operating point according to output power command
directly and shorten the online tuning process. The CCS is augmented with an online phase current distributing block (OCDB)
and a dynamic firing angle regulator (DFAR). In OCDB, phase current is distributed online to minimise copper loss by
maximising the average-torque–ampere ratio. In DFAR, firing angles are processed according to actual phase current and
current command. Improvements in current responses by augmenting DFAR are verified by simulations and experiments. In the
end, the proposed CCS is employed in an output power controller for practical applications. Experimental results show that the
proposed CCS has good dynamic response and finds the most efficient operating point directly.

1 Introduction SRG phase currents in the inductance increasing region and

decrease phase currents in the inductance decreasing region. So,
Thanks to the simple structure and good fault tolerance, switched phase current control is not common in SRG systems.
reluctance machines have become one of the most promising In this paper, in order to improve the system efficiency and
candidates in renewable-energy-related industries such as electric dynamic response of SRG, a current control strategy (CCS) is
vehicles, wind power systems and wave energy systems [1–4]. developed by augmenting an online current distribution block
Owing to above merits, switched reluctance generators (SRGs) can (OCDB) and a dynamic firing angle regulator (DFAR). In the
be used to replace induction generators and permanent magnet proposed CCS, phase current command is generated by the OCDB
generators in small-scale wind power generator systems installed in according to output power command, by which the ATAR will be
mountainous villages, small islands and skyscrapers [5, 6]. maximised and copper loss will be minimised. To overcome the
Since industrial applications always require high-efficiency phase current tracking problem, firing angles are dynamically
operations, a lot of research papers have been published to improve regulated by DFAR according to actual phase current and current
the SRG efficiency. Published papers can be classified as machine command. In this paper, in order to improve the system efficiency
design [7–9], off-line firing parameters optimisation [10, 11] and and dynamic response of SRG, a novel CCS is developed by
online parameters optimisation [12, 13]. augmenting an online current distribution block (OCDB) and a
Maximising the torque–ampere ratio (TAR) has been proved to dynamic firing angle regulator (DFAR).
be an efficient way to improve system efficiency for switched
reluctance motor drives (SRDs) or other motor drive systems [14,
15]. In [16], a maximum-force-per-ampere strategy is proposed for 2 Basic equations and ATAR maximisation
efficiency improvement in planar switched reluctance machinesand 2.1 Basic equations
the optimisation problem is solved off-line by the adaptive genetic
algorithm. In [17], theoretical derivation to maximise TAR is When the mutual inductance is neglected, the per phase voltage
presented for SRD, according to which phase current is optimised and torque equations are given as
by iterative algorithm. According to existing literatures,
maximising TAR not only contributes to generating constant torque dφph ∂φph diph ∂φph
Uph = iphRph + = iphRph + +ω
under minimum root mean square (RMS) current but also dt ∂iph dt ∂θ
contributes to maximising torque with constant RMS phase current. i (1)
For generator operations, maximising the quotient between AT and ∂∫ ph φph(t)diph(t)
T ph = 0 iph = const
RMS phase current, which is written as average-TAR (ATAR) in ∂θ
this paper, makes better sense in terms of system efficiency. From
the view of generator, maximising ATAR means generating desired where ω stands for the angular velocity; θph is the relative rotor
output electromagnetic torque with minimum RMS phase current, position; Uph, iph, Rph, φph and Tph stand for phase voltage, phase
with which the ohmic loss will be reduced. Since the output power, current, phase resistance, flux linkage and transient
which relates to the electromagnetic torque, is the main control electromagnetic torque (ph = phases A, B or C), respectively.
objective for most generating operations, maximising ATAR Neglecting the iron loss, average output power of SRG can be
contributes to improve system efficiency in practical systems. expressed as
Since the back-electromotive force (EMF) and non-linear
winding inductance bring challenges to phase current control in θext
SRDs, some advanced current control schemes (CCSs) are
published for SRD including hysteresis control [18], peak current
Pout = ηcon
mNr
2π ∫
θon
( − Uphiph) dθ
(2)
control [19], firing parameters control [20] etc. For generator θext θext
operations, phase current is expected to be built in the high-
inductance region and modulated in the inductance decreasing
= ηcon
mNr
2π
− ∫ θon
T phω dθ − ∫
θon
2
iphRph dθ

region. The limitation DC-link voltage makes it hard to increase

IET Electr. Power Appl., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 3, pp. 388-397 388
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2017
 The goal of ATAR maximisation is to produce torque by the
minimum RMS current increment. We define the torque coefficient
β as

∂( − T ph)
β= 2 θ = const = f (iph, θph) (4)
∂(iph)

