Speed sensorless field-oriented control of induction

motor with interconnected observers: experimental

tests on low frequencies benchmark
D. Traore, J. De Leon, A. Glumineau and L. Loron

Abstract: Field-oriented speed control of induction motors (IMs) without mechanical sensors
(speed sensor and load torque sensor) are considered. The methodology is divided into two
parts. First, interconnected high-gain observers are designed to estimate the mechanical and mag-
netic variables from the only measurement of stator current. Secondly, the speed and flux esti-
mation are used by a controller to achieve the speed/flux tracking. The flux regulation problem
is simple and the traditional approach is followed by using proportional integral (PI) controller.
For the speed-regulation problem, it is stated that flux regulation quickly happens by using a high-
gain PI controller to regulate the q-axis current to its reference. Stability analysis based on
Lyapunov theory is proved to guarantee the ‘observer þ controller’ stability. To test and validate
the controller – observer by considering the sensorless control problem of IM at low frequency, a
significant benchmark is implemented. The trajectories of this benchmark are designed to validate
the controller and observer under three operating conditions: low speed, high speed and very low
speed. Furthermore, robustness tests with respect to parameter variations are given in order to show
the performance of the proposed observer – controller scheme.

1 Introduction (sensorless). A major difficulty is the estimation of the

Because of its reliability, ruggedness and relatively low
cost, induction motor (IM) is the most widely used in indus-
trial applications. However, the IM presents a challenging
control problem. This is mainly due to the following four
factors:
† The IM is a complex highly coupled nonlinear system.
† Two of the state variables (rotor fluxes and mechanical
speed) are not usually measurable.
† Because of heating, the rotor and stator resistances vary
considerably with a significant impact on the system
dynamics.
† The load torque is generally unknown.
For direct field-oriented control of IM drives, for
example, the speed knowledge is crucial, and generally
sensors are used to measure it. The minimisation of the
number of sensors contributes to simplify the installation
and decreases the cost of both control and maintenance.
Consequently, during the last decade, there has been a con-
siderable interest in IM drives without mechanical sensors
# The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2007
doi:10.1049/iet-cta:20060453
Paper first received 26th October 2006 and in revised form 11th June 2007
D. Traore and A. Glumineau are with IRCCyN: Institut de Recherche en
Communications et Cybernétique de Nantes, Ecole Centrale de Nantes, BP
92101, 1 Rue de la Noe, 44312 Nantes Cedex 3, France
J. De Leon is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Universidad
Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, PO Box 148-F, San Nicolas de Los Garza 66450,
N.L, Mexico
L. Loron is with IREENA: Institut de Recherche en Electronique et
Electrotechnique de Nantes Atlantique, Bd de l’université, BP 406, Saint-
Nazaire Cedex 44602, France
E-mail: dramane.traore@irccyn.ec-nantes.fr
IET Control Theory Appl., 2007, 1, (6), pp. 1681 –1692
state variable at low frequencies. Another difficulty is to
ensure the robustness against parameter variations. In the
literature, several approaches have been proposed to esti-
mate the rotor velocity and load torque from the measure-
ments, such as the stator current or voltage, for example,
[1– 8].
In [1], two types of observers are investigated. To increase
the robustness of the speed sensorless IM drives for high-
performance application, the authors proposed a second obser-
ver which is an adaptive uncertain observer. This observer is
combined with an integral-proportional (IP) controller for
speed tracking. The direct torque control and space vector
modulation schemes for the sensorless IM drives based on
input–output feedback linearisation control are addressed in
[8]. In [4], an algorithm for simultaneous estimation of
motor speed and rotor resistance is presented. This observer
is combined with a state feedback controller which is load
torque-adaptive. The sensorless control scheme and a rotor
flux observer, which is adaptive with respect to rotor resistance
at constant rotor speed, have been proposed in [5].
Field-oriented controller using a singular perturbation
approach with on-line stator resistance estimation for speed
sensorless has been addressed in [2]. A high-gain observer is
proposed in [3]. This observer is associated to field-oriented
feedback with PI controller. In [6] a speed sensorless control-
ler for IM, based on a high-gain speed observer, has been pro-
posed. To improve the performance of the control law at low
speed, the authors add a stator resistance adaptation
mechanism.
In the literature, the stability analysis for speed sensorless is
not available except in [7, 9]. In [9], the global exponential
speed flux tracking was proved. The global asymptotic stab-
ility of the closed loop has been guaranteed in [7]. However,
the authors assume that the load torque and vector flux are
known which is not realistic in an industrial situation.
1681
 Canudas et al. [10] and Ibarra-Rojas et al. [11], demon- windings, p the number of pole-pair, J the inertia of the
strate that the main conditions to lose the observability of system (motor and load) and fv the viscous damping
IM are: the excitation voltage frequency is zero and the coefficient.
rotor speed is constant. Yet, in the literature, the sensorless Furthermore, the operation domain D of IM is defined by
algorithms are usually tested and evaluated at high and low the set of values
speed [6, 9, 12]. However, a few studies have highlighted
this problem of unboservability [9]. In [9] the ‘observer þ
controller’ was tested on a ‘sensorless control benchmark’. D ¼ {X [ R6 jjfrd j  Fmax max
d , jfrq j  Fq
The trajectories of this benchmark are chosen to evaluate
the IM sensorless algorithm in observable and unobservable jisd j  Idmax , jisq j  Iqmax , jVj  Vmax , Tl  Tl max }
conditions. Unfortunately, when the load torque is .20% of
the nominal load torque the ‘observer þ controller’ where X ¼ (frd , frq , isd , isq , V, Tl), Fmax max max max
d , Fq , Id , Iq ,
becomes unstable. V max
and Tlmax
are the actual maximum values for the
The purpose of this paper is to propose a traditional
fluxes, currents, speed and torque load, respectively.
field-oriented control using an interconnected high-gain
The control inputs are the stator voltages. Only stator cur-
observer that achieves a good speed/flux tracking for IM
rents and stator voltages are measured.
control without mechanical sensors. Then to test and evalu-
ate the performance of our sensorless controller on a
specific benchmark defined in [9]. This benchmark is
called sensorless control benchmark. Three operating con-
ditions are considered in this benchmark: (1) low speed 3 Interconnected observers design
with nominal load, (2) high speed with nominal load, (3)
In this section, we propose the design of two interconnected
unobservable conditions (low frequencies). In this region
observers for the sensorless IM. Consider IM model (1)
(unobservable condition), we define the value of speed
rewritten in form (2)
and the stator pulsation by using the inobservability con-
ditions [10] of the IM. In our case, the value of the speed
is V ¼ 20.5 rad/s. The load torque in this region is the X
x_ ¼ f (x) þ g(x)u
nominal torque (8 N m), so that the speed and the developed : (2)
NL
y ¼ h(x)
torque are in opposite directions.
The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 is devoted to
the description of the IM model. The interconnected obser- where x ¼ (isd isq frd frq V Tl)T, u ¼ (usd usq)T, y ¼ (h1 ,
vers design is introduced in Section 3. In Section 4, the h2)T ¼ (isd , isq)T
Lyapunov stability analysis of these observers is given.
The flux-oriented control is presented in Section 5. The
Lyapunov stability analysis of the observers þ controller 0 1
bafrd þ bpVfrq
gisd þ vs isq
is given in Section 6. Experimental results are given and dis- B baf
bpVf
gi
v i C
cussed in Section 7. B rq rd sq s sd C
B C
B
afrd þ (vs
pV)frq þ aMsr isd C
B C
2 IM model f (x) ¼ B
af
(v
pV)f þ aM i C
B rq s rd sr sq C
B C
B 1 C
The IM model, described in this paper, is based on the motor @ m(frd isq
frq isd )
cV
Tl A
J
equation in a rotating frame d and q-axes [13]. The dynamic 0
equation can be described by 0 1
m1 0
0 1 0 baf þ bpVf
gi þ v i 1 B 0 m C
isd rd rq sd s sq
B 1C
B i C B ba f
bpV f
g i
v C
s isd C
B C
B sq C B B
rq rd sq
C B
and g(x) ¼ B 0 0 C C
B C
B ḟ rd C ¼ B
B

