Copyright COl IFAC Robust Control Design,

Prague, Czech Republic, 2000

SYNTHESIS AND ANALYSIS OF ROBUST FLUX OBSERVERS FOR INDUCTION

MACHINES

M. Hilairet, C. Darengosse, F. Auger

and P. Chevrel'

GE 44, CRTT - Bd. de I'Universite - B.P. 406 - 44602 Saint Nazaire cedex - France
Ph. (33) 24017 26 35, E-mail.' mickael.hilairet@ge44.univ-nantesfr
tlRCCyN - UMR CNRS 6597, 1 rue de La Noe, 44072 Names Cedex 3 - France
E-mail: pchevrel@emnfr

Abstract: lIDs paper presents and compares two approaches for the design of robust
flux observers for induction motors. Both take the measurement noises into account.
The first one, based on Linear Matrix Inequalities (LMI) formulation, leads to a
quadratically stable flux observer. The second one is a Kalman filter with a
particular tuning method, which reduces the effects of some parameter uncertainties.
The dynamical performances, robustness and algorithmic complexity of both
observers are shown and compared. Copyrighte;2000 IFAC

Keywords: H-infinity, Kalman filters, Observers, Induction machines, discretization.

1. INfRODUCTION one, based on the linear control theory (Luenberger

The induction motor has very appealing properties.
Compared to the DC motor, which relies on
mechanical contacts between rotor and stator
(brushes and commutator), the induction motor uses
an alternative supply of the Stator windings to set up
a rotating magnetic field., inducting currents in the
rotor (closed) windings, hence providing a torque.
Consequently, the induction motor has a relatively
lower cost and very good reliability and ruggedness.
The counter-part is a more difficult speed or torque
control, see (Leonhard, 1985; Bodson, et al., 1994;
Kinpara, et al., 1995).
As shown in Darengosse, et al. (1999), in which a
detailed bibliography can be found., the flux
established in the machine must be controlled so as to
meet high performances in speed or torque control.
Different strategies have been proposed to design a
flux observer with better properties than the often
used simple estimator (Leonhard., 1985). The first
observer), has been proposed in (Verghese and
Sanders, 1988). The others are based on the high gain
method as Bomard and Hammouri (1991), or the
sliding modes control theory as Kinpara, et al.
(1995). Such methods may bring difficulties to
manage the trade-off between noise and parametric
sensitivity, unlike methods based on Kalman filtering
as Jacquot (1995). Such an approach seems to work
in practice but with a big amount of computations.
Darengosse and Chevrel (1999) proposed a new
method for the design of flux observers based on
LMI (Linear Matrix Inequalities) formulation. The
aim of the present paper is to present it more closely,
to clarify its discretization and to compare it with
another approach based on a Ka1man filter (Hilairet
and Auger, 2000).
lIDs paper is organized as follows: the second
section recalls the usual model of an induction
machine. The third and fourth sections present the

573
two proposed design methodologies. Lastly, their random disturbance Wsl, so as to take inverter effects
respective performances and algorithmic complexity into account. The resulting measured vector is made
are analyzed. of the stator current (weighted as shown on fig 1) and
the stator voltage (Us) provided by the controller.

2. MODEL OF TIlE INDUCTION MOTOR

I~
1-~ a;
The induction motor model using the Blondel-Park
transformation is well known (Leonhard, 1985). This
model is composed of a mechanical part and an
•
-~~~
- ~
M(O)
I. 11"0'
- .&

~}-
electrical part. The differential equation of the
mechanical subsystem is not considered here, and 'I
we have chosen the stator reference frame to obtain a
(a,~) LPV (Linear Parameter-Varying) electrical
subsystem (1), where the rotor speed Q is considered
l' Q(O)
as an external time-varying parameter.
Fig 1: Standard Plant for the observer design
o
o 0 Finally let us defme cl> , the estimation of cl>r and cl> r
o
the observation error <1», - «1>,. The weighting

function W(s)=~I2 allows to tune the

2 2
Mot L, R , +M" R
Where cr=I---,y .. =
L , L,
: Stator voltage, current
: Rotor, stator resistances
: Number of poles pairs
: Rotor, stator inductance
: Mutual inductance
wb+s
observer bandwidth as presented in Darengosse and
Chevrel (1999). This is done according to the
2
sampling period Ts and the anti-aliasing filter cut-off
frequency.
2 '
crL, L,
Unlike the basic observation problem (linear time
invariant case), the standard system (P) (fig. 1) is a
LPV affine system depending on the rotor speed, U,
varying in the polytopic set S n = Co{o. miD' Q ... J
(3). As a consequence the system matrix Sp(Q)
associated to P varies in the polytopic set
S p =Co~p_, Sp_ } (4).

