Control Engineering Practice 93 (2019) 104163

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Control Engineering Practice

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conengprac

A resilient adaptive sliding mode observer for sensorless AC salient pole

machine drives based on an improved HF injection method
A. Messali a , M. Ghanes a ,∗, M.A. Hamida a , M. Koteich b
a Ecole Centrale de Nantes, LS2N UMR CNRS 6004, Nantes, France
b
Renault Group, Technocentre, Guyancourt, France

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In high frequency (HF) injection methods, classical tracking algorithms are used to estimate the rotor position
First order sliding mode observers for sensorless alternating current (AC) salient pole machines. These algorithms were dependent on AC machine
Adaptive gains inductances which are characterized by their large variations. To overcome this dependency, a new approach
Step-by-step observer
based on using only the sign of the rotor position estimation error (instead of using rotor position estimation
Sensorless control
error) is proposed. This approach has also the advantage of removing the low-pass filter (LPF) used to separate
HF signal injection
AC salient pole machines
the HF component from the rotor position information. Consequently, only the first order sliding mode observer
Experimental results can be employed to estimate the rotor position, as only the sign of the rotor position estimation error is known.
Comparison study To avoid the well known chattering phenomena of this observer, an adaptive step-by-step sliding mode observer
is proposed as an alternative solution to estimate the rotor position of the machine. The stability study of the
proposed observer is analyzed both in transient/steady state ranges and a procedure for gains tuning is then
given. The performance of the proposed algorithm is tested on simulation and experimentally in the framework
of a representative small-scale electric propulsion benchmark, used in automotive applications. Moreover, a
comparison study is conducted with respect to some existing tracking algorithms in order to illustrate the
well-founded of the designed algorithm.

1. Introduction
1.1. Problem statement
AC machines drive requires expensive and cumbersome position
sensors (Trancho et al., 2018). To deal with these limitations, two
principle techniques called model based and saliency based methods
were proposed in the literature. The model-based methods (Chen,
Wang, & Liu, 2011; Gan, Zhang, Zheng, & Chen, 2018; Hamida, De
Leon, Glumineau, & Boisliveau, 2013; Hamida, de Leon, & Glumineau,
2017) use the mathematical model to enable access to the rotor and
speed estimation of AC salient pole machines. The demerits of this
method are principally the non-modeled dynamics, the observability
at low and zero speeds and the parameter uncertainties (Chen, Huang,
& Sun, 2019; Messali, Hamida, Ghanes, & Koteich, 2018).
The saliency-based method (Jebai, Malrait, Martin, & Rouchon,
0000; Messali et al., 2018; Wang, Yang, Zhang, Zhang, & Xu, 2017a)
was proposed as alternative to deal with limitations of the model-
based methods (Jebai et al., 0000). But in reality these methods are
still dependent on some machine parameters since the rotor position
estimation error is function of machine inductances which can vary
significantly according to various causes (Jebai et al., 0000; Martín
et al., 2017; Wang, Xu, & Zou, 2019). The tracking algorithms used in
the literature (PLLs Abdelrahem, Hackl, & Kennel, 2018; Abdelrahem,
Hafni, Kennel, & Hackl, 2017, MSO Lee, Yoo, Song, & Choy, 2004)
to estimate the rotor position and speed based on the extracted rotor
position estimation error are sensitive to machine parameter variations
and to acceleration effects (transient modes).
1.2. Contribution
In this paper the contribution is twofold. First, an innovative
methodology that uses only the sign of the rotor position estimation
error as shown in Fig. 1. The aim of Part 1 is to get rid of machine
inductances and to remove the LPF usually used in the pulsating
HF signal injection method to reduce the cost and complexity of
implementation. The idea of getting rid of machine inductances has
been introduced in Messali et al. (2018) and it was associated with
the square-wave (not pulsating) HF signal injection method. However,
the square-wave (Xu & Zhu, 2016; Zhen, Jianmin, & Xiaomin, 2014)
HF signal injection method generates non negligible acoustic noise,
requires sensitive current sensors and generates harmonics on the rotor
position and speed estimation (Yoon, Sul, Morimoto, & Ide, 2011). The
improved pulsating HF signal injection method proposed in this paper,

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: malek.ghanes@ec-nantes.fr (M. Ghanes).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2019.104163
Received 26 February 2019; Received in revised form 1 August 2019; Accepted 17 September 2019
Available online xxxx
0967-0661/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Messali, M. Ghanes, M.A. Hamida et al. Control Engineering Practice 93 (2019) 104163

et al. (2018) with constant gains. However, in this case, it is well known
Nomenclature
that this type of observers suffer from chattering phenomena (Acary,
IPMSM Interior Permanent Magnet Synchronous Brogliato, & Orlov, 2012; Angulo, Moreno, & Fridman, 2012; Bartolini,
Motor Ferrara, & Usani, 1998; Boiko, I. Castellanos, & Fridman, 2007; Ed-
PLL Phase-Locked-Loop wards & Shtessel, 2016; Floquet & Barbot, 2007; Fridman, Moreno,
MSO Mechanical System Observer & Iriarte, 2011; Hamida, Leon, & Glumineau, 2014; Levant, 2010;
𝑥 Complex notation of x Perruquetti & Barbot, 2002; Plestan, Evangelista, Puleston, & Gue-
𝑥∗ Conjugated component of x noune, 2018; Polyakov, Efimov, & Perruquetti, 2014; Utkin, 2011;
𝑅𝑠 Stator resistance Yan, Spurgeon, & Edwards, 2005). This phenomena can be reduced by
𝐿𝑑 , 𝐿𝑞 𝑑𝑞-axis inductances using a low pass filter, but this solution generates delays and increases
𝐿0 , 𝐿2 Average and differential inductances, re- the cost and the complexity of the implementation. That is why, the
spectively second contribution (part 2 of Fig. 1) of this paper is dedicated to
𝜓𝑚 Permanent-magnet flux linkage propose a new step-by-step sliding mode observer with adaptive gains,
𝜓𝑠𝑠 Stator flux linkage vector presented in the in order to estimate the rotor position and speed with less chattering
stator reference frame and with an easy tuning of the observer. Moreover, the acceleration is
𝑣𝑠𝑠 Stator voltage vector presented in the stator estimated to improve the position estimation in transient modes and a
reference frame complete stability analysis is given to ensure the observer convergence
𝑖𝑠𝑠 Stator current vector presented in the stator in steady-state, transient and intermediate modes. It is worth noticing
reference frame that in Messali et al. (2018), the sliding mode observer with constant
gains is not proposed with a step-by-step procedure of estimation.
𝑖𝑟∗
𝑠 Conjugated stator current vector presented
Consequently the tuning of this observer is not done in a decoupled
in the rotating reference frame
manner that makes this tuning not easy. Moreover, the stability analysis
𝜓𝑠𝑟 Stator flux linkage vector presented in the
of this observer is a classical one.
rotating reference frame
𝜓𝑑 , 𝜓𝑞 𝑑𝑞 stator flux linkage presented in the To point out the contributions in simulation and experiments, the
rotating reference frame performances of the proposed adaptive gains step-by-step observer
𝑖𝑑 , 𝑖𝑞 Stator currents presented in the rotating based on an improved pulsating HF signal injection method are com-
reference frame pared with the classical tracking algorithms and step-by-step sliding
𝑣𝑟𝑠𝑐
̂ HF injected voltage vector presented in the mode observer with constant gains. Both algorithms are associated with
estimated reference frame the same HF signal injection method as for the step-by-step observer
𝑉𝑐 , 𝜔𝑐 Amplitude and frequency of the HF injected with adaptive gains, i.e., the improved pulsating HF signal injection
voltage method.
𝑣𝑠𝑠𝑐 HF injected voltage vector presented in the The HF injection process can be divided into two parts (Parts 1 and
stator reference frame 2), as illustrated in Fig. 1.
𝑠
𝜓𝑠𝑐 HF flux linkage vector presented in the As it can be seen in Fig. 1, the estimation process (Part 1 and Part
stator reference frame 2) do not depend on the controller design. They depend only on the
∗
𝑠
𝜓𝑠𝑐 Conjugated HF flux linkage vector pre- injected high frequency voltage.
sented in the stator reference frame
𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑐 HF Stator current vector presented in the
1.3. Paper organization
stator reference frame
𝑖𝑠𝑠1 Fundamental current component
𝑒𝜃 Rotor position estimation error The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 recalls
𝐼𝑐𝑝 Magnitude of HF positive current compo- the existing tracking algorithms. The IPMSM modeling is introduced
nent in Section 3. The pulsating HF voltage injection technique is presented
𝐼𝑐𝑛 Magnitude of HF negative current compo- in Section 4. In Section 5, parts 1 and 2 (Fig. 1) of position/speed esti-
nent mation strategy are introduced in details. Simulation and experimental
𝜔 Electrical rotor speed results are presented in Section 6, where an electrical propulsion profile
𝜃 Electrical rotor position in automotive applications is used. A comparative study with existing
techniques is given in the same section. Conclusions and perspectives
𝜖 Rotor position estimation error
are given in Section 7.
𝐽 Moment of inertia
𝐾𝑓 Viscous friction coefficient
𝑝 Number of pole pairs 2. Existing tracking algorithms
𝑇𝑙 Load torque
𝑇𝑚 Electromagnetic torque.
PLLs (Wallmark, Harnefors, & Carlson, 2005) and MSO (Lorenz &
Patten, 1988) are tracking observers mainly used in the literature to
estimate the rotor position and speed based on the extracted rotor
does not require sensitive current sensors. Moreover, the generated position estimation error using HF signal injection methods. These
harmonics on the rotor position and speed estimation are significantly tracking algorithms will be briefly recalled in this section in order to
reduced by the proposed method as well as the acoustic noise. compare their performances with the proposed algorithm introduced
By having only the sign of the rotor position estimation error as a in Section 5.2. Moreover, the step-by-step sliding mode observer with
known information, the first order sliding mode observer is the natural constant gains is given to compare its performances with the proposed
solution to estimate the rotor position, as it was proposed in Messali algorithm.

