Procesdlngs of Ihe 291h Conference

on Deddon end Control

Honolulu, Hawall December 1990 FP=8-12:OO
ADAPTIVE PARTIAL FEEDBACK LINEARIZATION
OF INDUCTION MOTORS

MARINO,* SERGEIPERESADA," PAOLO

RICCARDO VALIGI'

*Seconda Universith di Roma, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettronica

Via 0. Raimondo 00173 Roma ITALIA.
**KievPolytechnical Institute, Department of Electrical Engineering
Prospect Pobedy, 37 Kiev 252056 USSR.

Abstract. A nonlinear adaptive state feedback input-output
linearizing control is designed for a fifth order model of an in-
duction motor which includes both electrical and mechanical
dynamics under the assumptions of linear magnetic circuits.
The control algorithm contains a nonlinear identification scheme
which asymptotically tracks the true values of the load torque
and rotor resistance which are assumed to be constant but un-
known. Once those parameters are identified, the two control
goals of regulating rotor speed and rotor flux amplitude are de-
coupled. Full state measurements are required.
control problems. The symbols used and their meaning are col-
lected in the Appendix. An induction motor is made by three
stator windings and three rotor windings. Krause [14]intro-
duced a two phase equivalent machine representation with two
rotor windings and two stator windings. The dynamics of an
induction motor under the assumptions of equal mutual induc-
tances and linear magnetic circuit are given by the fifth-order
model

1. INTRODUCTION
In the last decade significant advances have been made in the
theory of nonlinear state feedback control (see [I] for a com-
prehensive introduction to nonlinear geometric control): in par-
ticular feedback linearization and input-output decoupling tech-
niques have proved useful in applications [2]. More recently the
problems of feedback linearization and input-output lineariza-
tion have been generalized allowing for some parameters not to
be known [3],[4],[5]. In this paper we address the problem of
adaptive speed regulation for induction motors with load torque where i, $', U , denote current, flux linkage and stator voltage
and rotor resistance being unknown but constant parameters. input to the machine; the subscripts s and T stand for stator
Non adaptive input-output decoupling controls were presented and rotor; ( a , b) denote the components of a vector with respect
to a fixed stator reference frame and
in (9],[lO],[ll]
using geometric techniques. We develop an adap-
tive version of the controller presented in [ll], assuming that u=Ls-- M2 * - (Ma& +2L:Rs)
load torque and rotor resistance are unknown parameters. The L,J - UL,
paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 a fifth-order state From now on we will drop the'subscripts T and s since we will
space model of an induction motor, which includes both elec- only use rotor fluxes $ r b ) and stator currents ( i s a , i s b ) . Let

trical and mechanical dynamics, is given. In Section 3 previ-

x = (w,$a,$b,i.a,ib)T
ous control schemes are reviewed and it is shown that field ori-
ented control can be viewed as a feedback transformation which be the state vector and let
achieves asymptotic input-output decoupling and linearization.
In Section 4, following the results presented in (41, we develop P =( 2 (TL
~ 1 7 ~= ) ~ - TLN,Rr - RrN)T (2.2)
an adaptive version of the exact decoupling and linearizing con- be the unknown parameter deviations from the nominal values
trol given in (111 which covers the more realistic situation in TLN and R,N of load torque TL and rotor resistance R,. TL is
which the load torque and the rotor resistance are not known. typically unknown whereas R, may have a range of variations of
We present a second order nonlinear identification scheme which 3150% around its nominal value (see [8],pag. 224) due to rotor
asymptotically tracks the correct value of load torque and, when heating. Let U = ( u a , be the control vector. Let
electric torque is different than zero, the correct value of rotor re-
sistance as well. The adaptive state-feedback linearizing control
achieves full decoupling in speed and rotor flux magnitude regu-
Lr '
p = - , yM
=-.--
UL,
M2RrN
UL?
+ 5,
U
~

reparametrization of the induction motor model, where a,p, 7,

- YE,
be a

lation as soon as the identification scheme has converged to the p are known parameters depending on the nominal value R,N.
true parameter values. The contribution of the paper is to show System (2.1)can be rewritten in compact form as
how the theory of adaptive feedback linearization leads directly
to the design of a nonlinear adaptive control algorithm which 2? = f(z) + Uaga + U b g b +Plfl +p'2f2(z), (2.3)
has some advantages over the classical scheme of field oriented
control: with a comparable complexity, two critical parameters where the vector fields f , g a , g b , f ~ f2, are
are identified and exact decoupling is achieved.

