This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TEC.2017.2699681, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion
TEC-00953-2016.R1
A Novel Online Parameter Estimation Method for
Indirect Field Oriented Induction Motor Drives
Shuying Yang, Member, IEEE, Dawei Ding, Xi Li, Zhen Xie, Member, IEEE, and Xing Zhang, Senior
Member, IEEE, and Liuchen Chang, Senior Member, IEEE
 performance heavily depend on accurate knowledge of the
Abstract—This paper presents a novel online parameter
estimation method to overcome the negative influence of
parameter mismatch on the field orientation and then on the
performance of the indirect field oriented induction motor drives.
This method allows for parallel estimation of the rotor resistance
and the mutual inductance, which tend to deviate from their
nominal values resulting from changes of temperature and flux
level. In the case of electrical vehicles or wind power generators,
the parameter deviation degrades the drive performance in two
ways: calculation of the current reference from the torque
command issued by the power control unit (PCU) and calculation
of the slip frequency for the indirect field orientation. Moreover,
the mutual inductance estimation is more critical in these wide
speed range applications than in general industry field. This
proposed estimation method is implemented through a model
reference adaptive system (MRAS) about the rotor flux. The
reference model comes from two sliding mode observers (SMOs):
a terminal SMO (TMSO) and a first order SMO, implemented in
series. The adjustable model is undertaken by the current model
of rotor flux. The analysis and design presented in this paper are
confirmed both through numerical simulation and experiments.
Index Terms—induction motor drives, MRAS,
parameter estimation, rotor flux observer, SMO
I. INTRODUCTION
T he high order, multi-variable and nonlinear plants of
induction motors (IMs) can be decoupled into torque and
flux subsystem using vector control theory. The result is a
comparable operation performance with that of DC motor
drives [1] - [3]. In indirect field orientated control (IFOC)
system, the orientation is achieved by integration of the
synchronous speed, the sum of the rotor electrical speed and the
slip speed calculated by dividing the torque-producing
component with the magnetizing component of the stator
currents and the rotor time constant (  r )[4]. Benefiting from its
dynamic performance and easy implementation, the IFOC finds
wide applications from general industry to green energy field,
including wind power generation system (WPGS), electric
vehicle (EV), etc [1]. The accuracy of orientation and the drive
Shuying Yang, Dawei Ding, Xi Li, Zhen Xie, and Xing Zhang are with the
School of Electrical Engineering and Automation, Hefei University of
Technology, Hefei, China (e-mail: yangsy@hfut.edu.cn, 1505584542@qq.com,
1390695834@qq.com, ppsd203@sina.com, honglf@hfut.edu.cn ).
Liuchen Chang is with Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
the University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada (e-mail:
Lchang@unb.ca )
0885-8969 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1
plant parameters [5]. Unfortunately, the parameters always tend
to deviate from their nominal values, as a result of changes in
the temperature inside the motor, flux saturation, or other
operating conditions, [6]. In EV applications, the negative
effects of the parameter mismatch are two-fold [6]-[7]. On the
one hand, the calculation of the torque-producing current from
the torque command issued by the power control unit (PCU) in
EV is strongly dependent on the mutual inductance ( Lm ) [7].
On the other hand, calculation of the slip frequency,
determining the accuracy of the orientation, requires the
knowledge of rotor time constant,  r , and therefore requires the
rotor resistance ( Rr ) and inductance ( Lr ) [8]. Once any
mismatch happens between the actual values of these
parameters in the motor and the values instrumented in the
controller the orientation will deviate, the operation
performance will be degraded and the torque command cannot
be tracked well[9]-[10]. Normally the variation of the leakage
inductance can be neglected [11]. Therefore, Rr and Lm are the
two critical parameters that need to be updated online for
online exploring the full benefits of the IFOC. Traditionally,
Lm deviation is considered by a feedforward compensation
relying on the preset magnetizing curves, but the nonlinear
dependency on the magnetizing current results in a tedious
curve fitting process [12]-[14]. In EV applications, the
operating speed range is wide and the speed changes frequently,
which limits the accuracy of the compensation method further.
For Rr , not only is its dependency on the temperature variation
is non-predictable, but also the temperature in the rotor circuit
is not easily acquired [14].
To overcome sensitivity to parameter deviation and to
guarantee the performance of the IFOC, there is significant
research effort focusing on online estimation of  r or Rr. These
techniques use machine saturation [15], signal injection [16],
[17], special switching techniques [18], Luenberger observers
[5],[19], extended Kalman filters (EKF)[20], sliding mode
observers [21], MRAS[1],[8],[14],[22]-[27], or adaptive
observers [28]. Of these, the MRAS-based updating scheme is
attractive considering its simple structure and easy
implementation [23], [29]-[30]. As is well known, some
quantities will deviate from their actual values because of the
mismatch of parameters and this provides a solid foundation for
the MRAS. That is, one chosen quantity can be calculated in
two different ways: requiring knowledge of the parameter or
being independent of it. The difference between the outputs of
these two can serve as an indicator of the mismatch and is
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TEC.2017.2699681, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion
TEC-00953-2016.R1
manipulated into a tuning signal. That signal is then as an input
into the PI or I type of controller, yielding its estimate.
Depending on the functional candidate, (such as rotor flux [23],
stator voltage [1], [8], electromagnetic torque [24]-[25], or
reactive power [25]-[27]), various MRAS-based estimation
techniques were proposed in literature. However, in the
majority of these methods, accurate estimation of parameters
can be achieved only when the actual value of Lm is known.
Any mismatch of the inductance may result in errors. Although
in some cases, as in the method in [23], accurate orientation can
still be achieved with detuned Lm, the current references and the
decoupling terms are undoubtedly affected. Feedforward
compensation is typically adopted, but it is difficult and time
intensive to fit the magnetizing curves accurately [31]. Besides,
the actual magnetizing current, used to index Lm in the cures, is
not readily obtained without proper orientation.
To date, online estimations of both Rr (or  r ) and Lm were
reported scarcely in literature. Although in [21] the two
parameters were estimated simultaneously through a full-order
observer, the convergence needs to be investigated further. In
[32] the parameters were updated online with a passive design,
but coupling with the current control hinders its application in
practice. In [33], the parameter  r was corrected by the tangent
torque angle based MRAS observer, meanwhile, the difference
of the calculated torque in stationary reference frame and that in
rotating reference frame was confirmed to estimate Lm . In that
method however, the stator flux was calculated directly through
pure integration. To achieve the stator flux without the
requirement of integration, a steady state model was used in
[34].
In fact, the crucial issue for the MRAS-based estimations is
how to construct a reference model with robustness to the
parameters. In this paper, two sliding-mode observers (SMO), a
high-order terminal SMO (TSMO) [35]-[37] and a first-order
SMO are implemented in series to observe the back
electromotive force (EMF) and then the rotor flux. The
robustness of the observed rotor flux to the parameter mismatch
is comparable with that of the voltage model rotor flux, yet the
integration is avoided. Although with rotor flux the direct field
orientation can be implemented, the stability of the IFOC is
better [1], [22]. Therefore, the observed rotor flux is used as the
reference model to design the MRAS-based estimations of Rr
and Lm instead of for direct vector control. Besides, the
parameter Lm is required in calculating the current reference,
the decoupling terms in current control loops, and in the flux
weakening control. The current model, which is the foundation
of IFOC, acts as the adjustable model in the designed MRAS.
The difference in phase of the rotor flux is used to estimate Rr ,
while the parameter Lm is tuned online by the error in
magnitude of the rotor flux. Therefore, it is feasible to estimate
the parameters of both Rr and Lm .
The new contributions by the authors includes: proposing a
scheme to estimate both the rotor resistance and the mutual
inductance online and deriving out the corresponding
small-signal model for PI controller design; realizing rotor flux
observation, as high robust as outcome of the voltage model,
0885-8969 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
2
but the integration is not needed. The remainder of this paper is
organized as follows. In Section II, the MRAS-based
estimation is discussed and designed. The reference model of
the rotor flux is presented in Section III. In Section IV the
estimation method is validated through simulation and
experiments. Conclusions are given in Section V.
II. THEORY AND DESIGN OF MRAS-BASED ESTIMATION
A. Effects of Parameter Mismatch
Once any mismatch between the parameter values
instrumented in the controller and the actual values in the IM
occurs, the rotor time constant ˆr (‘^’ denoting the
corresponding values in the controller throughout this paper),
as the ratio of Lˆm to Rˆr , may also be detuned. This results in
field orientation error. When the ˆr value used is bigger than
its actual value, the orientation will lag and when ˆr is smaller,
the orientation will lead.
Although in speed control applications, the speed controller
considerably reduces the negative consequences of the
parameter mismatches, in EV or wind power generation
applications usually torque tracking control is required. For
these applications, the negative effects of parameter
mismatches on the tracking accuracy is very heavy [2]. Shown
in Fig.1 is a typical structure for obtaining the references in
these applications. The torque-producing current reference is
calculated directly from the torque command issued by the
PCU and the flux level. Therefore, in these scenarios accurate
knowledge of the parameters is also of crucial importance from
the point of toque tracking view. As presented by the T-type
equivalent circuit, the parameter set is mainly composed of
stator and rotor resistance, mutual inductance, and leakage
inductance. Though, the stator resistance can be easily
corrected online by sampling the temperature through the
thermal sensitive elements placed inside the machine windings
for protection purpose, such as PT100, and the leakage
inductance can be considered as constant in the operating
region of interest [11],[23], [38]-[39]. Therefore, the online
adaption of the rotor resistance and the mutual inductance has
been the focus of this paper.