2
A. Messali, M. Ghanes, M.A. Hamida et al. Control Engineering Practice 93 (2019) 104163

Fig. 1. Self-sensing control of AC salient pole machines.

Fig. 2. Block-diagram of PLL estimator.

2.1. Phase locked loop

Fig. 3. Block-diagram of MSO.

The PLL is one of the observer algorithm mostly used in the litera-
ture for the speed and position estimation. The PLL algorithm is showed
in Figure 2 and given by 𝑇̂̇ 𝑙 = 𝐾𝑇 ,𝑠 𝜖 (5)
where 𝐾𝜃,𝑠 , 𝐾𝜔,𝑠 and 𝐾𝑇 ,𝑠 are the observer gains.
The PLL and MSO widely used in the literature for sensorless control
𝜔̂̇ = 𝐾𝜔,𝑝 𝜖 (1)
of AC machines are recalled in this section in order to compare their
𝜃̂̇ = 𝜔̂ + 𝐾
𝜃,𝑝 𝜖 (2) performances with respect to proposed method in the sequel.

where the 𝜀 is the rotor position estimation error. Gains 𝐾𝜔,𝑝 and 𝐾𝜃,𝑝 3. IPMSM modeling
are chosen according to the stability analysis given by Wallmark et al.
(2005) (see Fig. 2). In this section, voltage and flux-current IPMSM models are pre-
sented. The first part introduces the classical model (Wang, Yang,
2.2. Mechanical system observer Zhang, Zhang, & Xu, 2017b) without HF injection. The second part is
mainly reserved for HF models (Liu, Tseng, Lin, & Chen, 2016).
Mechanical system observer (MSO) (Lorenz & Patten, 1988) is used
to estimate the rotor position and speed. The estimation is based on the 3.1. Classical model of IPMSM
rotor position error. As mentioned in the previous section, the rotor
position error depends on the machine inductances which affect the The voltage–flux model in the stator reference frame and the flux-
estimation, furthermore MSO requires the accurate knowledge of the current model in the rotor frame are described by Eqs. (6) and (7) as
mechanical parameters which is not the case in practice. The dynamic follows
equation of the mechanical system is expressed as follows 𝑑𝜓𝑠𝑠
𝑣𝑠𝑠 = 𝑅𝑠 𝑖𝑠𝑠 + (6)
𝑑𝑡
𝐽 𝑝 𝜔̇ + 𝐾𝑓 𝑝 𝜔 = 𝑇𝑚 − 𝑇𝑙
𝜓𝑠𝑟 = 𝜓𝑑 + 𝑗𝜓𝑞 (7)
The mechanical system observer enhanced by steady-state load torque
where,
estimation is shown in Fig. 3 and expressed by following system equa-
tions 𝜓𝑑 = 𝐿𝑑 𝑖𝑑 + 𝜓𝑚 , 𝜓𝑞 = 𝐿𝑞 𝑖𝑞 (8)
𝜃̂̇ = 𝜔̂ + 𝐾𝜃,𝑠 𝜖 (3) By replacing (8) in (7), the following expression is obtained
1
𝜔̂̇ = [𝑇𝑚 − 𝑇̂𝑙 − 𝐾𝑓 𝜔]
̂ + 𝐾𝜔,𝑠 𝜖 (4) 𝜓𝑠𝑟 = 𝐿0 𝑖𝑟𝑠 + 𝐿2 𝑖𝑟∗
𝑠 + 𝜓𝑚 (9)
𝐽

3
A. Messali, M. Ghanes, M.A. Hamida et al. Control Engineering Practice 93 (2019) 104163

4.2. HF flux-current generated by the injected signal

By integrating the injected stator voltage given in (15), the follow-

ing HF stator flux expression is obtained

𝑠 ̂ 𝑉𝑐 ̂
𝜓𝑠𝑐 = −𝑉𝑐 sin(𝜔𝑐 𝑡)𝑒𝑗 𝜃 𝑑𝑡 = cos(𝜔𝑐 𝑡)𝑒𝑗 𝜃 . (16)
∫ 𝜔𝑐
The HF stator current expression can be obtained by combining (13)
and (16)
𝑉𝑐 ̂ ̂
𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑐 = (𝐿0 𝑒𝑗 𝜃 − 𝐿2 𝑒𝑗(2𝜃−𝜃) ) cos(𝜔𝑐 𝑡) (17)
𝜔𝑐 (𝐿0 2 − 𝐿2 2 )
By taking the fundamental current component 𝑖𝑠𝑠1 into account, the
general stator current can be expressed as
̂ ̂
𝑖𝑠𝑠 = 𝐼𝑐𝑝 cos(𝜔𝑐 𝑡)𝑒𝑗 𝜃 − 𝐼𝑐𝑛 cos(𝜔𝑐 𝑡)𝑒𝑗(2𝜃−𝜃) + 𝑖𝑠𝑠1 (18)
Fig. 4. HF voltage injection pulsating principle.

