1
Second order sliding mode current controller for the
switched reluctance machine
Xavier Rain, Mickaël Hilairet, member, IEEE, Reine Talj, member, IEEE,
Laboratoire de Gnie Electrique de Paris (LGEP) / SPEE-Labs,
CNRS UMR 8507; SUPELEC; Universit Pierre et Marie Curie P6; Universit Paris-Sud 11;
11 rue Curie, Plateau de Moulon F91192 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX
Email: xavier.rain@orange.fr ; mickael.hilairet@lgep.supelec.fr ; reine.talj@lgep.supelec.fr
Abstract—This paper presents a second order sliding mode
current controller for the switched reluctance machine (SRM).
This strategy is first analysed theoretically, then tested by
simulation and on an experimental test bench. Dynamic, current
ripples and robustness of this controller are discussed.
Index Terms—Switched reluctance machine, current control,
second order sliding mode controller, super twisting algorithm,
experimental validation.
I. I NTRODUCTION
T HE switched reluctance machine (SRM) had attracted
many researchers over the last decade. This is certainly
due to its numerous advantages such as simple and robust
construction, high-speed and high-temperature performance,
power density, starting torque, torque to inertia ratio, lower
manufacturing costs, and fault tolerance control capabilities
[1], [2]. This is a result of it’s double salient pole design.
The performance of SRM has been enhanced greatly due to
advances in power electronics and computer science. There-
fore, the SRM is becoming a serious competitor with AC
machines.
Nowadays, SRM are under consideration in various appli-
cations requiring high performances such as in electric vehicle
propulsion [3], [4], automotive starter-generators [1], [2] and
aerospace applications [5], [6].
However, several disadvantages like acoustic noise gener-
ation, torque ripple, nonlinear electromagnetic characteristics
and the strong dependence on the rotor position are limiting
its utilization compared to other type of machines. Therefore,
the design of an appropriate controller to achieve high perfor-
mances must take into account these phenomenum.
Several linear and nonlinear controllers that achieve high
dynamic control can be found in a vast literature available on
this topic. The most commonly used method to control the
current in SRM is the hysteresis controller for its robustness,
high dynamic range, easiness of implementation, and does not
require any model of the system [7]. Its structure is very simple
to implement and requires no knowledge of the electrical
model of the machine, or special knowledge in automatic.
978-1-4244-5226-2/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE 3301
However, this type of controller gives the disadvantage of vari-
able switching frequency that may cause a subsonic noise in
SRM [8]. An alternative solution is a fixed switching frequency
operation (PWM) with linear and nonlinear controllers. Such
controllers are widely used for variable speed/torque of AC
machines. This technique makes the machine less sensitive to
acoustic noise, but is in general less dynamic than a hysteresis
regulator.
Several nonlinear control methods, such as the feedback
linearizing [9], passivity [10], back-stepping [11] and sliding
mode [12] have been applied to control the SRM. The speed
control of SRM has been treated extensively in the literature
while little research has been devoted to current controlling,
witch constitutes the main part of the controller. In this article,
a sliding mode current control strategy is proposed.
This paper is organized into three sections: in section II,
the paper gives some theoretical elements on the sliding mode
control (one and two order). Then, a second order sliding
mode current control for a 8/6 SRM is detailed in section III.
Experimental and simulation results are described in section
IV.
II. T HEORETICAL ELEMENTS OF THE SLIDING MODE
CONTROL
A. Introduction
Sliding mode control theory [13], [14] is adapted to control
electric machines because they are powered by converters
that operates by commutations. Indeed, the sliding mode is
a discontinuous control, so these discontinuities can directly
control the converter. Moreover, it is a powerful method
to control high-order nonlinear dynamic systems operating
under uncertainly conditions. There are two types of sliding
mode control: one order and high order sliding mode. The
advantages of this controller are its relative simplicity of
implementation and robustness properties against parametric
uncertainties and disturbances. The main obstacle for the one
order sliding mode is high frequency oscillations of the state
trajectories around the sliding manifold known as chattering