Te 2 Lˆr isq
3n Lˆ

p m

r 1 isd
Lˆm
Fig.1. Calculation of the current references
B. Design of the Estimation
The theory of the IFOC for IM drives is derived from the
current model of the rotor flux, expressed as:
φ ri  Lm r i s   r φri  jr φri (1)
where φri is the rotor flux vector calculated from the current
model, r is the rotor angular speed, and  r  1 /  r is
reciprocal of the rotor-time constant.
If the values of the parameters are known accurately, the
rotor flux can be calculated out exactly and then the field
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TEC.2017.2699681, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion

TEC-00953-2016.R1 3

orientation can be achieved. However, in real world Although variation of the rotor resistance is common in a
applications the rotor resistance always varies with the rotor continuous and progressive way, it is more rigorous to evaluate
temperature due to the Ohmic thermal effects. With a given the performance of the observer by changing the parameter
value of the rotor resistance, the obtained rotor flux can be values stepwise. As shown in Fig.4 (a), Rˆ r is decreased by
expressed as:
50% in a step at the time t=1 s, emulating equivalently the
φˆ ri  Lmˆ r i s  ˆ r φˆ ri  j r φˆ ri . (2) increment of the resistance value in the IM. The estimation
program of the rotor resistance shown in Fig.3 is activated 0.5 s
As shown in Fig.2, φˆ ri will lag the rotor field when ˆ r is
later and then Rˆ r is corrected to its actual value again quickly.
lower than its actual values,  r , as a result of a lower value of
As shown in Fig.4 (b), the calculated rotor flux φˆ ri cannot
Rˆ r , and vice versa. track the actual value until the rotor resistance is corrected.