where
𝐿 +𝐿 𝐿 −𝐿 ̂
𝑒𝜃 = 𝜃 − 𝜃, (19)
where, 𝐿0 = 𝑑 2 𝑞 and 𝐿2 = 𝑑 2 𝑞 .
The stator magnetic flux vector can be expressed in the stator
reference frame by using Park transformation for Eq. (9) as follows 𝐿0 𝑉𝑐
𝐼𝑐𝑝 = , (20)
𝜓𝑠𝑠 = 𝐿0 𝑖𝑠 𝑠 + 𝐿2 𝑖𝑠 𝑠∗ 𝑒𝑗2𝜃 + 𝜓𝑚 𝑒𝑗𝜃 . (10) 𝜔𝑐 (𝐿20 − 𝐿22 )

3.2. High frequency IPMSM models 𝐿2 𝑉𝑐 (𝐿𝑑 − 𝐿𝑞 )𝑉𝑐

𝐼𝑐𝑛 = = , (21)
𝜔𝑐 (𝐿20 − 𝐿22 ) 𝜔 𝑐 𝐿𝑑 𝐿𝑞
The following assumptions are regarded to build the HF IPMSM
models. 5. Proposed position estimation strategy

• The stator resistance 𝑅𝑠 is overlooked in front of the self-stator

In this section, two parts are introduced. The first part allows to
reactance 𝑗𝜔𝑐 𝐿𝑠 ((𝑅𝑠 ≪ 𝑗𝜔𝑐 𝐿𝑠 )).
parameters insensitivity and LPF removal that improve the accuracy
• The cross saturation effect and the rotating back-EMF are ne-
and robustness of the rotor position and speed estimation strategy.
glected.
The second part focuses on a new adaptive step-by-step sliding mode
Considering above assumptions, HF voltage–flux and flux-current rela- tracking algorithm for self-sensing control of AC salient pole machines
tionships (Liu et al., 2016) in stationary frame are given by following without knowing machine parameters (inductances, viscous coefficient,
equations inertia) and HF signal characteristics. The machine acceleration is esti-
𝑠
𝑑𝜓𝑠𝑐 mated to compensate the rotor position and speed estimation errors in
𝑣𝑠𝑠𝑐 ≃ . (11) transient modes and to improve performances compared to traditional
𝑑𝑡 techniques.
𝑠
𝜓𝑠𝑐 = 𝐿0 𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑐 𝑠 + 𝐿2 𝑖𝑠∗
𝑠𝑐 𝑒
𝑗2𝜃
. (12) The resulting HF current expression of AC salient pole machines
From (12), the current expression is deduced in the estimated reference frame 𝑖𝑟𝑠̂ frame (see Fig. 4), without the
fundamental component1 is given by
1 [ ] [ ]
𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑐 = 𝑠
(𝐿0 𝜓𝑠𝑐 𝑠∗ 𝑗2𝜃
− 𝐿2 𝜓𝑠𝑐 𝑒 ). (13)
𝐿0 2 − 𝐿2 2 𝑖̂ 𝐼 − 𝐼𝑐𝑛 cos 2(𝑒𝜃 )
𝑖𝑟𝑠̂ = 𝑑𝑐 = 𝑐𝑝 cos(𝜔𝑐 𝑡) (22)
𝑖𝑞𝑐
̂ −𝐼𝑐𝑛 sin 2(𝑒𝜃 )
For clear understanding the operation of the proposed sensorless con-
trol method, the pulsating (Corley & Lorenz, 1998; Ha & Sul, 1999) The rotor position estimation error expression (19) can be deduced
voltage injection technique adopted in this paper is introduced in next from the second component of (22), 𝑖𝑞𝑐
̂ , which depends only on 𝐼𝑐𝑛 (21)
section.
𝜌 = 𝑖𝑞𝑐
̂ = −𝐼𝑐𝑛 sin[2(𝑒𝜃 )] cos(𝜔𝑐 𝑡). (23)
4. Pulsating injection-based method Then, (23) is multiplied by cos(𝜔𝑐 𝑡)

4.1. HF injected signal form 𝜖 = 𝜌 ∗ cos(𝜔𝑐 𝑡) = −𝐼𝑐𝑛 sin[2(𝑒𝜃 )][cos(𝜔𝑐 𝑡)]2 . (24)

The pulsating technique exploited in this paper (Wang et al., 2017a) 5.1. Part 1: parameters insensitivity and LPFs removal
consists of injecting a HF voltage into the estimated 𝑑̂ axis as illustrated
in Fig. 4, which can be expressed as This first part allows:
[ ]
𝑟̂ 1 • to extract the rotor position information by using the sign of the
𝑣𝑠𝑐 = −𝑉𝑐 sin(𝜔𝑐 𝑡) (14)
0 rotor position estimation error in order to get rid the machine
The injected pulsating voltage vector in the estimated reference frame inductances,
is shown by Fig. 4. • to remove the LPF used in HF injection method in order to sepa-
By using Park transform, the expression of the HF injected voltage rate the high frequency (𝜔𝑐 ) component from the low frequency
in the stator reference frame is given by (2(𝑒𝜃 )).

̂
𝑣𝑠𝑠𝑐 = −𝑉𝑐 sin(𝜔𝑐 𝑡)𝑒𝑗 𝜃 . (15) 1
The fundamental frequency is removed by using a high pass filter (HPF).