afrd þ (vs
pV)frq þ aMsr isd C
C B
@ 0 0 A
C
B C
B ḟ C B B
afrq
(vs
pV)frd þ aMsr isq C C
@ rq A @ A 0 0
_ 1
V m(frd isq
frq isd )
cV
Tl
J
0 1 In this paper, the unknown load torque is considered con-
m1 0
B C stant; thus, the IM model (2) may be seen as the intercon-
B 0 m1 C ! nection between subsystems (3) and (4). Then we suppose
B C usd
þB B 0 0 CC u (1) that each subsystem satisfies some required properties to
B C sq build an observer and we assume that, for each of this sep-
@ 0 0 A
arate observer, the state of the other is available
0 0
where isd , isq , frd , frq , usd , usq , V and Tl denote, respect- 0 1 0 0 bpf 1
0 0i 1
isd rq
sd
ively, the stator currents, the rotor fluxes, the stator B _ C B 1CCB C
voltage inputs, the angular speed and the load torque. The @VA¼B @ 0 0
A @ V A
J
subscripts s and r refer to the stator and rotor. The par- T_ l 0 0 0 T l
ameters a, b, c, g, s, m and m1 are defined by: a ¼ Rr/Lr , 0 1
b¼ Msr/sLsLr , c ¼ fv/J, g ¼ (L2r Rs þ M2srRr)/sLsL2r ,
gisd þ abfrd þ m1 usd þ vs isq
s ¼ 1 2 (M2sr/LsLr), m ¼ pMsr/JLr , m1 ¼ 1/sLs . Rs and þ@
B
m(frd isq
frq isd )
cV
C
A (3)
Rr are the resistances, Ls and Lr the self-inductances, Msr
the mutual inductance between the stator and rotor 0

1682 IET Control Theory Appl., Vol. 1, No. 6, November 2007

 0 1 0 10 1
isq
g
bpVab isq In order to design an observer for system (5), we proceed
B ḟ C B CB C from the separate synthesis of the observer for each subsys-
@ rd A ¼ @ 0
a
pV A@ frd A
ḟ rq 0 pV
a frq tem. Considering the two systems
(
0 1 X X_ ¼ A (v )X þ g (u, y, v , v )

vs isd þ m1 usq : 1 1 2 1 1 2 1
(6)
B v f þ aM i C y ¼ C X
þ @ s rq sr sd A (4) 1 1 1 1
(

vs frd þ aMsr isq X X_ ¼ A (v )X þ g (u, y, v , v )
2 2 1 2 2 1 2
: (7)
Then, it is possible to represent two subsystems, (3) and 2 y 2 ¼ C X
2 2
(4), in an interconnected form P
8 where v1 (respectively,
P v2) represents the states of 1
> X_1 ¼ A1 (X2 )X1 þ g1 (u, y, X2 , X1 ) (respectively, 2); then the coupleP (u, vi) [ U  J is con-
X > <
y ¼ C1 X 1 sidered as input for subsystem i . For this observer syn-
: _1 (5) thesis, we assume that v1 and v2 are available. The
>
> X ¼ A2 (X1 )X2 þ g2 (u, y, X1 , X2 )
: 2 convergence proof of the interconnected observers will be
y2 ¼ C 2 X 2
shown in Section 4.
where Before designing interconnected observers for subsys-
0 1 tems (6) and (7), we make the following assumptions:
0 bpfrq 0
B 1C Assumption 1: Consider subsystems (6) and (7)Pwith (u,Pv2)
A1 (X2 ) ¼ B
@0 0
C A and (u, v1) are regularly persistent inputs for 1 and 2 ,
J
0 0 0 respectively.
0 1 The persistence of the input is associated to the observa-

g
bpV ab bility [14]
P Pof system (2). The interconnected observers of
B C 1 and 2 are given by
A2 (X1 ) ¼ @ 0
a
pV A
8
0 pV
a >
> Z_ ¼ A1 (Z2 )Z1 þ g1 (u, y, Z2 , Z1 )
0 1 > 1
>
>
> þ (GS1
1 C1T þ B2 (Z2 ))(y1
y^ 1 )

gisd þ abfrd þ m1 usd þ vs isq <
B C O1 : þ (B1 (Z2 ) þ KC2T )(y2
y^ 2 ) (8)
g1 (u, y, X2 , X1 ) ¼ @ m(frd isq
frq isd )
cV A >
>
>
0 >
> S_1 ¼
u1 S1
A1 (Z2 )S1
S1 A1 (Z2 ) þ C1 C1
T T
>
:
0 1 y^ 1 ¼ C1 Z1

vs isd þ m1 usq
8
B C > Z_ ¼ A2 (Z1 )Z2 þ g2 (u, y, Z1 , Z2 )
g2 (u, y, X1 , X2 ) ¼ @ vs frq þ aMsr isd A >
> 2
< þ S2
1 C2T (y2
y^ 2 )

vs frd þ aMsr isq O2 : (9)
>
>
> S_2 ¼
u2 S2
AT2 (Z1 )S2
S2 A2 (Z1 ) þ C2T C2
and X1 ¼ (isd , V, Tl)T, X2 ¼ (isq , frd , frq)T are the states, :
y^ 2 ¼ C2 Z2
u ¼ (usd , usq)T the inputs and T
 y ¼ (isd, isq) the outputs of
the IM model. C1 ¼ C2 ¼ 1 0 0 : where Z1 ¼ (i^sd , V
^ , T^l)T and Z2 ¼ (i^sq , f^ rd , f^ rq)T are the esti-
mated states. u1 and u2 are the positive constants and S1 and
S2 the symmetric positive definite matrices [15].
Remark 1: For system (5), we assume that vs is known; B1(Z2) ¼ kmL1f̂rd , B2(Z2) ¼ kmL2f̂rq , L1 ¼ (0, 0, 1)T,
this assumption is necessary to build the interconnected L2 ¼ (0, 0, 21)T
observer. But, this assumption is not restrictive because 0 1 0 1
vs is provided by the control laws design (see more
kc1 0 0 1 0 0
details in Section 5). K ¼ @
kc2 0 0 A, G ¼ @ 0 1 0 A
The inputs u are assumed to belong to some set U of mea- 0 0 0 0 0 a
surable and bounded functions. In other terms, u [ U the set
of admissible inputs, and we denote J the space of continu- where k, kc1 and kc2 are positive constants and 0  a  1.
ous functions from R þ to R ni, for i ¼ 1, 2, with ni the dimen- Note that GS21 T 21 T
1 C1 and S2 C2 are the gains of the obser-
sion of each subsystem. vers (8) and (9), respectively.

