This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TEC.2018.2866383, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion
Adaptive Extended Kalman Filter for
Speed-Sensorless Control of Induction Motors
Emrah Zerdali, Member, IEEE
Abstract—This paper presents an adaptive extended Kalman
filter (AEKF) algorithm estimating the stator stationary axis
components of stator currents, the stator stationary axis com-
ponents of rotor fluxes, the rotor mechanical speed, and the
load torque for speed-sensorless control applications of induction
motors (IMs). The performance of a standard extended Kalman
filter (SEKF) algorithm depends on the correct selection of
system and measurement noise covariance matrices. In SEKF
algorithms, these matrices are generally assumed as constant
and determined by the trial-and-error method. However, they are
affected by the operating conditions of IM and should be updated
considering the operating conditions. For this purpose, instead
of the time-consuming trial-and-error method for determining
these matrices, an innovation-based adaptive estimation approach
having the capability of on-line update is used in this paper.
Finally, in order to verify the superiority of the AEKF algorithm,
estimation performances of AEKF and SEKF algorithms are
compared under challenging scenarios for a wide speed range
considering computational burdens and parameter variations.
Index Terms—Adaptive extended Kalman filter, induction
motor, speed-sensorless control, state estimation.
I. I NTRODUCTION
T HE high performance speed or position sensorless control
of induction motor (IM) has attracted the attention of
researchers for a long time. On the other hand, the performance
of speed-sensorless control of IM drive systems is directly
related to the performance of estimation algorithms. However,
temperature and frequency dependent changes in the electrical
parameters of IM model and unknown disturbance load inputs
deteriorate the performance of estimation algorithms. In order
to overcome these difficulties, deterministic and stochastic
based approaches [1] using two-phase IM model have been
proposed in the literature. Open loop estimators [2] and model
reference adaptive systems [3], [4], classified within open-
loop deterministic-based estimators, are highly sensitive to
changing motor parameters and their performances depend on
the correct knowledge of those parameters. Also, closed-loop
deterministic-based observers such as full-order [5], [6], Luen-
berger [7], [8], and sliding mode [9], [10] observers have been
proposed to improve the performance of open-loop estimation
algorithms. However, the performance of deterministic-based
approaches deteriorates under noise, because they ignore the
system noise (caused by system uncertainties, system distur-
bances, and the noise due to voltage measurements) and the
measurement noise (caused by current measurements). Nev-
ertheless, the estimation performances in both transient and
E. Zerdali is with the Department of Electrical and Electronics Engi-
neering, Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University, Niğde 51240, Turkey (e-mail:
ezerdali@ohu.edu.tr)
0885-8969 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1
steady states can be improved by using stochastic approaches
that take into account system and measurement noises.
The most common method that provides a stochastic ap-
proach to nonlinear state and parameter estimation problem
is the extended Kalman filter (EKF) [11]. However, the esti-
mation performance of EKFs is directly related to correct se-
lection of system (Q) and measurement (R) noise covariance
matrices. Since the stochastic properties of the corresponding
noises in the EKF algorithm are generally not known, it is
not possible to obtain a mathematical relationship between
the EKF performance and the noise covariance matrices.
Therefore, different methods have been addressed to determine
these matrices in the literature, and they can be classified into
two main parts: the first group accepting these matrices as
constant, and the second group accepting them as dynamic.
In the first group of studies, matrices are usually determined
by trial-and-error method [12]–[15]. But, this approach is time
consuming and does not yield optimum results for whole speed
range. There are also other studies which perform off-line
optimization of these matrices using heuristic algorithms such
as genetic algorithm [16] and differential evolution algorithm
[17], [18]. The advantage of heuristic algorithms over conven-
tional optimization algorithms such as Levenberg-Marquardt
and Newton-Rapson requiring mathematical expressions and
their derivatives is that they provide derivative-free global
optimization using only fitness functions and fitness values
[18]. However, optimization method is time-consuming like
trial-and-error method because of the off-line optimization pro-
cess. Although satisfactory estimation performance is obtained
according to trial-and-error method, these matrices are affected
by the operating conditions of IM, so they must be updated
depending on the working conditions. For this purpose, second
group of studies [19]–[29] that have the ability to update these
matrices on-line have been proposed in the literature. Some
of them [19]–[22] use fuzzy logic approach to update these
matrices with respect to operating conditions of IM. In order
to achieve high performance estimations with this method,
knowledge and experience of an expert is required, so its de-
sign process is quite complicated. The other method is adaptive
EKF (AEKF) which uses the adaptive fading approach, the
multiple model based adaptive estimation approach, and the
innovation or the residual based adaptive estimation approach
[23]–[29]. Considering the studies in [19]–[22], it is clear that
the proposed methods in [23]–[29] are easier to design and
achieve higher performance. Although AEKF is extensively
used in the studies related to integrated inertial navigation
system/global positioning system (INS/GPS), a few recent
studies using adaptive fading [28] and multiple model [27],
[29] based AEKFs have been done on the state/parameter
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TEC.2018.2866383, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion
2

estimations of IM. The disadvantage of multiple model based process and measurement noises, respectively. Detailed state-
approach is that its computational burden is high due to run- space representations of IM model expressed in general form
ning parallel EKFs. Unlike adaptive fading and multiple model (1) and (2) can be given as in (3) and (4).
based approaches, innovation based approaches make the Q The coefficients and abbreviations in IM model presented
estimation possible with a full variance/covariance matrix, but in (3) and (4) are
any innovation based AEKF for state/parameter estimation of
IM have not been found in the literature. Also, Almagbile L2m T Lm T
c1 = (Rs + ) , c2 = ,
et al. [26] specify that the estimating of both Q and R is Lr Tr Lσ Lσ Lr Tr
problematic. However, estimating Q for the state/parameter Lm pp T Lm T T
estimations of IM is sufficient since R is computable [30]. c3 = , c4 = , c5 = , c6 = pp T,
Lσ Lr Tr Tr
The main contribution of this study is to perform an 3 Lm pp T T
innovation-based AEKF algorithm carrying out the estimations c7 = T, c8 = , c9 = ,
2 Lr JT JT Lσ
of the stator stationary axis components of stator currents (isα
and isβ ), the stator stationary axis components of rotor fluxes where Rs and Ls are the stator resistance and inductance,
(ϕrα and ϕrβ ), the rotor mechanical speed (nm ), and load respectively; Rr and Lr are the rotor resistance and inductance
torque (tL ) for speed-sensorless control applications of IMs. referred to the stator side, respectively; Tr is the rotor time
In order to verify the effectiveness of the AEKF algorithm, the constant; Lσ = σLs is the stator transient inductance; σ =
estimation performance of the AEKF algorithm is compared 1 − L2m /(Ls Lr ) is the leakage or coupling factor; Lm is the
with that of standard EKF (SEKF) algorithm estimating the mutual inductance; pp is the pole pairs; JT is the total inertia
same states under challenging scenarios for a wide speed of IM and load; T is the sampling time; vsα and vsβ are the
range. Moreover, in addition to the comparison of estimation measured stator stationary axis components of stator voltages.
performances, the computational burdens of both algorithms In addition, the viscous friction term is estimated within tL .
and the effect of parameter changes on the estimation perfor-
mances are also examined. B. Observability of Discrete-Time IM Model
This paper is divided into seven sections. Section I includes In order to be used in the EKF algorithm of the sixth-
the current literature review regarding the speed-sensorless order nonlinear model of IM given in (3) and (4), it must
control of IM and the determination methods of noise covari- satisfy the observability rank condition recalled in [31] and
ance matrices in EKF. Sections II and III give the derivation [32]. Considering that condition,
of the 6th order extended IM model and the design of pro- Theorem: The nonlinear IM model satisfies the observability
posed AEKF algorithm, respectively. Section IV includes the rank condition if the rotor mechanical speed is not constant or
closed-loop simulation studies. Next, the details of hardware the rotor flux vector rotates in the stator stationary reference
configuration used in real-time experiments and resulting real- frame.
time estimation performances are presented in Sections V and Proof: If the nonlinear observability matrix
VI, respectively. Finally, Section VII clarifies the conclusion.  ∂h 
∂x (xk )
∂h ∂f
∂x (xk+1 ) ∂x (xk )
 e 
II. D ISCRETE -T IME M ATHEMATICAL M ODEL OF IM O=

..