4
A. Messali, M. Ghanes, M.A. Hamida et al. Control Engineering Practice 93 (2019) 104163

In the literature, the term [cos(𝜔𝑐 𝑡)]2 is always removed by using LPFs, where,
and 𝐼𝑐𝑛 in (21), which is function of machine inductances and HF
𝜔̄ = 𝜔̂ + 𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑒𝜃 ) (33)
injected signal characteristics, is often considered as a constant gain,
which is a strong assumption. 𝛼̄ = 𝛼̂ + 𝐾𝛼 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝜔̄ − 𝜔)
̂ (34)
In this paper, an approach to remove LPFs and to avoid inductances {
1 if 𝑔(𝑘) = 0
knowledge requirement is proposed. 𝐸1 ∶ (35)
0 if whereas,
It is known that [cos(𝜔𝑐 𝑡)]2 ⩾ 0. Moreover, for all AC salient pole {
1 if 𝐸1 = 1 and 𝜔̄ − 𝜔̂ = 0
machines the condition of −𝐼𝑐𝑛 > 0 is always satisfied because 𝐿𝑞 > 𝐿𝑑 . 𝐸2 ∶ (36)
0 if whereas,
One has also 𝑉𝑐 > 0 and 𝜔𝑐 > 0. Consequently by applying the sign
function to (24), the expression of the rotor position estimation error and
{
becomes independent of 𝐼𝑐𝑛 in (21) (machine inductances and injection =0 𝑖𝑓 |𝜎(𝑘) + 𝜎(𝑘 − 1)| + |𝜎(𝑘 − 1) + 𝜎(𝑘 − 2)| = 0
signal characteristics) as follows 𝑔(𝑘) ∶ (37)
≠0 𝑒𝑙𝑠𝑒
𝜎 = 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝜖) = 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(sin(2𝑒𝜃 )). (25) with 𝜎[𝑘] is the discrete form of the temporal function 𝜎[𝑡], 𝑘 is the
delay of one time step by one control period in the discrete domain.
For all 𝑒𝜃 ∈ [− 𝜋2 ; 𝜋2 ], 𝜎 in (25) becomes
Remark 1. The function 𝑔(𝑘) is introduced to detect the chattering
𝜎 = 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑒𝜃 ) (26)
phenomenon, because as mentioned before only the sign of the position
where 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑒𝜃 ) is sign function defined as in (F. Filippov, 1960): error is available as a known information for the observer. More
precisely, at the beginning the observer is supposed to be in transient,
⎧1 if 𝑒 > 0
⎪ 𝜃 then 𝐸1 = 0, in this case maximum observer gains are applied. When
𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑒𝜃 ) ∶ ⎨−1 if 𝑒𝜃 < 0 (27) the value of 𝜎 changes twice during three sampling times, then 𝑔(𝑘) = 0
⎪∈ [−1 + 1] if 𝑒𝜃 = 0. which gives 𝐸1 = 1 the observer is in steady state. In this case the
⎩
applied gains are less than the maximum ones in order to reduce the
From (26), it is confirmed that the HF component can be removed
chattering. The passage from steady state to transient can be detected
without using LPFs and it can be seen that the new rotor position
when 𝜎 does not change value after one sampling time, then 𝑔(𝑘) ≠ 0
estimation error 𝜎 is no longer dependent on machine parameters (𝐿𝑑 ,
which gives 𝐸1 = 0. In this case maximum observer gains are applied.
𝐿𝑞 ) and injected signal characteristics (𝑉𝑐 , 𝜔𝑐 ).
The proposed technique is valid as long as the position error belongs The proposed virtual system for the observer design (28)–(32) is
to 𝑒𝜃 ∈ [− 𝜋2 ; 𝜋2 ]. This includes situations when the motor suddenly gets given by
blocked, or slows down due to some unpredictable circumstances, or 𝜃̇ = 𝜔 (38)
when the initial rotor position is wrong.
The sign of the estimation error 𝜎 in (26) is used instead of 𝜖 in (24) 𝜔̇ = 𝛼 (39)
as a known information in a new step-by-step tracking algorithm, which 𝛼̇ = 0 (40)
has a finite time convergence. This algorithm, which is the subject of
Part 2, aims to estimate the rotor position, speed and acceleration of AC In the literature, the rotor speed is usually considered constant which
salient pole machines without knowing machine parameters and with affects the estimation performances in transient modes. Mechanical
less chattering. parameters should be well known when dynamics of speed are taken
into account, especially for drive application. The proposed virtual
5.2. Part 2: Adaptive step-by-step sliding mode observer for rotor position, system (38)–(40) makes it possible to overcome limitations of accurate
speed and acceleration estimation knowledge of mechanical parameters. In addition, the constant speed
assumption is not needed if the acceleration of the machine is taken into
The rotor position estimation error 𝜎 (26), extracted in Part 1, will account in the estimation process. All these assets allow to improve the
rotor position and speed estimation both in transient and steady-state
be used by the second part to estimate the position, speed and the
modes. The proposed observer scheme is showed by Fig. 5.
acceleration of AC salient pole machines without knowing machine
parameters (inductances, viscous coefficient, inertia) and HF signal
5.2.2. Stability analysis based on the sign propagation
characteristics. Note that the machine acceleration will be also esti-
Consider (19), (41) and (42) the position, the speed and the ac-
mated to compensate the rotor position and speed estimation errors in
celeration estimation errors between observer (28)–(32) and system
transient modes and to improve performances compared to traditional
(38)–(40)
techniques. To make the tuning procedure of rotor position, speed and
acceleration estimation technique easier, a robust adaptive step-by-step 𝑒𝜔 = 𝜔 − 𝜔̂ (41)
observer is proposed that ensures the finite time convergence of the 𝑒𝛼 = 𝛼 − 𝛼̂ (42)
rotor position, speed and acceleration states and reduces the chattering
effect on the rotor and speed estimations. whose dynamics are given by

𝑒̇ 𝜃 = 𝑒𝜔 − [𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐸1 𝑓1 ]𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑒𝜃 ) (43)

5.2.1. Observer design
Based on the sign of rotor position estimation error (26), adaptive 𝑒̇ 𝜔 = 𝑒𝛼 − 𝐸1 [𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐸2 𝑓2 ]𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝜔̄ − 𝜔)
̂ (44)
step-by-step sliding mode observer (28)–(32) is proposed to estimate
𝑒̇ 𝛼 = −𝐸2 𝐾𝛼 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝛼̄ − 𝛼)
̂ (45)
the rotor position, speed and acceleration of AC salient pole machines

𝜃̂̇ = 𝜔̂ + [𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐸1 𝑓1 ]𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑒𝜃 ) (28)

|𝜔|
̂ Theorem 1. Consider system (43)–(45) where 𝐸1 and 𝐸2 (35), (36) are
𝑓1 = 𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑖𝑛 − (𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑖𝑛1 − 𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑖𝑛 ) (29)
𝜔𝑚𝑎𝑥 defined according to the function 𝑔(𝑘) (37). Then, ∀ 𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 2 𝜔𝑚𝑎𝑥 >
𝜔̂̇ = 𝛼̂ + 𝐸1 [𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐸2 𝑓2 ]𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝜔̄ − 𝜔)
̂ (30) 𝑚𝑎𝑥{|𝑒𝜔 |}, 𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 2 𝛼𝑚𝑎𝑥 > 𝑚𝑎𝑥|{𝑒𝛼 |}, 𝐾𝛼 > 0, 𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝜔𝑚𝑎𝑥 >
𝑚𝑎𝑥{|𝜔|}, 𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝛼𝑚𝑎𝑥 > 𝑚𝑎𝑥{|𝛼|}, 𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑖𝑛1 > 0 and 𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛1 > 0, system
|𝛼|
̂
𝑓2 = 𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛 − (𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛1 − 𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛 ) (31) (43)–(45) converge to zero in finite-time, where 𝑚𝑎𝑥{|𝜔|}, 𝑚𝑎𝑥{|𝑒𝜔 |},
𝛼𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑚𝑎𝑥{|𝛼|} and 𝑚𝑎𝑥{|𝑒𝛼 |} are the upper bounds of speed, acceleration, speed
𝛼̂̇ = 𝐸2 𝐾𝛼 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝛼̄ − 𝛼)
̂ (32) estimation error (41) and acceleration estimation error (42).

5
A. Messali, M. Ghanes, M.A. Hamida et al. Control Engineering Practice 93 (2019) 104163

Fig. 5. Block-diagram of adaptive step-by-step sliding mode tracking algorithm.

Proof. Let 𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝐾𝛼 , 𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑖𝑛 , 𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛 , 𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑖𝑛1 and 𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛1 satisfying
theorem conditions. Firstly, the stability of the position estimation error
dynamic (43) is analyzed. Considering the nonempty manifold 𝑆 =
{𝑒𝜃 ∕𝑒𝜃 = 0} and the following candidate Lyapunov function 𝑉𝜃
1 2
𝑉𝜃 = 𝑒 . (46)
2 𝜃
One proves the attractivity of 𝑆 as follows

𝑉̇ 𝜃 = 𝑒𝜃 𝑒̇ 𝜃
= 𝑒𝜃 (𝑒𝜔 − [𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐸1 𝑓1 ]𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑒𝜃 ))
= 𝑒𝜃 𝑒𝜔 − 𝑒𝜃 [𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐸1 𝑓1 ]𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑒𝜃 )
≤ |𝑒𝜃 ||𝑒𝜔 | − [𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐸1 𝑓1 ]|𝑒𝜃 |. (47)

Position transient ranges: As it can be seen on Eq. (37), in transient

ranges 𝑔(𝑘) ≠ 0, then, 𝐸1 = 0 Eq. (47) can be written Fig. 6. Adaptive position gain in different estimated speed ranges.