Remark 2: The choice of the variables of each subsystem
has been considered in order to separate the mechanical
variables (V, Tl) from the magnetic variables (frd , frq). It
is clear that other choice could be considered in order to rep-
resent these subsystems, provided an observer could be
designed. This choice will be highlighted in Section 6.1.
Now, we present an observer design for the sensorless IM
that is based on the interconnection between several obser-
vers satisfying some required properties, particularly the
property of inputs persistency.
Remark 3: A regularly persistence input is an input that suf-
ficiently excites the system in order to guarantee its obser-
vability [14].
IET Control Theory Appl., Vol. 1, No. 6, November 2007
Remark 4: B1(Z2)( y2 2 y^2) þ B2(Z2)( y1 2 y^1) ; k[m(f̂rd
isq 2 f̂rqisd) 2 m(frdi^sq 2 frqi^sd)] ; k(Te 2 T̃e), where Te
and T̃e are, respectively, the ‘measured’ and ‘estimated’
electromagnetic torque.
Assumption 2:
1. The states X1 and X2 are bounded,
2. A1 (X2 ) is globally Lipschitz with respect to X2 ,
3. A2 (X1 ) is globally Lipschitz with respect to X1 ,
4. g1 (u, y, X2 , X1 ), g2 (u, y, X2 , X1 ) are globally Lipschitz
with respect to X2 , X1 and uniformly with respect to (u, y).
From the definition, it is possible to calculate the Lipschitz
constant; see the following example. We consider matrix
A1 (X2 ), the norm of the Jacobian of A1 (X2 ) along X2 is:
k@A1 (X2 )=@X2 k ¼ bp.
1683
 Then, assuming that Assumption 2 is verified, a nominal
observer for interconnected systems (5) is given by
8 know exactly the motor parameters. Otherwise, the conver-
>
> Z_1 ¼ A1 (Z2 )Z1 þ g1 (u, y, Z2 , Z1 )
>
>
>
> þ(GS1
1 C1T þ B2 (Z2 ))(y1
y^ 1 )
>
>
>
> þ(B1 (Z2 ) þ KC2T )(y2
y^ 2 )
< _
S ¼
u1 S1
AT1 (Z2 )S1
S1 A1 (Z2 ) þ C1T C1
O: 1
>
> y^ ¼ C1 Z1
> _1
>
>
> Z ¼ A2 (Z1 )Z2 þ g2 (u, y, Z1 , Z2 ) þ S2
1 C2T (y2
y^ 2 )
> _2
> T T Proof: Let us define Vo ¼ V1 þ V2 a candidate Lyapunov
>
: S2 ¼
u2 S2
A2 (Z1 )S2
S2 A2 (Z1 ) þ C2 C2
> function where V1 and V2 are, respectively, the candidate
y^ 2 ¼ C2 Z2
(10)
Remark 5: It is worth noticing that kS1 k and kS2 k are
bounded for u1 and u2 large enough due to the persistency
property of inputs; more details can be found in [9].
4 Stability analysis of observer under
parameters uncertainties
Defining the estimation errors as
e1 ¼ X1
Z1 and e2 ¼ X2
Z2
the estimation error dynamics is given by
e_1 ¼ [A1 (Z2 )
GS1
1 C1T C1
B2 (Z2 )C1 ]e1
þ g1 (u, y, X2 , X1 )
g1 (u, y, Z2 , Z1 )
þ [A1 (X2 )
A1 (Z2 )]X1

(B1 (Z2 )C2 þ KC2T C2 )e2
e_2 ¼ [A2 (Z1 )
S2
1 C2T C2 ]e2
þ [A2 (X1 )
A2 (Z1 )]X2
þ [g2 (u, y, X1 , X2 )
g2 (u, y, Z1 , Z2 )]
Now we consider that the motor parameters are known
with uncertainties. So (11) and (12) become
e_ 1 ¼ [A1 (Z2 )
GS1
1 C1T C1
B2 C1 ]e1
þ g1 (u, y, X2 , X1 ) þ Dg1 (u, y, X2 , X1 )

g1 (u, y, Z2 , Z1 ) þ [A1 (X2 ) þ DA1 (X2 )
A1 (Z2 )]X1

(B1 C2 þ KC2T C2 )e2
e_ 2 ¼ [A2 (Z1 )
S2
1 C2T C2 ]e2
þ [A2 (X1 ) þ DA2 (X1 )
A2 (Z1 )]X2
þ g2 (u, y, X1 , X2 ) þ Dg2 (u, y, X1 , X2 )

g2 (u, y, Z1 , Z2 )
where the terms DA1 (X2 ), DA2 (X1 ), Dg1 (u, y, X2 , X1 ) and
Dg2 (u, y, X1 , X2 ) represent the uncertain terms of A1 (X2 ),
A2 (X2 ), g1 (u, y, X2 , X1 ) and g2 (u, y, X1 , X2 ), respectively.
Assumption 3: We assume that the uncertain terms satisfy
the following inequalities
kDA1 (X2 )k  r1 , kDA2 (X1 )k  r2 , kDg1 (u, y, X2 , X1 )k  r3
kDg2 (u, y, X1 , X2 )k  r4
with ri . 0, for i ¼ 1, . . . , 4.
Theorem 1: Let us consider system (5) and assume that
Assumptions 1 – 3 are satisfied. Then, system (10) is an
interconnected observer for system (5). The parameters u1
1684
and u2 can be selected from (16). Furthermore, the
estimation error converges asymptotically to zero if we
gence of the complete observer admits a small upper bound.
Remark 6: When the persistence condition is not satisfied
(in the unobservable area), we will prove the stability of
the observer in Section 6.1.
Lyapunov function for each dynamics (11), (12) given by
V1 ¼ eT1 S1 e1 and V2 ¼ eT2 S2 e2 . Next, taking the time deriva-
tive of Vo and replacing the suitable expressions, (13) and
(10) we have
 
