• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 4 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 81 subscribers
  • Views 150 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Similar topics

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

TMS320F28054M: Position control exception

Cherry Zhou
Mastermind 22235 points
Part Number: TMS320F28054M

Hi team,

Here's an issue from the customer may need your help:

1) with 28054 for position control, the customer only has 28069 demo board, so uses 28069 for parametric identification. Then use the drv8301kit_revD> f2805xM> lab13b routine and change it to adapt to the self-made board(after the changes are done, parametric identification is not working properly, and the inertia identification program is working properly. The detected resistance value is abnormal if enable resistor to recalibrate while the position control is being performed. ), using a magnetic encoder, the motor operates normally without load, with a slight jitter with a large load (the motor performance is sufficient at a large load which is tested with other master's board).

There is no significant difference in adjusting the bandwidth by the upper computer looking at the given and following basic coincident of the current loop over the transmit and receive data frequency of 20 hz.

2) under inductive position control, dose EST_run(EST_Handle handle,const MATH_vec2 *pIab_pu,const MATH_vec2 *pVab_pu,const _iq dcBus_pu,const _iq Does the speed_ref_pu)  need to be executed?

3) The observed value of the magnetic chain and the value of the magnetic chain identified with the 28069demo board also differ significantly during motor operation.

Could you help check this case? Thanks.

Best Regards,

Cherry

  • 0
    TI__Guru** 109730 points

    Run lab02b to identify the motor parameters with the using board and run the lab05c with the identified motor parameters to identify the inertia with sensorless InstaSPIN-motion. And then run the lab12a to identify the inertia again with sensored InstaSPIN-motion. There three steps can verify the hardware and position sensor, don't go to the next labs before that.

    Cherry Zhou said:
    2) under inductive position control, dose EST_run(EST_Handle handle,const MATH_vec2 *pIab_pu,const MATH_vec2 *pVab_pu,const _iq dcBus_pu,const _iq Does the speed_ref_pu)  need to be executed?

    Still need to call this function.

  • 0 in reply to Yanming Luo
    TI__Mastermind 22235 points

    Hi,

    Thanks for your help here!

    1) The motor parameters are not recognized with lab02b now. The resistor value identified by the RS phase is close to 0, the motor is completely stopped working when running to detect the flux phase, and parameters such as the RL frequency, current size, and so on that have been tried to modify, but the  identification still failed.  Lab05c can work properly.

    2) Using the parameters identified by the 28069demo board, write to the lab13b motor, no load can operate normally, and with load can jitter. The current position control frequency is adjusted to 5KHZ, and when the inertia and friction identified by lab05c are amplified by 5 times, the on-board jitter of the motor is much smaller.

    3) Using the lab13b program, and enable resistance recalibration, the identified resistance value is similar to that identified by lab02b.

    4) If can't run lab02b indicate that the hardware is abnormal, why the lab13b program can control the motor as well on the customer's side?

    Thanks and regards,

    Cherry

  • 0 in reply to Cherry Zhou
    TI__Guru** 109730 points

    If the motor parameters can't be identified correctly with lab02b, the hardware should have some issues on current or voltage sensing circuit. The motor maybe work with lab05c and lab13b, but it doesn't work well, that's why the running performance is not similar as did on TI EVM kit. Make sure that the hardware is verified first.

  • +1 in reply to Yanming Luo
    TI__Mastermind 22235 points

    Hi,

    Thanks and two phase voltage samples were reversed and they've corrected. 

    Best Regards,

    Cherry