 (5)
 . 
The following subsections focus on the derivation of the ∂h ∂fe ∂fe
discrete-time mathematical model of IM and the observability ∂x (xk+5 ) ∂x (xk+4 ) . . . ∂x (xk )
analysis of the derived IM model. has full rank 6 at xk , the nonlinear IM model satisfies the
nonlinear observability rank condition at xk ∈ R6 . The
resulting observability matrix has dimensions 12 × 6, the rank
A. Derivation of Discrete-Time Model
can be examined over any six rows in matrix O. Therefore,
In order to perform the simultaneously estimations of isα , first three terms of O that yields a regular matrix (O3 ) having
isβ , ϕrα , ϕrβ , ωm , and tL by using measured phase currents dimensions 6 × 6 is used.
and voltages, a rotor flux based sixth-order extended IM model The resulting determinant is derived as
[12] can be given in the following general form:
det(O3 ) = λ((κ + ξx5 x+ + +
5 )(x3 x4 − x3 x4 )

xk = fe (xk−1 , uk ) + wk−1 − η(x5 − x+ + +

5 )(x3 x3 + x4 x4 )) (6)
(1)
= A(xk−1 )xk−1 + Buk + wk−1 L 4 p2 T 5
where λ = JTmL6pL4 , κ = Rr2 , ξ = L2r p2p , η = Lr pp Rr . Also, x
r σ

zk = h(xk ) + vk and x+ refer xk and xk+1 , respectively. It is clear that x3 (or

(2) x+ +
3 ) and x4 (or x4 ) mean the stator stationary axis components
= Hxk + vk ~ r (Φ
~+
(α− and β−) of rotor flux vector Φ r ). Thus, the following
where x is the extended state vector, fe is the nonlinear definitions can be made:
function of the states and inputs, A is the system matrix, B is
x3 = Φm cos(θr ), x+ + +
3 = Φm cos(θr )
the input matrix, u is the control input vector, h is the function
of the outputs, H is the measurement matrix, w and v are the x4 = Φm sin(θr ), x+ + +
4 = Φm sin(θr )

0885-8969 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TEC.2018.2866383, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion
3

    
isα (k) (1 − c1 ) 0 c2 c3 ωm (k − 1) 0 0 isα (k − 1)
(1 − c1 ) −c3 ωm (k − 1) isβ (k − 1) 
    
 isβ (k)   0 c2 0 0 
    
 ϕrα (k)   c4 0 (1 − c5 ) −c6 ωm (k − 1) 0 0   ϕrα (k − 1) 
 =
    
  

 ϕrβ (k) 
 
 0 c4 c6 ωm (k − 1) (1 − c5 ) 0 0 
 ϕrβ (k − 1) 

ωm (k)   −c7 ϕrβ (k − 1) c7 ϕrα (k − 1) 0 0 1 −c8   ωm (k − 1) 
    

tL (k) 0 0 0 0 0 1 tL (k − 1)
| {z } | {z }| {z }
xk A(xk−1 ) xk−1
" #T " #
c9 0 0 0 0 0 vsα (k)
+ +wk−1 (3)
0 c9 0 0 0 0 vsβ (k)
| {z }| {z }
B uk
" # " #
isα (k) 1 0 0 0 0 0
= xk + vk (4)
isβ (k) 0 1 0 0 0 0
| {z } | {z }
zk H

A. Derivation of AEKF Algorithm

The conventional equations of the EKF algorithm using IM
model in (3) and (4) can be given as follows [33]:

∂fe (x, uk ) 
Fk|k−1 = (8)
∂x


x=xk−1

x̂−
k = fe (x̂k−1 , uk ) (9)

P− T
k = Fk|k−1 Pk−1 Fk|k−1 + Qk−1 (10)
−1
Kk = P− T
HP− T

kH k H + Rk (11)

x̂k = x̂− −
k + Kk (zk − Hx̂k ) (12)

Pk = (I − Kk H)P−
k (13)

where F is the function to linearize the nonlinear model; P−

and P are the covariance matrices of extrapolation error and
Fig. 1. The flowchart of AEKF algorithm.
state estimation error, respectively; K is the Kalman gain; Q
is the covariance matrix of the system noise, namely, modeling
errors; R is the covariance matrix of the output noise, namely,
where Φm = |Φ ~ r |, Φ+ = |Φ
~ + |, and θr (or θ+ ) is the angle measurement noise; I is the identity matrix.
m r r
~ ~ +
between the Φr (or Φr ) and α−axis. Using these definitions In the proposed AEKF algorithm, Q is found assuming that
in (6), the final determinant can be given as R is completely known as in [23] since R is available to be
calculated for speed-sensorless IM control applications [30].
+
det(O3 ) = λΦm Φ+ +
m ((κ + ξx5 x5 )sin(θr − θr )
The flowchart of proposed AEKF algorithm is presented in
+ Fig. 1.
− ηΦm Φ+ +
m (x5 − x5 )cos(θr − θr )). (7)
An estimation of the covariance of the innovation residual
In order for the rank condition to be satisfied, x+ is derived by taking the average of the previous residual
5 6= x5 or
θr+ 6= θr in addition to ∀Φm 6= 0 and ∀Φ+ 6
= 0 [31], [32]. sequences for a window of length N :
m

k
1 X
III. A DAPTIVE E XTENDED K ALMAN F ILTER Ĉvk = vj vjT (14)
N j=j
0
The details related to the derivation of AEKF algorithm and
its stability analysis are given by the following subsections, where
respectively. vk = zk − Hx̂k (15)

0885-8969 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TEC.2018.2866383, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion
4

is the innovation residual in the Kalman filter, and j0 = IV. S IMULATION R ESULTS
k − N + 1 is the first sample in the estimation window. The To prove the effectiveness of AEKF based speed-sensorless
estimated process noise is obtained as follows: drive system, direct vector control (DVC) system given in Fig.
 
k 2 is used. The IM used in simulations has rated values and
1 X
Q̂k =  ∆xj ∆xTj  + Pk − Fk|k−1 Pk−1 FTk|k−1 parameters given in Table I. In Fig. 2, θ̂rf shows the angular
N j=j position of rotor flux vector according to stator stationary axis.
0
(16) Although the speed-sensorless DVC system does not need
where tL estimation, it is included in the IM model as a constant
∆xk = x̂k − x̂− parameter to improve flux and speed estimations in AEKF
k. (17)
under tL changes.
Eq. (16) can be described as following in terms of the Using IM parameters given in Table I, the rated flux of the
innovation sequence under the assumption of steady-state: IM can be calculated as
k √ 380
1 X Vb 2 √3
Q̂k ≈ ∆xj ∆xTj ≈ Kk Ĉvk KTk (18) |ϕb | = = = 0.987 ∼= 1 V.s (20)
N j=j ωb 2π50
0

The details of innovation based adaptive Kalman filtering
can be found in [23].
B. Stability of AEKF Algorithm
In order to show the stability of AEKF algorithm, the
following assumptions are done.
Assumption 1:
1) There are positive real number a and h such that
kAk k ≤ a and kHk ≤ h for all k ≥ 0.
2) Ak is nonsingular for all k ≥ 0.
Assumption 2:
1) There are real numbers r, r, q, q > 0 such that Q and
R matrices are bounded by
qI6 ≤ Q ≤ qI6
rI6 ≤ R ≤ rI6
2) Ak and H matrices satisfy the uniform observability
condition,
3) The initial estimation error P0 is positive definite.
Next, there are real numbers p, p > 0 such that the solution
of the Riccati difference equation is bounded via
pI6 ≤ P ≤ pI6
for all k ≥ 0.
Considering the sixth-order IM model and the EKF algo-
rithm as well as Assumptions 1 and 2, the ek , defined as
xk − x̂k , is exponentially bounded in mean square sense with
probability one if P0 satisfies the following inequality:
2S βp
ke0 k ≤  = min( , ) (19)
α 8Sαp
where β > 0 is a suitable constant. The details related to the
proof can be found in [32].
Moreover, the stability analysis performed under the as-
sumption of Gaussian distributed noises and positive definite
Q and R matrices is valid for AEKF algorithm. Because, the
residual sequences vk used in calculation of Ĉvk also include
white noise terms, and Ĉvk is positive definite because of its
quadratic form. Furthermore, Q update stage in (18) has a
quadratic form. Finally, it can be concluded that the ek in
AEKF algorithm is exponentially bounded in mean square
sense with probability one if P0 satisfies the condition in (19).
where Vb is the peak value of stator voltage and ωb is the rated
value of rotor angular frequency.
The reference variations and resulting estimation perfor-
mances of both algorithms are presented in Figs. 3–5, re-
spectively. In these figures, M, SEKF, and AEKF superscripts
represent the measured states, the estimated states by SEKF,
and the estimated states by AEKF, respectively. e(.) is the
error term defined as difference between the measured and
the estimated states. The elements of Q matrix in SEKF are
determined by the trial-and-error method, and R matrix in both
algorithms is used as R = diag(1 × 10−4 A2 , 1 × 10−4 A2 ).
Considering the resulting estimation performances pre-
sented in Figs. 4 and 5, SEKF or AEKF algorithm based
speed-sensorless DVC drive system has the ability to operate
in closed-loop for a wide speed range. Moreover, it can be seen
that AEKF based version has better performance in both steady
states and transient states. However, the performance of both
algorithms deteriorates in the field-weakening operation due to
the flux dependent changes in Lm . To obtain high-performance
estimations in the field-weakening region, Inan and Barut [14]
emphasize that Lm should update with its correct value in the
estimation algorithm or Lm estimation is necessary.
V. H ARDWARE C ONFIGURATION
In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of proposed AEKF
algorithm according to the SEKF algorithm, the experimental
test setup shown in Fig. 6 is used. In real-time experiments,
a 3-phase squirrel cage type IM having also the specifications
presented in Table I is used. To test both algorithms under load
torque variations, IM is loaded with a 30 Nm Foucault brake.
The 5000 lines/rev encoder and 50 Nm torque transducer are
employed to verify the speed and load torque estimations,
respectively. Since the Foucault brakes cannot apply high load
torque to IM at very low speeds due to their torque-speed
characteristics, IM could not be loaded at around zero speeds
in real-time experiments. LA55-P/SP1 current transducers and
LV100-400 voltage transducers are also utilized to measure the
phase currents and voltages, respectively. The waveforms of
stator stationary axis components of measured stator voltages
and currents in a small time interval can be seen in Fig. 7.
A DS1104 controller board compatible with Matlab Simulink
software and including 64-bit floating-point processor with