V_o ¼ eT1
u1 S1
(2S1 GS1
1
1)C1T C1
2S1 B02 e1
   
þ 2eT1 S1 A1 (X2 )
A1 (Z2 ) X1 þ 2eT1 S1 DA1 (X2 ) X1
 
þ 2eT1 S1 g1 (u, y, X2 , X1 )
g1 (u, y, Z2 , Z1 )
   
þ 2eT1 S1 Dg1 (u, y, X2 , X1 ) þ eT2
u2 S2
C2T C2 e2
   
þ 2eT2 S2 A2 (X1 )
A2 (Z1 ) X2 þ 2eT2 S2 DA2 (X1 ) X2
 
þ 2eT2 S2 g2 (u, y, X1 , X2 )
g2 (u, y, Z1 , Z2 )
 
þ 2eT2 S2 Dg2 (u, y, X1 , X2 )
2eT1 S1 (B01 þ K 0 )e2
where B01 ¼ B1 (Z2 )C1 , B02 ¼ B2 (Z2 )C2 and K 0 ¼ KC2T C2 .
From Assumption 2, the following inequalities hold
(11)
 kS1 k  k1 , kS2 k  k5 , kX1 k  k3 , kX2 k  k7
k g1 (u, y, X2 , X1 )
g1 (u, y, Z2 , Z1 ) k  k4 ke2k þ k9 ke1 k
kA1 (X2 )
A1 (Z2 )k  k2 ke2 k
 k A2 (X1)
A2 (Z1 ) k  k6 ke1 k
(12) k g2 (u, y, X1 , X2 )
g2 (u, y, Z1 , Z2 ) k  k8 ke1 k þ k10 ke2 k
kB01 k  kB1 , kB02 k  kB2 , kK 0 k  kk 0
Using the norm, from Assumptions 1 and 3, and by
regrouping with respect to ke1 k and ke2 k, the time deriva-
tive of Vo can be rewritten as follows
V_o 
(u1 þ 2kB1
2k1 k9 )eT1 S1 e1 þ 2m1 ke1 kke2 k
þ 2m2 ke1 kke2 k
(u2
2k10 k5 )eT2 S2 e2
(13)
þ 2m3 ke2 kke1 k þ 2m4 ke2 kke1 k þ m5 ke1 k
þ m6 ke2 k (14)
where m1 ¼ k1 k2 k3
kB2 k1
kk 0 k1 , m2 ¼ k1 k4 , m3 ¼ k5 k6 k7 ,
m4 ¼ k5 k8 , m5 ¼ 2(k1 k3 r1 þ k1 r3 ) and m6 ¼ 2(k5 k7 r2 þ k5 r4 ):
Now, consider that the following inequalities are satisfied
lmin (Si )kei k2  kei k2Si  lmax (Si )kei k2 , i ¼ 1, 2
where lmin (Si ) and lmax (Si ) are minimal and maximal eigen-
values of Si independently to u
kei k2Si ¼ eTi Si ei , i ¼ 1, 2
Inequality (14) can be rewritten in terms of functions V1
and V2
V_ o 
(u1 þ 2kB1
2k1 k9 )V1
(u2
2k10 k5 )V2
pffiffiffiffiffipffiffiffiffiffi
þ 2m̃ V1 V2 þ m5 ke1 k þ m6 ke2 k (15)
IET Control Theory Appl., Vol. 1, No. 6, November 2007
where IM is given by

X
4 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffipffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 0 1
mfrd isq
cV
m̃ ¼ m̃ i , min (S) ¼ min (S1 ) min (S2 ) 0 1 B C
i¼0 _
V B
afrd þ aMsr isd C
B C B M C
mi B ḟ rd C B pV þ a sr isq C
m̃ i ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi, i ¼ 1, 2, 3, 4 B C B C
min (S) B ṙ C ¼ B frd C
B C B C
pffiffiffiffiffipffiffiffiffiffi B C B Msr 2 C
Using the following inequality, V1 V2  (e=2)V1 þ @ isd A B B
gisd þ abfrd þ pVisq þ a
i
frd sq
C
C
B C
(1=2e)V2 , 8e [ ]0, 1[ isq @ M A

gisq
bpVfrd
pVisd
a sr isd isq
frd
V_ o 
(u1 þ 2kB1
2k1 k9 )V1 þ m̃eV1 0 1
1
þ
m̃
V
(u2
2k10 k5 )V2 þ m5 ke1 k þ m6 ke2 k B 0 0
C
J 0 1
e 2 B C
B 0 0 0 C Vsd
B CB C
Consequently
þB 0 0 0 C @ Vsq A (20)
B C
B C
@ m1 0 0 A Tl
V_o 
(u1 þ 2kB1
2k1 k9
m̃e)V1
0 m1 0
 
m̃

u2
2k10 k5
V þ m5 ke1 k þ m6 ke2 k
e 2 where isd , isq and Vsd , Vsq are the stator currents and stator
voltages in axes of dq frame, respectively, and r the flux
with d ¼ min (d1 , d2 ) and m ¼ max (m5 , m6 ), where angle.
d1 ¼ u1 þ 2kB1
2k1 k9
m̃e . 0 and d2 ¼ u2
2k10 k5 Note that the electromagnetic torque is

m̃ =e . 0.
So that pMsr
Te ¼ f i (21)
Lr rd sq
m̃
u1 . 2k1 k9 þ m̃e
2kB1 , u2 . 2k10 k5 þ (16)
e
For the new model (20), by holding constant the magni-
Then it follows that tude of the rotor flux, there is a linear relationship
between isq and the speed dynamic.
pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi Moreover, to eliminate the nonlinear terms effect, a poss-
V_o 
d(V1 þ V2 ) þ m( V1 þ V2 ) 
dVo þ mc Vo
ible strategy is to force a current-control mode using high-
(17) gain feedback [13].
p pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi That is, one uses PI current loops of the form
where c . 0, such that c ðV1 þ V2 Þ . V1 þ V2 .
If the motor parameters are exactly known, then m ¼ 0 ðt
and V_o 
dVo . This system (10) is an exponential observer Vsd ¼ Kivd (isd
isd ) dt þ Kpvd (isd
isd ) (22)
for system (5). 0
Otherwise, if m = 0, inequality (17) can be rewritten as ðt
Vsq ¼ Kivq (isq
isq ) dt þ Kpvq (isq
isq ) (23)
0
V_o 
(1
6)dVo
6Vo þ mckek, 1.6.0 (18)

