160

A Fuzzy Sliding Mode Controller for a Field-Oriented

Induction Motor Drive

Dr K B Mohanty, Member
Department of Electrical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, India

This paper presents a robust control technique for a field oriented induction motor drive. Sliding Mode Controller (SMC) and Fuzzy Sliding
Mode Controller (FSMC) are designed for the speed loop of the drive. The design steps for both the controllers are laid down clearly. The
FSMC uses three-level input membership sets and five-level output membership set of symmetrical triangular shape, nine fuzzy rules, and
the Center-of-Gravity defuzzification technique. The performance of the Fuzzy Sliding Mode Controller has been evaluated, through
simulation studies, with respect to the conventional sliding mode controller. The chattering free improved performance of the FSMC makes
it superior to conventional SMC, and establishes its suitability for the induction motor drive.
Keywords: Field oriented control, Sliding mode controller, Fuzzy sliding mode controller

NOTATIONS
v
ds
( v
qs
) : the d-axis (q-axis) stator voltage
i
ds
( i
qs
) : the d-axis (q-axis) stator current
) (
qr dr
: the d-axis (q-axis) rotor flux linkage
r
: mechanical rotor angular velocity,
e
: fundamental supply frequency,
P : number of pole pairs,
K
T
: torque constant
T
e
: developed torque
T
L
: load torque
J : moment of inertia of rotor with load
: viscous friction coefficient (Nms/rad)
: bandwidth of the sliding mode control system
: a positive constant
max
G : maximum error in estimation of G
v : upper bound of command acceleration
K
max
: gain of the sliding mode controller,
K
N
(or K
Fuzz|N
) : the fuzzy value of the controller gain
N | Fuzz
K : defuzzified value of the controller gain
out
: degree of membership of output as a function
of the fuzzy value of output
*
: denotes command or reference value
INTRODUCTION
Induction motors fulfill the de facto industrial
standard, because of their simple and robust structure,
higher torque-to-weight ratio, higher reliability and
ability to operate in hazardous environment. However,
because of the coupling between torque and flux,
unlike dc motor, their control is a challenging task.
One of the classical methods of induction motor
control, by now is the field-oriented control
1
. It leads
to decoupling between the flux and torque, thus,
resulting in improved dynamic response of torque and
speed. But ideal field orientation is obtained if the
machine parameters are accurately known under all
conditions. If the machine parameters used in the
decoupling control scheme can not track their true
Dr K B Mohanty is with Electrical Engineering Department,
National Institute of Technology, Rourkela 769008
This paper was received on December 27, 2004. Written
discussions on the paper will be entertained till February 28, 2006.
values, the efficiency of the motor drive is degraded
owing to reduction of torque generating capability and
magnetic saturation caused by over excitation. The
dynamic control characteristic is also degraded. In
addition to this parameter detuning problem, the load
torque disturbance and measurement noise also make
a robust control technique mandatory, to meet the
standards of a high performance drive.
To improve the field oriented control of induction
motor under the above mentioned problems and to
track complex position and torque trajectories, sliding
mode control
2-5
has been proposed. A sliding mode
speed controller
2
based on a switching surface is
demonstrated. With this switching surface, the
stability is guaranteed for the speed control, and
insensitivity to uncertainties and disturbances is also
obtained. Sliding mode control
3
is applied to position
control loop of an indirect vector controlled induction
motor drive, without rotor resistance identification
scheme. Results are compared with a fixed gain
controller. A sliding mode based adaptive input-
output linearizing control
4
is presented. The motor
flux and speed are separately controlled by sliding
mode controllers with variable switching gains. A
sliding mode controller with rotor flux estimation
5
is
presented. Rotor flux is also estimated using a sliding
mode observer. The results are compared with a field
oriented controller and an input-output linearizing
controller.
Fuzzy logic controller is also used
6
for solving the
parameter detuning problem of indirect vector
controlled induction motor drive. A fuzzy slip speed
estimator
7
, consisting of a fuzzy detuning correction
controller and a fuzzy excitation controller, is
presented for improving the decoupling
characteristics of the drive. An on-line fuzzy tuning
technique
8
is proposed for indirect field oriented
induction motor drive. It has also been proved
9
that,
in principle, certain type of fuzzy logic controller
works like a modified sliding mode controller. Fuzzy
logic controller and sliding mode controller are
combined to formulate the fuzzy sliding mode
controller
9
, whose application potential is yet to be
explored. This fuzzy sliding mode controller is
expected to be a robust control technique like both
sliding mode and fuzzy logic controllers, while being
free of the demerit of sliding mode controller, namely
This paper is Archived in dspace@nitr
http://dspace.nitrkl.ac.in/dspace