2. INDUCTION MOTOR MODEL

The reader is referred to [12]and [13]for the general theory of
electric machines and induction motors and to (81 for related

CH2917-3/90/0000-3313$1.00 @ 1990IEEE 3313

Authorized licensed use limited to: Reva Institute of Tehnology and Management. Downloaded on October 11, 2008 at 04:02 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 In other words system (2.1) is transformed into (3.6) by the
feedback transformation (3.4), (3.5). System (3.6) has a simpler
structure : flux amplitude dynamics are linear

3. INDUCTION MOTOR CONTROL

3.1 Field Oriented Control

A classical control technique for induction motors is the field
oriented control. First introduced by Blaschke [6], [7] in 1971,
it involves the transformation of the vectors ( i a , i b ) , ( $ a , $ b ) in and can be independently controlled by Vd for instance via a P I
controller, as proposed in [8]
the fixed stator frame ( a , b) into vectors in a frame ( d , q ) which
rotate along with the flux vector ( $ , , $ b ) ; if one defines

p = arctan 4
*
$a
When the flux amplitude ?+!Id is regulated to the constant refer-
ence value $d r e f , rotor speed dynamics are also linear
the transformations are

and can be independently controlled by v q , for instance by two

We now reinterpret field oriented control as a state feedback nested loops of P I controllers, as proposed in [8]
transformation (involving state space change of coordinate and
nonlinear state feedback ) to a control system of simpler struc-
ture. If we define the state space change of coordinates
vq =-kq~(T-Tref)-Kq~
1; ( T ( ~ ) - T r e j ( ~ ) ) d 7

w=w Tref = -kq3(W - W r e f ) - kq4 1 (U(.) - W r e f )d T

d'd = J4Z. + $: T = p$diq. (3.10)

If w and y!Jd are defined as outputs, field oriented control achi-
lC'b
p = arctan - eves asymptotic input-output linearization and decoupling via
*a
the nonlinear state feedback (3.5), (3.8), (3.10) : PI controllers
.
21 =
$ais +*bib are used to counteract parameters variations.
I*I During flux transient the nonlinearity * d i p in (3.6) makes the
,
Zq =
* n i b -*bin first four equations in (3.6) still nonlinear and coupled. Flux
MI transients occur when the motor has to be operated above the
nominal speed. In this case flux weakening, (for instance $ref =
and the state feedback k)
w../
is required in order to keep applied voltage within inverter
ceiling limits ([8],p.217) and the speed transients of the closed

(:;) = 441 ( $b $;) -l

loop system (3.6), (3.8), (3.10) are difficult to evaluate and may
be unsatisfactory. It should also be mentioned that flux mea-
i2 surements, which are required in (3.5), are difficult to obtain
-nywi, - ~ M +
( XVd
$d
(see [15], [16]), even though flux observers from stator currents
and rotor speed measurements have been determined [17].

3.2 Input-Output Decoupling

As shown in [ll], one can improve field oriented control by
the closed loop system (2.1),(3.5) in new coordinates becomes achieving exact input-output decoupling and linearization via
a nonlinear state feedback control which is not more complex
than (3.5).

3314

Authorized licensed use limited to: Reva Institute of Tehnology and Management. Downloaded on October 11, 2008 at 04:02 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 We will use the following notation for the directional (or Lie)
derivative of state function 4(z) : R" --f R along a vector field
f ( z ) = (fi(r), ' . 3 fn(z))

Iteratively we define L i d = Lf(L?-')+).

