Modeling and Control of a DC Motor Drive Fed by

Controlled Duel Rectifier and Four-Quadrant

Chopper in MATLAB/Simulink

I. I NTRODUCTION TABLE I: Machine Specifications and Parameters

Parameter Value
Armature Voltage 240 V
In modern electric drive systems, the efficient control of Rated Speed 1750 RPM
DC motors remains a cornerstone in industrial and automation Rated Power 30 HP
applications. Controlled rectifiers and chopper circuits play Rated Field Voltage 300 V
Armature Resistance Ra 0.6 Ω
a critical role in converting and regulating electric power to Armature Inductance La 12 mH
achieve desired performance characteristics such as speed reg- Field Resistance Rf 240 Ω
ulation, torque control, and bidirectional power flow. Among Field Inductance Lf 120 H
Moment of Inertia J 1 kg·m2
the various types of converters, full-wave controlled rectifiers Supply Voltage 220 V single-phase AC
and four-quadrant choppers are widely used due to their ca- Supply Frequency 50 Hz
pability to handle high power levels and offer precise control.
This project investigates a simulation model of a sepa-
rately excited DC motor driven by different power electronic II. DC M ACHINE M ATHEMATICAL M ODELING
converter topologies. Initially, the motor is supplied by dual The mathematical model of the DC machine is based on
single-phase full-wave controlled rectifiers, followed by a four- its electrical and mechanical dynamics as shown in Fig. 1 and
quadrant chopper to enable full-speed and torque control in all Table I. The armature and field circuits are modeled using the
operational quadrants. Subsequently, the system is reconfig- following differential equations:
ured to use a single-phase rectifier combined with a chopper
implementing both unipolar and bipolar modulation strategies. dia (t)
Va (t) = Ra ia (t) + La + eb (t) (1)
Each configuration is assessed in terms of performance, effi- dt
ciency, and control complexity.
dif (t)
The primary objectives of this study are to design and imple- Vf (t) = Rf if (t) + Lf (2)
dt
ment the required converter topologies in MATLAB/Simulink
(without Simscape), develop appropriate control algorithms where Va (t) and Vf (t) are the applied armature and field
for precise speed reference tracking, and evaluate the overall voltages, ia (t) and if (t) are the armature and field currents,
system response under dynamic load and speed conditions. Ra , La are the armature resistance and inductance, and Rf , Lf
Through this project, a comprehensive comparison between are the field resistance and inductance. The back electromotive
the different configurations is established to determine the force (EMF) is expressed as:
most efficient and practical solution for DC motor drive
systems. eb (t) = K · if (t) · ω(t) (3)
The electromagnetic torque Te (t) generated by the machine
is proportional to the product of armature current and field
current:

Te (t) = K · ia (t) · if (t) (4)

The mechanical dynamics of the rotor are described by
Newton’s second law:

dω(t)
J = Te (t) − TL (t) (5)
dt
where ω(t) is the angular speed of the rotor, J is the
Fig. 1: Motor Model
moment of inertia, and TL (t) is the load torque. The model is
implemented in Simulink, allowing the study of transient and
 Fig. 2: Tuning

Fig. 4: Dual-Rectifier Model

Fig. 5: Rectifier

Fig. 3: P-I Values

B. Tuning Methodology
The PI gains were selected through a model-based approach
steady-state behavior of the machine under various operating using step response characteristics derived from the transfer
conditions. function above. The tuning procedure involved:
III. PI C ONTROLLER T UNING AND PARAMETER 1) Developing the system’s open-loop model in the s-
domain.
The control system employs a Proportional-Integral (PI) 2) Applying standard control design techniques to choose
controller to regulate the motor speed by adjusting the torque initial values for Kp and Ki that ensure stability.
and armature current, ensuring that the motor follows the 3) Refining the gains through simulation to achieve the
desired reference speed accurately under varying load and desired transient and steady-state performance.
input conditions. The controller is designed to meet specific 4) Validating the design through Simulink simulations un-
dynamic performance requirements, including speed overshoot der various load scenarios.
of less than 7% and steady-state speed error below 0.5%.
The final controller parameters were chosen to satisfy the
A. Selection of PI Gains following performance specifications:
The PI controller used has the standard form: • Speed overshoot < 7%
• Steady-state error in motor speed ≤ 0.5%
Z
u(t) = Kp e(t) + Ki e(t)dt
C. Final Controller Values
where Kp and Ki represent the proportional and integral gains, The response was validated through simulation in MAT-
respectively, and e(t) is the error between the reference and LAB/Simulink, as shown in Fig. 3.
actual motor speed.
To tune the controller, a mathematical model of the system IV. DC M OTOR DRIVE FED BY D UAL R ECTIFIER
was developed by transforming the mechanical dynamics into A. Simulation Model
the s-domain. The relationship between the torque T , the load
torque TL , and the angular speed ω is modeled as: The overall simulation model was developed in Simulink
as shown in Fig. 4 and is composed of two main subsystems:
T (s) − TL (s) one dedicated to the dual rectifier system and the other to the
ω(s) =
Js PI-based speed controller.
where J is the moment of inertia. This model was used to The dual rectifier subsystem consists of two identical rec-
analyze the system’s response to changes in torque and to tifier units connected in a back-to-back configuration. Each
guide the tuning process analytically. rectifier as shown in Fig. 5 is modeled with appropriate firing
control . The second rectifier is an inverted replica of the first,
implemented by applying a negative gain to its output.