ˆri
ˆ r   r r

Rˆ r (p.u.)
ˆri
ˆ r   r

ˆ
o ri
 t (s)
Fig.2. Rotor flux from the current model (a)
r
Assuming the actual value of the rotor flux is φr , the phase r & ˆri (p.u.) ˆri

error of φˆ ri from φr can be obtained through the cross product

between the two vectors, in the form as:
φr  φˆ ri
sin(ri )  (3)
rmˆrim
t(s)
where subscript ‘m’ denotes the magnitude of the (b)
corresponding vector, and ri is the phase error. Fig.4. Rotor resistance tuning process. (a) Rotor resistance. (b) Rotor flux.

In general industry applications, the required speed range is

As the mismatch of Rˆ r can be embodied into the phase
limited and the flux level is usually kept constant for fast torque
error ri , ri can be used to estimate Rˆ r . Therefore, the response. However, in EV application not only is the IM
usually operated above the base speed for high power density
online estimation of the rotor resistance can be constructed in
design [41]-[42], but also the operation state always change
Fig.3. The obtainment of φr will be discussed in next section rapidly. To keep the current under control above the base speed,
and superscript ‘*” is used to denote the nominal values of the with the bounded voltage source provided by a PWM inverter,
parameters, obtained in self-commissioning of motor drives. the field has to be weakened [42]. The mutual inductance, Lm ,
is also varies with the saturation level. Similar as that of Rr ,
φˆ ri  Lmˆ r i s  ˆ r φˆ ri  jr φˆ ri r
Lm is also involved in the current model in (1) and current
reference calculation, as shown in Fig.1. Once any mismatch of
φˆ ri Lˆm occurs, rotor flux φˆ ri derived from the current model will
φr
φr  φˆ ri sin(ri )
K pR  K iR 
ˆ
Rr  Rˆr
deviate from its actual value. As the estimation of the rotor
rmˆrim
 resistance, shown in Fig.3, is based on the phase error of φˆ ri , for
Rr* a properly designed closed-loop system the phase error will be
Fig.3. Estimation of the rotor resistance from phase error of the rotor flux
corrected to zero even with an error in Lˆm . The effects of

In Fig.3, KpR and KiR are the parameters of the PI controller,
and their design will be discussed later. Shown in Fig.4 is the
simulation result of this estimation. The parameters of the
tested IM are given in Section IV. Throughout this paper, the
variations of the actual values of the parameters in the IM is
emulated by deliberately varying equivalently the values in the
controller and in the observer in the opposite direction; as it is
impractical to change the actual values in the IM arbitrarily in
the real world [40].
detuned Lˆ on the estimation shown in Fig.3 are demonstrated
m
in Fig.5. After Rˆ r is corrected to its actual value, Lˆm is
increased by 30% deliberately at t=3 s. As a result, both the
phase angle and the magnitude of φˆ ri are deviated, as
demonstrated by Fig.5 (c) and (d). Even though, the rotor
resistance estimator shown in Fig.3 is a closed-loop system in
essence, which allows the phase errors corrected and φˆ ri
pulled feedforward in alignment with φr . Under this condition

0885-8969 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TEC.2017.2699681, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion

TEC-00953-2016.R1 4

however, the estimate of the rotor resistance, Rˆ r , gets higher As the mismatch of the mutual inductance is reflected into
the magnitude of φˆ ri after the alignment was achieved,
than its actual value. In fact, the phase error of φˆri is only
dependent on the rotor-time constant ˆr . Therefore, this Lˆ may be corrected by referring to the magnitude deviation
m
estimation as a phase-error driving closed-loop system has to [33].
Following above analysis, this magnitude error is utilized to
force Rˆ r to deviate by error to match the deviated Lˆm , to
correct Lˆ , and the estimations of both Rˆ and Lˆ in parallel
maintain ˆr correct indirectly, and then to get rid of the phase m r m
are implemented in Fig.6.
error as required by well-designed closed-loop system.
Although ˆr can be corrected in this way, as discussed above, L*m

neither the value of Rˆ r nor the value of Lˆm , needed for ˆrim  rm
rm
K pL  K iL 
ˆ
Lm  Lˆm

current reference obtainment, are corrected. Rˆr

As seen in Fig.5 (d), the magnitude of φˆri is still bigger than is
φr φˆ ri
φˆ ri  Lmˆ r is  ˆ r φˆ ri  jr φˆ ri r
its actual value, even after the phase error was corrected.
Moreover, the magnitude error between φˆ ri and its actual value Lˆm

is proportional to the mismatch of Lˆ from L for a given m m φr  φˆ ri sin(ri ) ˆ

R  Rˆr
K pR  K iR  r
magnetizing current. From Fig.5, conclusions can be drawn as: rmˆrim

1) although φˆ ri can be kept in alignment with the actual field Rr*

orientation through the estimation technique shown in Fig.4,
Rˆ r is yet to be corrected without accurate knowledge of Lm ; 2)
the magnitude error still exists in φˆri .
Rˆ r (p.u.)
Fig.6. Estimations of the rotor resistance and the mutual inductance in parallel
Fig.6 presents a typical structure of MRAS observer with the
current model of rotor flux as an adjustable model, its actual
value as a reference model, and the PI controller used as an
adaptive mechanism. Replacing the vectors in (1) with their
polar representations and making some manipulations, one can

obtain the dynamics about the magnitude and the phase of the
rotor flux, as
1 Lm
ri  r  Rr ism sin(is  ri ) (4)
rim Lr
t( s )
Rr L
(a) rim   rim  m Rr ism cos(is  ri ) (5)
Lr Lr
where,  rim and ri are the magnitude and phase of rotor flux,
Lˆm (p.u.)