According to (4), increasing phase current at rotor positions where

the torque coefficient is high will result in efficient torque
increments. Fig. 1c shows calculated torque coefficient versus
phase current at four rotor positions. In the inductance decreasing
region, the magnetic saturation kills the torque coefficient. In the
low-inductance region, the effect of magnetic saturation can be
ignored and the decreasing rate of β is small.
To simplify the ATAR maximisation problem, a simplified
current trajectory with four sampling points is given in Fig. 1d. In
conventional control methods, the reference current is kept
constant in one stroke. For the reference current i* = 20 A, the
typical current trajectory during the conducting area is A–B–C–D.
Transient torques at corresponding sampling points are -T(A), -
T(B), -T(C) and -T(D), respectively. According to calculated results
in Fig. 1c, following relationship can be obtained at sampling
points:

β(C) > β(B) > β(A) > β(D) . (5)

Then, very small current changes are applied to these sampling

points. The new current trajectory is Aʹ–Bʹ–Cʹ–Dʹ shown as solid
line in Fig. 1d and satisfies

i(A′)2 = i(A)2 − Δi(A)2

i(B′)2 = i(B)2 − Δi(B)2
i(C′)2 = i(C) + Δi(C)2 (6)
2 2 2
i(D′) = i(D) − Δi(D)
Δi(C)2 = Δi(A)2 + Δi(B)2 + Δi(D)2

From (6), we can have the following expression:

∑ i2( j) = ∑ i2( j) (7)

j = A, B, C, D j = A′, B′, C′, D′

According to (5) and (6), we can obtain

Δi(C)2 β(C) > Δi(A)2 β(A) + Δi(B)2 β(B) + Δi(D)2 β(D) (8)

Transient torques of the new current trajectory can be expressed as

Fig. 1  Characteristic of 12/8 switched reluctance machine
(a) Torque profile, (b) Transient TAR profile, (c) Calculated torque coefficient versus
−T(A′) = − T(A) − Δi(A)2 β(A)
phase current, (d) Simplified current trajectory
−T(B′) = − T(B) − Δi(B)2 β(B)
(9)
where m stands for the phase number, ηcon stands for the efficiency −T(C′) = − T(C) + Δi(C)2 β(C)
of power converter; θon < θ < θext is the conducting area. To
−T(D′) = − T(D) − Δi(D)2 β(D)
simplify the ATAR, parameter λ is defined as the quotient of AT
and square of RMS phase current, which can be expressed in the Substituting (8) into (9), we can obtain
discrete domain as
M
−Tave ∑ j = 1 ( − T ph( j))
∑ ( − T ph( j)) < ∑ ( − T ph( j)) (10)
j = A, B, C, D j = A′, B′, C′, D′
λ= 2 = M 2 (3)
Irms ∑ j = 1 iph( j)
Substituting (7) and (10) into (3), we can conclude that λ is
where M stands for the number of sampling points in the increased in the new trajectory. Similar to above process, in order
conducting area. to improve ATAR, we should increase phase current at rotor
positions where β is high and reduces phase current at rotor
positions where β is low. Since increasing phase current always
2.2 Solution for ATAR maximisation reduces β and decreasing phase current always increases β, the
Fig. 1a shows the torque profile of studied machine, which is ideal current trajectory to maximise λ is the one by which β
obtained by finite element method (FEM). Defining the TAR at satisfies (11) during the conducting region
2
every rotor position as λtrans = − T ph(iph, θ)/iph , it is clear that λtrans
is reduced by the magnetic saturation, which is shown in Fig. 1b. β(1) = β(2) = ⋯ = β(M − 1) = β(M) (11)

IET Electr. Power Appl., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 3, pp. 388-397 389
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2017
 commutation functions. The main innovation of proposed solution
is the OCDB and DFAR, which will be introduced in Sections 3.1
and 3.2, respectively. The current controller and the commutation
controller are common and can be found in our previous work [21].
So, we will not give further explanation about these two parts.

3.1 Online CDB

According to Shen et al. [22], the flux-linkage profile of SRG can
be modelled by Fourier series as [see (12)]
−1
T 1 1 ⋯ 1
1
π
cos(8θ) 1 cos ⋯ cos(π)
φ(iph, θph) = × n
⋮
⋮ ⋮ ⋯ ⋮
cos(8 × nθ)
1 cos(π) ⋯ cos(nπ)
(12)
i
× M(n + 1) × 3 × i2
i3

where M(n+1)×3 is a constant matrix and defined as

k11 k12 k13

k21 k22 k23
M(n + 1) × 3 = (13)
⋮ ⋮ ⋮
k(n + 1)1 k(n + 2)2 k(n + 3)3

where n + 1 equals to the number of flux-linkage curves for curve

fitting. By finite element analysis method, we can have seven flux-
linkage curves at different positions φ(i,0), φ(iπ/48), φ(i,π/24),
φ(i,π/16), φ(i,π/12), φ(i,5π/48) and φ(i,π/8). The constant matrix
M(n+1)×3 satisfies

φ(i, 0)
π i
φ i,
48
= M(n + 1) × 3 × i2 (14)
⋮
i3
π
Fig. 2  Establishment of SRG system φ i,
(a) System structure of the SRG system, (b) Proposed control scheme, (c) Result of 8
curve fitting, (d) Comparison on the flux-linkage profile
Take flux-linkage curve at θ = 0 as an example, the given flux
3 Proposed CCS linkage can be expressed as