B. Closed-Loop Control Design

The DC motor drive system utilizes a cascaded closed-loop
control as illustrated in Fig. 6 structure composed of two main
controllers: a speed controller and a current controller. This
hierarchical control approach enhances the system’s dynamic
Fig. 6: Closed Control Loop
response and ensures precise torque and speed regulation
under varying operating conditions.
The outer loop is a speed controller designed to minimize TABLE II: Test Scenarios for Four-Quadrant Operation
the error between the reference and actual motor speed. It Time (s) Speed Ref Torque Ref Quadrant Operation
0–10 800 0 — No torque (initial)
employs a Proportional-Integral (PI) regulator to generate the 10–15 800 61 Q1 Forward motoring
reference torque and current for the inner loop. 15–20 1000 61 Q1 Forward motoring
20–25 1200 61 Q1 Forward motoring
The inner loop consists of a current controller, which 25–30 1200 -20 Q2 Forward braking (Generating)
regulates the armature current using another PI controller. This 30–35 -600 -20 Q3 Reverse motoring
loop is responsible for feeding the appropriate terminal voltage 35–40 -800 61 Q4 Reverse braking (Generating)

based on the speed controller’s output.

Together, the two-loop structure effectively decouples speed
and current control, improving the overall robustness of the 1) Four-Quadrant Operation of the DC Motor Drive: To
system and allowing for reliable operation under load varia- evaluate the full-range control capabilities of the drive system,
tions. a time-based test was conducted where the reference speed and
torque were varied to deliberately drive the motor through all
C. Firing Angle Module four operating quadrants. The sequence covered motoring and
The firing angle module is responsible for generating the braking actions in both forward and reverse directions.
appropriate armature voltage waveform Va for a controlled This scenario demonstrates the system’s capability to handle
DC machine drive by simulating the firing logic of a phase- dynamic transitions across all four quadrants. The controller
controlled converter. The input signals to this block are the responded effectively to rapid changes in reference signals,
modulation voltage Vm and the electrical angle ωt. The firing particularly between 10 s and 25 s, where frequent modifica-
logic is based on comparing the instantaneous electrical angle tions to the speed setpoint were introduced to test stability and
with predefined firing intervals as shown in Fig. 5. robustness. The smooth transitions and the system’s ability
The firing angle α is determined in degrees and converted to maintain controlled torque and speed responses confirm
to radians as: the reliability of the closed-loop design in diverse operating
conditions as shown in Table II.
π
αrad = ·α (6) 2) Motor Speed and Torque Response: The PI-controlled
180 system successfully maintained stable motor operation with
The firing logic operates within a 2π cycle to generate regulated speed and torque. The motor speed waveform con-
the required waveform. Based on the value of ωt, the firing firms smooth acceleration and stable operation under load,
condition is evaluated using conditional statements: while the torque response shows consistent behavior without
Mathematically, this logic can be written as: oscillations or abrupt changes as shown in Fig. 8. These results
 validate the effectiveness of the current and speed controllers
Vm ,
 if α ≤ ωt ≤ π in delivering steady motor performance, as illustrated in Fig. 7.
Va (t) = −Vm , if π ≤ ωt ≤ α + π (7)

0, otherwise

1200

This logic is implemented using Simulink’s conditional 1000

800
blocks and merging logic to output a single voltage waveform. 600
The result is then passed through an inverting block to ensure 400
Speed(rpm)

polarity alignment as required by the armature circuit. 200

0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
D. Results of Modeling and Control -200
-400

To evaluate the effectiveness of the modeled DC motor drive -600

system fed by a controlled rectifier, final simulation results -800

-1000
were obtained using MATLAB/Simulink. The simulation val- 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

idates both the electrical modeling and the dynamic control

response under steady-state and transient conditions. Fig. 7: Speed
 400 x104
2
300

200 1
100
Torque(N.m)

0 0

Power(W)
-100
-1
-200
Q3 Q4
-300
Q1 -2
-400 Q2
-500 -3
-600
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Fig. 8: Torque
Fig. 11: Output power
300
250
200
150
Voltage(V) / Current(A)

100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Fig. 12: Unipolar Modulation Topology
Fig. 9: V-I