φri ; ism and is are the magnitude and phase of stator current,
is .
The adaptive mechanisms for Rˆ r and Lˆm can be derived
t( s )
(b)
from (4) and (5), respectively. To simplify the analysis, two
estimation channels are designed independently of each other.
In (4), Rr is regarded as the only one parameter to be adapted,
and the effect of detuned Lm on the flux phase, ˆri , is not
ˆ r (p.u.)

considered. Similarly, in (5), the parameter is Lm, and the effect

of detuned Rr on the flux magnitude, ˆrim , is also neglected.
Consequently, the adaptive model for each estimation can be
t( s ) represented as,
(c)  1 Lm ˆ
ˆri  r  Rr ism sin(is  ˆri ) (6)
Lˆm id Lm id r ˆri rim Lr
r & ˆri (p.u.)

R Lˆ
ˆrim   r ˆrim  m Rr ism cos(is  ri ) (7)
Lˆ Lˆr r
The dynamic, from mismatches of the rotor resistance or
mutual inductance, denoted as Rr or Lm , to the resultant
t(s) changes in ˆ or ˆ , can be obtained by subtracting (6) with
ri rim
(d)
Fig.5. Effects of the mismatch of the mutual inductance (4) or subtracting (7) with (5), so as to design the PI

0885-8969 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TEC.2017.2699681, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion

TEC-00953-2016.R1 5

compensators. Making some manipulations, which are   Lr

presented in APPENDIX, one can find out their dynamics, as  is   Lm r is  Aφr  (Vs  Rs is )
 Lm (12)
φ  L  i  Aφ
i L  r
ri  m 
 Rr cos(is  ri )ri  Rr sin(is  ri ) 
m r s r
sm
(8)
rim Lr 
 r r 
where A   , V is the stator voltage, i s is the
 r  s
1
rim   r rim  Lm  r rim (9)  r
Lr
stator current,    Ls Lr / Lm , and   1  L2m / Lr Ls .
where, ri  ˆri  ri and  rim  ˆrim  rim represent the
From the second equation in (12), the back-EMF in rotor
deviations of the estimates.
circuit, here denoted with E r , is expressed as
Therefore, the plants in the two estimation loops for Rr and
Lm can be expressed respectively as E r   Lm r is  Aφr . (13)
ri sin(is  ri ) Using (13), (12) can be written in concise form as
G pR ( s )   (10)
Rr rim Lr
p  Rr cos(is  ri )  1
ism Lm  is  ( E r  Vs   is )
rim  rrim / Lr   (14)
G pL ( s )   (11) φ   E r
Lm p  r 
It is worth mentioning that the sign of the gain in (10) is where   Lr / Lm , and   Lr Rs / Lm .
dependent of the operating mode. For motoring mode, the stator The first equation in (14) can be used to design an observer
current leading the rotor flux yields a positive gain. Otherwise,
estimating the back-EMF, Er. Compared with other design
the gain would be negative. Therefore, the PI gains should be
techniques, high-order TSMO demonstrates advantages in
properly signed according to the operating mode the IM is in.
With (10) and (11), the small signal models of the two several aspects, including steady precision, converging time,
estimation loops are presented in Fig. 7, according to which the robustness to disturbance, and chatting noise elimination [35].
corresponding PI gains can be designed. The nonsingular TSMO theory proposed by Feng [35]-[37] is
utilized to design a current observer presented in (15). The
0 Rr sin(is  ri ) ri unknown quantity Er is replaced with the control input U in
K pR  KiR  rim Lr the observer.
p  Rr cos(is  ri )
ism Lm
 1
iˆs  (U  Vs  iˆs ) (15)

(a)
The control input U is defined as
0 Lm  r rim / Lr rim
K pL  K iL  U  U eq  U n
p  r (16)

where Ueq is the continuous control component, and Un

(b) represents the nonlinear control component, which are designed
Fig.7. Small-signal models of the estimation scheme. (a) Rotor resistance as follows.
estimation. (b) Mutual inductance estimation. Define an intermediate variable as
t
It is apparent from Fig.6 that the actual value of the rotor flux Π  k p is  ki  is dt (17)
0
is required for implementation of the estimations. In [33], the
actual value of rotor flux was fulfilled by using integration in where, is  iˆs  is is the observation error, the parameters kp
the voltage model. However, to deal with the problems caused and ki are positive constants.
by pure integration, great efforts have to be made [43]. In [34], The sliding-mode manifold is chosen as
the steady-state voltage model was used instead, at the expense
of dynamic response. In this paper, a rotor flux observer based
s  Π  γΠ p / q (18)
on the back-EMF, derived from the voltage model with a   
where γ   , and   ,    0 ; p and q are odd
high-order TSMO, is designed to allow the rotor flux to be
   
estimated effectively. As will be verified, the estimate is robust
to mismatch of the rotor resistance and/or the mutual numbers and 1  p / q  2 .
inductance. Then the nonlinear control component Un is designed as
  q -1 2- p / q 
III. OBSERVATION OF ROTOR FLUX U n    γ Π  10 sgn  s   11 s  k  sgn( s )  (19)
A. Obtainment of the Back-EMF through TSMO  k p p 
The model of IM is presented as [40]

0885-8969 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TEC.2017.2699681, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion

