Experimental characterization and quadratic programming-based control of brushless-motors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new torque control strategy for brushless motors is presented, which results in minimum torque ripple and copper losses. The motor model assumes linear magnetics, but contains a current limit which can delimit the onset of magnetic saturation, or be the motor amplifier current limit, whichever is reached first. The control problem is formulated and solved as a quadratic programming problem with equality and inequality constraints to find the nonlinear mapping from desired torque and position to the motor's phase currents. The optimal solution is found in closed form using the Kuhn-Tucker theorem. The solution shows that, unlike the conventional commutation with a fixed current-position waveform, the waveforms of the proposed controller vary in order to respect the current limitation in one phase by boosting the current in the other phases. This increases the maximum torque capability of the motor - in our particular system by 20% - compared to fixed waveform commutation. Experimental data from our brushless direct-drive motor demonstrates that the controller produces virtually ripple-free torque and enhances remarkably the tracking accuracy of the motion controller.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".