Journal of the Institution of Engineers (India), Vol. Vol. 86, Dec. 2005, pp.
160-165,
161
the chattering of the control input and some of the
system states.
This paper investigates the applicability of fuzzy
sliding mode controller
9
to a field oriented induction
motor drive. Systematic procedure is developed to
design sliding mode controller and fuzzy sliding
mode controller, and a comparative study is carried
out between the two.
FIELD ORIENTED INDUCTION MOTOR
The dynamic equations of the induction motor in the
synchronously rotating d-q reference frame, with
stator current and rotor flux components as variables,
are considered. The mathematical constraint for field
orientated control is:
0
qr
= and 0
qr
= & (1)
Equation (1) is satisfied and field orientation is
obtained, when
dr qs 5 r e
/ i a P + = (2)
When eqn. (2) is satisfied, the dynamic behavior of
the induction motor is:
ds qs e dr 2 ds 1 ds
v c i a i a i + + + =
&
(3)
qs dr r 3 qs 1 ds e qs
cv Pa i a i i + =
&
(4)
ds 5 dr 4 dr
i a a + = & (5)
qs dr T e
i K T = (6)
where, ) L L L ( L c
2
m r s r
= ,
2
r
2
m r s 1
L / L R c R c a + = ,
2
r m r 2
L / L R c a = ,
r m 3
L / L c a = ,
r r 4
L / R a = ,
r m r 5
L / L R a =
Ideally, torque and flux are decoupled under the
above condition, resulting in field orientation.
However, due to the presence of the motor parameter
a
5
in eqn. (2), the indirect field oriented control is
highly parameter sensitive. On-line adaptation to
achieve ideal field orientation is an important but
very difficult issue. Sliding mode control
10
is a good
robust control technique against parameter detuning
problem. But, it has the demerit, namely chattering of
control input and some of the system states. Fuzzy
sliding mode control
9
is also a robust control
technique like sliding mode control and it does not
have the above demerit. The following sections
present the design principles of a sliding mode
controller (SMC) and a fuzzy sliding mode controller
(FSMC) based on the motor eqns. (1) to (6). Their
comparative study for the induction motor drive has
been carried out.
DESIGN OF SLIDING MODE
CONTROLLER
In sliding mode control, the system is controlled in
such a way that the error in the system state (say,
speed) always moves towards a sliding surface. The
sliding surface (s) is defined with the tracking error
(e) of the state and its rate of change ( e&) as variables.
e e s + = & (7)
The distance of the error trajectory from the sliding
surface and its rate of convergence are used to decide
the control input. The sign of the control input must
change at the intersection of tracking error trajectory
with the sliding surface. In this way, the error
trajectory is forced to move always towards the
sliding surface. Once it reaches the sliding surface,
the system is constrained to slide along this surface to
the equilibrium point. The condition of sliding mode
10

is:
) s sgn( s & (8)
To design a sliding mode speed controller for the
field oriented induction motor drive system, the steps
are as follows. The speed dynamic equations are
given by:
) /J T ( g
L 1 r
+ = & (9)
and, d u G
r
+ + = & & (10)
where, u is the control input given by:
J / c K u
qs
*
dr T
v = (11)
G is a function, which can be estimated from
measured values of currents and speed.
J / ) g K g ( G
2
*
dr T 1
+ = (12)
J / ) i K ( g
qs
*
dr T r 1
+ =
ds m 3 r qs 4 1 2
i ) L a (1 P i ) a (a g + + =
In eqn. (10), d is the disturbance due to the load
torque, and error in estimation of G, which may occur
due to measurement inaccuracies.
Substituting (7) and (10) in (8) and
simplifying
) s sgn( u ) s sgn( ) e d G (
*
r
+ + + & & &
(13)
To achieve the sliding mode of (8), u is chosen as
10
) s sgn( K ) e G