TEC-00953-2016.R1 6

where k  is a constant and k   e , sgn( ) standing for the  ˆ 1 ˆ 1 1

 Eri    Lm r Eri   Lr rVs   Lr Rs r is 
signum function, 10 and 11 are positive constants. 
 s AJφˆ r  k sgn( Er ) (24)
The continuous control input is designed as 
k φˆ rv   Eˆ ri  g sgn( Er )
U eq   is  i is (20)
kp
Subtracting the first equation in (14) from (15) yields the where Eˆ ri and φˆ rv are the observed values, Er  Eˆ rv  Eˆ ri is
error equation the estimation error, k and g are the gains.
1 In this observer, the aim is to obtain the rotor flux rather than
is  (U  Er   is ) . (21)
 the equivalent control itself; and an integration is involved as
After sliding mode occurs, both the current error and its shown in the second line in (24). Therefore, a first-order
derivative converge to zero. Therefore the back-EMF, noted sliding-mode function is used and its manifold is designed as
the estimation error directly, for easy implementation.
as Eˆ rv , equals U along the manifold s=0, i.e. Eˆ rv can be Subtracting (23) from (24) gives the error equation, as
obtained by extracting the equivalent control component from
sliding-mode control input U . Obviously, the signum function  1
 Er   Lm r Er  s AJφr  k sgn( Er )
only appears in the derivative of the control variable, U n ,   (25)
φ   E  g sgn( E )
allowing for the chattering noise to be suppressed very well.  r r r

Obtaining the back-EMF is straightforward from the

where φr  φˆ rv  φr is the estimation error of the rotor flux.
sliding-mode control term without the requirement of low pass
The following Lyapunov candidate function is chosen for
filter. The convergence of the estimation error to zero can be
convergence verification.
verified through the Lyapunov method [35]-[37]. The
1
sensitivity to parameter mismatch is discussed as follows. VE  E r Τ Er (26)
1) Observing the back-EMF with (15), the rotor resistance 2
Rr does not appear. Therefore, the estimation accuracy is Differentiating VE with respect to time and writing the result
insensitive to its deviation. in scalar form yields,
2) Although Lm and Lr are involved in the constants Γ VE  Er E r  Er  E r  (27)
and λ , they appear in the ratio of Lr / Lm , which can be
considered constant[11],[23], [34]. where Er and Er  are the   and   axis components of
3) The coefficient  is sensitive to the variation of Lm , but the vector E r .
provided the convergence is guaranteed through the Lyapunov In scalar form the first equation in (25) can be further written
method, the error in  will not affect the estimation accuracy. as
It appears in the form of a forward gain and then only changes  1
the converging rate rather than the target values.  Er    Lm r Er  s (rr   r r  )  k sgn( Er )
 (28)
B. Observation of the Rotor Flux  E   1 L  E   (     )  k sgn( E )
In the electrical time scale, the time derivative of the rotor  r  
m r r s r r r r r

speed can be set equal to zero [33]. Differentiating (13) with where  r and r  are the   and   axis components of
respect to time and considering the derivative equations in (14),
one can formulate the derivative of Er as the vector φr .
1 1 1 Substituting (28) into (27) yields
E r   Lm r E r  Lr  rVs  Lr Rs r is  s AJφr (22)
   1
where s is the angular frequency of the rotor flux, VE   Lm r ( Er2  Er2 )  k ( Er  Er  )  h1 (29)

0 1 where h1  E ( r  r )s  E (r   r )s is a
J   is the skew matrix.
1 0  finite quantity. Therefore, by selecting a sufficiently large
Combining (22) and the second equation in (14) produces the positive k , the convergence can be assured and the estimate of
state equation about the back-EMF and the rotor flux. the back-EMF will converge to its actual value when the sliding
 1 1 1 mode occurs. Putting this condition into the first equation in
 E r   Lm r Er  Lr rVs  Lr Rs r is  s AJφr (25), the discontinuous sliding-mode control can be equalized
    (23)
φ r   E r
as
1
sgn( Er )   s AJφr . (30)
Therefore, a full-order sliding-mode state observer about Er k
and φr can be designed as Substituting (30) into the second equation in (25), one can
get the differential equation about the rotor flux.

0885-8969 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TEC.2017.2699681, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion

TEC-00953-2016.R1 7

g Combining the second equation in (23) and (35), the time

φ r   s AJφr . (31) derivative of the back-EMF takes the form of (36).
k
Expanding (31) with the expressions of A and J , it can be E r   s2 φr (36)
found that a positive g can force the estimation error of rotor
flux to converge to zero. At that time, the estimate of the rotor If the slip angular frequency is represented with sl , then the
flux will surely converge to its actual value.
stator angular frequency can be expressed as s  sl  r .
The overall observation of the rotor flux is concluded in
Fig.8. Obviously, the estimation of the rotor flux is composed Therefore, (36) can be written as follows.
of two parts: the back-EMF estimation and the rotor flux E r  sl s φr  r s φr (37)
estimation, which are implemented in series. The former
provides the reference, with its equivalent control component, Comparing (37) and (34), one can find that the first term in
for the latter to form another SMO to estimate the rotor flux (34), where the parameters are required for calculation,
itself, which is required in the MRAS observer for parameter accounts for much less percentage than the second term in the
estimation. final values of the right-hand side polynomials of (34). The
is ratio of the first to the second term equals sl / r . In normal
is Lr Rs r operation of IM, the ratio is very small, such as less than 10%.
 Lm r / 
is  Consequently, it is reasonable to predict that the negative effect
Vs 1 iˆs
 Vs Lr r Eˆ ri of the parameter mismatch on the estimation error is very