phenomenon. It can stimulate certain modes of the system
that are not necessarily taken into account in the modelling.
Thus, in the 1980’s, the Russian school [15] has proposed new
controls sliding modes that can avoid this problem. There are
based on the theory of second order sliding modes, and lead
to control laws still relatively simple to implement.
B. One order sliding mode
The implementation of a sliding mode control involves two
steps. Firstly, a surface S must be defined in the state space,
given by a constraint function s(t, x, u) such that, in steady
sliding (locked state on this surface), the system has the desired
behaviour. Secondly, a discontinuous control law is defined,
acting on the first derivative of the sliding variable and ensures
that the sliding surface is attractive (at least locally).
In the ideal case of a system without uncertainty, the com-
mand which forces the system trajectories to evolve exactly
on the sliding surface is called the equivalent command Ueq
[16], and is solution of:
s = ṡ = 0
In the general case, the sliding mode control U decomposes
in two terms:
U = Ueq + Udisc
where Udisc is the discontinuous control which ensures con-
vergence in finite time to the surface S and the rejection of
a certain class of disturbances. Ueq represents the average of
the real command U. Therefore, the discontinuity’s amplitude
must be superior to the limits within which are evolving
models of uncertainties and disturbances. The problem is that
the first order brings up chattering on the controller output.
C. Second order sliding mode
In the case of the second order sliding mode, and contrary to
the one order, the discontinuous control acting, not on the first
derivative of s, but on it’s second derivative. The command U
is therefore a continuous signal. We will see that the chattering
phenomenon can be avoided while preserving the properties of
robustness and finite time convergence of the one order sliding
mode. The sliding surface is reached more smoothly, and is
achieved in finite time. On it,
s = ṡ = 0
Different kinds of second order sliding mode algorithms
can be found in the literature [17]. In this work, we propose
to implement the super twisting algorithm [18] for the SRM’s
current control. This algorithm has been developed for systems
with relative degree equal to one compared to the slip variable.
Therefore, the discontinuity affects the first derivative of the
control input U.
3302
2
This control method is known for its robustness against
parametric uncertainties. A proof of stability based on Lya-
punov approach is given in [19] for the super twisting algo-
rithm.
In the next section, we will use and expose this algorithm
for the SRM’s current control.
III. A PPLICATION OF THE SECOND ORDER SLIDING MODE
TO THE SRM’ S CURRENT CONTROL
A. Structure of the SRM’s control law
Fig.1 describes a SRM’s speed control strategy based on
an average torque control [20] [21]. As with any type of
electrical machine speed controlled, the speed controller’s
(Integral-Proportional) output defined the required electromag-
netic torque Te∗ . In this strategy, one important feature of
this classical controller is that the reference phase current is
constant over one excitation period, and the reference torque
is considered as an average torque over on conducting period.
Thereby, this control is also called “square wave control”.
Three fundamental control variables, i.e., reference phase
current I ∗ , turn-on angle ψ, and conduction period θp , have to
be adjusted. Many combinations of these control variables are
possible to operate the SRM drive at one specific torque-speed
operating point. However, one suitable combination for one
speed-torque operating point should be chosen, based on the
desired optimization goal, e.g., efficiency or low torque ripple.
Using simulations, an optimal set of the control variables
over the entire operating range can be obtained. The torque
translation into a current reference is located in a look-up table.
Linear data interpolation is performed on line to compute the
optimal control parameters depending on the operating point.
Many classical SRM torque controllers use this approach and
rely on lookup tables of the control parameters.
n∗ Te∗
ψ
I∗
Speed Look-up θp Commutating Current’s U SRM θ
n
controller tables I∗ strategy controller model
I
d
dt
Fig. 1. SRM’s control architecture.
B. SRM’s current controller
Fig. 2 presents a continuous model of the SRM’s current
control. Simulation and experimental results show that back-
emf that acts as a strong disturbance need to be compensate so
that to improve the control performances. The back-emf Ê is
estimated from an analytical model of the phase’s inductance
L, dependent to the current and rotor position [22].
 3