V. DC M OTOR FED BY C HOPPER T OPOLOGY

3) Voltage and Current Waveforms: The rectifier output Modern DC drive systems utilize four-quadrant choppers as
voltage and current waveforms were observed to follow the essential power electronic interfaces that enable bidirectional
expected behavior based on the firing angle and load charac- power flow and rapid dynamic response. The implemented H-
teristics. The controlled rectifier demonstrated proper phase- bridge configuration facilitates operation in all four torque-
angle firing with consistent DC output, feeding the motor with speed quadrants through precise switching control, producing
regulated voltage and current. The input current waveform three distinct output voltage states: +Vdc (motoring), -Vdc
reflects the non-sinusoidal nature due to phase control, as (regeneration), and 0V (braking).
shown in Fig. 9.
A. Unipolar Modulation Analysis
4) Output Power Behavior: The output mechanical power
of the motor, derived from real-time speed and torque values In a unipolar four-quadrant chopper, the system typically
where in Q1 and Q3 the power is +ve due to motoring and in consists of two separate choppers, each responsible for current
Q2 and Q4 the power is -ve due to generating , confirms the flow in one direction. Chopper A handles the forward motoring
system’s capability to deliver or absorb continuous power to and braking Q1 and Q2 , while Chopper B manages reverse
the load. Fig. 11 presents the final output power profile during motoring and braking Q3 and Q4 .
steady-state. The simulation model in Fig. 12 was constructed in
Simulink and is composed of three major parts: the main
system including the chopper control, the rectifier represen-
180
170
tation and it’s the same one which used in Fig. 5 , and the
160
150
140
130
Angle(degree)

120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(s)

Fig. 10: Firing Angle Fig. 13: Unipolar Control Signals

 400

300

200

100
Torque(N.m)

-100

-200 Q3 Q4
-300
Q1
-400 Q2
-500

-600 Fig. 17: Bipolar Control Signals

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

400
Fig. 14: Torque Response (Unipolar) 300

200

1200 100

Torque(N.m)
1000 0
800
-100
600
400
-200 Q3 Q4
Speed(rpm)

200
-300
Q1
0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 -400 Q2
-200 -500

-400 -600
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-600
-800
-1000 Fig. 18: Torque Response (Bipolar)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Fig. 15: Speed Response (Unipolar)

C. Bipolar Modulation Analysis
The bipolar four-quadrant chopper employs a full H-bridge
DC motor model in Fig. 1 and same paramaters in Table. I . configuration using four semiconductor switches. This setup
These components work together to ensure proper regulation allows the voltage across the motor to be reversed without
of motor speed and system stability under varying loads. the need for separate current paths. By switching diagonally
The chopper controller subsystem is responsible for control- opposite pairs of transistors
ling the power delivered to the DC motor as shown in Fig. 13. The simulation model same as unipolar model but the
chopper controller differs than unipolar ine as shown in Fig. 17
B. Simulation Results D. Simulation Results
Simulation results under unipolar control have the same Simulation results under bipolar control have the same 4-
4-Quadrant scenario in Table. II smoother to demonstrate Quadrant scenario in Table. II, and outcomes show higher
and keep The torque response remains stable with minimal output voltage ripple and current distortion under bipolar
overshoot as shown in Fig. 14, and the speed closely tracks modulation as shown in Fig. 20. The torque ripple is more
the reference with fast settling and minimal steady-state error, pronounced as shown in Fig. 18, and the speed tracking
as shown in Fig. 15, which led to reduce current ripple, and response is slightly less accurate. Nonetheless, the simplicity
enhance control stability. current and voltage waveforms as of control implementation makes it attractive for cost-sensitive
shown in Fig. 16, or low-power applications as shown in Fig. 19.

300 1400

250 1200

200 1000

150 800
Voltage(V) / Current(A)

100 600
Speed(rpm)

50 400

0 200
Q1 Q3 Q4
-50 0 Q2
-100 -200

-150 -400

-200 -600

-250 -800

-300 -1000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Fig. 16: Voltage and Current with Unipolar Modulation Fig. 19: Speed Response (Bipolar)
 300
250
200
Voltage(V) / Current(A)

150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Fig. 20: Voltage and Current with Bipolar Modulation

x104
2

0
Power(W)

-1

-2

-3

-4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Fig. 21: Power Comparison: Unipolar vs Bipolar

VI. C OMPARATIVE A NALYSIS B ETWEEN U NIPOLAR AND

B IPOLAR M ODULATION
The comparative analysis reveals that bipolar modulation
demonstrates superior performance while maintaining higher
efficiency. However, unipolar modulation offers simpler con-
trol, as shown in Fig. 21.
The selection between modulation schemes presents a
clear trade-off: unipolar modulation is preferred for high-
performance drives requiring optimal efficiency and waveform
quality, while bipolar modulation suits cost-sensitive applica-
tions where control simplicity is prioritized over power quality.
VII. C ONCLUSION
This project successfully designed and analyzed a DC motor
drive system using different power converter configurations,
including dual single-phase full-wave controlled rectifiers and
a single-phase rectifier with a four-quadrant chopper (em-
ploying both unipolar and bipolar modulation). The system
achieved precise speed control with minimal overshoot (<7%)
and low steady-state error (≤0.5%) under varying load condi-
tions. The dual rectifier configuration demonstrated superior
voltage regulation, while the single rectifier with chopper
offered a cost-effective alternative with efficient bidirectional
power flow. Both unipolar and bipolar modulation schemes
were implemented, with unipolar providing better efficiency
and lower ripple, whereas bipolar simplified control logic.
The project validated the system’s performance through sim-
ulations, confirming smooth operation, making it suitable for
industrial applications requiring robust speed control.