 limited. As will be demonstrated in the next section, with a
U  U eq  U n
k  s AJ mismatch of the coefficient  r (up to 100%), the resultant
Eˆ rv φˆ rv
Equivalent control sgn() g  estimation error of the rotor flux is less than 5%, under the slip
of 0.1.
Back-EMF Estimation Rotor Flux Estimation
High accuracy of the rotor flux estimate allows it to be used
Fig.8. Estimation of the rotor flux
as the reference in the parameter estimation presented in the
C. Robustness of the Observer to Parameter Mismatch immediate previous section. Essentially, the estimation
The robustness of the back-EMF estimation has been accuracy of the rotor flux in steady state, through these
discussed in Subsection III-A. The discussion in this subsection observers, is in a high accordance with the resulting output of
will be focused on the rotor flux estimation part shown in Fig.8. the voltage model, through integration directly [33]. Though,
The matrix A can be expanded as integration is avoided in this scheme. This is also a contribution
by the authors.
A   r I  r J . (32)
Substituting (32) into the first equation in (23), the time IV. SIMULATION AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
derivative of the back-EMF takes the following form. By incorporating the parameter estimation into the IFOC, the
overall control system is presented in Fig.9. The references of
1 1 1 the torque-producing current and the magnetizing current may
E r   r ( Lm E r  LrVs  Lr Rs is  s Jφr ) 
   (33) be calculated from the torque and flux command references
r s φr respectively, as presented in Fig.1. The current closed-loop
control is implemented with PI controllers and feedforward
Considering the expression of the parameter  , (33) will be decoupling compensators [44]. Substituting the second
rewritten as equation into the first one in (12) and transforming the resultant
equation to the rotor field oriented reference frame, dq
 1 Lm Lm 1 Lm  reference frame, one can get the current dynamic equations as
   L L E r   L Vs 
 Ls id   Rs id  s Ls iq  Vd
E r   r    φ .
s r s
 1 Lm  r s r 
 Rs is  s Jφr  (34)  Lm (38)
  Ls iq   Rs iq  s Ls id  s  rd  Vd
  Ls   Lr
The coefficients of the first three terms enclosed in the Consequently, the control equations for the stator currents in
parenthesis in (34) are robust to inductance mismatch, since the dq reference frame is written as
they are dominantly decided by the leakage inductances, which  *  1 *
can be considered constant [11], [23]. Meanwhile, as
 

p

Vd   K p  Ki  id  id  sˆ Lˆs iq
previously presented the stator resistance Rs can be corrected  (39)
V *   K  K 1  i*  i   ˆ Lˆ i
with the sampled temperature in the stator. Therefore, the
 q  p

i  q q
p
 s s q
enclosed part on the right-hand side of (34) is dominantly 
affected by the mismatch of the coefficient,  r . where the superscript ‘*’ denotes the reference, Kp and Ki are
In steady state, the time derivative of φr can be written as the coefficients in the PI regulators.
φ r  js φr . (35)

0885-8969 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TEC.2017.2699681, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion

TEC-00953-2016.R1 8

The plants in the d- and q-axis control loops share the same Eˆ rv Eˆ rv
form as (40). The coefficients in the two PI regulators are also

Eˆ rv(p.u.)
the same.
1
G ep ( s )  (40)
 Ls p  Rs
To realize orientation in Fig.9, the slip speed, calculated
from the references of the torque and the flux, is added to the
t (s)
rotor electrical speed, sampled with an optical encoder installed (c)
on the shaft, to decide the synchronous speed and then the rotor Fig. 10. Robustness of the rotor flux estimation to the mismatch of the rotor
flux position through integration. In the slip-speed calculation, resistance and/or the mutual inductance
the Rˆr and Lˆr are updated online with the estimates output of In the simulation, Rˆ r is decreased by 50% and Lˆm is
the parameter estimation block. Whereby, the negative effects
of the parameter deviations on the obtainment of the references increased by 30% deliberately ( Lˆs and Lˆr are also increased
and on the field orientation are restrained to a great extent. correspondingly) in step at t=1 s. The estimate of the rotor flux
compares very well with the calculated result directly from the
iq* Torque-producing
Current
u voltage model through integration as shown in Fig.10 (a). The
i*
Magnetizing e jr u SVM latter can be considered as the actual value of the rotor flux. As
d Regulator
seen in Fig.10 (b), the error is negligible, less than 1%. The
chattering noise in the back-EMF obtained through the TSMO,
e  jr
is almost invisible, as demonstrated in Fig.10 (c).
Lˆr Rˆ r iq
*
sl r Shown in Figs.11 and 12 are the estimation process of the
(1  p
ˆ
)
ˆ *  Encorder
Rr Lr id r
pn parameters Rˆ r and Lˆm after they experience a step-up
Rˆr Lˆr disturbance, respectively. As presented in Fig.11, the mutual
is IM
is Estimation of L and R φˆ
m r rv Estimation of rotor flux
Vs
inductance Lˆm , used in the controller, is increased by 30%
Fig. 6 Fig. 8
stepwise at the time of t=1 s, and the estimation scheme is
Parameter Estimation Scheme activated 0.5 s later. As there is coupling between the Rr
Fig.9. Control block diagram of the IFOC with parameter estimation
estimation and the Lm estimation, the transient regulating
The nominal parameters of the IM used throughout the process is also seen in the estimate of Rˆ r , although without any
simulation and experiments are as follows: Pn=15 kW, Un =180 disturbance imposed on it during this process. This
V, np=2, fn=120 Hz, Rs=0.027 Ω, Rr=0.012 Ω, Lm=2.18 mH, phenomenon is in accordance with the analysis in Subsection
Ls=2.271 mH, Lr=2.271 mH. II-B. The estimation scheme, presented in Fig.6, is composed of
A. Simulation Analysis the corrections of both Rˆ r and Lˆm , therefore the estimate of
The overall IFOC system is modeled in MATLAB/Simulink. Rˆ still can converge to its actual value after the transients in
r
The IM is operated at 20Hz. In Fig.10 the robustness of the
contrary to the results in Fig.5, where the Lˆm is not corrected.
rotor flux observation to Rˆ r and Lˆm is studied.
In about 1 s, the two parameters converge to their actual values
as predicted. Similar estimation process is seen in Fig.12,
 r & ˆrv (p.u.)

where the rotor resistance in the controller experiences a 50%

stepwise disturbance.
Lˆm (p.u.)

t (s)
(a)

t (s)
(a)
r (p.u.)