Finally, we have to force isd and isq to, respectively, track their corresponding
references isd and isq . The PI current loops result in fast
mc responses by using large feedback gain. As a result, isd
V_o 
(1
6)dVo , 8kek  (19) and isq are considered as the new inputs and the system
6d
reads
By choosing u1 and u2 , inequality (19) shows that in spite 0 1
of perturbations due to motor parameters variations, the    Tl
_
observation errors will converge to a small upper bound. V ¼ @ mfrd isq
cV
JA (24)
A ḟ rd
afrd þ aMsr isd
Remark 7: Inequality (16) depends on the Lipschitz con-
stants introduced in Assumption 2. From Lipschitz con- and ṙ ¼ pV þ a(Msr =frd )isq .
stants, we can calculate the minimum value of u1 and u2 . Before carrying on the design of the controllers, let us first
Then we tune u1 and u2 in order to accelerate the conver- examine how to estimate the stator frequency (vs ). For the
gence of the observer. flux-oriented field frq ; 0, so that vs ¼ pV þa(Msr =frd )isq .
To avoid the uncertainties of IM parameters in the obser-
5 Flux-oriented control ver and achieve our goal (frq ; 0), we define

In order to easily design the flux-oriented control, let us ^

denote by V and f the smooth bounded reference ^ þ a Msr i
(isq
isq ) k
ṽ s ¼ pV (25)
sq vs
signals for the output variables to, respectively, control f^ rd b1 f^ rd
p
the speed V and the rotor flux modulus ðf2rd þ f2rq Þ.
Following
p the strategy of field-oriented control where ṽ s is an estimate stator frequency, b1 ¼ Msr =sLs Lr
(frd ¼ ðf2rd þ f2rq Þ, frq ¼ 0), the new dynamic model of and kvs . 0.
IET Control Theory Appl., Vol. 1, No. 6, November 2007 1685
5.1 Flux controller design the coefficients to calculate the IP regulator by the classical
symmetric optimum method.
The field-oriented control is
ðt Proposition 1: Let us consider IM model (24) and assume
that under the action of flux controller (26) and speed con-
isd ¼ Kifrd (f
frd )(t) dt þ Kpfrd (f
frd ) troller (31), the rotor speed and the flux track the desired
0
references. Then, the tracking errors converge to zero expo-
1  1  nentially as t tends to 1.
þ ḟ þ f (26)
aMsr Msr
Proof: Let us consider the following candidate Lyapunov
where the error flux tracking is ef ¼ f
frd . function
In (24), we replace isd by (26), then the dynamic of ef is
ðt Vc ¼ xTf Pf xf þ xTV PV xV (35)
e_ f ¼ (
a
aMsr Kpfrd )ef
aMsr Kifrd ef (t) dt (27) By taking the time derivative of (35) and using (29) and
0
(34), yield
By choosing the change of coordinates
T T
Ð
T V_ c ¼ xTf (Pf A
f þ A
f Pf )xf þ xTV (PV A
V þ A
V PV )xV
t
xf ¼ Tf (ef ) ¼ 0 ef (t) dt, ef (28)
¼
xTf Qf xf
xTV QV xV
(27) can be written, in a state-space representation, as
follows where Qf . 0, Pf . 0, QV . 0, PV . 0 such that Pf A
f þ
T T
A
f Pf ¼
Qf , PV A
V þ A
V PV ¼
QV .
ẋ f ¼ Āf xf (29)
This implies
 
0 1 V_ c 
hf xTf Pf xf
hV xTV PV xV
where A
f ¼ with a1f ¼
aMsr Kifrd and
a1f a2f
a2f ¼
a
Msr Kpfrd . where hf ¼ lmin Qf =lmax Pf and hV ¼ lmin QV =lmax PV .
By taking dc ¼ min (hf , hV ), then
5.2 Speed controller design V_ c 
dc Vc
If the flux controller forces frd to its reference f and we It follows that the tracking error converges asymptoti-
assume that the flux is properly established in the motor, cally to zero. A
the electromagnetic torque (21) reads
Remark 9: The assumptions of input persistence and bound-
Te ¼ KT isq (30) ness of ‘inputs’ u(.) are only used for observer design. For
where KT is KT ¼ (pMsr =Lr )f . Thus, there is a linear the controller design, these assumptions are not required.
relationship between isq and V. We know that, u(.) becomes a function of the state for the
Considering that the reference current isq is given by ‘observer-based control’. Our controller is a classical a
high-gain PI controller with additional terms [(26) and
ðt
 1 (31)]. This choice is made to improve the tracking errors
isq (t) ¼ [KiV (V
V)(t) d t þ KpV (V
V)] performance and to prove its convergence independently
KT 0
" # to the observer (Proposition 1). So that, the controller is a
1  ^l
T stabilising control and its purpose is to guarantee the bound-
þ V_ þ cV þ (31) edness of the state. Then, the assumption that the IM state is
mfrd J
bounded is not required for the closed-loop system.
the error speed tracking is eV (t) ¼ V
V . In (24), we
replace isq by its expression (31), then the dynamic of eV 6 Stability analysis of the observer-controller
is given by scheme
ð
Kp Ki t For the IM sensorless control, the speed and the flux are
e_ V ¼
V eV
V eV (t) dt (32) not measurable. The load torque is considered as an
J J 0
unknown perturbation. Thus, it is necessary to replace
Defining the following change of coordinates the speed and the flux measures by their estimations in
Ð
T controllers (26) and (31). Now, the new controllers are
xV ¼ TV (eV ) ¼ 0t eV (t) dt, eV (33) given by
ðt
It follows that (32) can be written in a state-space rep- isd ¼ Kifrd (f
f^ rd )(t) dt þ Kpfrd (f
f^ rd )
resentation as follows 0
1  1 
 ẋ V ¼ ĀV xV (34) þ ḟ þ f (36)
aMsr Msr
0 1
where A
V ¼ with a1V ¼
ðKiV =J Þ and
a1V a2V  ðt 
a2f ¼
ðKpV =J Þ. 1 ^ t) dt þ Kp (V
V)
^
isq (t) ¼ KiV (V
V)( V
Ðt KT 0
Remark 8: [KiV 0 (V
V)(t) dt þ KpV (V
V)] is " #
equivalent to PI controller. For the simulation and exper- 1  T^ l
imental tests, the PI controller is replaced by an IP control- þ _ ^
V þ cV þ (37)
ler to limit transient phenomena. We defined wmax , and vq mf^ rd J

1686 IET Control Theory Appl., Vol. 1, No. 6, November 2007

 !
ef h  e i
^ þ Tl
KpV ef
The reduced model of IM (24) can be rewritten in closed G2 (ef ) ¼ V þ cV
f^ rd J J f^ rd
loop as !ð
0 1 Ki ef t
   ^ ^ Tl  eV
V e (t) dt
_ m f i ( V, f )
cV