The outputs to be controlled are w and $2 + $:. Let us define
the change of coordinates

The difference between flux angular speed & and rotor speed
npw is usually called slip speed, ws, which can be expressed,
recalling the expression of a, as
43 - npw = w, = -
RrNM $sib - $baa
y5 = arctan (2)2 +31
Lr
- RrN T
$: t $;
(3.19)

np I$P'
+
which is one to one in R = { z E R5: $: $; # 0) but it is onto
only for y3 > 0, -90 5 y5 5 90. The inverse transformation is
defined in as
represents the electric torque.
w = Y1
The input-output linearizing feedback for system (3.13) is given
$a = 6COS ~5 bv
$'b = fisin Y5 (3.12)

ia = (*)
(cosy5 - isiny, (yz + y)) where v = ( V a , V b ) T is the new input vector. Substituting the
ib = -&(siny5 (*) t 1 cos y5 (yz + y)). state feedback (3.20) in (3.13) the closed loop dynamics become,
in y-coordinates

The dynamics of the induction motor with nominal parameters Y l = YZ

are given in new coordinates by $2 = va
Yl = Yz Y3 = Y4 (3.21)
Y2 = LZf41 + Lg,LfdlUa + LgbLfdlUb $4 = Vb

Y3 = Y4 (3.13) Y5 = npyl + -----(Jyz

RrN 1
np
+TLN).
Y4 = Lzf42 + Lg.Lf42Ua + LgbLfhUb Y3

Equations (3.18) represents the dynamics which have been made

Y5 = Lf43.
unobservable from the outputs by the state feedback control
(3.20).
The first four equations in (3.13) can be rewritten as
In order to track desired reference signals t+ej(t) and l$l:ej(t)
for the speed y1 = w and the square of the flux modulus y3 =
(3.14) $: t $!, the input signals vQ and Vb in (3.20) we designed as

where D ( s ) is the decoupling matrix given by va = -kal(yl - wrej(t)) - kaZ(y2 - Gre/(t)) t Gref(t)
- 2 '. 2 (3.22)
vb = -kbl(Y3 - l$l:ej) - Icb2(Y4 - Idlref) t l$lref
(3*15)
where (ka11 k a 2 ) and ( h i , kb2) are constant design parameters
to be assigned in order to shape the response of the decoupled,
linear second order systems
d2 d
dt2
-(w - wre j ) = -kal(w - uref) - kaz-(w
dt -Wrej)

Remarks
1) System (3.21) is input-output decoupled; the input-output
mapping is a pair of second order linear systems. This al-

3315

Authorized licensed use limited to: Reva Institute of Tehnology and Management. Downloaded on October 11, 2008 at 04:02 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 lows for an independent regulation (or tracking) of the out- be the parameter error. Following [4] we now introduce a time
puts according to (3.23). Transient responses are now de- varying state space change of coordinates depending on the pa-
coupled also when flux weakening is performed. This is an rameters estimate @(t)
improvement over the field oriented control (see also [ll]).
State space change of coordinates both in the field oriented 21 = Y1
control and in the decoupling control (i.e. (3.4) and (3.11))
are valid in the open set R = {z E R5: $:+$: # 0); notice 22 = YZ +i 1 L fl $1