Rˆ r (p.u.)

t (s)
(b)

t (s)
(b)
Fig.11. Estimation under the mutual inductance disturbance

0885-8969 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TEC.2017.2699681, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion

TEC-00953-2016.R1 9

and the sample rate, for the currents and voltages, is equal to
two times of the switch frequency. The control scheme and the
estimation procedure are programed with C++ language and
Rˆ r (p.u.)

operated in the DSP. The PWM signals, used to turn on/off the
IGBTs in the IPM, are produced by the enhanced PWM
peripheral integrated on chip of the DSP. 4 us dead band is
inserted between the rising- and trailing-edges of each pair of
t (s) the complementary switching signals for each phase, to avoid
shoot through.
(a)

Encoder
Encoder
Lˆm (p.u.)

t (s)
(b)

PWM Inverter
Fig.12. Estimation under the rotor resistance disturbance

User Interface
To test the performance of the estimation scheme more
rigorously, in Fig.13 the step disturbances on both Lˆm and
Rˆ occur simultaneously at t=1 s. And also, 0.5 s later the
r
estimation scheme is activated. As predicted, the estimates of
Lˆ and Rˆ can still be pulled back to their actual values.
m r
0.0115
Fig. 14. Frame diagram of the test rig
In engineering practice, IM is usually designed to operate at
Rˆ r (p.u.)

the “knee” of the magnetizing curve for higher power density.

0.0077
However, the nonlinearity of the curve around that point is very
heavy [45]. It is very difficult to know the actual value of the
0.0038
inductance, which does not benefit the evaluation of the
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 estimation error or the performance of the scheme. Fortunately,
t (s) if the flux level is decreased to some extent, such as down to
(a) 70% of the rated flux level, the curve is almost linear and then
the mutual inductance is almost invariant with the flux level.
From this point of view, the magnetizing and the
Lˆm (p.u.)

torque-producing current components are set at 41% and 45%

of their rated values, respectively. The IM is operated with
IFOC at 20Hz. The experimental results under the step
disturbances on the mutual inductance alone, on the rotor
t ( s) resistance alone, and on both of them simultaneously are shown
(b) in Figs.15, 16, and 17.
Fig.13. Estimation under simultaneous disturbances on both the mutual Lˆm
inductance and the rotor resistance Lˆm 0.41(p.u. / div)
Lˆm & Rˆr

R̂r
B. Experimental Verification
The frame diagram of the test rig is shown in Fig.14. The IM Rˆr 0.002(p.u. / div)
is the tested motor for the following experimental verifications,
while the PMSM is used to operate the IM at a set speed. The
PMSM is controlled by the PMSM Drive, which is a
ˆr

commercial product provided by a manufacturer. The only

operation on the PMSM Drive is to set the operation speed of ˆr 0.88(p.u. / div)
the machine set, through its interface board. The tested IM is t (s / div)
powered by a PWM inverter, which is designed by the authors Fig.15. Experimental estimation under the mutual inductance disturbance
in laboratory. An IPM module, PM100CLA120 from Mitsubish,
is used to construct the main circuit of the PWM inverter, of
which the switch frequency and the DC-bus voltage are set at 4
kHz and 310 V, respectively. The Control Unit is built on a
DSP microcontroller, TMS320F28335 operating at 150MHz,

0885-8969 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TEC.2017.2699681, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion

TEC-00953-2016.R1 10

inductance in parallel. The rotor flux observer is composed of a

high-order TSMO providing the state variable, the back-EMF,
Lˆm
Lˆm 0.41(p.u. / div) and a first-order sliding mode observer estimating the rotor flux
itself. As demonstrated by simulation, the rotor flux coming out
Lˆm & Rˆ r

of the observers is highly robust to the mismatch of the rotor

R̂r Rˆ r 0.002(p.u. / div) resistance and/or of the mutual inductance, which allows it to
be used as a reference in the MRAS-based estimations of these
two parameters: the rotor resistance and the mutual inductance.
Although there is coupling between the estimation of the
resistance and that of the inductance, their actual values can still
t (s / div)
be obtained robustly over time. If a decoupling method can be
Fig.16. Experimental estimation under the rotor resistance disturbance
found and integrated into the parameter estimation scheme in
Lˆm Stepping up future investigation, the converging process would be
Lˆm 0.41(p.u. / div) expedited and the estimating performance would be improved
Lˆm & Rˆ r

further.

R̂r Rˆr 0.002(p.u. / div) APPENDIX

Activating estimation
Stepping down Rotor flux

Representing ˆri and Rˆ r with ri  ri and Rr  Rr ,

ˆr

respectively, one can rewriting (6) as (a1), on the bottom of this

ˆr 0.88(p.u. / div)
page.
t (s / div) For a small phase deviation, (a1) can be simplify as (a2)
Fig.17. Experimental estimation under simultaneous disturbances on both the under the assumptions of sin( ri )   ri , cos( ri )  1 and
mutual inductance and the rotor resistance
neglect of the high-order term.
As shown in Fig.15, when the mutual inductance, Lˆm , is
increased by 30% of its nominal value, the magnitude of the    
ri ri
observed rotor flux goes high as well until activation of the ism Lm
 Rr sin( i   )  Rr sin(i   )  Rr cos(i   ) 
estimation scheme. In about 2 s, the parameters of Lˆm and Rˆ r rim Lr  s ri s ri s ri ri 

are recovered to their actual values by the estimation scheme. (a2)