0885-8969 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TEC.2018.2866383, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion
5

TABLE I
T HE RATED VALUES AND PARAMETERS OF THE IM USED IN SIMULATIONS AND REAL - TIME EXPERIMENTS .

P [kW] V [V] I [A] nm [r/min] tL [Nm] pp Rs [Ω] Rr [Ω] Lls [H] Llr [H] Lm [H] JT [kg.m2 ] BT [Nm/(rad/s)]
2.2 380 5.9 940 22 3 3.03 2.53 0.0116 0.0174 0.135 0.055 0.001

Adaptive Extended
Kalman Filter
or
Standard Extended
Kalman Filter

Field Trigger
Control
Circuit
&
Speed Torque
Control Control Inverter

Fig. 2. AEKF-based speed-sensorless IM drive.

1
output filter.
[V.s]

1
[V.s]

1
[V.s]

begining of
begining of
jref

0.5 field-weakening
begining of VI. E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS
jrref

0.5 field-weakening
region
jrref

field-weakening
region
0.5
rj'

region
j'j'

The estimation performances of AEKF and SEKF algo-

0
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] rithms are tested utilizing the experimental test setup in Fig.
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] 6 under different challenging scenarios including load torque
(a)
1000 1200 variations, speed reversals, and the dc condition (no-load
[r/min]

1000 1200
[r/min]

940
1000 1200
mm[r/min]

940
940 470 condition at zero speed) known as the worst case for speed-
0 470
0
0
0
0
470 0
0 -470
-470
0
0
sensorless IM control [14]. Firstly, the unknown R matrix is
ref

0 0 0
ref

-470 -940 calculated using the method in [30]. Next, the effect of the
mn
ref

-1000 -940 -1200

nn

-1000 -940 -1200

-1000 -1200 window size in AEKF on speed estimation is investigated, and
0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] thus the optimum window size that yields the best estimation
0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
(b) performance is tried to be determined. Finally, the real-time
20
20 estimation performances and computational burdens of AEKF
[Nm]

20
[Nm]
L[Nm]

10 and SEKF algorithms are compared. Both algorithms have

10
tref

10 been implemented using Matlab S–Function block coded by C

ref
LtL
tref

0
0 language and operated simultaneously by applying the stator
0
0
0
20
20
40
40
60
60
80
80
100 t[s]
100 t[s] stationary axis components of the phase currents (is,αβ ) and
0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
voltages (vs,αβ ) measured from the input terminals of IM. The
(c) initial conditions of all estimated states and parameters in both
Fig. 3. Reference variations for the performance test of AEKF based speed- algorithms are taken as zero, and T defined as the time elapsed
sensorless DVC system (a) Variation of |ϕr |ref . (b) Variation of nref
m . (c) between the measurement of the inputs and the execution of
Variation of tref
L . the posteriori state estimates, i.e. one cycle time of the algo-
rithm, is 100 µs in all real-time experiments. In order to get
satisfactory initial convergence, initial values of P is selected
250 MHz clock is used to perform the real-time AEKF and by trial-and-error method as P = diag{10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10}
SEKF algorithms. Only the open-loop real-time estimation for both algorithms.
performances of AEKF and SEKF algorithms are compared
in this study because of the absence of the inverter module.
However, the IM is driven by an ac drive in order to test A. Calculation of Measurement Noise Covariance Matrix
AEKF and SEKF algorithms with space vector pulse-width The three phase current measurements are performed using
modulated voltages and thus currents. In addition, it is seen LA55-P/SP1 current sensors. Since the sensors are identical,
that both algorithms have the ability to operate without an their noises have similar characteristics and Rk can be chosen

0885-8969 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TEC.2018.2866383, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion
6

1 1
1 1
[V.s]

[V.s]
1 1
r j[V.s]

r j[V.s]
1 1
r j[V.s]

r j[V.s]
1.05 1.05

j[V.s]
j[V.s]

1.05
1 1.05
1
0.5 1.05
1
0.95 0.5 1.05
1
0.95
0.5 1.05
1
0.95 0.5 1.05
jrj'

jrj'
1 0
0.95
0.5 1 0
0.95 20 40 60 80 100 0.5 20 40 60 80 100
rj'

rj'
1
0.95
0.5 0.95 0 20 40r jref 60 j'r jM 80 100
j'r jSEKF 0.5 0.95 0 20 40r jref 60 j'r jM 80 100
j'r jAEKF
j'j'

j'j'
0 20 j'
40r jref 60 j'r jM 80 100 0 20 j'
40r jref 60 j'r jM 80 100
j' j'r jSEKF 0 20 j'
40r jref 60 j'r jM 80 j'r jAEKF
100
0 0 20 40r jref
j' 60 j'r jM 80 100
j'r jSEKF 0 j' j'r jAEKF
0 0 20 40 j'r jref 60 j'r jM 80 j'r jSEKF100 t[s] 0 0 20 40 j'r jref 60 j'r jM 80 j'r jAEKF100 t[s]
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 20 40 (a) 60 80 100 t[s] 0 20 40 (a) 60 80 100 t[s]
[V.s]

[V.s]
'SEKF 'SEKF 'AEKF 'AEKF
[V.s]

[V.s]
r, r- r, r-
'SEKF 'SEKF 'AEKF 'AEKF
[V.s]

[V.s]
r, r- r, r-
1 'SEKF 'SEKF 1 'AEKF 'AEKF

[V.s]
[V.s]

1 'r,
SEKF
r, 'r-
SEKF
r- 1 'r,
AEKF
r,
r-
'AEKF
r-
r-

r-
1 1
r-

r-
1 1
r-'

r-'
0 0
r-'

r-'
'&
'&

0 0
'

'
&&

&&
0 0
0 0

&r,
&r,

-1 -1

r,
r,

r,'
'

-1 -1
r,

'
r,'

-1 0 -1 0

r,
''
''

-1 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] -1 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]

20 40 60 80 100 t[s] 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
(b) nref
m nM
m nSEKF
m
(b) nref
m nMm nAEKF
m
nref nM nSEKF nref nM nAEKF

[r/min]
[r/min]

1000 m
nref 5 m
nM m
nSEKF 1000 m
nref 5 nMm m
nAEKF

m[r/min]
m[r/min]

1000 nm
ref 5 nm
M
nm
SEKF 1000 m
nref 5 n m
M m
nAEKF

m[r/min]
m[r/min]

1000 m 0
5 m m 1000 m 0
5 m m

m[r/min]
m[r/min]