+
that 4; $$ = 0 is a physical singularity of the motor in 23 = Y3 (4.3)
starting conditions. 24 = Y4 + $ZLf26Z
While measurements of ( U , i,, z b ) are available, measure- 2 5 = YS.
ments of ($., $ 6 ) pose some problems (see [15]). As far as In z-coordinates system (2.3) becomes
parameters are concerned, variation in load torque TL and
rotor resistance R, cause a loss of input-output decoupling
and steady-state regulation errors. This calls for an adap-
tive version of the control (3.20),(3.22) which is given in the
next Section.
Easy computations show that the induction motor model
(2.1) is not feedback linearizable. The necessary and suf-
ficient conditions given in [2] fail; in fact the distribution
91 = span {Sa, 96, a d f q . , adfgb} is not involutive since the
vector field [ a d f g , ,adfgb] does not belong to G'1 ( a d x Y or
[ X ,Y] denotes the Lie bracket of two vector fields; one de-
fine recursively a d i Y = a d x ( a d $ ' Y ) ). Following the re-
sults in [18],since & = span { g a , g b } is involutive and rank
91 = 4, it turns out that the largest feedback linearizable
subsystem has dimension 4. This shows that the control
(3.20),(3.22) provides the largest linearizable subsystem in
the closed loop.
The state feedback control (3.20), (3.22) is essentially the where
one proposed in [ll]. It is made clear that the decoupling
control makes the angle 4 3 unobservable from the outputs
and that (2.1) is not feedback linearizable. Exact input-
output decoupling controls for induction motors are pro- d$i
t-1 = -LZfQ1 - $ z L f i L f Q l - -LflQ1
dt
posed also in [9], [lo] with reference to a simplified model :
the mechanical dynamics in (2.1) are not considered and w
is viewed as a parameter in the last four equations of (2.1).

4. ADAPTIVE INPUT-OUTPUT
LINEARIZATION
( k a l ,k , z ) , (kbl,kb2) are control parameters to be designed and
In this section we develop an adaptive version of the decoupling 21 r e f and 23 r e f are the desired values for the rotor speed and
control (3.20) under the assumptions that TL and R, are un- the square of the rotor flux amplitude respectively. Since
known constant parameters. Let us rewrite system (2.3) in the
y-coordinates defined by (3.11); since the Lie derivatives L f 2 Q , ,
LflLf41, L f l h , L f l L f h l Lfl$3, L f l L f 2 h 7 L9a43, Lgb$3
vanish, we have
the decoupling matrix is singular not only when ($: $,") = 0 +
as in the nonadaptive case but also when j Z ( t ) = -R,N; this
Yl = Yz + P l L f 1 h additional singularity has to be taken into account in the design
of the adaptive algorithm.
$2 = LZfh+ P Z L f i L f h + LgaLfQ1Ua+ L g , L f Q I U b Defining the regulation error
Y3 = Y4 +PZLf24Z (4.1)
$4 =~Zf~2+P2~f2~fQz+L,~Lf~zUa+Lg6LfQ2Ub e = ( 2 1 - 21 r e f I 2 2 3 2 3 - 23 r e f 9 Z4)T (4.7)
Y5 = Lf43 + P Z L f 2 h . the closed loop system becomes

+
11 = ez ep1LfiQ1
Let $(t) = ($l(t),l;z(t))Tbe a time varying estimate of the pa-
rameters and let
iz = - h e 1 - h e z ep2Lf2LfQ1+
+
63 = e4 ePZLf2QZ (4.8)
i4 = - h i e 3 - kbze4 +ePa( L f 2 L f Q z+ $ z L ; , Q z )
is = L f 4 3 + P z L f 2 Q 3 .

3316

Authorized licensed use limited to: Reva Institute of Tehnology and Management. Downloaded on October 11, 2008 at 04:02 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 I I

While the dynamics of 25 are This guarantees that e ( t ) and $(t)are bounded and that e ( t ) is
an Cz signal; it follows from (4.7) that the first four state vari-
Rr J Z Z+ TL - epI ables (21,. . .,zd) are bounded. We are guaranteed to avoid the
i s = np21 +- I (4.9)
nP 23 singularities 23 = 0 and & = - R r ~for the decouplimg -matrix,
and therefore for the control (4.5) as well, if the initial condi-
the dynamics of the vector e can be rearranged as
tions (e(O),e p ( 0 ) )are in S = { ( e ,e P ) E R6: eTPe+eTreP 5 K } ,
the largest set entirely contained in { ( e , e p ) E R6 : epi < R, +
a l , e 3 > 02 - 2 g r e f } , where a1 > 0 and ruz > 0 are arbitrary.
Since W ( z ,&) is continuous, contains only bounded functions
of 25 (sine and cosine), and (21,22,23,24, h ) are bounded, it fol-
lows that W ( z , f i )is bounded and therefore d and 6 are bounded
as well; since, according to (4.9), i s is bounded for ( e , e P )E S , it
(4.10)
+
follows that I = & [ K e W ( s , & ) e p ] is bounded as well. Now,
since e is a bounded f? signal with bounded derivative 6, by
Barbalat lemma ([19], p. 211) it follows that
where
K = block diag(Ka, K b ) , pzIl4t)ll =0 (4.18)

i.e. zero steady-state regulation error is achieved. Since e is

bounded as well, e is uniformly continuous and (4.18) implies by
Barbalat lemma again that