𝑉̇ 𝜃 ≤ |𝑒𝜃 ||𝑒𝜔 | − 𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 |𝑒𝜃 |. (48)

Let be 𝐾1 = −|𝑒𝜔 | + 𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 , as 𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 2𝜔𝑚𝑎𝑥 > 𝑚𝑎𝑥(|𝑒𝜔 |), 𝐾1 > 0, then If 𝜔̂ = 𝜔𝑚𝑎𝑥 and |𝑒𝜔 | ≈ 0, by replacing this condition into (53), one can
(48) can be written as obtain
𝑉̇ 𝜃 ≤ −𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑖𝑛1 |𝑒𝜃 |. (56)
𝑉̇ 𝜃 ≤ −𝐾1 |𝑒𝜃 |. (49)
From theorem conditions, the gain 𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑖𝑛1 is chosen to verify 𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑖𝑛1 >
Position steady state ranges: In steady state, the sliding condition for 0 and sufficiently small to reduce the chattering effect. Inequalities
(19) is achieved thus 𝐸1 = 1, then (49), (55) and (56) prove the finite time convergence of the position
estimation error 𝑒𝜃 to zero in transient/steady state position ranges for
𝑒̇ 𝜃 = 𝑒𝜃 = 0. (50) 𝑡1 > 0. Fig. 6 shows the adaptive gain 𝐾𝜃 with respect to the estimated
speed. On this Figure it can be seen that, the position gain takes its
By using (50) in (43), one can deduce
maximum value 2𝜔𝑚𝑎𝑥 in transient modes. When the motor is operated
𝑒𝜔 = [𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑓1 ]𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑒𝜃 ). (51) in steady state ranges, the position gain varies between 𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑖𝑛 and 𝜖𝜃1
according to the estimated speed value.
Therefore, ∀ 𝑡 ≥ 𝑡1 , the observer output 𝜔̄ defined in (33) is equal to In the same manner, the stability of (44) can be proven.
𝜔 (𝜔̄ = 𝜔), 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑒𝜃 ) = 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑒𝜔 ) and 𝐸1 = 1, for that, an adaptive rotor In steady rotor position state, ∀ 𝑡 ≥ 𝑡1 , the observer output 𝜔̄ defined
position gain estimation can be chosen to verify (52) in (33) is equal to 𝜔 (𝜔̄ = 𝜔), as one have [𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 −𝐸1 𝑓1 ] > 0 and 𝐸1 = 1,
then
𝑉̇ 𝜃 ≤ |𝑒𝜃 ||𝑒𝜔 | − [𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑓1 ]|𝑒𝜃 |. (52)
𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑒𝜃 ) = 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑒𝜔 ). (57)
By replacing 𝑓1 defined in (29), (52) becomes
Therefore, Eq. (57) is called the ‘‘sign propagation rule’’.
Consider the following candidate Lyapunov function
|𝜔|
̂
𝑉̇ 𝜃 ≤ |𝑒𝜃 ||𝑒𝜔 | − [𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑖𝑛 + (𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑖𝑛1 − 𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑖𝑛 ) ]|𝑒 | (53) 1 2
𝜔𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝜃 𝑉𝜔 = 𝑒 . (58)
2 𝜔
If 𝜔̂ = 0, by replacing this condition in (53), one can obtain The time derivative of (58) is given as follows
𝑉̇ 𝜃 ≤ |𝑒𝜃 ||𝜔| − 𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑖𝑛 |𝑒𝜃 |. (54) 𝑉̇ 𝜔 = 𝑒𝜔 𝑒̇ 𝜔

Set 𝐾 ′ 1 = −|𝜔| + 𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑖𝑛 . From theorem conditions 𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑖𝑛 > 𝜔𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝐾 ′ 1 > 0, = 𝑒𝜔 (𝑒𝛼 − 𝐸1 [𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐸2 𝑓2 ]𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝜔̄ − 𝜔)).
̂ (59)
then one has With 𝜔̄ = 𝜔 and 𝐸1 = 1, (59) reads
′
𝑉̇ 𝜃 ≤ −𝐾 1 |𝑒𝜃 |. (55) 𝑉̇ 𝜔 = 𝑒𝜔 𝑒𝛼 − 𝑒𝜔 [𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐸2 𝑓2 ]𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑒𝜔 )

6
A. Messali, M. Ghanes, M.A. Hamida et al. Control Engineering Practice 93 (2019) 104163

≤ |𝑒𝜔 ||𝑒𝛼 | − [𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐸2 𝑓2 ]|𝑒𝜔 |. (60)

Speed transient ranges: In transient ranges, 𝐸2 = 0, Eq. (60) can be

written
𝑉̇ 𝜔 ≤ |𝑒𝜔 ||𝑒𝛼 | − 𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑎𝑥 |𝑒𝜔 |. (61)
Let be 𝐾2 = −|𝑒𝛼 | + 𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑎𝑥 . Then from theorem conditions 𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑎𝑥 >
𝑚𝑎𝑥(|𝑒𝛼 |), 𝐾2 > 0, and (61) becomes

𝑉̇ 𝜔 ≤ −𝐾2 |𝑒𝜔 |. (62)

Speed steady state ranges: In steady state, the sliding condition for (41)
is achieved thus 𝐸2 = 1, then,

𝑒̇ 𝜔 = 𝑒𝜔 = 0. (63)
Fig. 7. Adaptive speed gain in different estimated acceleration ranges.
By replacing (63) in (44), one can deduce

𝑒𝛼 = [𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑓2 ]𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑒𝜔 ). (64)

Therefore, ∀ 𝑡 ≥ 𝑡2 , the observer output 𝛼̄ defined in (34) is equal to
𝛼 (𝛼̄ = 𝛼), 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑒𝜔 ) = 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑒𝛼 ) and 𝐸2 = 1. For that, an adaptive rotor
speed gain estimation can be chosen to verify the following equation
𝑉̇ 𝜔 ≤ |𝑒𝜔 ||𝑒𝛼 | − [𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑓2 ]|𝑒𝜔 |. (65)
By replacing 𝑓2 defined in (31), (65) goes with
Remark 2. The proof of Theorem 1 is obtained by considering that
the ideal sliding motion (invariance) is reached (Bartolini, Fridman,
Pisano, & Usai, 2008) with respect to the estimation error. However,
in practice as the error oscillates around zero, the ideal sliding motion
can be reached by considering the average value of the estimation error.
5.3. Parameters tuning