3. H.. LPV FLUX OBSERVER DESIGN 'VUe Sn•• 3ae [0;1) / Q= a.Q I11III....
. +(l-a).Q
34
{'VQ,Sp(Q)e Sp 3ae[O;I)/Sp =a.S p_ +(I-a).Sp_ ( , )
Let us consider the LPV model represented by the
state space equation (2) corresponding to (1).
Then, the H.. LPV flux observer design problem may
be written as: find a dynamical system Q(Q) (5)
providing, from the stator current and voltage
= ~~~~-~Jx,.]
i,
[ C; 0I
I

c.io'
V
<=> ~~ 1~~~+~1
C 0
y

c.io
I
I
(2) measurements, the flux estimation ci>,
estimation error cl> r is minimized in the Lrnorm
such that the

sense, relatively to the disturbances Ws=(WS I,Ws2)1

previously detailed.
In this case Vs denotes the (a,~) stator voltage
components considered as controlled inputs. The
variable is represents the (a,~) stator current
components and <l»r the (a,~) rotor flux components,
which must be estimated. The standard scheme
corresponding to the design of a flux observer is
drawn on figure 1. To be more precise, using the previous standard
scheme shown on figure 1, the problem is to fmd Q
The measured stator current is supposed to be minimizing the criterion defmed by
corrupted by noise. Therefore, a weighting function
(represented by the transfer function W(s» is
included in the design in order to limit the observer (6)
bandwidth. We also consider that the stator voltage
really applied to the machine is corrupted by a

574
This problem is the classical problem of finding a
LPV feedback to control a LPV plant according to
quadratic H.. performance. A solution to this problem
can be derived from Apkarian and Gahinet (1995),
formulating it in terms of convex optimization
problem under LMI constraints. It is provided by the
LMI-solver (Gahinet, et al., 1995) available in the
Matlab® package. The resulting observer is a
quadratically stable continuous-time system of 611>
order (7), as for the standard plant (P) (Darengosse et
al., 1999; Apkarlan and Gahinet, 1995):
(7)
Starting with the linear fractional representation
(LFR) of the observer (Darengosse and Chevrel,
1999), the main idea of the discretization consists in
replacing the integration operator (S-I) by a
generalized Euler operator. Being strictly causal, this
approximation may be applied straightforwardly.
Moreover, its time prewarping coefficients insure
accuracy whatever the frequency of internal signals.
This property is interesting because the electrical
variables are defined in a stator reference framework,
and these signals are sinusoidal with a frequency
depending on the rotor speed. Finally the observer
algorithm is given by the following expression with
the sampling period (Ts=400 J.l.s):
As a conclusion, the H.. LPV flux observer is based
on a linear parameter-varying dynamical system,
from which a continuous-time observer is derived.
The design procedure has two degrees of freedom,
namely gb and Wb, which can be derived from the cut-
off frequency of the anti-aliasing filter, and from the
noise level. The discretization is performed by a non-
standard method which insures unbiasedness in
steady state.
4. KALMAN FILTER BASED APPROACH
As done commonly (Vas, 1998), a discrete-time
model is first deduced from a second order series
expansion of the matrix exponential eA.(Il)T. :
X[k + I] = Ad (Q).x:[k] + Bd.U[k] +v[k]
{ Y[k] = Cy.x[k]+w[k]
(9)
575
As shown in Hilairet and Auger (2000), the two
matrices Aci(Q) and Bd contain many symmetries and
anti-symmetries, which when taken into account,
provide an important reduction of the complexity of
the Kalman filter. The random signals v[k] and w[k]
modelize the discretization error, the effects of the
inverters, the parameter uncertainties and the
measurement noise. Ka1man filters (Grewal and
Andrews, 1995) are classical algorithms, and their
equations are shortly recalled here (see equation 11).
Compared to Luenberger observers, the main
differences are that the correction uses the predicted
state rather than the previous estimated state, with a
gain deduced from the statistics of the noises, rather
than a pole assignment approach (Verghese and
Sanders, 1988).
X(k+~k] = A.s(O).xo<Ik]+Bd.luc]
P[k+~k]=A.s(O)Jl[kjk]Atd(O)+Q
Iqk+l]=P[k+~klC.(CP[k+~k].c +R)~
X(k+~k+l]=X(k+~k]+Iqk+l].(Y[k+l]-CX[k+~k])
P[k+~k+I]=P[k+~k]-Iqk+l].CP[k+~k]
-
Wc] = (llk]+Wc+l])/2
qk]=(qk]+qk+l])/2
(11)
(12)
The main problem of the Kalman filters is the
determination of the noise covariance matrices Q and
R. As explained in Hilairet and Auger (2000), there is
no reason to consider the elements of the two pairs
(isa,isll ) and (CI»ra.CI»Iji) differently, and the two axes of
the (<x,~) reference frame can be considered as
statistically orthogonal. Therefore, we considered
only four degrees of freedom:
(13)
Moreover, since the Ka1man correction gain is not
modified when both Q and R are multiplied by a
scalar, the Kalman filter dynamics are not changed if
we choose:
R =[1o 0] and Q
I
=[~l ~lo ~ ~ll
<Xl <X2 0 '
(14)
o <Xl 0 <X2
 2 2 this Kalman filter are the classical ones. But the
.
WIth 0. 1 =a.
-2-'
a
0. 2
a·
=_"-
a
and a =
2
p.a•.a"
a J 2 proposed implementation takes the structural
properties of the transition matrix into account,
yielding a lower computational cost. This observer
This choice makes the implementation of the Kalman has three degrees of freedom, and a determination
filter easier. Decreasing the elements of Q means that procedure is proposed, based on an optimization of
the model provides a good state prediction, and the the filter in a given operating mode, and for the
sensors yield noisy measures, leading to small values worst-case parameter uncertainty.
of the correction gains. On the opposite, increasing
the elements of Q means that the state prediction is 2)1 tOol
.,.
corrupted by parameter uncertainties, and/or the
sensor noise is negligible, leading to an important
correction of the prediction state thanks to the ·2