&I l W = 0 (4.10)

therefore it must be

(4.11)

2
L f i h = - (M($aia
Lr
+ $bib) - ($: + $':)) Equation (4.20) implies, from (4.11), that

i.e.
lim e p l ( t )= 0 (4.21)
t-m
W ( z , h ) is called the regressor matriz and is a function of the
s-variables (and therefore of the 2-variables).
and, since limt-oo T ( t ) = TL, whenever Tt + o, i.e. in any
physical situation,
Let P = block diag ( P n , P b )be the positive definite symmetric
lim e p , ( t ) = 0 (4.22)
solution to the Liapunov equation t-m

that is parameter convergence is achieved. The difficulty in iden-

K ~ +PP K = - Q (4'12) tifying rotor resistance under no-load condition is a common
with Q = block diag ( Q n ,Qb), Q . and Qb positive definite sym- problem ([20]) and it is related to physical reasons. If the motor
metric matrices. Consider the quadratic function is unloaded, when speed and rotor flux regulation is achieved,
the slip frequency in (3.19) is zero so that the flux vector rotates
v = eTPe + eTrep (4.13) at speed npw and we have Rrir,+ = 0 , Rrirg, = 0; it follows
that rotor currents are zero and therefore rotor resistance is not
where I' is a positive definite symmetric matrixi The time deriva- identifiable in steady-state. It is proposed in [20] to track a si-
tive of V is nusoidal reference signal for $: +
$: so that rotor currents are
different than zero and rotor resistance can be identified.
In summary we have shown that the adaptive feedback control
(4.5),(4.16) gives the closed loop system
If we now define
-
de, = - r - l W T p e (4.15) 6 = ICe + W e p
dt (4.23)
or equivalently dp = - r - ' W T P e .
-
' f i = r-lWTpe (4.16)
If the initial conditions (e(O), e p ( 0 ) )E S we have
dt
which defines the dynamics of the parameter estimate $(t),and
use (4.12), equation (4.14) becomes lim lle(t)ll = 0
t-m
(4.24)
lim lep,(t)l = 0 .
dV t-m
- = -eT&.. (4.17)
dt