V ¼@ rd sq rd
JA (38) J f^ rd 0 V
ḟ rd  ^  ð 

afrd þ aMsr isd (f rd ) ef KpV KiV t
G3 (eV , ef ) ¼ eV þ e (t) dt
Note that (38) is rewritten in the following form f^ rd J J 0 V
8  
> _ T 0
>
> V ¼ mfrd isq (V, frd )
cV
l Bf ¼ BV ¼
>
> J 1
<  ^ ^ 
þ mfrd [isq (V, f rd )
isq (V, frd )] (39)
>
> With e1 ¼ e1 and e2 ¼ e2 , the error dynamics of the
>
>
> ḟ rd ¼
afrd þ aMsr isd (frd )
: observer – controller (13) and (41) is
þ aM [i (f^ )
i (f )]
sr sd rd sd rd
ẋ f ¼ Āf xf þ Bf Gf (ef )
ẋ V ¼ Ā0 V xV þ BV GV (eV )
Remark 10: In order to avoid a singularity problem in (37), ė 1 ¼ [A1 (Z2 )
S1
1 GC1T C1
B1 C1 ]e1 þ g1 (u, y, X2 )
we initialise the observer with a flux initial condition differ-
ent from zero, such that controller (37) is well defined. This þ Dg1 (u, y, X2 , X1 )
g1 (u, y, Z2 , Z1 ) þ [A1 (X2 )
condition is a physical condition of IM (no flux implies no þ DA1 (X2 )
A1 (Z2 )]X1
(B2 C2 þ KC2T C2 )e2
torque!) [16]. Moreover the flux controller (36) allows to
guarantee that frd reaches its reference f . Before the ė 2 ¼ [A2 (Z1 )
S2
1 C2T C2 ]e2 þ [A2 (X1 ) þ DA2 (X1 )
motor is fluxed, (i.e. frd ¼ f ) the speed reference is kept
A2 (Z1 )]X2 þ g2 (u, y, X1 , X2 )
zero. We will prove that singularities of controller (37) þ Dg2 (u, y, X1 , X2 )
g2 (u, y, Z1 , Z2 ) (42)
are avoided for all t  0.
Considering (26), (31), (36), (37) and (39), [for more
details, isd (frd ) and isd (f^ rd ) are, respectively, given by Lemma 1: Consider (a) system (5) satisfying Assumptions
(26) and (36) and isq (V, frd ) and isq (V, ^ f^ ) are, respect- 1 – 3 for which an interconnected observer (10) can be
rd
designed and (b) system (24) controlled by (36) and (37).
ively, given by (31) and (37)], the tracking error dynamics Then, by using the speed and flux estimations given by
of flux and speed defined in (27) and (32) become observer (10), these controllers track the speed and the
8 flux to the desired references, that is, the tracking errors
> e_ f ¼ (
a
aMsr Kpfrd )ef
>
> Ðt of speed and flux converge asymptotically to zero.
>
>
aM Ki e (t) dt
>
> sr f rd 0 f
>
> Ðt
>
>
aMsr [Kifrd 0 ef (t) dt þ Kpfrd ef ]
>
> Proof: Let us define the Lyapunov function candidate for
>
> !
>
> KpV ef the overall error dynamics (42)
>
>
>
> e_ V ¼
1þ eV
>
> J f̂ rd Voc ¼ Vo þ Vc
>
> !ð
>
>
>
< KiV ef t

1þ eV (t) dt ¼ eT1 S1 e1 þ eT2 S2 e2 þ xTf Pf xf þ xTV PV xV (43)
J f̂ rd 0 (40)
>
> " ! #
>
> From (19), with do ¼ (1
6)d, we know that
>
> KpV ef
>
> þ 1þ
c eV V_ o 
(1
6)dVo 
do Vo .
>
> J
>
> f̂ rd Taking the time derivative of (43) and considering (42)
>
> !ð
>
> t yield
>
> KiV ef
>
> þ 1 þ eV (t) dt
>
> J f̂ rd 0 T
>
>
> V_ oc 
do Vo þ xTf (Pf A
f þ A
f Pf )xf þ 2xTf Pf Bf Gf (ef )
>
>
> ef h  ^ þ Tl
e i
: þ V þ cV T
f̂ rd J þ xTV (PV A
V þ A
V PV )xV þ 2xTV PV BV GV (eV )
^ Using (28) and
where ef ¼ frd
f^ rd and eV ¼ V
V. or
(33), (40) becomes
V_ oc 
do kek2Su
xTf Qf xf þ 2l1 kxf kPf kekSu
ẋ f ¼ A
f xf þ Bf Gf (ef )
(41)
xTV QV xV þ 2l2 kxV kPV kekSu
ẋ V ¼ A
V xV þ BV GV (eV )
where where kGf (ef )k  l1 kekSu , kGV (eV )k  l2 kekSu , l1 . 0,
 ðt  l2 . 0:
Using the following inequalities
Gf (ef ) ¼
aMsr Kpfrd ef þ KI f ef (t) dt
0
j1 1
GV ¼ G1 (eV ) þ G2 (ef ) þ G3 (eV , ef ) kekSu kxf kPf  kxf k2Pf þ kek2Su
2 2 j1
ð  
KiV t KpV j2 1
G1 (eV ) ¼ e ( t) d t þ
c eV kekSu kxV kPV  kx k2 þ kek2Su
J 0 V J 2 V PV 2j2

IET Control Theory Appl., Vol. 1, No. 6, November 2007 1687

 8j1 , j2 [ ]0, 1[, we have Observer O1 is defined in (8), where
0 1
l 0 bpf^ rq 0
V_ oc 
do kek2Su
hf kxf k2Pf þ l1 j1 kxf k2Pf þ 1 kek2Su B C
j1 A1 (Z2 ) ¼ @ 0 0
J1 A
l2 0 0 0

hV kxV k2PV þ l2 j2 kxV k2PV þ kek2Su 0 1
j2

gisd þ abf^ rd þ m1 usd þ ṽ s isq
B C
or g1 (u, y, Z2 , Z1 ) ¼ @ m(f^ rd isq
f^ rq isd )
cV̂ A

  0
l1 l2
V_ oc 
do

kek2Su
(hf
l1 j1 )kxf k2Pf For flux-oriented control, we have frq ¼ 0. Let us define
j1 j2
e frq ¼ frq 2 f̂rq ) f̂rq ¼ 2e 2frq, e frd ¼ frd 2 f̂rd ) frd ¼

(hV
l2 j2 )kxV k2PV frd ¼ frd 2 f̂rd ) frd ¼ e 2frd þ f̂rd ṽs ¼ 2e vs þ vs , e Tl ¼
Tl 2 T^ l , B2(Z2) ¼ 2kmL2e frq
Let us define q1 ¼ (hf
l1 j1 ) . 0, q2 ¼ (hV
Consequently, (11) becomes
l2 j2 ) . 0, q3 ¼ (d
l1 =j1
l2 =j2 ) . 0 and take a1
q ¼ min(q1 , q2 , q3 ), it follows that ė isd ¼
geisd
e þ kc1 eisq þ abefrd þ vs eisq
det (S1 ) isd
V_ oc 
qVoc þ evs isq þ bpVefrq
d1 1
Hence, the estimations and the tracking errors of the aug- ė V ¼
ceV
e
e þ kc1 eisq
mented overall system converge asymptotically to zero as t det (S1 ) isd J Tl
tends to 1. þ mefrd isq þ mf^ rd eisq þ mefrq isd
Proof that controller (37) are well defined for all t  0.
Our goal here is to prove that f^ rd is different to zero at ė Tl ¼

g1 a
e
kmf^ rd eisq
kmefrq eisd
t ! 1. Let us define det (S1 ) isd
(47)
ecomf ¼ f
frd )frd ¼ f
ecomf
The coefficients of Riccati equation (S1) defined in (8) are
eobsf ¼ frd
f^ rd ) f^ rd ¼ frd
eobsf solutions of

f^ rd ¼ f
(ecomf þ eobsf ) S_ 11 ¼
u1 S11 þ 1

S_ 12 ¼
u1 S12 þ bpefrq S11
where ecomf and eobsf are flux tracking and estimation
errors. S
f^ rd ¼ 0 implies S_ 13 ¼
u1 S13 þ 12
J
_S 22 ¼
u1 S22 þ bpef S12 (48)
f ¼ ecomf þ eobsf (44) rq