1000 1000 0
5 10000 1000 5
0
0 1000 -5
0 1000 -5
0
0 -5
0 0 950
0 1000
900
1000 -545
45
50
50
55
55 0 1000
950
900
1000
0
-5
-545 50 55
900 -10000
-10000 -545 50 55 950
900 -545 50 55

n
n

-1000 900
800 45 50 55 -1000 850
950
900 45 50 55

mn
mn

-1000 900
800 25 30 -1000 850
900 25 30 45 50 55

nn
nn

-1000 800 25 30 -1000 850 25 30

800 25 30 850 25 30
0 20
25 30 40 60 80 100 t[s] 0 20
25 30 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
20 (c) 20 (c)

[Nm]
[Nm]

20 20

L[Nm]
L[Nm]

20 20
Lt[Nm]
Lt[Nm]

20 20
tLtLt[Nm]
tLtLt[Nm]

10 10
10 10
10 10
10 10
0 tref tSEKF 0 tref tAEKF
L
0 tref
L L
tSEKF 0 tref
L
tAEKF
L
0 tref
L L
tSEKF 0 tref
L
tAEKF
0 0 20 40 60 tref
L
L 80
L
tSEKF
L 100 t[s] 0 0 20 40 60 tref
L
L 80
L
tAEKF
L 100 t[s]
0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
(d) (d)
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.05
[V.s]

[V.s]

0.05
[V.s]

0.05
[V.s]

0.05
[V.s]

0.05
e j[V.s]

0.05 0
rj rj

rj

0 0
er jj'

r j rj'

0 0
ej'

0 -0.05
ej'
ej'

ej'

-0.05
-0.05 -0.05
-0.05 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
-0.05 0 100 t[s]
20 40 60 80
100 t[s] 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 20 40
(e)
60 80 0 20 40 (e) 60 80 100 t[s]
20
20
[r/min]

[r/min]

0 20
[r/min]

0 0
[r/min]
[r/min]

0
[r/min]

0
-50 -200
-50 -20
nSEKF

-50
AEKF

-20
neSEKF

-40
m

AEKF
eneSEKF

mnm

-40
eneAEKF
m

-100
-40
ne
m

-100 -60
m

-100
0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] -60 0
-60 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
(f) (f)
20 20
[Nm]
[Nm]

20 20
[Nm]

[Nm]

20 20
[Nm]

[Nm]

10 10
etAEKF

10
tSEKF

10 10
teSEKF

10
tAEKF
LL L

LL L
eteSEKF

eteAEKF

0 0
0 0
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
(g) (g)
Fig. 4. The control and estimation performance of SEKF based DVC drive Fig. 5. The control and estimation performance of AEKF based DVC drive
system. (a) Variation of |ϕr |ref , |ϕr |M , and |ϕr |SEKF . (b) Variation of system. (a) Variation of |ϕr |ref , |ϕr |M , and |ϕr |AEKF . (b) Variation of
ref M SEKF . (d) Variation of ref
ϕSEKF
rα and ϕSEKF
rβ . (c) Variation of and nm , nm , nm ϕAEKF
rα and ϕAEKF
rβ . (c) Variation of and nm , nm , nm
M AEKF . (d) Variation

tref
L and tL
SEKF . (e) Variation of e
|ϕr | . (f) Variation of enSEKF . (g) Variation of tref
L and tAEKF
L . (e) Variation of e|ϕr | . (f) Variation of enAEKF . (g)
m m
of etSEKF . Variation of etAEKF .
L L

2
as σR I2×2 . Two uncertainties affecting the measurements are the determination of stochastic noise of identical sensors is
emphasized in [30]: stochastic noise of the sensors and quanti- fulfilled, and the standard deviation of the measured data
zation noise related to the analog-to-digital conversion. Firstly, (σsensor ) having zero mean Gaussian distribution is 470 µA.

0885-8969 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TEC.2018.2866383, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion
7

DS1104 Controller Board with Power PC

Standard Extended
Kalman Filter
(S-Function)

Adaptive Extended
PC for Online Kalman Filter
Monitoring (S-Function)
and Storage 16-bit 12-bit
ADC ADC

Induction Motor Foucault Brake

Voltage Current E
Sensors Sensors
LV100-400 LA55-P/SP1 Encoder
Torque
Transducer

3-Phase Variable
Array Resistor DC Source

Fig. 6. The block diagram of experimental setup used for verifying proposed AEKF algorithm.

500 since dynamics of system states can change in different

500
[V]
vsβ[V]

application areas. However, it is known in the literature that

MM

large window sizes reduce the ability of filter to converge

vsα&&vsβ

0
0
while small window sizes cause the filter to diverge [23], [26].
MM

M M
vsα vsβ
vsα

-500
M
vsα M
vsβ Although Jwo et al. [25] states that a good size for moving
-500 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 t [s]
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 t [s] window may vary between 10 and 30 for INS/GPS systems,
(a) it would be useful to re-determine the optimum window size
[A]

5
sβisβ[A]

5 for the state estimation problem of IM, since dynamics of IM

M

0 states are different than INS/GPS systems. For this purpose,

iM
sα&&

0
the effect of five different window sizes (8, 16, 32, 64, and
iM

-5 iM iM
sα

sα sβ
iM

-5 iM
sα iM
sβ 128) on speed estimation is investigated in this paper. For
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 t [s]
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 t [s] this purpose, two different scenarios have been identified in
(b) order to illustrate whether the determined window size varies
Fig. 7. The stator stationary axis components of measured stator voltages
under different scenarios or not. The estimation performances
M and v M . (b) Variation of iM and iM .
and currents. (a) Variation of vsα sβ sα sβ
and related errors for two scenarios are presented in Figs. 8
and 9, respectively, and the mean square errors (MSEs) of
speed estimations corresponding to window sizes are given
Next, the standard deviation of the quantification error for 16- in Table II. Considering the resulting estimation errors in
bit analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) is Table II, minimum MSEs are achieved with a window size
of 32. Therefore, in all experiments performed with AEKF,
Imax 100 A the window size is used as 32. The reason for selecting MSEs
σADC = √ =√ (21) is to achieve average performance under transients and steady-
3×2 12 3 × 212
states. In addition, it should be noted that as the window width
= 14.1 mA.
increases, the computational burden also increases. Therefore,
2 the selection of window size should be carried out consider-
As a result, both contributions are independent, so σR can
be found as follows: ing the balance between computational burden and dynamic
2 2 2 performance. Moreover, the effect of sampling frequency on
σR = σsensor + σADC (22) the optimum window size has been also examined in this
∼ 2 × 10−4 A2 .
= paper, and it is deduced that the optimum window size remains
constant with the varying sampling frequency.
B. Determination of Optimum Window Size in AEKF
The window size affects the estimation performance of C. Experimental Results and Observations
AEKF algorithm, and it should be correctly determined to Firstly, the Q matrix in SEKF is determined by using trial-
achieve high-performance estimations. On the other side, there and-error method until satisfactory estimation performance is
is not a known theoretical way to choose the window size, achieved, assuming that the calculated R is constant for both

0885-8969 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TEC.2018.2866383, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion
8

500 -495 iM iSEKF iAEKF

500 -495 s,
iM
s,
iSEKF
s,
iAEKF
-500 10 10 s, s, s,
-500 M
iM SEKF
iSEKF AEKF
iAEKF
-505
-495 10 10 s, s, s,
0

[A]
500
0 -505
-510 10 10 is, is, is,

s,[A]
-500
-495
-510 7.5 8 8.5 9 100 100
500

i[A]
-500
0 -500 7.5
-505 8 8.5 9 0 0

is,is,i[A]
s,
-500 -510
-505 N=16 0 0
0 Measured
Measured
N=8
N=8
7.5
-510 N=16
8 N=32 9
8.5
N=32
N=64
N=64
N=128
N=128 -100 -100
-5000 5 10
7.5 8 8.5 9 15 20 -10 -10
100 t[s]
-5000 5 10 15N=64 N=12820
Measured N=8 N=16 N=32
-10 0 0.02 0.04
-10 20 40 60 80
-10 0 0.02 0.04
-10 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
Measured N=8 (a)
N=16 N=32 0 0.02 0.04 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
100 5 10 15N=64 N=128
20 0 0.02 0.04 20 (a) 40 60 iSEKF 80 AEKF100 t[s]
100 5 10 15 20 iM
s- s- is-
10 10 iM
s-
SEKF
is- iAEKF
s-
10 10 10
M
iM
s- iSEKF
s- iAEKF
s-