The establishment of SRG experimental platform is shown as φ(iph, 0) = k11i + k12i2 + k13i3 (15)
Fig. 2a and mainly consists of an SRG, an asymmetric bridge
power converter and a prime mover. The output capacitor is With the curve fitting tool in MATLAB, k11, k12 and k13 can be
directly connected to a DC micro-grid system and UDC = 24 V. The obtained. Similarly, the matrix M(n+1)×3 can be obtained according
diagram of proposed control scheme is shown in Fig. 2b. There are to given flux-linkage curves, which are listed in (14) as seen in
two control loops in the proposed control scheme: the power (16).
control loop and the current control loop. In the power control Fig. 2c compares the flux-linkage profile that is calculated by
loop, power error, which is calculated according to required output FEM with the flux-linkage profile that is calculated by the curve
power Pout* and actual output power Pout is processed by the fitting. As can be seen in this figure, the flux linkage calculated by
power regulator such as the proportional–integral (PI) regulator in (14) matches the FEM results well.
this paper. The actual output power is averaged every two electrical With obtained M(n+1)×3, the complete flux-linkage profile of
cycles to reduce the influence of system noise and power regulator given SRG can be reconstructed by (12). Fig. 2d shows the
is tuned every four electrical cycles (12 stroke cycles). Different comparison between the flux-linkage profile calculated by
from conventional power regulators, the power regulator proposed analytical method, the flux-linkage profile calculated by FEM and
in this paper generates required torque coefficient β* for each the flux-linkage profile obtained by experiments at four key rotor
phase. Since β is a very small value, PI parameters should be small positions (0°, 7.5°, 15° and 22.5°). As can be seen from the
for control accuracy. The current control loop contains OCDB, comparison, the calculated flux-linkage profile matches closely
DFAR, commutation controller and current controller. Current with the flux-linkage profile obtained by FEM and the flux-linkage
commands are generated by OCDB according to required torque profile measured by experiments.
coefficient β* and rotor position θph. Current control functions and The torque profile can be expressed as seen in (17) (see (16))
commutation functions are generated by the current controller and
commutation controller, respectively. After logical operations,
driving signals are generated according to chopping functions and

390 IET Electr. Power Appl., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 3, pp. 388-397
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2017
 T
6.12 × 10−4 6.65 × 10−4 1.064 × 10−3 1.99 × 10−3 3.068 × 10−2 4.188 × 10−3 4.875 × 10−3
M(n + 1) × 3 = 3.36 × 10 −8
6.79 × 10 −8
−1.39 × 10 −6
−9.3 × 10 −6
−2.58 × 10 −5
−5.17 × 10 −5
−7.03 × 10 −5
(16)
−10 −10 −9 −9 −8 −7 −7
−4.37 × 10 −9.32 × 10 −2.25 × 10 4.6 × 10 6.85 × 10 2.32 × 10 3.66 × 10

T
1
−8 sin(8θph)
T(θ, i) = ×
⋮
−8n sin(8nθph)

−1 12 (17)
1 1 ⋯ 1 i
2
π
1 cos ⋯ cos(π) 1
n × M(n + 1) × 3 × i3
3
⋮ ⋮ ⋯ ⋮
14
1 cos(π) ⋯ cos(nπ) i
4

It is clear that (17) can be reformulated as

T(θph, i) = f 1(θph)i4 + f 2(θph)i3 + f 3(θph)i2 (18)

where f1(θph), f2(θph) and f3(θph) can be calculated according to

instantaneous rotor position. The torque coefficient can be
expressed as

∂T 3
β= θph = const = 2 f 1(θph)i2 + f (θ )i + f 3(θph) (19)
∂(i2) 2 2 ph

Thus, the current command can be obtained by inverting (19) as

−(3/2) f 2(θph) + (9/4) f 22(θph) − 8 f 1(θph)( f 3(θph) − β∗)

i∗ = (20)
4 f 1(θph)

The current command, which is calculated by (20), is limited

below 70 A in case of over current.

3.2 Dynamic FARs

Fig. 3a shows possible current response at 600 r/min. If there are
no compensations, the system suffers from poor current response,
the current trajectory, voltage trajectory and transient power are
shown as iph1, Uph1 and Pph1, respectively. The conducting region
is divided into three sub-regions by four key rotor positions: region
1 θon ≤ θ < θoff, phase current is energised by DC link; region 2 θoff 
≤ θ < θend, phase current reaches the reference value and tracks the
current command; region 3 θend ≤ θ < θext, phase current is
expected to extinguish as soon as possible. For a fixed current
command trajectory, there is always a unique θoff for every θon and
a unique θext for θend. As illustrated in this figure, in region 1, both
metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistors (MOSFETs) are
turned on, Uph > 0. In region 2, if T1 is turned off and T2 is turned
on, Uph≃0; if both T1 and T2 are turned off, Uph < 0. In region 3,
both MOSFETs are turned off to extinguish phase current as soon
as possible. In the whole conducting area, if Uph > 0, phase
winding absorbs energy from DC link; if Uph = 0, phase winding
neither absorbs energy nor delivers energy; if Uph < 0, phase
windings deliver energy to DC link.
The excitation function, Sexc-ph, and demagnetising function,
Fig. 3  Study on firing angles Sdem-ph, of each phase are defined as
(a) Possible phase current response at 600 r/min, (b) Study on θoff at β* = 2.5 × 10−3 
1 in region 1
N m/A2, (c) Study on θend at β* = 2.5 × 10−3 N m/A2 Sexc − ph =
0 else
(21)
0 in region 3
Sdem − ph =
1 else