S
S_ 23 ¼
u1 S23 þ 22 þ bpefrq S13
Equation (29) is the dynamic of flux tracking error, by J
choosing Kpfrd and Kifrd so that Āf is Hurwitz then 2S
e comf ! 0 at t ! 1. S_ 33 ¼
u1 S33 þ 23
J
Next,
p consider (17) and the following change of variable
v ¼ 2 Vo . The time derivative of v is given by So that a1 ¼ S22S33 2 S223, d1 ¼ S13S23 2 S12S33 , g1 ¼
S12S23 2 S13S22 and det(S1) ¼ S11 * a1 þ S12 * d1 þ S13 * g1 .
v_ 
dv þ cm (45) From (48), we note that S11 not tends to zero at t ! 1,
even if u1 . 0, ) det(S1) = 0. At t ) 1, the other coeffi-
where the solutions of (45) are cients (Sij) are very small because they depend to e frq . In
unobservability area, vs ¼ 0 and V is constant (V :¼ kV ,
cm in our case kV ¼ 20.5). Consequently, observer O1 (8)
v(t)  v(t0 )e
d(t
t0 ) þ (1
e
d(t
t0 ) ) (46) may be seen as an estimator. Equation (47) becomes
d
ė isd ¼
geisd þ kc1 eisq þ abefrd þ evs isq þ bpkV efrq
By taking into account that the reference flux is
f ¼ 0.595, it follows that if e obsf = 0.595, then this 1
implies f̂ rd = 0 at all t . 0. A ė V ¼
ceV
eTl þ kc1 eisq þ mefrd isq
J (49)
þ mf^ rd ei þ mef isd
sq rq

6.1 Stability of the observer – controller under

unobservability area ė Tl ¼
kmf^ rd eisq
kmefrq eisd

Our goal here is to prove the stability of the observer þ From (1), with V constant, we have
controller when the inputs are not persistent (i.e. unobserva-
bility area). T e ¼ f v kV þ T l (50)

1688 IET Control Theory Appl., Vol. 1, No. 6, November 2007

where Te ¼ Jmfrdisq ¼ Jm(f̂rd þ e 2frd)isq (frq ¼ 0). satisfy the equation

S_ 11 ¼ (2g
u2 )S11 þ 1
fv kV þ T^ l eT
mf^ rd ¼
mefrd þ l (51)
Jisq Jisq S_ 12 ¼ (g þ a
u2 )S12
bpeV S11
peV S13
S_ 13 ¼ (g þ a
u2 )S13 þ abS11 þ peV S12
Using (51), (49) can be rewritten as
S_ 22 ¼ (2a
u2 )S22 þ 2bpeV S12
2peV S23

ė isd ¼
geisd þ kc1 eisq þ abefrd þ evs isq þ bpkV efrq S_ 23 ¼ (2a
u2 )S23 þ bpeV S13
peV S33 þ peV S22
abS12

1 S_ 33 ¼ (2a
u2 )S33
2abS13 þ 2peV S23

ė V ¼
ceV
eTl þ kc1 eisq þ mefrd isq
J (53)
^
þ mf rd ei þ mef isd
sq rq and (25) becomes
k eisq k eisq
ė Tl ¼
eTl
(fv kV þ T^ l ) þ km(eisq efrd
efrq eisd ) Msr eisq
Jisq Jisq v~ s ¼
peV þ a isq
kvs (54)
f^rd b f^
1 rd
(52)

Remark 11: At t ! 1, all of the coefficients in (53) are

Equation (52) shows that the estimation errors dynamic is small. In this case, observer (9) can be seen as an estimator.
first-order stable dynamics with small excitation. We chose kvs so that ṽs = 0 to stabilise the observer.
The observer O2 is given by (9), where That is why we have defined ṽs by (25). A similar approach
is used in [16].
0 1

g ^

bpV ab
B ^C
A2 (Z1 ) ¼ @ 0
a
pV A
^ 7 Experimental results
0 pV
a
0 1 The experimental results of the observer þ controller,

v~ s isd þ m1 usq
B v~ f^ þ aM i C respectively, defined in Section 3 and 5 are now given.
g2 (u, y, Z1 , Z2 ) ¼ @ s rq sr sd A The motor parameters values of the set-up are as follows.
^

v~ f þ aM i s rd sr sq nominal rate power 1.5 kW
nominal angular speed 1430 rpm
number of pole pairs 2
If V = 0 (in unobservability area), then matrix A2(Z1) is
constant; thus, observer O2 is well defined and the error nominal voltage 220 V
dynamics (12) is stable. If V ¼ 0 and IM is in the unobser- nominal current 6.1 A
vability area, we have V̂ ¼ 2 e V , the coefficients of (S2)

Fig. 1 Experimental result in nominal case

IET Control Theory Appl., Vol. 1, No. 6, November 2007 1689

 The identified parameters values of the motor are as Kivd ¼ 0.03, Kpvd ¼ 15, Kivq ¼ 0.03, Kpvq ¼ 10,
follows. wmax ¼ p/3, vq ¼ 950, Kvs ¼ 200, u1 ¼ 3000 and
u2 ¼ 7000 to satisfy the convergence conditions.
Rs 1.47 V The experimental sampling time T is equal to 200 ms.
Rr 0.79 V For our experiment, to test robustness in hot conditions,
Ls 0.105 H we take Rs nominal þ30% for the design of the observer
Lr 0.094 H and the controller. For the experiment only, the stator cur-
Msr 0.094 H
rents are measured. The speed and the flux amplitude are
provided by the observer.
J 0.0077 kg m2
The experimental results of the nominal case for other
fv 0.0029 N m/rad/s parameters (except stator resistance) are shown in Fig. 1.
These figures show the good performance of both system
The parameters are chosen as follows: a ¼ 0.82, observer þ controller in trajectory tracking and perturbation
k ¼ 0.14, kc1 ¼ 300, kc2 ¼ 0.5, Kifrd ¼ 0.12, Kpfrd ¼ 200, rejection. In terms of trajectory tracking, we note that the