[A]
is- iSEKF iAEKF
10
0 10 10 s- s-

s-[A]
0 100 100

i[A]
0 0

is-is-i[A]
s-
0 N=8 N=16 N=32 N=64 N=128
0 0
0 -100 -100
-10 N=8 N=16 N=32 N=64 N=128
-10 -10
-10 0 5 10 15 20 -10 -10
0 5
N=8 N=16 10N=32 N=64 15 N=128 20 0 0.02 0.04 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
-10 0 0.02 -10
0.04 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
-10 N=8 N=16 N=32 N=64 N=128 0 0.02 0.04 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
-10 0 5 (b)10 15 20
1 0 0.02 0.041 20 (b) 40 60 'SEKF 80 AEKF100 t[s]
'r,
0 5 10 15 20 1 1
r,
'SEKF
r, 'AEKF
r,
Fig. 8. Real-time estimation performance of AEKF algorithm using different

[V.s]
1 1 'SEKF
r, 'AEKF
r,

r,[V.s]
window sizes for first scenario. (a) Variation of nAEKF . (b) Variation of enAEKF . 1 1 'SEKF
r, 'AEKF
r,

r,[V.s]
m m 0 0

'[V.s]
500 0 0
500 0 0

'
0 0

r,r,
480 -1 -1

''
500
480 -1 -1
500 -1 0 0.02 0.04
-1 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
460 -1 0 0.02 0.04
-1 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
480
460 0 0.02 0.04 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
480 Measured N=8 N=16 N=32 N=64 N=128 0 0.02 0.04 20 40 60 'SEKF 80 AEKF100 t[s]
440 Measured N=8 N=16 N=32 N=64 N=128 1 1 '
460
440 0 5 10 15 20 1 1 (c) r-
'SEKF
r-
'AEKF

[V.s]
r- r-
460 0 5 10 15N=64 N=12820 'SEKF 'AEKF

r-[V.s]
Measured N=8 N=16 N=32 1 1 r- r-
1 1 'SEKF 'AEKF

r-[V.s]
440 Measured N=8 N=16 N=32
r- r-

200 5 10 15N=64 N=128

20
'[V.s]
0 0
440
200 0 0
5 10 15 20
0
(a) r-r-' 0
0
0
0
20
''
0 -1 -1
20 -1 -1
100 t[s]
-20
0 -1 0 0.02 0.04
-1 20 40 60 80
-20 -1 0 0.02 0.04
-1 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 N=8 N=16 N=32 N=64 N=128 0 0.02 0.04 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
-40
-20
N=8 N=16 N=32 N=64 N=128 0 0.02 0.04 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
-40 0 5 10 15 20
-20 0 5
N=8 N=16 10N=32 N=64 15 N=128 20 (d)
-40 N=8 N=16 N=32 N=64 N=128
-400 5 10 15 20 nM
m nSEKF
m nAEKF
m
[r/min]

0 5 10 15 20 1000 -900 nM
m nSEKF
m nAEKF
m
[r/min]

1000 -950 nM
m nSEKF
m nAEKF
m
nm[r/min]

(b) -900
10000 speed reversal -900
-1000
-950
removal of-1000
-950 speed reversal
Fig. 9. Real-time estimation performance of AEKF algorithm using different 0 speed reversal
nm

50 52
0 speed reversal load torque
removal of-1000 speed reversal
window sizes for second scenario. (a) Variation of nAEKF
m . (b) Variation of -1000 removal
load of
torque
50 52 speed reversal
nm

50 52
enAEKF . -1000 load torque
m -1000 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
200 0 20 40 (e) 60 80 100 t[s]
200 enSEKF enAEKF
m [r/min]

m m
TABLE II 200 5 enSEKF enAEKF
n[r/min]

T HE E FFECT OF W INDOW S IZE ON S PEED E STIMATION 100 05 m

enSEKF
m
enAEKF
enemnme[r/min]

m m
100 -5
5060
100 -5
0 70 80 90 100
0 -560 70 80 90 100
N 8 16 32 64 128 0 60 70 80 90 100
0
MSEs for Fig. 8 5.44 4.58 3.27 4.46 5.45 -100
-100 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
MSEs for Fig. 9 22.61 19.74 18.72 28.45 40.42 -100 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 20 40 60
M SEKF
80 100
AEKF
t[s]
(f) tL tL tL
20
tM tSEKF tAEKF
L [Nm]

20 L
tM
L
tSEKF
L
tAEKF
20 L L L
t[Nm]

0
tLtL[Nm]

algorithms. Finally, the Q and R matrices in SEKF and the 0 2

02
R matrix in AEKF can be given as follows: 0 -2
-20 2060
-2
0 70 80 90 100
-20 -260
-20 0 70 80 90 100
Q =diag 2 × 10−1 A2 , 2 × 10−1 A2 , 1 × 10−8 (V.s)2 , 20 40 60
60 70 8080 90 100 100 t[s]
0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
−8 2 −3 2 −4 2

0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
1 × 10 (V.s) , 1 × 10 (r/min) , 1 × 10 (Nm)
−4 2 −4 2
(g)
R =diag(2 × 10 A , 2 × 10 A ).
Fig. 10. Real-time estimation performances of AEKF and SEKF algorithms
at rated speed. (a) Variation of iM SEKF AEKF M
sα , isα , and isα . (b) Variation of isβ ,
For comparison of AEKF and SEKF algorithms, five dif- SEKF AEKF SEKF AEKF SEKF
isβ , and isβ . (c) Variation of ϕrα and ϕrα . (d) Variation of ϕrβ
ferent test groups are carried out as in Figs. 10–16. In
and ϕAEKF M SEKF
rβ . (e) Variation of nm , nm , and nm
AEKF . (f) Variation of e
nSEKF
these figures, M, SEKF, and AEKF superscripts represent and enAEKF . (g) Variation of tM , tSEKF , and tAEKF .
m
L L L
the measured states, the estimated states by SEKF, and the m

estimated states by AEKF, respectively. e(.) is the error term

defined as difference between the measured and the estimated
states. The details of the five test groups are as follows:
1) Performances of AEKF and SEKF algorithms under nm
and tL reversals at the rated speed (see Fig. 10): The first
test aims to perform the comparison of both algorithms under
nm reversals both loaded and unloaded conditions at the rated
speed. For this purpose, IM is operated at 940 r/min under the
rated load of 20 Nm in the time interval of 0≤ t ≤25 s, and
the speed is linearly reversed to −930 r/min at 25 s with the
help of ac drive. Next, the load is removed at 50 s, and thus
IM speeds up to −998 r/min. Finally, the speed is reversed

0885-8969 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TEC.2018.2866383, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion
9

iM iSEKF iAEKF iM
s, iSEKF
s, iAEKF
s,
iM
s,
s,
s,
iSEKF
s,
s,
iAEKF
s,
10 10 iM
s, iSEKF
s, iAEKF
s,
10 10 10 10 iM SEKF
iSEKF AEKF
iAEKF

[A]
10 10 iM iSEKF iAEKF 10 10 s, s, s,
s, s, s, iM is, is,

s,[A]
M SEKF AEKF
[A]

is, is, is, 10 10 s,

10 10
s,[A]

i[A]
100 100 0 0

is,is,i[A]
i[A]

0 0

s,
0 0
is,is,i[A]

0 0
s,

0 0 0 0
-100 -100 -10 -10
-10 -10 -10 -10
-10 0 0.05 -100.1 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] -10 0 1 -10 2 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
-10 0 0.05 -100.1 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] -10 0 1 -102 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 0.05 0.1 20 (a) 40 60 80 100 t[s] 0 1 2 20 (a) 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 0.05 0.1 20 40 iM 60 iSEKF 80 iAEKF100 t[s] 0 1 2 20 40 iM 60 iSEKF 80 100 t[s]
iAEKF
s- s- s-
iM
s-
SEKF
is- iAEKF
s- 10 10 s-
M
is-
s-
SEKF
is-
s-
iAEKF
10 10 iM iSEKF iAEKF 10 10 iM iSEKF
s-
iAEKF

[A]
10 10 s-
M s-
iSEKF
s-
iAEKF 10 10 s-
iM
s-
iSEKF
s-
iAEKF
[A]

is-

s-[A]
s- s- s- s- s-
10 10 10 10
s-[A]

i[A]
100 100 0 0
i[A]

is-is-i[A]
0 0 0 0

s-
is-is-i[A]

0 0
s-

0 0 0 0
-100 -100 -10 -10
-10 -10 -10 -10
-10 0 0.05 -100.1 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] -10 0 1 -10 20 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
-10 0 0.05 -100.1 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] -10 0 1 -1020 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 0.05 0.1 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] 0 1 20 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
1 0 0.05 10.1 20 (b) 40 60'SEKF
r,
80 'AEKF100 t[s]
r,
0 1 20 20 (b) 40 60
'SEKF
80 'AEKF100 t[s]
1 1 'SEKF
r, 'AEKF
r, 1 1 r,
'SEKF
r,
AEKF
'r,