( u = & (14)
The first term in (14), ) e G

( & is a
compensation term and the second term is the
controller. The compensation term is continuous and
reflects knowledge of the system dynamics. The
controller term is discontinuous and ensures the
sliding to occur. From eqns. (13-14), the controller
gain, K is derived as
10

) v | d | | G (| K
max max max
+ + + (15)
The controller gain, K is determined using (15) and
considering various conditions such as:
(i) increase in stator and rotor resistance due to
temperature rise
(ii) change in load torque
(iii) variation in the reference speed
For the induction motor whose rating and parameters
are given in Table-1, taking a typical case as (i) 50%
162
increase in stator and rotor resistance, (ii) change in
load torque by 10 Nm in 50 ms (rated torque is 5
Nm), (iii) 50% change in reference (base) speed in
50 ms, the controller gain, K
max
is obtained as
K
max
= 56000 rad/s
3

In a system, where modelling imperfection, parameter
variations and amount of noise are more, the value of
K must be large to obtain a satisfactory tracking
performance. But larger value of K leads to more
chattering of the control variable and system states.
To reduce chattering, a boundary layer of width is
introduced on both sides of the switching line. Then
the control law of (14) is modified as:
) / s sat( K e G

u = & (16)
where,

>

=
| s | if ) s sgn(
| s | if / s
) / (s sat
This amounts to a reduction of the control gain inside
the boundary layer and results in a smooth control
signal. The tracking precision is given by:
/ = (17)
To have a tracking precision, = 1 rad/s,
= = .
2
max
K = = (18)
3
max
10 0 . 56 K = = = 236.6 rad/s (18)
and = = 236.6 rad/s
2
Table 1 Rating and Parameters of the Induction Motor
Three phase, 50 Hz, 0.75 kW, 220V, 3A, 1440 rpm
Stator and rotor resistances: R
s
= 6.37 , R
r
= 4.3
Stator and rotor self inductances: L
s
= L
r
= 0.26 H
Mutual inductance between stator and rotor: L
m
= 0.24 H
Moment of Inertia of motor and load: J = 0.0088 Kg m
2

Viscous friction coefficient: = 0.003 N m s/rad

DESIGN OF FUZZY SLIDING MODE
CONTROLLER
The fuzzy sliding mode controller (FSMC) explained
here is a modification of the sliding mode controller
(eqn. (14)), where the switching controller term, K
sgn(s), has been replaced by a fuzzy control input as
given below.
Fuzz
u ) e G

( u + = & (19)
and
Fuzz
u = ) , e , e ( K
Fuzz
& sgn(s) (20)
The gain, K
Fuzz
of the controller is determined from
fuzzy rules. The qualitative rules of the fuzzy sliding
mode controller are as follows.
The normalized fuzzy output, u
Fuzz|N
should be
negative above the switching line, and positive
below it.
|u
Fuzz|N
| should increase as the distance, d
1

between the actual state and the switching line, s
= 0, increases. The distance, d
1
is given by

2 2
1
1
| e e |
1
| s |
d

+
+
=
+
=
&
(21)
|u
Fuzz|N
| should increase as the distance, d
2

between the actual state and the line
perpendicular to the switching line increases. The
distance, d
2
between the actual state and the line
perpendicular to the switching line, is:

