1
Indirect Field-Oriented Control of Induction
Machines Based on Synergetic Control Theory
Yu Zhang, Zhenhua Jiang, Member, IEEE, Xunwei Yu
Abstract—Field-oriented control is one of the most significant
control methods for high performance AC electric machines and
drives. In particular, for induction machines, indirect field
oriented control is a simple and highly reliable scheme which has
essentially become an industry standard. This paper synthesizes
and develops an indirect field-oriented speed control for
induction motors based on synergetic control theory. Compared
with the conventional PI control approach, our results show the
speed controller based on synergetic control is more stable,
robust and insensitive to system parameter variations. Effects of
controller parameter variations on the system performance have
also been studied.
Index Terms—Indirect field-oriented control, electric drives,
synergetic control, induction machines, controller parameters.
NOMENCLATURE
ωmech the rotor speed , in actual (mechanical) radians per
second.
ωs supply frequency.
ωmechref reference rotor speed.
Te electromagnetic torque.
TL load torque.
P number of poles.
Jeq inertial constant.
Id, Iq direct- and quadrature-axis components of the
induction motor armature current.
Vd, Vq direct- and quadrature-axis components of the
induction motor voltage.
Rs stator resistance.
Rr rotor resistance.
Ls stator inductance.
Lr rotor inductance.
Lm mutual inductance.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE control of induction machines and drives has been
highly developed in recent years. Induction generators
have been widely used for wind power generation. Induction
motors have been the workhorses in industry for variable-
speed applications in a wide power range. There are a number
of significant control methods available for induction motors
including scalar control, vector or field-oriented control, direct
This work was partially supported by the U.S. National Science
Foundation under grant ECCS-0652300.
Y. Zhang, Z. Jiang, and X. Yu are with the Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33146 USA
Email: y.zhang24@umiami.edu, zjiang1@miami.edu, xwyu1@umiami.edu
©2008 IEEE.
torque and flux control, and adaptive control [1]. Scalar
control is aimed at controlling the induction machine to
operate at the steady state, by varying the amplitude and
frequency of the fundamental supply voltage [2]. A method to
use of an improved V/f control for high voltage induction
motors was proposed in [3]. The scalar controlled drive, in
contrast to vector or field-oriented controlled one, is easy to
implement, but provides somewhat inferior performance. This
control method provides limited speed accuracy especially in
the low speed range and poor dynamic torque response.
Vector or field-oriented control has been one of the most
significant developments in this area. The invention of vector
control in the beginning of 1970s demonstrated that an
induction motor could be controlled like a separately excited
dc motor [4]. The direct method of field-oriented control
requires flux-position information, which can be directly
measured or deduced from other motor quantities. Direct
measurement requires that the motor be modified to install
flux sensors, so this method is not appropriate for general-
purpose industrial motors [5]. In [6], the universal field
oriented controller was applicable in all existing field oriented
controller schemes due to the generality of its reference fame.
Reference [7] develops a decoupling mechanism and a speed
control method based on sliding-mode control theory for a
direct rotor field-oriented induction motor. In the indirect
method of orientation, the flux is estimated from motor-
inverse dynamics, and one of the three basic implementation
schemes based on stator-, airgap-, or rotor-flux orientations
can be used. Indirect field oriented control of induction motors
is robust and globally stable [8]. In order to regulate the motor
state, the partial state feedback linearization together with a
proportional-integral controller was used. The most critical
disadvantage is that it is very sensitive to parameter variation
[9]. To improve the field-oriented control, a full linearizing
state feedback control based on differential geometric theory
was proposed [10], [11]. These methods required relatively
complicated and nonlinear calculations in the control
algorithm. A neural network based field oriented control
scheme for induction motors was proposed in [12]. Its results
showed that ANN could be used as an intelligent alternative to
the conventional field-orient control. The detuning correction
and efficiency optimization of an indirect field-oriented
induction motor drive for achieving higher characteristic were
presented in [13]. Measured results showed that both the
efficiency and rotor speed dynamic responses were improved
by the proposed fuzzy detuning correction control and
efficiency optimization control approaches.
A new control approach, the synergetic approach to control
 2