The phase electric model is derived from the classical The average control voltage U is composed, like a
equation: Proportional-Integral controller, two continuous terms, that do
dΦ(i, θe ) not depend upon the first time derivative of the sliding variable.
U = Ri +
dt The discontinuity only appears in the first derivative control
where R is the phase’s resistance and Φ is the phase’s magnetic input U: U = Ui + Up with:
flux. The magnetic flux depends on the current and the electric dUi
= β sign(s) (integral term) (1)
position θe of the rotor (angle between a rotor slot and dt √
the phase’s unaligned position). Therefore, a look-up table Up = α s sign(s) (proportional term) (2)
(performed offline) give the phase’s current from the flux and
the position. with α > 0 , β > 0 and sign(s) is the sign function
(sign(s) = 1 if s > 0 ; sign(s) = −1 if s < 0).
Ê(I, θe ) Instead of integrating the error, the super-twisting algorithm
One phase electric model
∗
+ integrates the sign of the error. The proportional term depends
I + Sliding mode + U + 1 Φ I
current controller s
f (Φ, θe ) on the square root of the error. Near the reference, the error
− −
I θe is low, therefore, the proportional term varies faster than the
R
error, witch induces a more responsive controller.
The controller’s gains are α and β, and if the sufficient
conditions below are satisfied:
Fig. 2. SRM’s current control.
C0 4 C0 (KM β + C0 )
β> and α2 ≥ ,
The phase’s electric equation is: Km K2m (Km β − C0
one can obtain the convergence in finite time on the sliding
di
+E
U = R i + Linc surface S (s = ṡ = 0) [23], [24].
dt In practice, the controller is implemented on a processor.
where Linc is the phase’s incremental inductance and E the Fig. 3 shows the discrete current controller using the super
back-emf. Therefore, the first derivative of the constraint twisting algorithm. Unlike a conventional linear controller,
function s = i∗ − i where i∗ is the reference phase current there is no anti-wind-up action associated with the saturation.
and i is the measured phase current is: Indeed, the experimental results showed better performances
  without this structure. This scheme include an initialization
ds di∗ U E + Ri
= − − block of the integrator when the current set point reverts to
dt dt Linc Linc
zero.
We set :
Ê
ds
= φ(t, s) + ϕ(t, s)U
dt I∗ + s + Ui + + U
βsign(s)
with − + +
E + Ri 1 Up
φ= and ϕ= − I

Linc Linc z −1 α (s)sign(s)
di∗ ∗
with the hypothesis that = 0 (i is constant because the
dt
average torque control requires slot’s current). Ui = 0 if I ∗ = 0

This equation brings up the command U witch is the average

phase voltage. Therefore, s has a relative degree equal to 1,
necessary condition for using the second order sliding mode,
and specifically the super twisting algorithm.
For the second order sliding mode controller design, it is
necessary to impose certain assumptions to ensure the acces-
sibility of the sliding surface. The variable s must be bounded.
It is therefore assumed that there exist positive constants
S0 , Km , KM , C0 such that ∀x ∈ Rn et |s(t, x)| ≤ S0 , the
system satisfies the following conditions:
0 < Km ≤ |ϕ(t, s)| ≤ KM
and
|φ(t, s)| ≤ C0
Fig. 3. SRM’s current controller - Super twisting algorithm.
IV. S IMULATION AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
A. Gains adjustment procedure
Unlike a conventional Proportional-Integral controller, the
gains adjustment is made by successive tests. First, we set
the gains α and β to obtain a faster response time without
oscillations in steady state. To avoid chattering in steady state,
gain α should not be too high. This causes a low response time.
Gain β (integrator term) set the static error to zero. It
must be low because its increasement leads to overshoot and
oscillations in steady state for a fixed value of α.

3303
 4

Experimental tests has been performed with the mechanical response time is equal to 0.8 ms.
operating point (3.8 N.m - 500 rpm). Here, a 1103 Dspace So there is a compromise between high current dynamic and
board is used on the test bench (see Fig. 10). The sample time current ripples at steady state. To eliminate this compromise,
is set to 50 μs. Fig. 4 shows the current and voltage in one it is possible to use variables gains (α, β) that depend on the
phase of the SRM, for a reference current equal to 30 A. Gains variable s [25].
are set to α = 3.5 and β = 0.1. The static error is equal to zero |s|
α(s) = α0
and the average phase voltage does not present oscillations, so |s| + aα
the current ripple is minimal, and is only due to the inverter’s |s|
commutations. However, the response time is important and is β(s) = β0
|s| + aβ
equal to 1.4 ms. Indeed, the controller’s output is not saturated
to Udc during the initial current’s increase. Gains are greatest when the variable s is important, witch give
a high dynamic, and are reduced when the error is near zero.
(a) Reference (− −) and measured (−) one phase currents Therefore, the control is smooth near the reference. There are
40 2 additional degrees of freedom for the controller. The choice
30 of aα and aβ defines the bound where the gains α and β are
20 reduced.
A

10
Fig. 6 shows an experimental result with the variable gains.
The gains are set to α0 = 30 ; aα = 8 ; β0 = 0.1 ; aβ =
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0. Indeed, the response time is equal to 0.8 ms, the current
−3
x 10 dynamic is high without overshoot and chattering phenomenon
(b) Average phase voltage
at steady state.
20

0 (a) Reference (− −) and measured (−) one phase currents

V

40
−20 30
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
20
A

t (s) −3
x 10
10

Fig. 4. Experimental results : instantaneous currents and average phase 0

voltage - Sliding mode controller : α = 3.5 ; β = 0.1. 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
−3
16
x 10
(b) Average phase voltage