2
1
2 2
2
d e e d + = & (22)
The reasons for this rule to be followed are:
(a) the discontinuities at the boundaries of
the phase plane are avoided.
(b) the central domain of the phase plane
is arrived at very quickly.
Normalized states,
N N
e , e & that fall out of the
phase plane should be covered by the maximum
values,
max N | Fuzz
| u | with the respective sign
of u
Fuzz|N
.
The normalized distances, d
1N
and d
2N
are:
d
1N
= N
1
d
1
and d
2N
= N
2
d
2

where, N
1
and N
2
are the normalization factors.
These normalized inputs (d
1N
and d
2N
) to the fuzzy
controller are fuzzified by a three member fuzzy set: {
Z: Zero, P: Positive, LP: Large Positive }
The fuzzy set for normalized controller gain (output
of the fuzzy controller), K
Fuzz|N
(also denoted as K
N

for brevity) is: { Z: Zero, SP:
Small Positive, MP: Medium Positive,
The membership functions for the normalized inputs
are shown in Fig.1(a), and those for the normalized
output are shown in Fig.1(b). Linear and symmetrical
membership functions are used for ease of realization.
Only three-member input sets and five-member output
set are chosen, based on engineering experience, so as
to have approximately linear transfer characteristics
without sacrificing simplicity of the controller. The
rule base for the fuzzy controller, consisting of nine
rules, is listed in Table-2.
Table 2 Fuzzy rule base
d
1N


d
2N
Z P LP
Z Z SP MP
P SP MP LP
LP MP LP VLP
The inference engine performs fuzzy implications,
and computes the degree of membership of the output
(normalized controller gain) in each fuzzy set using
Zadeh AND and OR operations. Then defuzzification
is carried out by the Center-of-Gravity method as
given in eqn. (23).
163

=
1
0
N out
1
0
N N out
N | Fuzz
dK
dK K
K (23)
The defuzzified value,
N | Fuzz
K is denormalized
with respect to the corresponding physical domain,
K
Fuzz
by the denormalization factor, N
u
.

max | N | Fuzz
max | Fuzz
u
K
K
N = (24)
where,
max | N | Fuzz
K is the maximum value of
defuzzified (but normalized) controller gain, and
K
Fuzz|max
is the maximum value of the controller gain,
K
Fuzz
.
Since the sliding mode controller and the fuzzy
sliding mode controller, described in this paper, are
structurally similar, the maximum gain K
Fuzz|max
is
taken equal to the gain of the sliding mode controller,
K
max
, so that comparison of both can be made under
similar conditions.
K
Fuzz|max
= 56000 rad/s
3