|𝛼|
̂ • Parameters 𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝐾𝛼 , 𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑖𝑛 , 𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛 , 𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑖𝑛1 and 𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛1 are
𝑉̇ 𝜔 ≤ |𝑒𝜔 ||𝑒𝛼 | − [𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛 + (𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛1 − 𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛 ) ]|𝑒 |. (66) chosen according to the stability analysis given in Section 5.2.2
𝛼𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝜔
in order to ensure the finite time convergence of the observer in
If 𝛼̂ = 0, by replacing this condition in (66), one can obtain
both transient/steady state modes.
• Parameters 𝜖𝜃1 , 𝜖𝜔1 and 𝜖𝛼 are chosen sufficiently small to reduce
𝑉̇ 𝜔 ≤ |𝑒𝜔 ||𝛼| − 𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛 |𝑒𝜔 |. (67) the chattering phenomenon, because their effects appear only in
steady-state operating modes.
Set 𝐾 ′ 2 = −𝛼𝑚𝑎𝑥 + 𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛 . Then, from theorem conditions 𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛 > 𝛼𝑚𝑎𝑥 ,
• The characteristics of the HF injected voltage, defined in (22),
𝐾 ′ 2 > 0, one has
verify the following properties. The frequency ( 𝑤𝑐 = 2 𝜋𝑓𝑐 )
𝑉̇ 𝜔 ≤ −𝐾 ′ 2 |𝑒𝜔 |. (68) should be less than the half of the inverter one and higher than
the machine nominal one. The injected magnitude (𝑉𝑐 ) should be
If 𝛼̂ = 𝛼𝑚𝑎𝑥 and |𝑒𝛼 | ≈ 0, by replacing these conditions into (66), one
chosen as low as possible to minimize torque ripples and to reduce
can obtain
the machine warming.
𝑉̇ 𝜔 ≤ −𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛1 |𝑒𝜔 |. (69)
6. Simulation and experimental results
From theorem conditions, the gain 𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛1 is chosen to verify 𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛1 > 0
and sufficiently small to reduce the chattering effect. From inequalities
(62), (68) and (69), the finite time convergence of the speed estimation Performances of the developed self-sensing control strategy are
error 𝑒𝜔 to zero is proved in transient/steady state ranges for 𝑡2 > evaluated through simulation and experimental tests and a comparison
𝑡1 . Fig. 7 shows the adaptive gain 𝐾𝜔 with respect to the estimated study with algorithms introduced in Section 2 is conducted.
acceleration. On this Figure, it can be seen that the speed gain takes its
maximum value 2𝛼𝑚𝑎𝑥 in transient modes. When the motor is operated 6.1. Test bench (http://www2.irccyn.ec-nantes.fr/BancEssai/)
in steady state ranges, the speed gain varies between 𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛 and 𝜖𝜔1
according to the estimated acceleration value. The test bench is made up of a rated 3 kW target Interior Perma-
In the same manner, the stability of (45) can be proven. Let 𝑉𝛼 be nent Magnet Synchronous Motor (IPMSM), a type of AC salient pole
the candidate Lyapunov function machines, with an incremental coder as position sensor which is used
1 2 only for the comparison purpose. A dSPACE board DSP1103 is used
𝑉𝛼 = 𝑒 . (70) to carry out the real time algorithm. The converter is composed of a
2 𝛼
The time derivative of (70) is three-phase IGBT power module from (SEMIKRON), a DC-link voltage
sensor and protection circuits. IPMSM parameters are shown in Table 1
𝑉̇ 𝛼 = 𝑒𝛼 𝑒̇ 𝛼 and the control parameters are shown in Table 2 (see Fig. 8).
= 𝑒𝛼 (−𝐸2 𝐾𝛼 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝛼̄ − 𝛼)).
̂ (71) In order to evaluate the performance and the effectiveness of the
proposed strategy in realistic situation, a representative cycle of drive
As 𝛼̄ = 𝛼 and 𝐸2 = 1, (71) reads benchmark shown in Fig. 9 is considered and the applied torque
𝑉̇ 𝛼 = −𝑒𝛼 𝐾𝛼 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑒𝛼 ) is shown. These profiles are defined by industrials for automotive
applications. The objective is to test the motor in different possible
≤ −𝐾𝛼 |𝑒𝛼 |. (72)
speed/torque ranges. At the beginning, the IPMSM is operated at
From theorem conditions 𝐾𝛼 > 0. This proves the finite time conver- zero speed and maximum torque which represents a difficult test in
gence of the acceleration estimation error 𝑒𝛼 to zero in 𝑡3 > 𝑡2 . automotive applications. From 3.2 s to 4 s, the developed self-sensing
Inequalities (49), (55)–(56) (for position), (62), (68)–(69) (for strategy is evaluated at nominal speed with nominal torque. Then,
speed) and (72) (for acceleration) prove the stability in finite-time of the motor is operated at zero speed without torque from 4.9 s to
the proposed observer (28)–(32). □ 5.5 s which allows to evaluate the performance of the developed

7
A. Messali, M. Ghanes, M.A. Hamida et al. Control Engineering Practice 93 (2019) 104163

Fig. 8. Experimental test bench.

Fig. 10. Arbitrary 𝐼𝑐𝑛 profile.

Fig. 9. Drive benchmark cycle. Fig. 11. Arbitrary mechanical time constant.

Table 1
Motor parameters. 6.2. Results of the proposed estimation strategy
Speed 2100 RPM Torque 9 N m
𝐽 7.3 10−3 kg m2 𝛷𝑓 0.33 Wb Simulation (Fig. 13) and experimental (Fig. 12) results of the moti-
𝑅𝑠 1.4 Ω 𝐿𝑑 5.7 mH
vating idea proposed in this paper show the evolution of these quanti-
𝑝 3 𝐿𝑞 9.9 mH
ties: the measured and the estimated mechanical speeds, the mechani-
cal speed estimation error, the measured and the estimated electrical
Table 2 positions, the electrical position estimation error and the estimated
Parameters of the control system.
acceleration of the machine.
Inverter switching 10 kHz Injected voltage 𝑉𝑐 = 2 V,
In simulation step, the inductances variation on 𝐼𝑐𝑛 (Fig. 10) and
frequency frequency 𝑓𝑐 = 1 kHz
variations on the mechanical constant time (inertia and viscous coeffi-
DC bus voltage 400 V 𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑎𝑥 ,𝐾𝛼 250, 110, 90
PLL gains (𝐾𝜔,𝑝 , 𝐾𝜃,𝑃 ) 40, 650 Sampling period 10−4 s
cient) (Fig. 11) are considered.
MSO gains (𝐾𝜃,𝑠 , 𝐾𝜔,𝑠 , 𝐾𝑇 ,𝑠 ) 30, 275, 3 𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑖𝑛 , 𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛 110, 280 It can be seen, from simulation and experimental results (Figs. 13
𝐾𝜃𝑚𝑖𝑛1 and 𝐾𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛1 5 Noise magnitude 0.8 A and 12), that

• Convenient rotor position and speed estimation results are ob-

strategy in critical observability areas. The gain 𝐼𝑐𝑛 defined in (21) is
a function of the machine inductances, which can vary significantly
depending on the operation conditions (temperature variations, mag-
netic circuit saturation, . . . ) and on injected signal characteristics. As
pointed out earlier, the developed self-sensing strategy is independent
from machine parameters (mainly inductances and mechanical time-
constant mismatches). To highlight this independence, an arbitrary 𝐼𝑐𝑛
profile (Fig. 10) and an arbitrary mechanical time-constant (Fig. 11)
are defined.
For simulation tests (to be closer to the realistic situation) a white
noise is added to current measurements.
tained in all speed/torque ranges even in difficult situations men-
tioned on the cycle of drive benchmark (Fig. 9).
• The acceleration is well estimated, this enables to get an enhanced
rotor position and speed estimation even in acceleration modes
(transients modes).
• The electrical position estimation error is centered around zero
with the highest noise peak does not exceed a threshold of 2
degrees for simulation results and 4 degrees for experimental
results.
• The mechanical speed estimation error is centered around zero
with highest noise peak that does not exceed a threshold of
4𝑅𝑃 𝑀 for simulation results and 8𝑅𝑃 𝑀 for experimental ones.
• the chattering effect is reduced in comparison to the results of the
step-by-step observer with constant gains (see Figs. 12 and 16).

