PMSM 'Teknic2310P' wrong parameters

Hello Mathworks team,

In this link the motor 'Teknic2310P' which is a SM PMSM is mentioned to state that its parameters are used in this example, but the used parameters are different from this motor's parameters and even the type is different (IPMSM) how? and is there LUTs similar to those used in this example but based on the parameters of 'Teknic2310P' ?

https://www.mathworks.com/help/mcb/gs/pmsm-constraint-curves-and-their-application.html. Thanks in advance

Regards

Ahmed

Answer 1

[Umar]

Hi @Ahmed, Great catch on spotting that discrepancy! I looked into this for you and here's what's going on: You're absolutely right - there IS a mismatch, and it's actually pretty misleading in the documentation. The Real Story: The actual Teknic M-2310P motor is a Surface-Mount PMSM (SPMSM), which means Ld and Lq should be approximately equal. That's just how surface-mount motors work physically. But in the MathWorks example, they're doing this: pmsm = mcb.getPMSMParameters('Teknic2310P'); pmsm.Rs = 0.01; pmsm.Lq = pmsm.Ld * 2; <-- This line converts it to IPMSM! By setting Lq to twice Ld, they're artificially turning it into an Interior PMSM (IPMSM) for the example. Why Would They Do This? The example is trying to demonstrate constraint curves and field-weakening control, which are way more interesting to show with an IPMSM because: - IPMSMs have reluctance torque (SPMSMs don't) - The voltage limit curves become ellipses instead of circles - MTPA curves show more complex behavior - Field-weakening is more pronounced So they're basically using the Teknic2310P as a convenient starting point with realistic parameters, then tweaking it to make it an IPMSM for educational purposes. Your Questions Answered: Q: Are the parameters correct for Teknic2310P? A: No - they've been modified. The real motor is SPMSM with Ld ≈ Lq. Q: Can I get LUTs based on the actual Teknic2310P parameters? A: Yes! Just use mcb.getPMSMParameters('Teknic2310P') WITHOUT modifying Lq. The function will give you the correct SPMSM parameters. The Bottom Line: This isn't really a bug - it's more of a documentation problem. MathWorks should have clearly stated: "We're starting with Teknic2310P parameters but modifying them to create an IPMSM example for demonstration purposes." Your observation is spot-on and it's the kind of thing that catches a lot of people out. If you're planning to actually control a real Teknic M-2310P motor, definitely use the unmodified parameters and treat it as the SPMSM it actually is. Hope this clears things up! Let me know if you need any clarification.

[Umar]

Sorry about formatting issues