20
(a) Reference (− −) and measured (−) one phase currents
40
0
V

30
−20
20
A

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
10
t (s) −3
x 10
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016

(b) Average phase voltage

Fig. 6. Experimental results : instantaneous currents and average phase
voltage - Sliding mode controller : α0 = 30 ; aα = 8 ; β0 = 0.1 ; aβ = 0.
20

0
V

B. Robustness tests
−20
Experimental tests have been performed to show the influ-
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016
t (s)
ence of the speed on the controller’s performance. Speed is
set to 1000 rpm. In this test, the torque has been reduced to
Fig. 5. Experimental results : instantaneous currents and average phase maintain the current control such that the back-emf is lower
voltage - Sliding mode controller : α = 9 ; β = 0.1. than Udc . Fig. 7 shows the good robustness of this sliding
mode controller against a speed variation, and this because of
To reduce the response time, the gain α must be increase. the back-emf compensation.
Fig. 5 shows an experimental result for α = 9 and β = 0.1, Indeed, Fig. 8 shows the current response when the con-
where chattering phenomenon on the average phase voltage troller is not provided with a back-emf compensation. The
appear, thereby generating additional current ripples. Now, the increase of the back-emf results in a significant error relative to

3304
 5

(a) Reference (− −) and measured (−) one phase currents (a) Reference (− −) and measured one phase currents
30 40
i1*
i1
30
20 i1 (L+30%)
i1 (L−30%)
20

A
A

10 10

0 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 −3
−3 x 10
x 10 (b) Average phase voltages
(b) Average phase voltage 30
U1
20 U1 (L+30%)
20
10 U1 (L−30%)
0

V
0
V

−10
−20
−20
−30
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 t (s) x 10
−3

t (s) −3
x 10

Fig. 9. Simulation results : instantaneous currents and average phase voltages

Fig. 7. Experimental results : instantaneous currents and average phase for an inductance variation at 500 rpm.
voltage at 1000 rpm with Back-emf compensation.

V. C ONCLUSION
the current reference. Therefore, a compensation of the back-
In this paper, a new current controller for the SRM is
emf improve the current control.
proposed. It is a second order sliding mode using the super
twisting algorithm. It has good performances, high dynamics
like the hysteresis controller and low current ripples with fixed
(a) Reference (− −) and measured (−) one phase currents
30 switching frequency operation (PWM). Moreover, it is char-
20 acterized by its good robustness properties against parametric
A

10 uncertainties and disturbances. The proposed controller has

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 been validated by simulation and experimentally. The results
−3
x 10 are satisfactory and proved the feasibility of this new type of
(b) Average phase voltage
controller.
20
0
V

TABLE I
−20 P ROTOTYPE CHARACTERISTICS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
x 10
−3 Geometric parameters
(c) Back−emf Number of rotor poles 6 Stator pole arc 19.8
30 Number of stator poles 8 Rotor pole arc 20.65
20 Stator outer diameter 143 mm Airgap lebgth 0.8 mm
V

10 Shaft diameter 23 mm
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Electrical parameters
t (s)
x 10
−3 Number of phases 4 Nominal speed 3000
rpm
Nominal power 1.2 kW Nominal voltage 24 V
Phase’s resistance 50 mΩ
Fig. 8. Experimental results : instantaneous currents and average phase
voltage at 1000 rpm without back-emf compensation.

A simulation for testing the robustness issue with respect

to parameter variations has been realized by considering a
± 30% variation of the phase’s magnetic flux (equivalent to an
inductance variation at constant current). Fig. 9 indicates that
the current response is not very affected by these parametric
uncertainties. The average phase voltage is modified to have
a similar response.
Other simulation have shown that a variation of + 100 % of
the phase’s resistance had no impact on the current response.
R EFERENCES
[1] B. Fahimi, A. Emadi, R.B. Sepe, “A switched reluctance machine-
based starter/alternator for more electric cars,” IEEE Industry Applications
Magazine, Vol. 20, no 1, pp. 116-124, Mar. 2004.
[2] J. Faiz, K. Moayed-Zadeh, “Design of switched reluctance machine
for starter/generator of hybrid electric vehicle,” Electric Power Systems
Research, Elsevier, Vol. 75, no 2-3, pp. 153-160, 2005.
[3] B.A. Kalan, H.C. Lovatt, G. Prout, “Voltage control of switched re-
luctance machines for hybrid electric vehicles,” IEEE Power Electronics
Specialists Conference (PESC’02), Vol. 4, pp. 1656-1660, 2002.