[V.s]
[V.s]

r,
1 1 'SEKF 'AEKF 1 1 SEKF
'SEKF 'AEKF

r,[V.s]
r, r,
r,[V.s]

r, r,
1 1 'SEKF 'AEKF 1 1 'r, 'AEKF

r,[V.s]
r, r,
r,[V.s]

r,
0 0 1 1

[V.s]
0 0
'[V.s]

0 0 0 0
0 0

r,'
'

0 0 0 0
'r,

r,'
0 0
-1 -1 -1 -1
'r,

''
-1 -1 -1 -1
-1 0 0.05 -10.1 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] -1 0 1 -1 2 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
-1 0 0.05 -10.1 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] -1 0 1 -12 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 0.05 0.1 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] 0 1 2 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
1 0 0.05 10.1 20 40 60'SEKF 80 'AEKF100 t[s] 0 1 2 20 40 60 'SEKF 80 100 t[s]
'AEKF
1 1 (c) r-
'SEKF
r-
'AEKF 1 1 (c) r-
'SEKF r-
'AEKF
[V.s]

r- r-
1 1

[V.s]
'SEKF 'AEKF 1 1 r-
SEKF
'SEKF
r-
AEKF
'AEKF
r-[V.s]

r- r-

r-[V.s]
1 1 'SEKF 'AEKF 1 1 r-
'r-
r-
'r-
r-[V.s]

r- r-

r-[V.s]
0 0 1 1
r-[V.s]

r-[V.s]
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
'

0 0 ' 0 0
''

r-'
-1 -1 0 0
'r-

-1 -1
''
-1 -1 -1 -1
-1 0 0.05 -10.1 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
-1 0 0.05 -10.1 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] -1 0 1 -1 2 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 0.05 0.1 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] -1 0 1 -12 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 0.05 0.1 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] 0 1 2 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 1 2 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
(d) (d)
nMM nSEKF nAEKF 40
[r/min]

m m m
500 -450 nM nSEKF nAEKF 40
[r/min]

deceleration
[r/min]

m m m
500 -450 nm nSEKF nAEKF 40
20 to 0 r/min
[r/min]
n[r/min]

-500
m m deceleration
500 20
nmn[r/min]

speed reversal removal of-450

-500 deceleration
to 0 r/min
0 speed reversal removal -550
of -500 200 speed reversal to 0 r/min
0 speed load torque -550
speed reversal acceleration
m

0 reversal load torque

removal of 50 52 speed reversal 0 speed reversal
to 25 r/min
acceleration
m

0
nmnm

-500 load torque -550 50 52 speed reversal -20 speed reversal

acceleration
-500 -20 nM
m nSEKF
m nAEKF
to 25 r/min
m
50 52 to 25 r/min
nm

-500 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] -20

-40 nM
m nSEKF
m nAEKF
m
nM nSEKF nAEKF
0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] -40 0 20 40 m 60 m 80 m 100 t[s]
0 20 40 (e) 60 80 100 t[s] -40 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
150 enSEKF enAEKF 20 0 20 40 (e) 60 80 100 t[s]
[r/min]
[r/min]

m m
150 20 enSEKF enAEKF 20 enSEKF enAEKF
mn [r/min]

100
[r/min]

m m m m
150 200 enSEKF enAEKF 20 enSEKF enAEKF
enemnem[r/min]

100
enmene[r/min]

-20
200 0 enmSEKF enmAEKF
m m

10050 -20 20 40 60 80 100 0 m m

50 0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0
5000
m

nm

0 20 40 60 80 100 0
-50 -20
0
-50
-20
-50 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] -20
0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
20 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
20 (f) M
tL tLSEKF
tLAEKF 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
20 tM tSEKF tAEKF 5 (f) tM tSEKF tAEKF
[Nm]

L L L L L L
tM tSEKF tAEKF tM tSEKF tAEKF
L [Nm]
Lt [Nm]

L L L 5 L
tM
L
tSEKF
L
tAEKF
0 05
t[Nm]

L L L
tL t[Nm]

0
tLtL[Nm]

2
L

0
0 20
-2 -50
0
-20 -2 60
2 70 80 90 100 -5
0
-20 0 20 40 -26060 70 80
80
90 100
100 t[s] -5
-10
60 70 80 90 100 100 t[s]
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] -10 0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s] -10 0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
0 20 40 60 80 100 t[s]
(g) (g)
Fig. 11. Real-time estimation performances of AEKF and SEKF algorithms Fig. 12. Real-time estimation performances of AEKF and SEKF algorithms
at around 50% of rated speed. (a) Variation of iM SEKF AEKF
sα , isα , and isα . (b) at low and zero speeds. (a) Variation of iM SEKF AEKF
SEKF , and iAEKF . (c) Variation of ϕSEKF and ϕAEKF . (d) sα , isα , and isα . (b) Variation
Variation of iM
sβ , i sβ sβ rα rα of iM , i SEKF , and iAEKF . (c) Variation of ϕSEKF and ϕAEKF . (d) Variation of
sβ sβ sβ rα rα
Variation of ϕSEKF and ϕAEKF M SEKF
rβ . (e) Variation of nm , nm , and nm
AEKF . (f)
ϕSEKF and ϕAEKF M SEKF AEKF . (f) Variation of
rβ . (e) Variation of nm , nm , and nm
rβ
SEKF , and tAEKF . rβ
Variation of enSEKF and enAEKF . (g) Variation of tM ,
L L t L enSEKF and enAEKF . (g) Variation of tM , tSEKF , and tAEKF .
m m L L L
m m

again under no-load condition at 75 s.

2) Performances of AEKF and SEKF algorithms under nm of 15 Nm, the speed is linearly reversed at 25 s. The load
and tL reversals at around 50% of the rated speed (see Fig. torque is canceled at 50 s when IM is operated at −500 r/min;
11): In the second test, a scenario similar to the first test is therefore the speed increases to −535 r/min. Last, the speed
performed. While IM runs at 500 r/min under the load torque is reversed again at 75 s under no-load condition.

0885-8969 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TEC.2018.2866383, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion
10

40
40 nM nSEKF nAEKF 1000

[r/min]
m m m
[r/min]

nM
m nSEKF
m nAEKF
m 1000

[r/min]
20 1000
nmnm[r/min]

1000

[r/min]
20 1000
500 1000
950
Rs Rs + 1.5Ω 950 0
0 500 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

m
Rs Rs + 1.5Ω 500 950
0

mmn
Rs + 2.5Ω 0 5 nm 10 15
nr=10
!2
20 25 nr=2#10
30 !4 35 n40
r=10!6
Rs 0 0 5 mm 10 15m !220 25 m 30 35 40
m

nn
r=10 r=2#10!4 !6
-20 Rs + 2.5Ω Rs nm nm !2 nm
r=2#10!4 nr=10
r=10!6
-20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 t [s] 0 nm nr=10
m nm nmm
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 t[s]
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 t [s] 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 t[s]
6 (a) 20 0 5 10 15 (a)20 25 30 35 40 t[s]
6 tM tSEKF tAEKF enr=10!2 enr=2#10!4 enr=10!6
L L L 20

m [r/min]
tM
L tSEKF
L tAEKF
L 20 m
enr=10!2
m
enr=2#10!4
m
enr=10!6
L [Nm]

4 enmr=10!2 enmr=2#10!4 enmr=10!6

n[r/min]
speed error for
tL t[Nm]

enemnme[r/min]
4 10 calculated
speed errornoise
for
m m m

10 speed errornoise
calculated for
2 10 calculated noise
2
0
0 0
00 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 t [s] 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 t [s] 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 t[s]
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 t[s]
(b) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 t[s]
20 (b)
Fig. 13. Real-time estimation performances of AEKF and SEKF algorithms

L [Nm]
20
under Rs variations. (a) Variation of nM SEKF AEKF . (b) Variation
m , nm , and nm
20

t[Nm]
10

tLtL[Nm]
of tL , tSEKF
L , and tAEKF .
L 10
10 !2 !4 !6
0 tm
L tr=10
L tr=2#10
L tr=10
L
!2 !4 !6
0 tm tr=10 !2 tr=2#10 !4 tr=10 !6
30
30 0 tLm tLr=10 tLr=2#10 tLr=10
nM nSEKF nAEKF 0 5 10 L
15 L
20 25 L
30 35 L
40 t[s]
nM
m
nSEKF
m
nAEKF
m
40 t[s]
[r/min]

m m m 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
mm[r/min]