IET Electr. Power Appl., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 3, pp. 388-397 391
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2017
 process of sweeping θoff (by advancing θon), which is shown in
Fig. 3b, θend is fixed at 37°. As shown in this figure, though system
efficiency is high when θoff is not compensated, the generator
system suffers from poor output power. Advancing θoff till Δɛexc = 
ɛexc*−ɛexc = 0 A2/N m, both system efficiency and output power
can be improved to relatively high levels: the output power is 391 
W and the system efficiency is 49.5%. During the process of
sweeping θend, which is shown in Fig. 3c, θoff is fixed at 25°. When
θend is not advanced, due to the tail current, the system efficiency
and output power are relatively low. Advancing θoff till Δɛexc = 
ɛexc*−ɛexc = 0 A2/N m, both system efficiency and output power
can be increased to relatively high levels: the system efficiency is
47.8% and the output power is 376 W. The process of determining
firing angles are designed according to above analysis.

3.2.1 Determinations of θon and θoff: The process of

determining θoff and θon in DFAR is shown in Figs. 4a and b,
respectively. As shown in this figure, θoff is compensated according
to Δɛexc and θon is calculated according to θoff. As shown in
Fig. 4a, ɛexc* and ɛexc are calculated by corresponding integrators
and updated at θext. Then, integrators are reset to zero to eliminate
accumulation errors. In the cascaded PI regulator, G1(s), the
suitable compensation value for θoff is generated and updated at the
end of each stroke. The PI regulator is tuned via trial-and-error as

5
G1(s) = 0.005 + (24)
s

In the end, θoff is set as

θoff = θoff − initial + θoff − com (25)

Fig. 4  Determination of firing angles
(a) Determining θoff, (b) Calculating θon, (c) Determining θend, (d) Rotor position where θoff-initial is the initial angle which is set to 31°. In front of
detecting scheme the regulator, a hysteresis comparator is employed to reduce the
chattering. The bandwidth of the comparator, hexc, is chosen
To simplify the DFAR design, we define parameter ɛ as ɛ = 1/λ. according to the resolution of rotor position detecting and will be
According to actual torque and phase current, ɛexc and ɛdem are given later. After the PI regulator, θoff-com is limited as −8 ≤ θoff-
calculated as com ≤ 0 to ensure the machine operates as a generator.
Then, in Fig. 4b, θon can be calculated accordingly. First, the
θ
∫θonext (Sexc − ph × (iph)2) dθ reference phase current at θoff is calculated by (17). Then, required
εexc = θ
∫θonext (Sexc − ph × T ph) dθ flux linkage at θoff, can be calculated by (12). Meanwhile, flux
(22) linkage is the integral of phase voltage with respect to time and is
θ
∫θonext ((1 − Sdem − ph) × (iph)2) dθ given as
εdem = θ
∫θonext ((1 − Sdem − ph) × T ph) dθ θoff

Similarly, according to phase current command iph* and

∗
φoff =
1
ω ∫
θon
(Uph − iphRph) dθ (26)

corresponding torque profile Tph*, ɛexc* and ɛdem* are expressed as

Assume the resistive voltage loss is small and can be omitted. So,
θ
the difference between θoff and θon can be calculated by (24) and
∗ 2
∗
∫θonext (Sexc − ph × (iph ) ) dθ the turn-on angle can be calculated accordingly
εexc = θext ∗
∫θon (Sexc − ph × T ph) dθ ∗
(23) 180 φoff
θ ∗ 2 Δθ = θoff − θon = ω. (27)
∗
∫θonext ((1 − Sdem − ph) × (iph ) ) dθ π UDC
εdem = θext ∗
∫θon ((1 − Sdem − ph) × T ph) dθ
3.2.2 Determination of θend: As shown in Fig. 4c, the process of
As illustrated in this figure, advancing the turn-on angle to θʹon, θoff determining θend is similar to the process of determining θoff. At
shifts to θʹoff. The current trajectory changes from A–B–C–D to θext, integrators update ɛdem and ɛdem*, after which both integrators
Aʹ–Bʹ–C–D; advancing θend to θʹend, current trajectory changes are reset to zero. The PI regulator, G2(s), compensates θend at the
from Aʹ–Bʹ–C–D to Aʹ–Bʹ–Cʹ–Dʹ. Corresponding phase voltage end of each stroke and is also tuned via trial-and-error as
and transient phase power are shown as Uph2 and Pph2 in Fig. 3a,
2
respectively. As can be seen in this figure, when the current G2(s) = 0.005 + (28)
trajectory changes from A–B–C–D to Aʹ–Bʹ–Cʹ–Dʹ, the interval, in s
which phase windings deliver energy to DC link, will be enlarged.
To study the firing angle compensation process, static behaviour Moreover, θend is compensated as
of the given SRG is studied by sweeping θoff (or θend) over a
θend = θend − initial − θend − com (29)
certain range at 600 r/min, β* = 2.5 × 10−3 N m/A2. During the