8
A. Messali, M. Ghanes, M.A. Hamida et al.
Fig. 12. Experimental results of the proposed algorithm.
• The proposed observer gives good estimations in critical observ-
ability area (from 4.9 s to 5.5 s) because in this area as it is proved
in Koteich, Maloum, Duc, and Sandou (2015), the AC motors are
observables when the HF injected signal is used.
As a conclusion, very acceptable results are obtained in simulation
(Fig. 13) and experimental (Fig. 12) tests at different speed/torque
ranges despite the variations of inductances and mechanical constant
time, which confirms the machine parameters insensitivity of the pro-
cedure estimation strategy enhanced in Section 5.1 (Part 1).
However, small noisy position and speed errors can be seen in sim-
ulation and experiments. These errors are more affected in experiments
compared to simulation. The reason is that in simulation only the effect
of the chattering is acting, which is well reduced by the proposed
adaptive observer of Section 5.2 (Part 2), while in experiments other
parameters are acting such that the HF injected signal that generates
harmonics and the inverter effect.
6.3. Comparative study
Several simulations have been made in order to compare the pro-
posed self-sensing strategy with the classical tracking algorithms, PLL
((1)–(2)) and MSO ((3)–(4)), recalled in Section 2 and the step-by-step
observer with constant gains given in Floquet and Barbot (2007).
6.3.1. Comparison with PLL and MSO strategies
For the first evaluation, the PLL algorithm is tested with nominal
machine parameters (without considering the 𝐼𝑐𝑛 profile in Fig. 10).
From the obtained results (Fig. 15), one can observe an important rotor
position and speed estimation errors during transients. It confirms its
sensitivity to acceleration effect. After that, a simulation was conducted
by considering the 𝐼𝑐𝑛 profile in Fig. 10 (inductance variations). In
this case, the estimated rotor position and speed diverge immediately.
It highlights the sensitivity of the PLL algorithm with respect to the
9
Control Engineering Practice 93 (2019) 104163
Fig. 13. Simulation results of the proposed algorithm.
parameter (inductances) variations. As mentioned in Section 2, the
MSO depends on the mechanical machine parameters (inertia and
viscous coefficient), which can vary significantly according to several
unpredictable effects such as the applied load torque, weight, road type
and tires quality in automotive applications. That is why a comparison
study is made between the proposed strategy and the MSO with respect
to the mechanical parameters. The relationship between the speed
and the torque balance can be represented by the following transfer
function
𝜔(𝑠)
̂ 𝐾
= 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡
𝑇𝑚 − 𝑇̂𝑙 𝑠𝜏 + 1
1 𝐽
where 𝐾𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡 = 𝐾𝑓
and 𝜏 = 𝐾𝑓
are the static gain and the time constant
of this transfer,respectively. In addition, gains of the MSO are computed
according to the inertia and friction coefficient that makes its tuning
more difficult and could cause a stability problem. For this study, an
arbitrary profile, shown in Fig. 11 of the mechanical time constant
is considered in simulation. Results of this simulation presented in
Fig. 14 show that the MSO can give good rotor and speed estimation
when the nominal mechanical time constant is used (𝑡 ∈ [0, 1] ∪
[4.9, 5.5] ∪ [7.6, 8]). Important estimation errors can be noticed on the
rotor position and speed obtained by the MSO when the considered
mechanical time constant is biased.
Note that this test is obtained without considering 𝐼𝑐𝑛 profile, once
this latter is considered, the estimated rotor position and speed diverge
immediately.
The robustness comparative study between the proposed algorithm
and the classical tracking algorithms is summarized in Table 3.
This comparative study confirms that the developed self-sensing
strategy offers a significant and attractive improvement compared to
the previous methods.
6.3.2. Comparison with constant gains step-by-step sliding mode observer
The constant gains step-by-step observer is tested experimentally in
order to test its performances with respect to the proposed observer
A. Messali, M. Ghanes, M.A. Hamida et al. Control Engineering Practice 93 (2019) 104163

Table 3 Table 4
Summary of the comparative study. Summarize of the comparative study between adaptive and constant gains step-by-step
Robustness vs. Proposed MSO PLL observers.
algorithm Robustness vs. Adaptive step-by-step Step-by-step observer
observer
Mechanical parameters Independent Dependent Independent
Electrical parameters Independent Dependent Dependent Electrical parameters Independent Independent
Maximal rotor position 4 25 30 Mechanical parameters Independent Independent
estimation error (Degree) Chattering effect Insensitive Sensitive
Maximal speed estimation 7 45 50 Maximal rotor position 4 15
error (RPM) estimation error (Degree)
Machine acceleration Insensitive Sensitive Very sensitive Maximal speed estimation 7 20
error (RPM)
Machine acceleration Insensitive Insensitive

Fig. 14. MSO simulation results with mechanical time constant variation defined in
Fig. 11.

Fig. 16. Experimental result of the step-by-step sliding mode observer with constant
gains.

It can be seen that the step-by-step sliding mode observer with con-
stant gains (Fig. 16) is sensitive to chattering generated by important
imposed gains, the estimated rotor position is noisy that can affect the
control algorithm. However, the proposed adaptive gains step-by-step
observer reduces (Figs. 12 and 13) the chattering effects on the rotor
position and speed estimation.
This comparative study between the proposed adaptive step-by-step
sliding mode observer ((28)–(32)) and the step-by-step one with con-
stant gains (Floquet & Barbot, 2007) in terms of machine parameters
sensitivity, chattering, and estimation error accuracy is summarized
in Table 4.

7. Conclusion

This paper presented a novel approach for tracking algorithms

associated to HF signal injection methods in order to estimate the rotor
position of sensorless AC salient pole machines. The main benefit of this
approach is to use only the sign of the rotor position estimation error
as a known information instead of the rotor position estimation error
used by the classical tracking algorithms. By doing so, both advantages
Fig. 15. PLL simulation results (without considering the 𝐼𝑐𝑛 variations).
of parameters insensitivity and removing the LPFs used to extract the
rotor position estimation error are achieved. As only the sign of the
error position is available, the first order sliding mode observer is the
natural choice to estimate the rotor position. However, in this paper an