theory, was introduced in [14]-[15]. Recent work has been d

reported on the application of the synergetic approach to λrd − ωdA λrq
Vrd = Rr ird +
dt
switching power converter control, speed control for PMSM (2)
d
[16]-[18], in which the high performance level, design Vrq = Rr irq + λrq + ωdA λrd
dt
simplicity and flexibility of synergetic controllers have been
demonstrated through both simulation and experiments. In this study, we consider a squirrel-cage induction motor,
Furthermore, the feasibility of designing adaptive synergetic so the d and q-axis components of the rotor voltage are zero.
controllers by selecting robust target manifolds was discussed We can relate fluxes to currents as follows:
in [19]. Synergetic control theory has several advantages: it’s ⎡ λsd ⎤ ⎡isd ⎤ ⎡ Ls 0 Lm 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
well suited to digital control; it operates at constant switching λ i
⎢ sq ⎥ = M ⎢ sq ⎥ given: M = ⎢
⎢
0 L s 0 Lm ⎥⎥
frequency which lessens the burden of filtering design. (3)
⎢ λrd ⎥ ⎢ ird ⎥ ⎢ Lm 0 Lr 0 ⎥
This paper describes an approach for indirect field-oriented ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ λrq ⎦
⎥ ⎢ irq ⎦
⎥ ⎣ 0 Lm 0 Lr ⎦
control of induction machines based on the synergetic control ⎣ ⎣
method, taking speed control of an induction motor as an Hence, the electrical part of an induction motor can be
example. The proposed method can also be applied in control described by a fourth-order model, which is given in (4), by
of induction generators. Section II presents a model of the combining equations (1) - (3):
induction motor in state-space form is presented. In section III, ⎡isd ⎤ ⎡ − Lr
⎡i&sd ⎤ 0 Lm 0 ⎤ ⎡Vsd ⎤
a synergetic speed controller for an induction motor is ⎢& ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢ ⎥
designed. The simulation results are presented and discussed ⎢ isq ⎥ 1 i
⎢ sq ⎥ ⎢ 0 − Lr 0 Lm ⎥⎥ ⎢Vsq ⎥
⎢& ⎥
= ( A⎢ ⎥ + ) (4)
in section IV. Effects of controller parameter variations on the i 2 i ⎢L 0 − Ls 0 ⎥ ⎢Vrd ⎥
⎢ rd ⎥ Lm − Lr Ls ⎢ rd ⎥ ⎢ m ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
system performance are also studied. ⎢ i&rq ⎥ ⎢ irq ⎥ ⎣ 0 Lm 0 − Ls ⎦ ⎢⎣Vrq ⎥⎦
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦

II. MODEL OF INDUCTION MOTORS where:

ωdA L2m −ωs Lr Ls
⎡ ⎤
The inherent coupling effect in scalar control of induction ⎢ Lr Rs − Lm Rr − Lr Lm (ωs −ωdA ) ⎥
⎢ 2 ⎥
motors gives sluggish response and the system is easily prone A= ⎢ − (ωdA Lm −ω s Lr Ls ) Lr Rs Lr Lm (ωs −ωdA ) − Lm Rr ⎥
⎢ ⎥
to instability because of a high-order system effect. This ⎢ − Rs Lm Ls Lm (ωs −ωdA ) Ls Rr ωs L2m − Lr LsωdA ⎥
⎢ ⎥
problem can be solved by vector or field-oriented control. It ⎣⎢ − Ls Lm (ω s −ωdA ) − Rs Lm − (ωs L2m −ωdA Lr Ls ) Ls Rr
(5) ⎦⎥

can make an induction motor be controlled like a separately By superposition, adding the torques acting on the d-axis
excited DC motor. The control of AC drives can have high- and the q-axis of the rotor windings, the instantaneous torque
performance. Because of DC machine-like performance, the produced in the electromechanical interaction is:
vector control is also known as decoupling, orthogonal, or
p
transvector control. Before the implementation of any control Tem = (λrq ird − λrd irq ) (6)
mode, it was necessary to define the function equations. 2
Because of the explanation above, an induction motor model Substituting for flux linkages, the electromagnetic torque
was established using a rotating (d, q) field reference (without can be expressed in terms of inductances as:
saturation). p
Tem = Lm (isq ird − isd irq ) (7)
ωd λsq Lls Llr ωdAλrq Rr 2
R s
Finally the mechanical part of the motor is modeled by:
p
d d d Tem − TL 2 Lm (isq ird − isd irq ) − TL
Vsd λsd Lm λrd Vrd ωmech = = (8)
dt dt dt J eq J eq
p
(a) d-axis where ωdA = ωslip = ωs − ωm ωm = ωmech ωd = ωs
2
Rs ωd λsd Lls Llr ωdA λrd Rr
Ls = Lsl + Lm Lr = Lrl + Lm