For N
1
= N
2
= 0.08 (fixed by engineering judgment
and experience), and the above value of K
Fuzz|max
, the
denormalization factor, N
u
= 110000.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The 3-phase induction motor drive system, whose
rating and parameters are given in Table-1, is
subjected to various simulation tests with both the
above controllers. The simulation study is carried out
with a ramp (linear) change in reference speed. The
reference speed is linearly increased from 1000 r/min
to 1500 r/min in 50 ms, i.e., at a rate 10 (r/min)/ms.
The reference d-axis rotor flux linkage is kept at 0.45
Vs, and load torque is kept at zero. The simulation
responses of the drive system with sliding mode
controller (SMC) are shown in Fig. 2 and those with
fuzzy sliding mode controller (FSMC) are shown in
Fig. 3. Though the responses with FSMC are
generally similar to those with SMC, the speed
response has an overshoot of 28 r/min with SMC, but
no overshoot is present with FSMC. The q-axis stator
voltage increases from initial steady state value of 104
V to final steady state value of 156 V with a peak
value of 255 V in SMC and 245 V in FSMC during
the transient period. The control input (u) has
chattering in SMC, but is free of chattering in FSMC.
The q-axis component of stator voltage and current
are only affected as they control the torque and hence
speed. The field orientation is obvious, as the d-axis
stator current and rotor flux remain constant.
To see the chattering-free robust responses of FSMC,
the load torque is suddenly increased from 0 to 10
Nm (rated torque is 5 Nm) and then the load is
removed after 1 sec. With both SMC (Fig. 4) and
FSMC (Fig. 5), there is an instantaneous speed change
of 30 r/min during the change of load. But the drive
system recovers to the reference speed of 1000 r/min
almost instantaneously. With SMC, the response of
current (i
qs
), the q-axis stator input voltage (v
qs
), and
the control input (u) have chattering, during the load
period. But no such chattering is present in case of
FSMC.
CONCLUSIONS
Sliding mode and fuzzy sliding mode controllers are
designed for a field oriented induction motor drive, to
have the same maximum controller gain. From the
simulation study of both the controllers, it is observed
that the control input, the stator input voltage, and
some of the states, like speed and stator current, have
chattering with sliding mode controller, whereas these
are free of chattering with fuzzy sliding mode
controller. For the same maximum gain with both the
controllers, the speed response is also nearly the same
(slightly better in FSMC than SMC), and the stator
input voltage is less in case of FSMC compared to
SMC. In other words, with fuzzy sliding mode
controller, the maximum gain can be increased at the
cost of increased stator input voltage, leading to better
speed response. So, for chattering-free, robust control
of field oriented induction motor drive, fuzzy sliding
mode controller is a better choice than sliding mode
controller. The number of members in the input and
output sets of the fuzzy controller can be increased, so
also the number of rules in the fuzzy rule base, so as
to closely approximate the linear transfer
characteristics within the boundary layer. This would
give better performance of the controller at the cost of
increased computational time.
REFERENCES
1. F. Blaschke, The principle of field orientation as
applied to the new transvektor closed-loop system for
rotating-field machines, Siemens Review, vol. 39, no.
5, May 1970, pp. 217-220.
2. K. K. Shyu, and H. J. Shieh, A new switching surface
sliding mode speed control for induction motor drive
systems, IEEE Trans. on Power Electronics, vol. 11,
no. 4, 1996, pp. 660-667.
3. M. W. Dunnigan, S. Wade, B. W. Williams, and X.
Xu, Position control of a vector controlled induction
machine using Slotines sliding mode control
approach, IEE Proc. on Elect. Power Appl., vol. 145,
no. 3, May 1998, pp. 231-238.
4. T. G. Park, and K. S. Lee, SMC-based adaptive input-
output linearizing control of induction motors, IEE
Proc. on Control Theory Applications, vol. 145, no. 1,
Jan. 1998, pp. 55-62.
5. A. Benchaib, A. Rachid, and E. Audrezet, Sliding
mode input-output linearization and field orientation
for real-time control of induction motors, IEEE Trans.
on Power Electronics, vol. 14, no. 1, Jan. 1999, pp. 3-
13.
6. G. C. D. Sousa, B. K. Bose, and K. S. Kim, Fuzzy
logic based on-line MRAC tuning of slip gain for an
indirect vector controlled induction motor drive, IEEE
164
Conf. record IAS annual meeting, 1993, pp. 1003-
1008.
7. J. B. Wang and C. M. Liaw, Performance
improvement of a field-oriented induction motor drive
via fuzzy control, Electric Machines and Power
Systems, vol. 27, no. 1, 1999, pp. 93-105.
8. L. Zhen, and L. Xu, On-line fuzzy tuning of indirect
field-oriented induction machine drives, IEEE Trans.
on Power Electronics, vol. 13, no. 1, Jan. 1998, pp.
134-141.
9. R. Palm, Robust Control by Fuzzy Sliding Mode,
Automatica, vol. 30, no. 9, 1994, pp. 1429-1437.
10. Slotine J. J. E. and W. Li, Applied Nonlinear Control,
Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs NJ, 1991.

0
0.5
1
0 0.5 1

0
0.5
1
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25

(a) (b)
Fig. 1 Membership functions for: (a) normalized inputs, (b) normalized output

0 .4 5 0 .5 0 .5 5 0 .6 0 .6 5
9 0 0
1 0 0 0
1 1 0 0
1 2 0 0
1 3 0 0
1 4 0 0
1 5 0 0
1 6 0 0

0 .4 5 0 .5 0 .5 5 0 .6 0 .6 5
-2
0
2
4
6
8
1 0


(a) (b)

0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
x 10
4

0 .4 5 0.5 0 .55 0.6 0.65
1 00
1 20
1 40
1 60
1 80
2 00
2 20
2 40
2 60


(c) (d)
Fig. 2 Simulation responses for ramp (linear) change in reference speed with SMC:
(a) Speed, (b) d- and q- axis stator currents, (c) Control input, (d) q- axis stator input voltage