10
A. Messali, M. Ghanes, M.A. Hamida et al.
adaptive step-by-step sliding mode observer is proposed as an alterna-
tive solution to reduce the chattering phenomena. The stability of the
proposed observer is proven in transient and steady state ranges. The
performances of the proposed approach are highlighted in simulation
and in experiments performed at a representative small-scale electric
propulsion used in automotive applications. The comparative study
with respect to the principal existing tracking algorithms illustrates the
effectiveness of the proposed methodology.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the Chair between Renault and Cen-
trale Nantes for the improvement of EV/HEV propulsion performances,
France.
References
Abdelrahem, M., Hackl, C. M., & Kennel, R. (2018). Finite position set-phase locked loop
for sensorless control of direct-driven permanent-magnet synchronous generators.
IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 33(4), 3097–3105.
Abdelrahem, M., Hafni, A. E., Kennel, R., & Hackl, C. M. Predictive phase locked
loop for sensorless control of pmsg based variable-speed wind turbines, In 2017
IEEE international symposium on sensorless control for electrical drives (SLED), (pp.
151–156).
Acary, V., Brogliato, B., & Orlov, Y. V. (2012). Chattering-free digital sliding-mode con-
trol with state observer and disturbance rejection. IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, 57(5), 1087–1101.
Angulo, M. T., Moreno, J. A., & Fridman, L. (2012). The differentiation error of noisy
signals using the generalized super-twisting differentiator. In 51st IEEE conference
on decision and control (CDC). IEEE.
Bartolini, G., Ferrara, A., & Usani, E. (1998). Chattering avoidance by second-order
sliding mode control. Automatic control, IEEE Transactions on, 43.
Bartolini, G., Fridman, L., Pisano, A., & Usai, E. (2008). Modern sliding mode control
theory. New perspectives and applications, Vol. 375, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-540-79016-7.
Boiko, I., I. Castellanos, M., & Fridman, L. (2007). Super twisting algorithm-based
step-by-step sliding mode observers for nonlinear systems with unknown inputs.
International Journal of Systems Science, 38, 803–815.
Chen, J., Huang, J., & Sun, Y. (2019). Resistances and speed estimation in sensorless
induction motor drives using a model with known regressors. IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, 66(4), 2659–2667.
Chen, Z., Wang, L., & Liu, X. (2011). Sensorless direct torque control of pmsm using
unsected kalman filter*. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 44(1), 4380–4385, 18th IFAC
World Congress.
Corley, M. J., & Lorenz, R. D. (1998). Rotor position and velocity estimation for a
salient-pole permanent magnet synchronous machine at standstill and high speeds.
IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, 34(4), 784–789.
Edwards, C., & Shtessel, Y. B. (2016). Adaptive continuous higher order sliding mode
control. Automatica, 65, 183–190.
F. Filippov, A. (1960). Translations. series 2, Differential equations with discontinuous right-
hand side, Vol. 2. American Mathematical Society, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-
94-015-7793-9.
Floquet, T., & Barbot, J.-P. (2007). Super twisting algorithm based step-by-step sliding
mode observers for nonlinear systems with unknown inputs. International Journal
of Systems Science, 38(10), 803–815.
Fridman, L., Moreno, J., & Iriarte, R. (2011). Sliding modes after the first decade of
the 21st. Century, lecture notes in control and information sciences, Vol. 412.
Gan, M.-G., Zhang, M., Zheng, C.-Y., & Chen, J. (2018). An adaptive sliding mode
observer over wide speed range for sensorless control of a brushless dc motor.
Control Engineering Practice, 77, 52–62.
Ha, J.-I., & Sul, S.-K. (1999). Sensorless field-orientation control of an induction ma-
chine by high-frequency signal injection. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications,
35(1), 45–51.
11
Control Engineering Practice 93 (2019) 104163
Hamida, M. A., De Leon, J., Glumineau, A., & Boisliveau, R. (2013). An adaptive
interconnected observer for sensorless control of pm synchronous motors with
online parameter identification. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 60(2),
739–748.
Hamida, M., Leon, J. D., & Glumineau, A. (2014). High-order sliding mode observers
and integral backstepping sensorless control of ipms motor. International Journal of
Control, 87(10), 2176–2193.
Hamida, M., de Leon, J., & Glumineau, A. (2017). Experimental sensorless control for
ipmsm by using integral backstepping strategy and adaptive high gain observer.
Control Engineering Practice, 59, 64–76.
Jebai, A. K., Malrait, F., Martin, P., & Rouchon, P. (0000). Signal injection and
averaging for position estimation of Permanent-Magnet Synchronous Motors.
Koteich, M., Maloum, A., Duc, G., & Sandou, G. (2015). Observability analysis of
sensorless synchronous machine drives, In 2015 European control conference (ECC),
(pp. 3560–3565).
Lee, K. B., Yoo, J. Y., Song, J. H., & Choy, I. (2004). Improvement of low speed
operation of electric machine with an inertia identification using roelo. IEE
Proceedings - Electric Power Applications, 151(1), 116–120.
Levant, A. (2010). Chattering analysis. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 55(6),
1380–1389.
Liu, T. H., Tseng, S. K., Lin, T. W., & Chen, J. L. (2016). Sensorless ipmsm position
control system using a high frequency injection method, 2016 IEEE 2nd annual
southern power electronics conference (SPEC), (pp. 1–6).
Lorenz, R. D., & Patten, K. V. (1988). High resolution velocity estimation for all digital,
ac servo drives, In Conference record of the 1988 IEEE industry applications society
annual meeting, Vol. 1, (pp. 363–368).
Martín, C., Bermúdez, M., Barrero, F., Arahal, M. R., Kestelyn, X., & Durán, M. J.
(2017). Sensitivity of predictive controllers to parameter variation in five-phase
induction motor drives. Control Engineering Practice, 68, 23–31.
Messali, A., Hamida, M. A., Ghanes, M., & Koteich, M. (2018). A novel high frequency
signal injection strategy for self-sensing control of electric ac machine drives, In
IECON 2018 - 44th annual conference of the IEEE industrial electronics society, (pp.
343–348).
Perruquetti, W., & Barbot, J.-P. (2002). Sliding mode control in engineering. CRC Press.
Plestan, F., Evangelista, C., Puleston, P. F., & Guenoune, I. (2018). Control of a
twin wind turbines system without wind velocity information, In 15th international
workshop on variable structure systems, VSS 2018, Graz, Austria, July 9-11, 2018, (pp.
150–155).
Polyakov, A., Efimov, D., & Perruquetti, W. (2014). Sliding mode control design
for mimo systems: Implicit lyapunov function approach, In 2014 European con-
trol conference, ECC 2014, (pp. 2612–2617), http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ECC.2014.
6862362.
Trancho, E., Ibarra, E., Arias, A., Kortabarria, I., Prieto, P., de Alegría, I. M., et al.
(2018). Sensorless control strategy for light-duty evs and efficiency loss evaluation
of high frequency injection under standardized urban driving cycles. Applied Energy,
224, 647–658.
Utkin, V. (2011). Chattering problem. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 44(1), 13374–13379.
Wallmark, O., Harnefors, L., & Carlson, O. (2005). An improved speed and position
estimator for salient permanent-magnet synchronous motors. IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, 52(1), 255–262.
Wang, Y., Xu, Y., & Zou, J. (2019). Sliding mode sensorless control of pmsm with
inverter nonlinearity compensation. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 1.
Wang, G., Yang, L., Zhang, G., Zhang, X., & Xu, D. (2017a). Comparative investigation
of pseudorandom high-frequency signal injection schemes for sensorless ipmsm
drives. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 32(3), 2123–2132.
Wang, G., Yang, L., Zhang, G., Zhang, X., & Xu, D. (2017b). Comparative investigation
of pseudorandom high-frequency signal injection schemes for sensorless ipmsm
drives. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 32(3), 2123–2132.
Xu, P. L., & Zhu, Z. Q. (2016). Novel square-wave signal injection method using
zero-sequence voltage for sensorless control of pmsm drives. IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, 63(12), 7444–7454.
Yan, X.-G., Spurgeon, S. K., & Edwards, C. (2005). Dynamic sliding mode control for a
class of systems with mismatched uncertainty. European Journal of Control, 11(1),
1–10.
Yoon, Y., Sul, S., Morimoto, S., & Ide, K. (2011). High-bandwidth sensorless algorithm
for ac machines based on square-wave-type voltage injection. IEEE Transactions on
Industry Applications, 47(3), 1361–1370.
Zhen, G., Jianmin, W., & Xiaomin, Z. (2014). Improved square-wave voltage injection
method for sensorless control of pmsm and its adaptability to motor parameter
variations, In 2014 17th international conference on electrical machines and systems
(ICEMS), (pp. 710–715).