d d Vrq III. SYNERGETIC CONTROL DESIGN

Vsq λsq Lm λrq
dt dt A. Synergetic Control Synthesis Procedure
(b) q-axis The general synergetic synthesis procedure is reviewed in
Fig. 1. Equivalent circuits of induction motor in d-q reference frame this section. We consider an n-dimension nonlinear dynamic
As for the stator, the equation system is: system that can be described by the following equation.
d dx(t )
Vsd = Rs isd + λsd − ωd λsq = f (x , u , t ) (9)
dt dt
(1)
d where x is the system state variable vector, u is the control
Vsq = Rs isq + λsq + ωd λsd
dt vector, and t is the time. A controller, which produces the
As for the rotor, the equation system is: control vector u, is used to force the system to operate in a
 3

desired manner. The synergetic synthesis of the controller integral-like action that can be interpreted as negative of the q-
begins by defining a macro-variable given in (10). axis current reference - isq* in a decoupled speed-torque control
ψ = ψ ( x, t ) (10)
scheme. If we choose K2 as 1, then ψ 2 = K 2 isq − isq* = isq − isq* is
where ψ is the macro-variable and ψ(x,t) is a user-defined
the negative of the q-axis current error. The objective is then
function of system state variables and independent time.
to force this error to zero.
The objective of the synergetic controller is to direct the
Upon substitution of the macro-variables into the evolving
system to operate on the manifold
equation as shown in (12), we get
ψ =0 (11)
0 = T1 (i&sd ) + isd
The characteristics of the macro-variable can be chosen by
the designer according to the control specifications such as the 0 = T2 ( K1ω& mech + K 2 i&sq + K 3 (ωmech − ωmechref ))
control objective, the settling time, limitations in the control (17)
+ {K1 (ωmech − ωmechref ) + K 2 isq
output, and so on. In the trivial case, the macro-variable can be
a simple linear combination of the state variables. The same + K 3 ∫ (ωmech − ωmechref )dt}
process can be repeated, defining as many macro-variables as Solving for Vsd, and Vsq, we have
control channels. The macro-variable is evolved in a desired 1
manner by introducing a constraint that is expressed in the Vsd = ( Lr Rs isd + (ωdA L2m − ωs Lr Ls )isq − Lm Rr ird
Lr
following equation. (18)
Tψ& f ( x, d , t ) + ψ = 0, T > 0 (12) L2 − Lr Ls
− Lr Lm (ωs − ωdA )irq + m isd )
where T is a controller parameter that indicates the converging T1
speed of the closed-loop system to the manifold specified by p
that the macro-variable equals to zero. Taking into account the L2m − Lr Ls K1 2 Lm (isq ird − isd irq ) − TL
Vsq =
chain rule of differentiation that is given by Lr K2 J eq
dψ ( x, t ) ∂ψ ( x, t ) dx(t ) 1
= ⋅ (13) + (−(ωdA L2m − ωs Lr Ls )isd + Lr Rs isq
dt ∂x dt Lr
substitution of (1) and (2) into (4) yields
+ Lr Lm (ωs − ωdA )ird − Lm Rr irq )
∂ψ ( x, t ) (19)
T f ( x, u , t ) + ψ ( x , t ) = 0 (14) L2 − Lr Ls K 3
∂x + m (ωmech − ωmechref )
Upon solving (6) for u, the control law can be found as Lr K2
u = g ( x, t ,ψ ( x, t ), T ) (15) L2m − Lr Ls K1
+ (ωmech − ωmechref )
From (15), it can be seen that the control output depends not Lr T2 K 2
only on the system state variables, but also on the selected L2m − Lr Ls 1 L2 − Lr Ls K 3
macro-variable and time constant T. In other words, the + isq + m (ωmech − ωmechref )dt
Lr T2 Lr T2 K 2 ∫
designer can choose the characteristics of the controller by
selecting a suitable macro-variable and a time constant T. Because the rotor currents can not be measured directly, we
use a current model estimator to estimate the rotor current.
B. Synergetic Control Synthesis Procedure
The method described in the previous section requires that IV. SIMULATION RESULT
we define the same number of macro-variables as control Fig.2 shows the block diagram of the induction motor
channels in the system. Thus, it requires the definition of two control. In this paper we chose a squirrel-cage induction motor.
macro-variables, which are functions of the state variables as The rotor voltages Vrd and Vrq are zero. The studied synergetic
shown in (10). We chose these two terms: controller has inputs: d-q reference frame stator currents isd, isq,
⎧⎪ ψ 1 = isd rotor angular speed ωs , rotor mechanical speed ωmech , speed
⎨ (16)
⎪⎩ψ 2 = K1 (ωmech − ωmechref ) + K 2 isq + K 3 ∫ (ωmech − ωmechref )dt reference ωref , and load torque TL . The synergetic controller
where K1, K2, K3 are controller parameters. computes the control laws and outputs two voltage levels in
This selection is not arbitrary, since the physical reason can the d-q reference fame Vsd and Vsq.
be deduced by inspection of the macro-variables.
The macro-variable ψ 1 in (16), which defines a manifold:
ψ 1 = isd = 0 , ensures the convergence of the d-axis current isd
to zero on this invariant manifold. Then, we can achieve the
rotor speed control by controlling only the q-axis current isq.
The macro-variable ψ 2 consists of three terms: isq,
ωmech − ωmechref , ∫ (ωmech − ωmechref )dt . With the last terms with
regards to the rotor speed, we can achieve a proportional- Fig. 2. Induction motor model with a synergetic controller and a rotor current
estimator.
 4