measured currents. So as to determine accurate ..

values of the parameters alt 0.2 and 0.3, we define an
application- dependent operating mode (see figure 2), "0 0.5 ,..
and we minimize the mean square error of the rotor K..
!) I 10'"
KM

flux modulus for the worst case rotor resistance

uncertainty, MVRr=+60%:

(15) 0'·0 0.5 1 1.5 .' - ' - ,----:,<;-

.5i!-0---'0"'- .• ----:
timt(.) tirM(.)

Fig 3: Kalman gain values

5. ALGORITHM COMPLEXITY

-:!OO~ 0 .4 0.' 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.8 U

Table 1 shows the number of arithmetic operations
R"'~MllIOed~(H .m)
.~
! ------~~~~~==~-------- required at each iteration by the H.., LPV flux
observer and the Kalman filter. The Kalman filter
fully exploits symmetries and anti-symmetries in the
; ~07
.•!- .2 ----::0.-:-'----0::
0.•; --;;-;0.; ---7,--~12----";-;-'--;,.. 1.11 matrices, so as to allow either the use of a higher
R_ratatfUrnDIMa("MI)
0.1 - sampling rate (to reduce the error made in the second
order expansion of eA.(Il)T.), or the use of cheaper
::Y·
o~f i micro-controllers (Hilairet and Auger, 2000). The
0~0~072----;:0.7'----;:0.•;-~0.;---7,--~u--,;-;-,--;,7,--;,7.~; numbers between brackets represent the
IIrnIls)
computational complexity of a classical brute-force
Kalman filter algorithm (see equation 11) where
Fig 2: Application-dependent operating mode absolutely any symmetry is taken into account. The
H.. LPV flux observer does not contain symmetry
This mjnimization is performed without using the properties, but the study of the involved matrices is
Kalman filter in a speed regulation algorithm and not trivial, so the number of operations is maybe not
with a measured velocity including a small amount of optimal for this observer and may still be reduced.
noise. But good performances in closed-loop are
reported in Hilairet and Auger (2000). With· the Table 1: Number of arithmetic operations to update
chosen operating mode and model parameters, we the two observers.
found 0.,=6.13 10-2,0.2=400 and 0.3=0.93. As shown
on figure 3, the correction factor K13 (see equation H.., LPVFlux Kalman
12) which controls the modification of the predicted Observer filter
stator currents is nearly equal to one, whatever to Number of 96 83 (374)
rotor velocity. This means that: multiplications
- the Kalman filter does not trust on the predicted and inversions
currents. Number of 41 63 (303)
- there is no stochastic filtering on the measured additions
currents. Trigonometric 3 0
- a reduced order model would probably suit this flux functions
estimation problem. Total 167 146 {677}

As a conclusion, the Kalman observer is based on a For the evaluation of the total number of arithmetic
discrete-time model, deduced from the continuous- operations, the trigonometric functions required for
time model by an approximation. The equations of the H.. LPV flux observer are supposed to be