392 IET Electr. Power Appl., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 3, pp. 388-397
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2017
 (iii) The current command is generated by the OCDB according to
required torque coefficient. So, the current command is
independent of actual rotor speed.
(iv) The firing angle regulating loops should be faster than the
output power regulating loop for stability.

3.3 Rotor position detecting scheme

In this paper, optical coupling sensors are used for position sensing
and the position sensing scheme is proposed as Fig. 4d. The rotor
position detector installed on the extension of the given generator
consists of three photoelectric transducers and a slotted disc. The
three photoelectric transducers that are fixed to the end shield of
the machine are installed with a 30° interval successively. The
corresponding slotted disc coaxial with the rotor has eight teeth
with 22.5° width and eight slots with 22.5° width structure.
According to position signals produced by photoelectric
transducers, we can obtain a rising edge or a falling edge at every
7.5°. During the operation, angular velocity can be assumed to be
constant over a short period. Under this assumption, the rotor
position and time is linear, both the rotor speed and the absolute
position can be calculated. By measuring the period between each
rising edge and falling edge, which is marked as T in Fig. 4d, the
Fig. 5  Experimental platform rotor speed can be calculated by
(a) Photograph of control circuits and the power converter, (b) SRG test platform
7.5
where θend-initial is the initial value and is set to 36.5°. In front of n= (30)
6T
the PI regulator, there is also a hysteresis comparator to reduce the
chattering. The bandwidth of the comparator, hdem, is chosen With calculated average rotor speed (averaged every 15°), the
according to the resolution of rotor position detecting and will be absolute rotor position at the jth sampling point, θ(j), can be
given later. After the PI regulator, θend-com is limited as θoff ≤ θend- obtained by
initial–θend-com to prevent over compensation.
Some key features of developed DFAR are as follows: θ( j) = θ0 + 6njT CPU (31)

(i) Without DFAR, the system suffers from poor current response, where θ0 stands for the initial position; TCPU stands for the
poor output power and poor system efficiency. By compensating sampling period, which equals to the central processing unit (CPU)
firing angles by the proposed DFAR, both system efficiency and period in this paper. To improve the precision, at each rising edge
output power can be improved to a relatively high level. and falling edge of position signals, θ0 is assigned according to
(ii) In (24), resistive voltage loss is omitted. However, due to Table 1 and the sampling point number j is reset to 0. Accordingly,
resistive voltage loss, phase current actually reaches the reference the relative rotor position for each phase can be calculated by
value at θoff + Δθ(Δθ > 0) in practical systems. We should note that
for a given θon, θoff + Δθ is constant and can be judged by the θA( j) = θ( j)
relationship between iph and iph* in the practical system. To θ( j) − 15 ifθ( j) ≥ 15
calculate ɛexc and ɛexc*, phase currents and torques should be θB( j) =
θ( j) + 30 else (32)
integrated from θon to θoff + Δθ, which can be sensed by detecting
θ( j) − 30 ifθ( j) ≥ 30
Sexc in the digital controller. θC( j) =
θ( j) + 15 else

Table 1 Assignment of θ0 In the digital controller, the resolution of position detecting

scheme can be expressed as
Event θ0, ° Event θ0, °
rising edge of su 7.5 falling edge of su 30.0 θ( j + 1) − θ( j) = 6nT CPU (33)
rising edge of sv 37.5 falling edge of sv 15.0
In this paper, the CPU period is set as TCPU = 25 μs and the
rising edge of sw 22.5 falling edge of sw 0.0
resolution of rotor position detecting at 700 r/min is 0.105°.
According to the change rate of Δɛexc(Δɛdem) with respect to θ
nearby the zero-crossing point in Fig. 4, hexc and hdem are chosen
Table 2 System specifications
phase number 3 as 5 A2/N m in our controller.
phase resistance 0.05 Ω
stator/rotor 12/8 4 Simulation and experimental results
rated speed 700 r/min To validate the effectiveness of proposed control strategy,
rated DC-link voltage 24 V simulations and experiments are done on the given SRG. Fig. 5
peak current constraint 70 A shows the practical laboratory setup. A real-time lab is employed
RMS current constraint per phase 36 A
as the main controller. Key components and sensors of the
experimental platform are listed in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
rated output power 500 W
MOSFETs IRFP4668PbF
4.1 Verification of SRG modelling
diodes DSEI 2x 121-02A
stray resistance 0.07 Ω Fig. 6 shows the comparison between measured and simulated
output capacitor 4700 μF current waveforms when the rotor speed is 600 r/min, where ik
stands for transient phase current and PA stands for transient phase-