The system is modeled and simulations are performed in

60
MATLAB/Simulink. The load torque is increased from 5 N.m PI
to 10 N.m when t = 6s. All initial conditions of the induction 50 Synergetic

motor and all initial time derivatives are set to zero. 40

TABLE I SPECIFICATIONS OF INDUCTION MOTOR MODEL 30

2.77Ω 2.34Ω

Te
20
Rs Rr
10
Ls 0.3826 H Lr 0.3808H
0
Lm 0.3687 H ωref 150 rad/s
-10
J 0.025Kg Nm ωs 120 π -20
0 2 4 6 8 10
t
The simulation results of an induction motor control with
the synergetic controller and a traditional PI controller are (b) Behavior of Te
presented in Fig. 3. Compared with the PI controller, the
20
synergetic controller has better dynamic characteristics: the Synergetic
overshoot under the synergetic control is smaller; the settling
0
time is shorter; it tracks the speed reference faster than the PI
controller. Notice, when the load torque TL increases its value,

Macro-variable2
-20
there is a small transitory oscillation on the tracking of the
actual speed to the reference, which is stabilized very quickly.
-40
It can be seen that the synergetic mode offers a robust control
compared to the PI control particularly when applying a load
torque change to the system (at the instant of 6s). -60

The effects of controller parameter variations on the system -80

0 0.5 1 1.5
performance are also studied. In this study, the synergetic t -3
x 10
controller parameter K1 varies from 0.45 through 0.5, 0.55 to
0.6. Fig. 4 shows that increasing K1 gives a smaller overshoot (c) Behavior of Macro-variable ψ2
in the rotor speed. In the meantime, by increasing K1, it takes
less time to for the macro-variables to reach the manifolds. 80
But the increase of K1 causes larger oscillations of the PI
Synergetic
electromagnetic torque Te. It can be concluded that increasing 60
K1 helps to achieve better speed control but results in worse
torque characteristic. So a proper parameter K1 should be used 40
in practical applications to a trade off different factors.
isd

Fig. 5 shows the behavior of the system variables when the 20

synergetic controller parameter K3 changes from 1.5 through
2.0, 2.5 to 3.0. It is shown that increasing K3 gives a bigger 0
overshoot in the rotor speed (at the instant of 6s). This is
consistent with that parameter K3 corresponds to the integral -20
0 2 4 6 8 10
term in the macro-variableψ 2 . It is noted that increasing K3 t
results in a shorter settling time in Te control (at the instant of
(d) Behavior of isd
6s). It is also seen from Figs. 5-e and 5-f that the change of K3
has a negligible effect on the evolving of the macro-variables. 100
PI
170 synergetic
PI
165 Snergetic
50
160
isq