Fig. 2 Experimental result with rotor resistance variation ( þ50%)

Fig. 3 Experimental result with rotor resistance variation ( 250%)

1690 IET Control Theory Appl., Vol. 1, No. 6, November 2007

Fig. 4 Experimental result with rotor self-inductance variation (þ10%)
estimated motor speed (Fig. 1b) converges to the measured
speed (Fig. 1a) near and under unobservable conditions. It is
the same conclusion for estimated flux (Fig. 1f) with respect
to reference flux (Fig. 1e). The estimated load torque
(Fig. 1d) converges to the measured load torque (Fig. 1c),
except under unobservable conditions (between 7 and 9 s).
Nevertheless, it appears a small static error when the
motor speed increases (between 3 and 6 s). In terms of per-
turbation rejection, we have noted that the load torque is
well rejected excepted at the time when it is applied
((Fig. 1a, b, e and f ) at time 1.5 and 5 s) and when it is
removed (Figs. 1a, b, e and f at time 2.5 s).
The robustness of the observer þ controller is confirmed
by the result obtained with rotor resistance variation
(þ50%) applied to the observer and controller parameters
(Fig. 2).
These figures display similar experimental results for the
rotor resistance nominal case under observable conditions.
Fig. 5 Experimental result with stator self-inductance variation (þ10%)
IET Control Theory Appl., Vol. 1, No. 6, November 2007
It appears a static error when the motor is under unobserva-
ble condition (between 7 and 9 s) (Figs. 2a and b). However,
the static error increases a little when the load torque is
applied at time 1.5 and 5 s (Figs. 2a and b). In conclusion,
we can say that the increase in the rotor resistance value
slightly affects the performance of the speed trajectories
tracking.
A second test is made with a 250% variation on rotor
resistance value. The experimental results are shown in
Fig. 3. For the speed, flux and load torque estimation, the
conclusion is the same as þ50% variation case (Fig. 2).
But for this robustness test, the control induces noise.
This can be seen on the measured torque (Fig. 3c).
A new robustness test is made by a variation of þ10% on
rotor self-inductance value. The results of the test are shown
in Fig. 4. By analysing Fig. 4, we can see that the rotor self-
inductance variation does not affect the performances of the
Control þ observer scheme. Nevertheless, it appears as a
1691
small oscillation when the load torque is applied (Figs. 4a
and b) at time 5 s.
A last robustness test is a þ10% variation of stator self-
inductance value. The results of this test are shown in Fig. 5.
Comparing this result with rotor self-inductance variation
yields the same conclusion except that the oscillations
become important at time 5 s when the load torque is
applied (Figs. 5a and b).
8 Conclusion
This paper investigates the field-oriented control of IM
without mechanical sensors (speed sensor, load torque
sensor). The first contribution of the paper is to design an
interconnected observer that well estimates the load even
when nominal load torque is applied. The second contri-
bution is to propose a complete field-oriented control with
high-gain PI controller that achieves a good speed and flux
tracking for IM without mechanical sensorless. The third
contribution is to test and evaluate our observers þ controller
on experimental set-up with a significant sensorless control
benchmark. The trajectories of this benchmark are defined
to include operation region where the speed and developed
torque are in opposite directions (generating). The stability
of the controller þ observers scheme is proved by
Lyapunov theory even on unobservable conditions.
The robustness of the controller and observer is con-
firmed by significant parameter variations. To improve the
result, it will be interesting in the future to build a more
sophisticated control law such as sliding-mode controller
or backstepping controller.
9 References
1 Faa, J.L., Rong, J.W., and Pao, C.L.: ‘Robust speed sensorless
induction motor drive’, IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., 1999,
35, (2), pp. 566–578
1692
2 Guiseppe, G., and Hidetoshi, U.: ‘A novel stator resistance estimation
method for speed-sensorless induction motor drives‘’, IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., 2000, 36, (6), pp. 1619– 1627
3 Hassan, K.K., and Elias, G.S.: ‘Sensorless speed control of induction
motors’. Proc. 2004 ACC, Boston, 30 June–July 2004,
pp. 1127–1131
4 Kubota, H., and Matsuse, K.: ‘Speed sensorless filed-oriented control
of induction motor with rotor resistance adaptation‘’, IEEE Trans. Ind.
Appl., 1994, 30, (5), pp. 344– 348
5 Montanari, M., Peresada, S., Tilli, A., and Tonielli, A.: ‘Speed
sensorless control of induction motor based on indirect
field-orientation’. Conf. Record of the 2000 IEEE Industry
Applications Conf., 2000, vol. 3, pp. 1858–1865
6 Montanari, M., and Tilli, A.: ‘Sensorless control of induction motors
based on high-gain Speed Estimation one-line stator resistance
adaptation’. The 32nd Annual Conf. IECON, Paris, 7– 10 November
2006, pp. 1263– 1268
7 Marino, R., Tomei, P., and Verrelli, C.M.: ‘A global tracking control
for speed-sensorless induction motors’, Automatica, 2004, 40,
pp. 1071–1077
8 Soltani, J., Arab Makadeh, G.R., and Hosseiny, S.H.: ‘A new adaptive
direct torque control (DTC) scheme based-on SVW for adjustable
speed sensorless induction motor drive’. The 30th Annual Conf.
IEEE Industrial Electric Society, November 2004, pp. 1111– 1115
9 Ghanes, M., Jesus, D.L., and Glumineau, A.: ‘Novel controller for
induction motor without mechanical sensor and experimental
validation’. Proc. 45th IEEE CDC, San Diego, 13–15 December
2006, pp. 4008– 4013
10 Canudas, D.W.C., Youssef, A., Barbot, J.P., Martin, Ph., and Malrait,
F.: ‘Observability conditions of induction motors at low frequencies’.
IEEE CDC, Sydney, December 2000
11 Ibarra-Rojas, S., Moreno, J., and Espinosa, G.: ‘Global observability
analysis of sensorless induction motor’, Automatica, 2004, 40, (6),
pp. 1079–1085
12 Gregor, E., and Karel, J.: ‘Low-speed sensorless control of induction
machine’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., 2006, 53, (1), pp. 120– 128
13 Chiasson, J.: ‘Non linear controllers for induction motors’. IFAC
Conf. System Structure and Control, Nantes, 5– 7 July 1995
14 Besançon, G., and Hammouri, H.: ‘On observer design for
interconnected systems’, J. Math. Syst. Estim. Control, 1998, 8, (4),
pp. 377–397
15 Besançon, G., and Hammouri, H.: ‘Observer synthesis for class of
nonlinear control systems’, Eur. J. Control, 1996, 2, (3), pp. 176 –192
16 Marino, R., Sergei, P., and Tomei, P.: ‘Global adaptive output
feedback control of induction motors with uncertain rotor
resistance’, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 1999, 44, (5), pp. 967 –983
IET Control Theory Appl., Vol. 1, No. 6, November 2007