20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 t[s]
20
Rr = 0 Rr (c)
10 Rr Rr
10 Rr 0.5 × RRrr = 0 1.5 × Rr
nn

0.5 × Rr 1.5 × Rr 2 × Rr Fig. 16. Real-time estimation performances of AEKF algorithm using
2 × Rr Rr
0
00
Rr different R matrices. (a) Variation of nM AEKF for different R matrices.
m and nm
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 t [s] (b) Variation of enM for different R matrices. (c) Variation of tL and tAEKF
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 t [s] m L
(a) for different R matrices.
tM tSEKF tAEKF
4 tM
L
L tSEKF
L
L tAEKF
L
L
4
[Nm]
tLtL[Nm]

2 0 r/min at 50 s while IM runs at −25 r/min. After the speed

2
is reduced to 0 r/min, the dc condition known as the worst
0
00
scenario for speed-sensorless control of IM occurs in the time
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 t [s]
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 t [s] interval of 50≤ t ≤75 s. Finally, the speed is increased to 25
(b) r/min again at 75 s.
Fig. 14. Real-time estimation performances of AEKF and SEKF algorithms 4) Performances of AEKF and SEKF algorithms under pa-
under Rr variations. (a) Variation of nM SEKF AEKF . (b) Variation
m , nm , and nm rameter variations (see Figs. 13–15): The fourth test examines
of tL , tSEKF
L , and tAEKF
L .
the estimation performance of both algorithms under Rs , Rr ,
and Lm variations. The resulting estimation performances
1202
1202 nM
m nSEKF
m nAEKF
m
for Rs , Rr , and Lm changes are presented in Figs. 13–15,
nM nSEKF nAEKF
[r/min]

Lm
Lm 0.25 × Lm m m m
respectively. While Rs can vary up to 100% of its nominal
nmnm[r/min]

1200 Lm 0.25 × Lm Lm
1200
value due to the temperature, Rr can change between zero
1198
1198 and its rated value because of changing rotor frequency [13].
0.5 × Lm
1196 0.5 × Lm The effect of Rs and Rr variations has been especially
1196 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 t [s]
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 t [s] investigated in 20 r/min, because the effect of these changes is
1.5 (a)
1.5 tM tSEKF tAEKF
more distinctive in the low-speed region. In Fig. 13, the value
L L L
tM
L tSEKF
L tAEKF
L of three-phase array resistors connected to the stator terminals
[Nm]

1
tLtL[Nm]

1 of IM is changed in two step: Rs + 1.5 Ω and Rs + 2.5 Ω. In

0.5 Fig. 14, the estimation performance of both algorithms under
0.5
0 Rr variations has been examined by multiplying the nominal
00 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 t [s] value of Rr in both algorithms by 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5 and 2.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 t [s]
(b) Although the proposed study does not focus the field
Fig. 15. Real-time estimation performances of AEKF and SEKF algorithms
weakening region, the effect of Lm variations has been also
under Lm variations. (a) Variation of nM SEKF AEKF . (b) Variation
m , nm , and nm
analyzed. The test has been performed in the field weakening
of tL , tSEKF
L , and tAEKF
L . region (over the rated speed), i.e., 1200 r/min. In Fig. 15,
the effect of Lm variations on estimation performance has
been examined by changing the rated value of Lm in both
3) Performances of AEKF and SEKF algorithms at low and algorithms. For this purpose, Lm has been scaled by 0.25 and
zero speeds (see Fig. 12): The third test purposes to compare 0.5 at 1200 r/min.
both algorithms at low and zero speeds including dc condition. 5) Performance of AEKF algorithm using different R ma-
First, the speed is reversed to −25 r/min at 25 s when IM is trices (see Fig. 16): The fifth test aims to analyze the effect
operated at 25 r/min. Second, the speed of IM is reduced to of R matrix on estimation performance of AEKF algorithm.