3317

Authorized licensed use limited to: Reva Institute of Tehnology and Management. Downloaded on October 11, 2008 at 04:02 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Moreover if TL# 0 we also have References.
A. Isidori, Nonlinear Control Systems, (2nd edition), Com-
(4.25) munications and Control Engineering Series, Springer, Ber-
lin, 1989.
From (4.18) and (4.19) it follows that in any case we have B. Jakubczyk, W. Respondek, ’’ On linearization of control
systems.”, Bull. Acad. Pol. Sci., Ser. Sci. Math., Vol. 28,
9-10, pp. 517-522, 1980.
D.G. Taylor, P.V. Kokotovic, R. Marino, I. Kanellakopou-
los, ’’ Adaptive regulation of nonlinear systems with unmod-
(4.26) eled dynamics”, IEEE Trans on Automatic Control, Vol.
34, pp. 405-412, 1989.
R.Marino, I. Kanellakopoulos, P.V. Kokotovic, ”Adaptive
tracking for feedback linearizable SISO systems.”, Proc.
28th CDC Conference, Tampa FL, pp. 1002-1007, 1989.
S.S. Sastry, A. Isidori, “Adaptive control of linearizable sys-
6. CONCLUSIONS tems.”, IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, Vol. 35, pp.
1123-1131, 1990.
In this paper it is shown how the theory of input-output decou- F. Blaschke, ” Das Prinzip der Feldorientierung, die Grun-
pling and its adaptive versions lead to the design of a satisfactory dlage fur die transvector Regelung von Asynchronmaschie-
controller for a detailed nonlinear model of an induction motor nen”, Siemens Zeitschrift 45, p. 757-760, 1971.
deduced from basic physical principles. The control io adaptive F. Blaschke, ”The Principle of field orientation applied to
with respect to two parameters which cannot be measured and is the new transvector closed loop control system for rotating
based on a converging identification algorithm. The main draw- field machines”, Siemens Rev., Vol. 39, pp. 217-220, 1972.
back of the proposed control is the need of flux measurements. W. Leonhard, Control of Electrical Drives, Springer Verlag,
However nonlinear flux observers from stator currents and rotor Berlin, 1985.
speed measurements have been determined [17]. Preliminary A. De Luca, G. Ulivi, ”Dynamic decoupling of voltage fre-
simulations show that a good performance is maintained when quency controlled induction motors”, 8th Int. Conf. on
flux signals are provided by the observers to the adaptive control Analysis and Optimization of Systems, INRIA, Antibes, pp.
algorithm. This is a direction of further investigation. Another 127-137, 1988.
direction of research is the real implementation of the control A. De Luca, G.Ulivi, ”Design of exact nonlinear controller
in order to verify the influence of sampling rate, truncation er- for induction motors”, IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control,
rors in digital implementation, measurement noise, simplifying vol. AC-34, no.12, pp. 1304-1307, December 1989.
modeling assumptions, unmodeled dynamics and saturations. 2. Kneminski, Nonlinear control of induction motor”,
10th IFAC World Congress, Munich, pp. 349-354, 1987.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT A.E. Fitzgerald, C.Kingsley Jr, S.D.Umans, Electric Ma-
chinery, Mc. Graw-Hill, 1983.
We would like to thank Prof. A. Bellini for providing us the P.C. Krause, Analysis of Electric Machinery, Mc Graw Hill,
data of the motor and for useful discussions. 1986.
This work was supported in part by Minister0 della UniversitA P.C.Krause, C.H. Thomas, ”Simulation of symmetrical in-
e della Ricerca Scientificae Tecnologica (fondi 40%). duction machinery”, IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and
System, Vol. PAS-84,no. 11, pp. 1038-1053, Nov. 1965.
APPENDIX. R.Gabrie1, W.Leonhard, ”Microprocessor control of induc-
tion motors”, Proc. IEEE/ IAS Int. Semiconductor Power
List of Symbols Converter Conf., Orlando, pp. 385-396, 1982.
R, = stator resistance W. Leonhard, ” Microcomputer control of high dynamic
performance AC-drives : a survey”, Automatica, Vol. 22,
R, = rotor resistance no. 1, pp.1-19, 1986.
i , = stator current G.C. Verghese, S.R. Sanders, ”Observers for flux estima-
$, = stator flux linkage tion in induction machines”, IEEE Trans. on Industrial
ir = rotor current Electronics, Vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 85-94, February 1988.
R. Marino, ”On the largest feedback linearizable subsys-
$, = rotor flux linkage tem”, Systems and Control Letters, Vol. 6, pp. 345-351,
U = voltage input January 1986.
w = angular s p e d V.H. Popov, Hyperstability of Control System, Springer,
np = number of pole pairs Berlin, 1973.
H. Sugimoto, S.Tamai, ”Secondary resistance identification
6 = angle of rotation of an induction-motor applied model reference adaptive sys-
L, = stator inductance tem and its characteristics”, IEEE Trans on Ind. Appl., Vol.
L, = rotor inductance IA-23, no. 2, pp. 296-303, March 1987.
M = mutual inductance
J = rotor inertia
TL= load torque
T = electric motor torque

3318

Authorized licensed use limited to: Reva Institute of Tehnology and Management. Downloaded on October 11, 2008 at 04:02 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.