0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600

0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9


(a) (b)
Time (s)
S
p
e
e
d

(
r
/
m
i
n
)

d
-

a
n
d

q
-

a
x
i
s

c
u
r
r
e
n
t
s

(
A
)

i
ds
i
qs
Time (s)
Time (s)
C
o
n
t
r
o
l

i
n
p
u
t
,


u

(
r
a
d
/
s
3
)

q
-

a
x
i
s

s
t
a
t
o
r

i
n
p
u
t

v
o
l
t
a
g
e

(
V
)

Time (s)
Time (s) Time (s)
S
p
e
e
d

(
r
/
m
i
n
)

d
-

a
n
d

q
-

a
x
i
s

c
u
r
r
e
n
t
s

(
A
)

i
qs
i
ds
d
1N
, d
2N
K
Fuzz|N
(K
N
)

Z P
LP

Z
SP MP LP VLP
165

0 .4 5 0 .5 0 .5 5 0 .6 0 .6 5
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
x 1 0
4

0 .4 5 0 .5 0 .5 5 0 .6 0 .6 5
1 0 0
1 5 0
2 0 0
2 5 0


(c) (d)
Fig. 3 Simulation responses for ramp (linear) change in reference speed with FSMC:
(a) Speed, (b) d- and q- axis stator currents, (c) Control input, (d) q- axis stator input voltage

0 0 . 5 1 1 . 5 2 2 . 5
9 7 0
9 8 0
9 9 0
1 0 0 0
1 0 1 0
1 0 2 0
1 0 3 0

0 0 .5 1 1 .5 2 2 . 5
- 2
0
2
4
6
8
1 0

(a) (b)

0 0 . 5 1 1 . 5 2 2 . 5
- 6
- 4
- 2
0
2
4
6
x 1 0
4

0 0 .5 1 1 .5 2 2 . 5
8 0
1 0 0
1 2 0
1 4 0
1 6 0
1 8 0
2 0 0
2 2 0
2 4 0

(c) (d)
Fig. 4 Simulation responses for step changes in load torque with SMC:
(a) Speed, (b) d- and q- axis stator currents, (c) Control input, (d) q- axis stator input voltage


0 0 .5 1 1 .5 2 2 . 5
9 6 0
9 7 0
9 8 0
9 9 0
1 0 0 0
1 0 1 0
1 0 2 0
1 0 3 0
1 0 4 0

0 0 .5 1 1 . 5 2 2 .5
- 2
0
2
4
6
8
1 0

(a) (b)

0 0 .5 1 1 .5 2 2 .5
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
x 1 0
4

0 0 .5 1 1 . 5 2 2 . 5
8 0
1 0 0
1 2 0
1 4 0
1 6 0
1 8 0
2 0 0

(c) (d)
Fig. 5 Simulation responses for step changes in load torque with FSMC:
(a) Speed, (b) d- and q- axis stator currents, (c) Control input, (d) q- axis stator input voltage
Time (s) Time (s)
C
o
n
t
r
o
l

i
n
p
u
t
,


u

(
r
a
d
/
s
3
)

q
-

a
x
i
s

s
t
a
t
o
r


i
n
p
u
t

v
o
l
t
a
g
e

(
V
)

Time (s)
S
p
e
e
d

(
r
/
m
i
n
)

d
-

a
n
d

q
-

a
x
i
s

c
u
r
r
e
n
t
s

(
A
)

i
ds
i
qs
Time (s) Time (s)
C
o
n
t
r
o
l

i
n
p
u
t
,


u

(
r
a
d
/
s
3
)

q
-

a
x
i
s

s
t
a
t
o
r

i
n
p
u
t

v
o
l
t
a
g
e

(
V
)

Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
C
o
n
t
r
o
l

i
n
p
u
t
,


u

(
r
a
d
/
s
3
)

q
-

a
x
i
s

s
t
a
t
o
r


i
n
p
u
t

v
o
l
t
a
g
e

(
V
)

Time (s) Time (s)
S
p
e
e
d

(
r
/
m
i
n
)

d
-

a
n
d

q
-

a
x
i
s

c
u
r
r
e
n
t
s

(
A
)

i
qs
i
ds