155
Wmech

150 0
145

140

135
-50
0 2 4 6 8 10
t
130
0 2 4 6 8 10 (e) Behavior of isq
t Fig. 3. Behavior of system variables under synergetic control and PI control
(a) Behavior of wmech
 5

180 0.01

160 0.005
Wmech

isd
140 0

120 -0.005

100 -0.01
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 2 4 6 8 10
t
t

(a) Behavior of Wmech, from 0 to 1s (e) Behavior of isd (Marco-variable1)

100
155

80

150 60
Wmech

isq
40 Increasing K1

145
20

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
140 t
6 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7
t
(f) Behavior of isq, t is from 0 to 1s
(b) Behavior of Wmech, from around 6s to 7s
0
10
-20
8
Macro-variable2

-40
6
Te

-60
4
-80
2
-100
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 t -3
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 x 10
t
(g) Behavior of macro-variable2 , from 0s to 0.0001s
(c) Behavior of Te, from 0.5s to 3s
0.01
12
0.005
11
Macro-variable2

0
10
9 -0.005
Te

8 -0.01
K1 increasing
7
-0.015
6
-0.02
5 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5
t
6 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7 (h) Behavior of macro-variable2, from around 6s to 6.5s
t
Fig. 4. Behavior of system variables under synergetic control with different
values of K1
(d) Behavior of Te, from around 6s to 7s
 6

180 0.01

160 0.005
Wmech

isd
140 0

120 -0.005

-0.01
100 0 2 4 6 8 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 t
t
(a) Behavior of Wmech, from 0s to 1s
(e) Behavior of isd (Marco-variable1)
155
20

macro-variable2
150 -20
Wmech

-40

145 -60

-80

140 -100
6 6.5 7 7.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
t t -3
x 10
(b) Behavior of Wmech, from around 6s to 7.5s
(f) Behavior of macro-variable ψ2
140 Fig. 5. Behavior of system variables under synergetic control with different
values of K3
120
Fig. 6 shows the system performance when the synergetic
100 controller parameter T varies from 0.001 to 0.0001 and
0.00001, It is shown in Figs. 6-a and 6-b that the change of
80
parameter T does not have a strong impact on the rotor speed.
Te

60 It is seen from Figs. 6-c and 6-d that the change of T has a
notable impact on the regulating speed of the synergetic
40 control. This is verified by the fact that the evolving of macro-
20 variables strongly depends on the time constant of the first-
order evolving equation.
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
t V. CONCLUSION
(c) Behavior of Te, from 0s to 1s
A synergetic control approach has been presented to design
indirect field-oriented control of induction motor drives in this
12 paper. The operating characteristics of the induction motor
with the proposed synergetic controller are compared with
those using a conventional PI controller. Simulation results
10
show that the induction motor under the synergetic control
approach is more stable, robust and insensitive to parameter
8 variations than under the PI control scheme. The effects of the
Te

parameter variations of the synergetic control on the induction

motor’s transient and steady-state performances are studied.
6 The results show that the controller with bigger K1 has better
dynamic characteristics of speed control but worse stable
4 characteristics of Te; increasing K3 results in worse dynamic
6 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7 characteristics of speed control but better characteristics of Te;
t
(d) Behavior of Te, from around 6s to 7s increasing Te gives a more gentle approaching of the macro-
variable to the manifold. Therefore, in order to achieve good
 7

control performances, it is necessary to consider all effecting REFERENCES

factors to make an optimal decision on the choice of controller
parameters. [1] B. K. Bose, Modern Power Electronics and AC Drives, Pearson
Education, Inc., 2002.
[2] Carlos A. Martins, Adriano S. Carvalho, “Technological Trends in
161 Induction Motor Electrical Drives”, IEEE Porto Power Tech Conference,
Vol. 2, Sep. 2001.
160.5 [3] L. Ben-Brahim, “Improvement of the stability of the V/f controlled
induction motor drive systems”, IEEE Proceedings of the 24th Annual
160 Conference, Vol. 2, pp.859-864, 1998.
Wmech