576
computed by fIfth degree polynomials, as done for
example on DSP's (Sitton, 1997). The three
trigonometric functions are therefore equivalent to 15
multiplications and 15 additions.
6. SIMULATION RESULTS AND
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
The following simulation results show the behavior
of the observers in a open-loop scheme. The rotor
flux estimation (solid line) is not used in the rotor
speed control and noises are added in the
measurements (voltages, currents and rotor velocity).
The simulation setup fIrst starts-up the motor by
applying a sinusoidal three-phase voltage on the
Figure 7 and 8 are two simulations with respectively
an underestimation and overestimation of 25 % of the
stator resistance. The two observers have a nearly
equivalent rotor flux estimation error and they are not
sensible to stator resistance uncertainties unlike most
of the previously proposed observers.
Figure 9 is a simulation with an overestimation of
10% of the mutual inductance, which may result
from a magnetic saturation of the induction machine.
The two observers have the same behavior whereas
the H.. LPV flux observer seems to be more accurate.
,~
, --~--~----------------~~
a.• ~

stator windings (220 Vrms, 50 Hz). At t=0.3s, both i •."

observers are activated with null initial conditions. At • ~ ' ~~------------~__________~
i :7
O.7r 1
t=0.7 s, the nominal load torque is required. a.•~:';'-I---;:-;-------:;-----.;':;c------;;':~___;:;______;;';;_____:
~ M U U U U

Figure 4 is a simulation without parameters 'a l'--~--~-- __- -__- -____ --~~

uncertainties. Hopefully, the Kalman fIlter (dashed

of
lines) and the H.. LPV flux observer (dotted lines)
yield nearly the same results in steady state. I. ·I',. .········-·-·--·-------"·----·---~,
- . ' I

However, the flux estimated by the Kalman fIlter has -, "

an underdamped response, whereas the one estimated ·,~.3 0:. 0.5 U 0.7 0.8 O~,
by the H.. LPV flux observer has an important titNo (t )

overshoot. But this overshoot is not harmful, since

such conditions never happen when the observer is Fig 4 : Open-loop scheme ARsIR,=O% and ARr/R.- =0%
included in a closed loop. It is important to underline
that the method used to design the observers are very
different. The H.. LPV flux observer is designed with '" --~--~--------------------
a continuous-time state space model, and this alf .' .
-. 1 '
observer is discretized for real-time implementation. ta. ~ ,
On the other hand, the Kalman fIlter uses a discrete- ··..7hl(.--:-7'""""-----...~~~=. ~1
time state space model, the error made by the rough
·t'';'-
~3'----;at;-
.• --~.;;;
.. -----;;';;a.I~-;;-;a.7~---::a.•=-----;:a.';-,----:
discretization being included in the state noise.
,a ~
,
,
--~--~-- __--__--------__ ~

Figure 5 is a simulation with an underestimation of _·f

50% of the rotor resistance. The Kalman fIlter yields
an estimated rotor flux modulus which is obviously
!:[-"--'_.---.'.-..-.....- ..- .-..--.~
closer to the real value than the H.. LPV flux
observer, since this situation is very close to the one "%
.3 0:. 0:' 0.'
" ' (t )
0.7 0.' o~
for which the former is optimally tuned
(AR/Rr=+60%). However, the prize paid for this
good estimation of the flux modulus is a more Fig 5: Open-loop scheme ARsIR. =0% and ARr/R.- =+50010
important orientation error, as already outlined in
Delmotte (1997). ' ,r --~--~-- __- -__- -________- -
0.1 :- :
Figure 6 is a simulation with an overestimation of
50% of the rotor resistance. Compared to the H.. LPV
flux observer (dotted lines), the Kalman fIlter
. i •.•. .
!i
O.7 ~~-.
'l ~~
... ~----------~~~~--~
. ...-;to ::is . jj

(dashed lines) is more robust against overvalued rotor a1.,' a., a.. D.' 0.7 0.'