IET Electr. Power Appl., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 3, pp. 388-397 393
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2017
Fig. 6  Comparison between simulated and measured phase current waveforms at 600 r/min
(a) Under traditional hysteresis control when Pout = 150 W, (b) Under traditional hysteresis control when Pout = 300 W, (c) Under proposed CCS when Pout = 150 W, (d) Under
proposed CCS when Pout = 300 W

A power. In Figs. 6a and b, the system is under traditional and the system efficiency are 161 W and 40.6%, respectively.
hysteresis control, the reference current is kept constant in the When DFAR is employed, Pe is 285 W and Pg is 547 W. The
whole conducting area and θend is fixed at 36.5°. In Fig. 6a, the output power and system efficiency are improved to 262 W and
output power command is 150 W and the turn-on angle is fixed at 52.5%, respectively. In Fig. 7c, measured output power by using
18.5°. When the required output power is achieved, the reference DFAR and output power without DFAR are denoted as the solid
iph* = 29.8 A, measured excitation power Pe is 200 W and line and dotted line, respectively. It can be found that the output
delivered power Pg is 350 W. With the same control parameters, power is improved by augmenting DFAR. Similarly, in Fig. 8d,
simulated Pe is 182 W and simulated Pg is 342 W. In Fig. 6b, the measured system efficiency by using DFAR and efficiency without
output power command is 300 W and the turn-on angle is fixed at DFAR are denoted as the solid line and dotted line, respectively.
15°. When the required output power is achieved, the reference Effectiveness of DFAR can be obtained.
iph* = 47.2 A, measured Pe is 360 W and Pg is 661 W. With the
same control parameters, simulated Pe is 340 W and Pg is 653 W. 4.3 Comparisons with conventional methods
In Figs. 6c and d, the system is controlled by the proposed CCS. In Comparing to conventional online tuning methods, the proposed
Fig. 6c, the output power command is 150 W. When the required CCS finds the particular operating point directly. Owing to the
output power is achieved, β* = 5.5 × 10−3 Nm/A2, measured Pe is limitation of prime mover, we cannot increase the output of
174 W and measured Pg is 325 W. With the same control electrical power too fast in experiments. When the proposed CCS
parameters, simulated Pe is 170 W and Pg is 322 W. In Fig. 6d, the is employed, the PI controller in the power loop is tuned via trial-
output power command is 300 W. When the required output power and-error as kp = 2 × 10−5 and ki = 6 × 10−5. Figs. 9a and b compare
is achieved, β* = 3.75 × 10−3 Nm/A2, measured Pe is 316 W and the dynamic response at 600 r/min. In the proposed CCS, we can
measured Pg is 615 W. With the same firing parameters in observe that mentioned three key firing angles can be automatically
regulated according to actual phase current command. When zero
simulation, Pe is 303 W and Pg is 617 W. Since there is still some steady-state error is achieved in the output power loop, the system
loss that is not considered in the simulation (such as iron loss etc.), finds the particular operating point. In conventional online tuning
the simulated results achieves higher-output power when control methods, θend is fixed at 36.3° for output power maximisation. The
parameters are the same. Comparison results reveal that measured output power is regulated by the current command and the turn-on
and simulated current trajectories are in good agreements and the angle is tuned online to find the most efficient operating point. The
accuracy of SRG model is verified. PI controller in the power loop (proportional term kp = 0.07 and the
integral term ki = 0.1) is tuned every four electrical cycles. As
4.2 Effectiveness of DFAR
shown in this figure, the turn-on angle is compensated when zero
Fig. 7a shows measured current waveforms when the rotor speed is steady-state error is achieved in the power loop. The efficiency
500 r/min and β* = 5 × 10−3 Nm/A2. Without DFAR, phase current optimisation process is like the mountain climbing process and it
increases slowly in the excitation region and tail current in the low- takes additional steps to find the most efficient point. As shown in
inductance region is large. The excitation power Pe is 181 W and Fig. 9a, when the proposed CCS is employed it takes 2.2 s to find
delivered power Pg is 289 W. The output power is 108 W and the steady operating point and 1.4 s to find the steady operating
point in Fig. 9b. When conventional method is employed, in
system efficiency is only 41.2%. When DFAR is employed, Pe is
Fig. 10a, it takes 2.5 s to achieve required output power and
180 W and Pg is 330 W. The output power is improved to 150 W additional 1.1 s to find the best efficient point; in Fig. 9b, it takes
and the system efficiency is improved to 46.2%. Fig. 7b shows 1.2 s to achieve required output power and additional 2.5 s to find
experimental results at 600 r/min when β* = 4.2 × 10−3 N m/A2. the best efficient point.
Without DFAR, Pe is 275 W and Pg is 436 W. The output power Figs. 9c and d compare the static performance of the fixed-
parameter control method, online tuning control method and the
Table 3 List of key sensors proposed CCS. We can conclude as follows: (i) comparing with
current sensors LA-100P fixed firing parameter control method, the RMS value is decreased
especially for low-output power operations and (ii) comparing with
voltage sensors QBV10/25A
the online tuning method, the RMS current is similar. (iii) Since the
rotor position sensors GK152 RMS current is reduced, the system efficiency under proposed CCS