3305
 6

[20] H. Hannoun, M. Hilairet, C. Marchand, “Comparison of instantaneous

and average torque control for a Switched Reluctance Motor,” IEEE
International Symposium on Industrial Electronics ISIE, Jun. 2008.
[21] H. Hannoun, M. Hilairet, C. Marchand, “Design of an Speed control
strategy for a wide range of Operation speeds,” IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, Vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 2911-2921, September 2010.
[22] H. Hannoun, M. Hilairet, C. Marchand, “Analytical modeling of
switched reluctance machines including saturation,” IEEE International
Electric Machines and Drives Conference IEMDC, May. 2007.
[23] F. Nollet, T. Floquet, W. Perruquetti, “Observer-based second order slid-
ing mode control laws for stepper motors,” Control Engineering Practice,
16(4): 429443, 2008.
[24] S. Laghrouche, F. Plestan, A. Glumineau, “Higher order sliding mode
control based on integral sliding mode,” Automatica, 43(3) : 531537, 2007.
[25] R. Talj, M. Hilairet, R. Ortega, “Second order sliding mode control of the
motocompressor of a PEM fuel cell air feeding system, with experimental
validation,” IEEE IECON 2009, Porto,Portugal, 3-5 Nov 2009.

Fig. 10. The experimental test bench

[4] M. Krishnamurthy, C.S. Edrington, A. Emadi, P. Asadi, M. Ehsani,

B. Fahimi, “Making the case for applications of switched reluctance
motor technology in automotive products,” IEEE Transactions on Power
Electronics, Vol. 21, pp. 659-675, May 2006.
[5] R.T. Naayagi, V. Kamaraj, “Shape optimization of switched reluctance
machine for aerospace applications,” 31st Annual Conference of IEEE
Industrial Electronics Society (IECON’05), Nov. 2005.
[6] A.V. Radun, “High-power density switched reluctance motor drive for
aerospace applications,” IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol.
28, no 1, pp 113-119, 1992.
[7] M.R. Benhadria, K. Kendouci, B. Mazari, “Torque Ripple Minimization
of Switched Reluctance Motor Using Hysteresis Current Control,” IEEE
International Symposium on Industrial Electronics ISIE’06, Vol. 3, pp.
2158-2162, Jul. 2006.
[8] F. Blaabjerg, P.C. Kjaer, P.O. Rasmussen, C. Cossar, “Improved digital
current control methods in switched reluctance motor drives,” IEEE
Transactions on Power Electronics, Vol. 14, no 3, pp. 563-572, may 1999.
[9] G.S. Buja, R. Menis, M.I. Valla, “Variable structure control of an SRM
drive,” IEEE, Transactions on Industrial Electronics, Vol. 40, no 1, pp.
56-63, Feb 1993.
[10] G. Espinosa-Perez, P. Maya-Ortiz, M. Velasco-Villa, H. Sira-Raminez,
“Passivity-based control of switched reluctance motors with nonlinear
magnetic circuits,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, Vol.
12, no 3, pp. 439-448, may 2004.
[11] M.T. Abrifai, J.H. Chow, D.A. Torrey, “Practical application of backstep-
ping Nonlinear current control to a switched-Reluctance motor,” Proceed-
ings of the American Control Conference, Vol. 17, no 6, pp. 1306-1317,
Chicago, Illinoi, 2009.
[12] H. Yang, S.K. Panda, Y.C. Liang, “Experimental investigation of feed-
back linearization controller for switched reluctance motor,” Power Elec-
tronics Specialists conference, Vol. 2, pp. 1804-1810, Jun. 1996.
[13] C. Edwards, S.K. Spurgeon, “Sliding mode control : theory and appli-
cations,” CRC Press, 1998.
[14] U. Itkis, “Control systems of variable structure,” Wiley New York, 1976.
[15] S.V. Emelyanov, S.K. Korovin, A. Levantovsky, “Higher-order sliding
modes in the binary control systems,” Soviet Physics, 31 :291293, 1986.
[16] V.I. Utkin, “Sliding mode in control and optimization,” Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 1992.
[17] A. Levant, “Higher order sliding : Collection of design tools,” In
European Control Conference, Brussel, Belgium, 1997.
[18] A. Levant, “Sliding order and sliding accuracy in sliding mode control,”
Int. J. Control, 58 :12471263, 1993.
[19] J.A. Moreno, M. Osorio, C.E. y Computacion, M. DF, “A Lyapunov
approach to second-order sliding mode controllers and observers,” In 47th
IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, CDC 2008, pages 28562861,
2008.

3306