resistances. The rotor flux orientation error is nearly

,. ~
! --~--~------~--~------~
the same for both observers and is negligible in
steady state. This is an important point because an
error in the rotor flux orientation does not allow a
good FOC (Field Oriented Control), and makes the
I, r·---------.'"":-·"·~--~-··--~··~j
rotor flux dependent on the electromagnetic torque. .1\.3 0:" 0.' 0.7 a.1 DJ
In this case, the rotor velocity oscillates and creates .... C.j

mechanical noise which may fInally damage the rotor

shaft. Fig 6: Open-loop scheme ARsIR. =0% and ARr/R.- =-50%

577
 considered. Simulations performed with uncertainties
," --~--~----------------~--
in the rotor resistance, the stator resistance or the
mutual inductance have pointed out that both
observers nearly have the same robustness. Future
extensions of these approaches may lead to a better
control of the dynamical performances, and to the
estimation of the angular velocity for sensorless
,.---~--~----------~--- control.
.-
~ r---'·--·---.---·-..·- -. --------.~ REFERENCES
.1~3 04 05 01 01 01 O' 1
"""(S' Apkarian. P. and P. Gahinet (1995). A convex
characterization of gain-scheduled H.. control-
lers. IEEE Trans. on Auto. Control. Vol. 40, N°5,
Fig 7: Open-loop scheme.iRslR. =+25% and .iRr/R. =0% pp 833-864.
Bodson, M., J. Chiasson and R. Novotnak (1994).
,~
! --~--~----------------~-- High performance induction motor control via
O.• ~
Input-Output linearization. IEEE Control
i •• ~ Systems Magazine, Vol. 14, No 4, pp 25-33.
.- , .7
~ /---'------------ Bornard, G. and H. Hammouri (1991). A high gain
t

..•
0.7 t-
.; observer for a class of uniformly observable
·~'3' •• ... ... ..7 ..• systems. In Proc. IEEE CDC. pp 1494-1496 .
Darengosse, C., P. Chevrel, I. S. Guelle and S. Siala
,.,~
, --~------------------~-
(1999). A LMI-based observer for the induction
'i
motor. In Proc. ofECC'99. ID N°770.
I ·f....-..-.-.---..--...-.-.•.------_~---..-.----_1 Darengosse, C. and P. Chevrel (1999). Synthese et
.. ··r ~ experimentattion d'un Observateur de Flux LPV.
• 1~3 04 05 oe 01 06 01 1
In Proc. ofJDA'99 (Nancy-France). ppI15-119 .
tir'n.(s)
Delmotte, E. (1997). Observateur robuste de flux
pour la commande vectorielle d'une machine
Fig 8: Open-loop scheme.iRslR. =-25% and .iRr/R. =0% asynchrone. Universite des sciences et
technologies de Lille (France), N°2138.
Kinpara, Y., S. Doki, S. Okuma and S.
Sangwongwanich (1995). Slip-Frequency-Type
0.11 :'-
vector control equivalent to Flux-Feedback
.-I." '
0.7 ~/'-- .. --~---- ...- - - - - - - - - - -..-....... -.~ .. ~-~-~- .•• ,. ...~~ .. -~~.~--- ~
vector control using flux observer. Elect. Eng. in
Japan. Vol. 115, n02. pp 123-134.
, Gahinet, P., A. Nemirosvsky, A. J. Laub and M.
·~:3! 0.' ... ..• 07 ..• •. Chilali (1995). L.M.I. Control Toolbox.
'."--~------------------~- Mathworks Inc.
., Grewal, M.S. and A.P. Andrews (1995). Kalman
I-v· . rJ,,----.-..-_.-------.----,, . ________ _
~ filtering, theory and practice (Thomas Kailath,

:r Editor). Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

\~

~ : Hilairet, M. and F. Auger (2000). An efficient

u ~ ~ ~
tiII'na(s'
u ~ tl , Kalman filter for flux estimation of induction
motors. Acceptedfor Pesc'OO.
Jacquot, B. (1995). Conception, etude et realisation
Fig 9: Open-loop scheme .6MsrlMsr =- 10% des algorithmes de commande des sysremes de
traction asynchrone pour les TGV de nouvelle
generation. INPT Thesis (France), N° 1115.
7. CONCLUSION Leonhard, W (1985). Control of electrical drives . 2nd
Edition. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
This paper has presented two robust rotor flux New-York.
observers for induction machines, which both take Vas, P. (1998). Sensorless vector and direct torque
the measurement noises and rotor resistance control. Oxford University Press.
uncertainty into account. The two design approaches Verghese, G.C. and S.R. Sanders (1988). Observers
are very different. The first one uses a continuous- for flux estimation in induction machines. IEEE
time state space model, and has two degrees of Trans. on Automatic. Control. Vol. 35, N° 1, pp
freedom, whereas the second one is based on a 85-94.
discrete-time state space model, and has three Sitton, G (1997). A collection of functions for the
parameters. The H.. LPV flux observer needs more TMS320C30. Texas Instruments application
calculations than the second observer at each time report SPRA 117.
sample, because any symmetry property is

578