394 IET Electr. Power Appl., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 3, pp. 388-397
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2017
Fig. 7  Effectiveness of DFAR
(a) Phase currents at (UDC = 24 V, n = 500 r/min, β* = 5 × 10−3 N m/A2), (b) Phase
currents at (UDC = 24 V, n = 600 r/min, β* = 4.2 × 10−3 N m/A2), (c) Comparison on
output power, (d) Comparison on system efficiency

is higher than the system efficiency under fixed-parameter control

method, as shown in Fig. 9d. For the given low-power SRG
system, the system efficiency is relatively low. However, it is still
clear that the proposed CCS achieves the similar system efficiency
with online tuning method while it takes less time to find the most
efficient point.

4.4 Discussion for high-speed operations

As recognised, phase current is uncontrollable for high-speed
operations. Fig. 8a shows typical current waveform at 1000 r/min
under the proposed CCS. Although θend reaches its minimum value
(θend = θoff), the phase current is always higher than the current
command in the fast demagnetising region. In this case, only the
excitation region and fast demagnetising region exist in the
conducting area. The CCS can only determine the turn-on angle
and turn-off angle, which are normal control parameters for SRGs
in single pulse mode. Figs. 8b and c compare dynamic responses
under single pulse mode. As can be seen from the comparison,
though phase current is uncontrollable, the proposed method
shortens the online tuning process and shows better dynamic
response. When the proposed CCS is employed, it takes 1.0 s to Fig. 8  Discussion for single pulse mode
find the steady operating point in Fig. 8b. When conventional (a) Waveforms under single pulse mode, (b) Dynamic response under proposed CCS
method is employed, in Fig. 8c, it takes 1.0 s to achieve required when Pout* changes from 500 to 300 W, (c) Dynamic response under conventional
output power and extra 1.2 s to find the best efficient point. As methods when Pout* changes from 500 to 300 W, (d) Comparison on system
shown in Fig. 8d, the proposed CCS also achieves higher system efficiency
efficiency than fixed-parameter methods and similar efficiency
with online tuning method for single pulse operations.

IET Electr. Power Appl., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 3, pp. 388-397 395
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2017
Fig. 9  Comparisons with conventional methods
(a) Dynamic response comparison when output power command changes from 0 to 300 W, (b) Dynamic response when output power command changes from 300 to 150 W, (c)
Comparison on RMS value of phase-A current, (d) Comparison on system efficiency