0885-8969 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TEC.2018.2866383, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion
TABLE III
T HE E XECUTION T IMES OF SEKF AND AEKF A LGORITHMS
SEKF AEKF
12.05 µs 14.49 µs
With this aim, three different R matrices are selected as
R = diag(r, r) where r = 10−2 , r = 2 × 10−4 (calculated
noise), and r = 10−6 . The resulting estimation performances
of AEKF algorithm are presented in Fig. 16.
In addition to comparing the estimation performances, com-
putational burdens of both algorithms are also compared. The
average execution times of each iteration for both algorithms
are given in Table III. The reason for the difference in
computational burdens between two algorithms is that AEKF
approach used has Q update stage shown in Fig. 1. It should
be noted that the computational load of the AEKF algorithm
changes with window width: large window widths mean
more computational burden, and vice versa. This load can
be reduced as in (23) in the calculation of Ĉvk : instead of
calculating the entire window width in each iteration again,
the sum is stored, and only the incoming and the outcoming
elements can be included and excluded in Ĉvk calculation,
respectively.
1
Ĉvk = Ĉvk−1 + (vk vkT − vk−N +1 vk−N T
+1 ) (23)
N R matrices is problematic. In this study, only the Q matrix is
Considering the resulting estimation performances pre-
sented in Figs. 10–16 and computational burdens given in
Table III, the following observations can be done:
• Both algorithms have the ability to overcome the chal-
lenging speed reversals and load torque variations be-
tween half of the rated speed and the rated speed (see
Figs. 10 and 11).
• Although sufficient estimation performance is obtained
between half of the rated speed and the rated speed from
both algorithms, the proposed AEKF algorithm converges
more quickly in transient states due to the adaptive nature
of Q matrix (see Figs. 10 and 11).
• AEKF shows its superiority over SEKF especially at low
and zero speeds including dc condition (see Fig. 12).
The pre-determined Q matrix in SEKF using trial-and-
error method is not suitable for low and zero speeds,
so it deteriorates the estimation performance of SEKF
algorithm. Furthermore, it is quite difficult to determine
the Q matrix that give sufficient estimation performance
for the whole speed region by trial-and-error method.
• The temperature and frequency dependent changes in Rs
and Rr examined in Figs. 13 and 14 highly increase
the estimation errors in SEKF algorithm. Despite these
changes, AEKF algorithm still performs satisfactory esti-
mation performance. The more robust estimations against
parameter variations significantly increase the usability
of the AEKF algorithm at low speeds. Moreover, Fig.
15 examining the effect of flux dependent variation
in Lm illustrates that AEKF algorithm performs more
robust estimations than SEKF algorithm. However, the
difference is not as large as in Rs and Rr changes.
0885-8969 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
11
• AEKF algorithm can operate with different measurement
noise, but the selection of R matrix affects its transient
responses (see Fig. 16). While larger values of R matrix
reduce the ability to track, smaller values may cause
noisy estimations. It is shown in Fig. 16 that satisfactory
estimation performance can be provided using calculated
R matrix in AEKF algorithm.
• The proposed AEKF algorithm has the capability to
operate in all speed ranges and even under different
changeling working conditions. In addition, the most
important advantages are that it is not as time consuming
as the other methods [12]–[22] in the literature used to
determine the Q matrix and has the ability to update the
Q matrix on-line with a slight computational burden.
VII. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, AEKF algorithm simultaneously estimating
the isα , isβ , ϕrα , ϕrβ , nm , and tL is performed for speed
or position sensorless control applications of IMs. Since Q
and R matrices varying with the operating conditions of IM
are accepted as constant in SEKF algorithm, the estimation
performance of SEKF deteriorates at transient states and low
speeds, and under parameter variations. Therefore, these ma-
trices should be updated on-line to achieve high-performance
estimations. However, the simultaneously estimation of Q and
updated on-line by using proposed AEKF approach since the
R matrix can be calculated. To verify the superiority of AEKF
algorithm, the estimation performance of AEKF algorithm is
compared with that of SEKF algorithm under challenging
scenarios for a wide speed range. Moreover, computational
burdens and the effect of parameter changes on estimation
performances of both algorithms are also examined. Consid-
ering the real-time estimation results and related errors, the
proposed AEKF algorithm has the ability to accomplish higher
performance estimations than the SEKF algorithm with a slight
computational burden difference. Finally, future studies will
focus on the comparison of different AEKF approaches for
speed-sensorless control applications of IMs.
R EFERENCES
[1] I. M. Alsofyani and N. R. N. Idris, “A review on sensorless techniques
for sustainable reliablity and efficient variable frequency drives of
induction motors,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 24,
pp. 111–121, Aug. 2013.
[2] S. Bolognani, L. Peretti, and M. Zigliotto, “Parameter Sensitivity Anal-
ysis of an Improved Open-Loop Speed Estimate forInduction Motor
Drives,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 23, no. 4, pp.
2127–2135, Jul. 2008.
[3] I. Benlaloui, S. Drid, L. Chrifi-Alaoui, and M. Ouriagli, “Implemen-
tation of a New MRAS Speed Sensorless Vector Control of Induction
Machine,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 30, no. 2, pp.
588–595, Jun. 2015.
[4] A. N. Smith, S. M. Gadoue, and J. W. Finch, “Improved Rotor Flux
Estimation at Low Speeds for Torque MRAS-Based Sensorless Induction
Motor Drives,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 31, no. 1,
pp. 270–282, Mar. 2016.
[5] Z. Qu, M. Hinkkanen, and L. Harnefors, “Gain Scheduling of a Full-
Order Observer for Sensorless Induction Motor Drives,” IEEE Transac-
tions on Industry Applications, vol. Early Access Online, 2014.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TEC.2018.2866383, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion
[6] W. Sun, J. Gao, Y. Yu, G. Wang, and D. Xu, “Robustness Improvement
of Speed Estimation in Speed-Sensorless Induction Motor Drives,” IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 2525–2536,
May 2016.
[7] M. Jouili, K. Jarray, Y. Koubaa, and M. Boussak, “Luenberger state
observer for speed sensorless ISFOC induction motor drives,” Electric
Power Systems Research, vol. 89, pp. 139–147, Aug. 2012.
[8] Y. A. Zorgani, Y. Koubaa, and M. Boussak, “MRAS state estimator for
speed sensorless ISFOC induction motor drives with Luenberger load
torque estimation,” ISA Transactions, vol. 61, pp. 308–317, Mar. 2016.
[9] S. Di Gennaro, J. Rivera Dominguez, and M. Meza, “Sensorless High
Order Sliding Mode Control of Induction Motors With Core Loss,” IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 2678–2689,
Jun. 2014.
[10] M. Comanescu, “Design and Implementation of a Highly Robust Sen-
sorless Sliding Mode Observer for the Flux Magnitude of the Induction
Motor,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 31, no. 2, pp.
649–657, Jun. 2016.
[11] F. Auger, M. Hilairet, J. Guerrero, E. Monmasson, T. Orlowska-
Kowalska, and S. Katsura, “Industrial Applications of the Kalman Filter:
A Review,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 60, no. 12,
pp. 5458–5471, Dec. 2013.
[12] M. Barut, S. Bogosyan, and M. Gokasan, “Speed-Sensorless Estimation
for Induction Motors Using Extended Kalman Filters,” IEEE Transac-
tions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 272–280, Feb. 2007.
[13] M. Barut, R. Demir, E. Zerdali, and R. Inan, “Real-Time Imple-
mentation of Bi Input-Extended Kalman Filter-Based Estimator for
Speed-Sensorless Control of Induction Motors,” IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 4197–4206, Nov. 2012.
[14] R. Inan and M. Barut, “Bi input-extended Kalman filter-based speed-
sensorless control of an induction machine capable of working in the
field-weakening region,” Turk J Elec Eng & Comp Sci, vol. 22, no. 3,
pp. 588–604, Apr. 2014.
[15] E. Zerdali and M. Barut, “Novel version of bi input-extended Kalman
filter for speed-sensorless control of induction motors with estimations
of rotor and stator resistances, load torque, and inertia,” Turk. J. Electr.
Eng. Comput. Sci., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 4525–4544, 2016.
[16] K. L. Shi, T. Chan, Y. Wong, and S. Ho, “Speed estimation of an
induction motor drive using an optimized extended Kalman filter,” IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 124–133, Feb.
2002.
[17] N. Salvatore, A. Caponio, F. Neri, S. Stasi, and G. Cascella, “Optimiza-
tion of Delayed-State Kalman-Filter-Based Algorithm via Differential
Evolution for Sensorless Control of Induction Motors,” IEEE Transac-
tions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 385–394, Jan. 2010.
[18] E. Zerdali and M. Barut, “The Comparisons of Optimized Extended
Kalman Filters for Speed-Sensorless Control of Induction Motors,” IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 4340–4351,
Jun. 2017.
[19] Z. Yin, L. Xiao, X. Sun, J. Liu, and Y. Zhong, “A speed and flux estima-
tion method of induction motor using fuzzy extended kalman filter,” in
Electronics and Application Conference and Exposition (PEAC), 2014
International, Nov. 2014, pp. 693–698.
[20] M. Aydin, M. Gokasan, and S. Bogosyan, “Fuzzy based parameter
tuning of EKF observers for sensorless control of Induction Motors,” in
2014 International Symposium on Power Electronics, Electrical Drives,
Automation and Motion (SPEEDAM), Jun. 2014, pp. 1174–1179.
[21] K. Drozdz, T. Orlowska-Kowalska, and K. Szabat, “Application of
the modified fuzzy Kalman filter to states estimation of the two-
[27] Z.-g. Yin, C. Zhao, Y.-R. Zhong, and J. Liu, “Research on Robust
Performance of Speed-Sensorless Vector Control for the Induction Motor
0885-8969 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
12
mass system,” in 2015 IEEE International Conference on Industrial
Technology (ICIT), Mar. 2015, pp. 634–639.
[22] K. Drozdz, “Estimation of the mechanical state variables of the two-mass
system using fuzzy adaptive Kalman filter - Experimental study,” in 2015
IEEE 2nd International Conference on Cybernetics (CYBCONF), Jun.
2015, pp. 455–459.
[23] A. H. Mohamed and K. P. Schwarz, “Adaptive Kalman Filtering for
INS/GPS,” Journal of Geodesy, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 193–203, May 1999.
[24] C. Hide, T. Moore, and M. Smith, “Adaptive Kalman Filtering for Low-
cost INS/GPS,” Journal of Navigation, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 143–152, Jan.
2003.
[25] D.-J. Jwo, F.-C. Chung, and T.-P. Weng, “Adaptive Kalman Filter for
Navigation Sensor Fusion,” 2010.
[26] A. Almagbile, J. Wang, and W. Ding, “Evaluating the Performances of
Adaptive Kalman Filter Methods in GPS/INS Integration,” Journal of
Global Positioning Systems, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 33–40, Jun. 2010.
Using an Interfacing Multiple-Model Extended Kalman Filter,” IEEE
Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 3011–3019, Jun.
2014.
[28] Z. Yin, G. Li, C. Du, and Y. Zhong, “An Adaptive Speed Estimation
Method Based on a Strong Tracking Extended Kalman Filter with
a Least-Square Algorithm for Induction Motors,” Journal of Power
Electronics, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 149–160, 2017.
[29] Z. Yin, G. Li, Y. Zhang, J. Liu, X. Sun, and Y. Zhong, “A Speed and
Flux Observer of Induction Motor Based on Extended Kalman Filter
and Markov Chain,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 32,
no. 9, pp. 7096–7117, Sep. 2017.
[30] E. Laroche, E. Sedda, and C. Durieu, “Methodological Insights for
Online Estimation of Induction Motor Parameters,” IEEE Transactions
on Control Systems Technology, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 1021–1028, Sep.
2008.
[31] K. Reif, S. Gunther, E. Yaz, and R. Unbehauen, “Stochastic stability
of the discrete-time extended Kalman filter,” IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 714–728, Apr. 1999.
[32] F. Alonge, T. Cangemi, F. D’Ippolito, A. Fagiolini, and A. Sferlazza,
“Convergence Analysis of Extended Kalman Filter for Sensorless Con-
trol of Induction Motor,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics,
vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 2341–2352, Apr. 2015.
[33] S. S. Haykin, Kalman Filtering and Neural Networks. New York, USA:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2001.
Emrah Zerdali (S’13–M’18) was born in Izmir,
Turkey, in 1987. He received the B.Sc. degree from
Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey, in 2009, the
M.Sc. degree from Niğde University, Niğde, Turkey,
in 2011, and the Ph.D. degree from Ömer Halisdemir
University, Niğde, Turkey, in 2016, all in electrical
and electronics engineering.
He is currently an Assistant Professor with the
Faculty of Engineering, Department of Electrical and
Electronics Engineering, Niğde Ömer Halisdemir
University, Niğde, Turkey. His current research in-
terests include the applications of artificial intelligence-based techniques and
optimization methods in power electronics, motor drives, speed-sensorless
control, nonlinear observers, and estimator design for electromechanical
systems.