159.5 [4] D. W. Novotny and T. A. Lipo, Vector Control and Dynamics of AC

Drives. Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1996.
159 [5] A. Ba-Razzouk, A. Cheriti, “Field-Oriented Control of Induction Motors
Using Neural-Network Decouplers”, IEEE Transactions on Power
158.5 Electronics, Vol. 12, No. 4, July 1997.
T=0.00001
158
T=0.001 [6] Rik W. De Doncker, D. W. Novotny, “The Universal Field Oriented
T=0.0001 Controller”, IEEE Transactions on Industry Application, Vol. 30, No. 1,
157.5 pp. 92-100, 1994.
0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
t [7] Rong-Jong Wai and Kuo-Min Lin, “Robust Decoupled Control of Direct
Field-Oriented Induction Motor Drive”, IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 837-854, Jun. 2005.
(a) Behavior of Wmech, around 0.16s
[8] P. de Wit, Romeo Ortega and Iven Mareels, “Indirect Field Oriented
142.8 Control of Induction Motors is Robustly Globally Stable”, IEEE
conference on Decision and Control, Vol. 3, pp. 2139-2144, 1995.
[9] A. Benchaib, M, Tadjine and A. Rachid. “Sliding Mode Control of an
142.78 Induction Motor with Unknown Load: Application on a Digital-Signal-
Processor-Based System”, International Journal of System Science, Vol.
142.76 30, No. 8, pp. 849-863, 1999.
Wmech

[10] R. Marino, S. Peresada, and P. Valigi, “Adaptive Input-Output

Linearizing Control of Induction Motors”, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control,
142.74
Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 208-221, Feb. 1993.
[11] M. Bodson, J. Chiasson, and R. Novotnak, “High-Performance
142.72 T=0.00001 Induction Motor Control via Input-Output Linearization”, IEEE Control
T=0.001 Syst. Mag., Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 25-33, Aug. 1997.
T=0.0001 [12] A. Ba-razzouk, A. Cheriti and G. Olivier, “A Neural Network Based
142.7
6.085 6.09 6.095 6.1 6.105 6.11 Field Oriented Control Scheme for Induction Motors”, IEEE Industry
t
Applications Society Annual meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, Vol. 2,
(b) Behavior of Wmech, around 6.1s pp. 804-811, Oct. 1997.
0.01
[13] J. B. Wang and C. M. Liaw, “Indirect Field-oriented Induction Motor
Drive with Fuzzy Detuning Correction and Efficiency Optimisation
Controls”, IEE Proc.-Electri. Power Appl., Vol. 144, No.1, pp.37-45.
0.005
1997.
[14] A. Kolesnikov, G. Veselov, et al., “A Synergetic Approach to the
Modeling of Power Electronic Systems”, The 7th Workshop on
Computers in Power Electronics, pp. 295-262, 2000.
isd

0
[15] A. Kolesnikov, G. Veslov, et al., Modern Applied Control Theory.
Synergetic Approach in Control Theory, Vol. 2, Moscow: TSURE press,
-0.005
2000.
[16] I. Kondratiev and R. Dougal, E. Santi, and G. Veselov, “Synergetic
Control DC-DC Buck Converters with Constant Power Load”, IEEE
-0.01
Power Electron. Specialist Conf Rec., Vol. 5, pp. 3758-3764, 2004.
0 2 4 6 8 10 [17] E. Santi, A. Monti, D. Li, K. Proddutur and R. Dougal, “Synergetic
t Control for Dc-Dc Boost Converter: Implementation Options”, Proc.
(c) Behavior of isd (Marco-variable1) IEEE 37th Ind. Appl. Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 2, pp. 1330-1337,
2002.
10 [18] J. Bastos, A. Monti, E. Santi, “Design and Implementation of a
Nonlinear Speed Control for a PM Synchronous Motor using the
0 Synergetic Approach to Control Theory”, 35th Annual IEEE Power
Electronics Specialists Conference, Vol. 5, pp.3397-3402, 2004.
macro-variable2

-10 [19] E. Santi, A.Monti, et al., “Synergetic Control for Power Electronics
Applications: a Comparison with the Sliding Mode Approach”, WSP
-20 Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 737-760,
2004.
-30
T=0.0001
-40
T=0.001
T=0.00001
-50
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
t
(d) Behavior of macro-variable ψ 2 , from 0 to 0.06s
Fig. 6. The behavior of system variables under synergetic control for different
values of T