4.5 Discussion on torque ripple and DC-link voltage In this paper, an online CCS is proposed for SRGs. The objective
of proposed CCS is to improve system efficiency by maximising
Fig. 10a compares the torque ripple under the proposed solution the ATAR. The proposed CCS is augmented with an OCDB and a
and conventional CCS by simulations. Curve 1 and curve 2 show DFAR. For the former, phase current is distributed online
the torque ripple under the proposed CCS and conventional CCS at according to output power commands. As to the developed DFAR,
500 r/min, respectively; curve 3 and curve 4 show the torque ripple key firing parameters are dynamically regulated to overcome the
under the proposed CCS and conventional CCS at 600 r/min, back-EMF and limitation of DC-link voltage. The effectiveness of
respectively; and curve 5 and curve 6 show the torque ripple under proposed control strategy has been verified by simulations and
the proposed CCS and conventional CCS at 700 r/min, experiments. By augmenting the CCS, the power loop shows good
respectively. As can be seen in the comparison, the torque ripple is dynamic responses and finds particular operating point quickly.
slightly increased when the proposed CCS is improved to control When digital signal processor (DSP) TMS320F28335 is employed
the generator. as the micro controller unit, it takes about extra 13 μs to finish the
According to our previous analysis, phase current response can increased computation. By activating the proposed solution every
be improved by increasing the DC-link voltage. Fig. 10b shows the
25 × 10−6 s, the computation burden is still under control of the
output power at different DC-link voltages. As shown in this
DSP capacity.
figure, the output power can be improved by the improved phase
Comparing to existing methods, the proposed control strategy
current response. Also, the system efficiency can be improved by
shows two main advantages (i) Comparing with off-line
increasing the DC-link voltage, which is verified by results as
optimisations, the current trajectory is distributed online. There is
shown in Fig. 10c.
no need to optimise current command or firing parameters off-line
according to simulation or experimental results for every operating
5 Conclusions point. (ii) Comparing with online tuning methods, the current
command is regulated according to output power errors and key
396 IET Electr. Power Appl., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 3, pp. 388-397
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2017
 [2] Chen, H., Gu, J.J.: ‘Implementation of three-phase switched reluctance
machine system for motors and generators’, IEEE/ASME Trans.
Mechatronics, 2010, 15, (3), pp. 421–432
[3] Chang, Y., Liaw, C.: ‘Establishment of a switched reluctance generator based
common DC microgrid system’, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 2011, 26, (9),
pp. 2512–2527
[4] Pan, J., Zou, Y., Cao, G.: ‘Investigation of a low-power, double-sided
switched reluctance generator for wave energy conversion’, IET Renew.
Power Gener., 2013, 7, (2), pp. 98–109
[5] Shin, H.U., Lee, K.B.: ‘Optimal design of a 1 kW switched reluctance
generator for wind power systems using a genetic algorithm’, IET Electr.
Power Appl., 2016, 10, (8), pp. 807–817
[6] Cárdenas, R., Peña, R., Perez, M., et al.: ‘Control of a switched reluctance
generator for variable-speed wind energy applications’, IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers., 2005, 20, (4), pp. 781–791
[7] Liu, X., Park, K., Chen, Z.: ‘A novel excitation assistance switched reluctance
wind power generator’, IEEE Trans. Magn., 2014, 50, (11), pp. 1–4, Art. ID
8203304
[8] Liu, X., Wang, C., Chen, Z.: ‘Characteristics analysis of an excitation
assistance switched reluctance wind power generator’, IEEE Trans. Magn.,
2015, 51, (11), Art. ID 8700404
[9] Xue, X.D., Cheng, K.W.E., Bao, Y.J., et al.: ‘Switched reluctance generators
with hybrid magnetic paths for wind power generation’, IEEE Trans. Magn.,
2012, 48, (11), pp. 3863–3866
[10] Mademlis, C., Kioskeridis, I.: ‘Optimizing performance in current-controlled
switched reluctance generators’, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., 2005, 20, (3),
pp. 556–565
[11] Sozer, Y., Torrey, D.: ‘Closed loop control of excitation parameters for high
speed switched-reluctance generators’, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 2004,
19, (2), pp. 355–362
[12] Sikder, C., Husain, I., Sozer, Y.: ‘Switched reluctance generator control for
optimal power generation with current regulation’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.,
2014, 50, (1), pp. 307–316
[13] Narla, S., Sozer, Y., Husain, I.: ‘Switched reluctance generator controls for
optimal power generation and battery charging’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.,
2012, 48, (5), pp. 1452–1459
[14] Sun, T., Wang, J., Chen, X.: ‘Maximum torque per ampere (MTPA) control
for interior permanent magnet synchronous machine drives based on virtual
signal injection’, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 2015, 30, (9), pp. 5036–5045
[15] Antonello, R., Carraro, M., Zigliotto, M.: ‘Maximum-torque-per-ampere
operation of anisotropic synchronous permanent-magnet motors based on
extremum seeking control’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 2014, 61, (9), pp.
5086–5093
[16] Huang, S.D., Cao, G.Z., He, Z.Y., et al.: ‘Maximum-force-per-ampere
strategy of current distribution for efficiency improvement in planar switched
reluctance motors’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 2016, 63, (3), pp. 1665–1675
[17] Wang, W., Fahimi, B.: ‘Maximum torque per ampere control of switched
Fig. 10  Analysis on torque ripple and DC-link voltage reluctance motors’. Proc. IEEE Energy Conversion Congress Exposition,
(a) Comparison at different operating points, (b) Output power under different DC- 2012, pp. 4307–4313
link voltages at 600 r/min, (c) Efficiency under different DC-link voltages at 600 r/min [18] Gobbi, R., Ramar, K.: ‘Optimization techniques for a hysteresis current
controller to minimize torque ripple in switched reluctance motors’, IET Proc.
Electr. Power Appl., 2009, 3, (5), pp. 453–460
firing angles are simultaneously compensated according to [19] Wong, K.: ‘Energy-efficient peak-current state-machine control with a peak
instantaneous phase current and current command. There is no power mode’, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 2009, 24, (2), pp. 489–498
need to compensate these angles after zero steady-state error is [20] Sozer, Y., Torrey, D.: ‘Optimal turn-off angle control in the face of automatic
turn-on angle control for switched reluctance motors’, IET Electr. Power
achieved in the power loop and the online tuning process is thus Appl., 2007, 1, (3), pp. 395–401
shortened. With the proposed CCS, SRG shows high efficiency and [21] Wang, Q., Chen, H., Zhao, R.: ‘Double-loop control strategy for SRGs’, IET
quick response, which is suitable for low-cost and harsh Electr. Power Appl., 2017, 11, (1), pp. 29–40
environment applications. [22] Shen, L., Wu, J., Yang, S., et al.: ‘Fast flux linkage measurement for switched
reluctance motors excluding rotor clamping devices and position sensors’,
IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., 2013, 62, (1), pp. 185–191
6 References
[1] Xue, X.D., Cheng, K.W.E., Lin, J.K., et al.: ‘Optimal control method of
motoring operation for SRM drives in electric vehicles’, IEEE Trans. Veh.
Technol., 2010, 59, (3), pp. 119–1204

IET Electr. Power Appl., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 3, pp. 388-397 397
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2017