Similar process can be seen in Fig.16 where a disturbance is Subtracting (4) from (a2) yields (8).
made on the rotor resistance Rˆ r instead. To show the As presented in [11],[23], [38]-[39], the leakage inductance
converging process more clearly, the flux waveform is not can be considered as constant in the operating region of interest.
recorded in this figure. As predicted, Lˆm also experiences a Consequently, the rotor inductance, Lˆr , can be assumed to
transient process, although no disturbance on it in this change in the same way as the mutual inductance, Lˆ . The m
experiment. As done in the simulation, these two disturbances second terms on the right hands of (7) and (5) can be regarded
are also set simultaneously on both of the parameters Lˆm and as equal. The resultant equation by subtracting (7) with (5) is
Rˆ in the experiment. Shown in Fig.17 are the results. Even in  L   Lr rim
r rim  Rr r 2rim (a3)
this rigorous scenario, the convergence is still guaranteed, and Lr  Lr Lr
both of the two values are pulled back to their actual values in Comparing with L2r , the second term in the dominant can be
about 2 s. At the beginning of the converging process, i.e. right
removed. As a result, (a3) can be simplified as
after the activation of the estimation scheme, Lˆm gets higher
1
which results in the magnitude of the rotor flux also getting rim   rrim  Lr  rrim (a4)
higher. It is verified again that the magnitude of rotor flux is Lr
proportional to Lˆm , as discussed in Section II. As discussed above, the deviation in the rotor inductance, Lˆ , r
approximatively equals the deviation in the mutual inductance,
V. CONCLUSION Lˆm . Replacing Lr in (a4) with Lm , one can get (9).
This paper proposed a parameter estimation scheme for
IFOC of IMs. In this scheme, the errors in the phase and in the
magnitude of the current model rotor flux, from that given by REFERENCES
the designed observers, are input to the adaptive mechanisms [1] X. Yu, M. W. Dunnigan, and B. W. Williams, “A novel rotor resistance
respectively to estimate both the rotor resistance and the mutual identification method for an indirect rotor flux-orientated controlled

i L
ri  ri  sm m 
R sin( is  ri ) cos ri  Rr sin(is  ri ) cos ri  Rr cos(is  ri ) sin ri  Rr sin ri cos(is  ri )  (a1)
rim Lr  r

0885-8969 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TEC.2017.2699681, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion
TEC-00953-2016.R1
induction machine system,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol.17, no.3,
pp.353-364, May 2002.
[2] R. Krishnan, and A. S. Bharadwaj, “A review of parameter sensitivity
and adaptation in indirect vector controlled induction motor drive
systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol.6, no.4, pp.695-703, Oct.
1991.
[3] F. Jadot, F. Malrait, J. M. Valenzuela, and R. Sepulchre, “Adaptive
regulation of vector-controlled induction motors,” IEEE Trans. Control
Syst. Technol., vol.17, no.3, pp.646-657, May 2009.
[4] S. Sul, “Control of electric machine drive systems,” John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New Jersy: Hoboken, pp.236-245, 2011.
[5] S. M. N. Hasan, and I. Husain, “A Luenberger-sliding mode observer for
online parameter estimation and adaptation in high-performance
induction motor drives,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol.45, no.2,
pp.772-781, Mar./Apr. 2009.
[6] H. A. Toliyat, E. Levi, and M. Raina, “A review of RFO induction motor
parameter estimation techniques,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol.18,
no.2, pp. 271-283, June 2003.
[7] X. Zhang, “Sensorless induction motor drive using indirect vector
controller and sliding-motor observer for electric vehicles,” IEEE Trans.
Veh. Technol., vol. 62, no.7, pp.3010-3018, Sept. 2013.
[8] J. Kan, K. Zhang, Z. Wang, “Indirect vector control with simplified rotor
resistance adaption for induction machines,” IET Power Electron., vol.8,
iss.7, pp.1284-1294, 2015.
[9] C. Attainanese, G. Tomasso, A. Damiano, I. Marogiu, A. Perfetto, “A
novel approach to speed and parameters estimation in induction motor
drives,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol.14, no.4, pp.939-945, Dec.
1999.
[10] K.S. Huang, Q. H. Wu, and D. R. Turner, “Effective identification of
induction motor parameters based on fewer measurements,” IEEE Trans.
Energy Convers., vol.17, no.1, pp.55-60, Mar. 2002.
[11] S. K. Sul, “A novel technique of rotor resistance estimation considering
variation of mutual inductance,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol.25, no.4,
pp.578-587, Jul./Aug. 1989.
[12] E. Levi, M. Kola, and S. N. Vukosavic, “A method for mutual curve
identification in rotor flux oriented induction machines,” IEEE Trans.
Energy Convers., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 157–162, Jun. 2000.
[13] M. S. Zaky, M. M. Khater, S. S. Shokralla, and H. A. Yasin,
“Wide-speed-range estimation with online parameter identification
schemes of sensorless induction motor drives,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 1699–1707, May. 2009.
[14] A. Dittrich, “Parameter sensitivity of procedures for on-line adaptation of
the rotor time constant of induction machines with field oriented
control,” IEE Proc.-Electr. Power Appl., vol.141, no.6, pp. 353-359,
Nov.1994.
[15] J. C. Moreira, and T. A. Lipo, “A new method for rotor time constant
tuning in indirect field oriented control,” IEEE Trans. on Power
Electron., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 626–631, Oct. 1993.
[16] S. Wade, M. W. Dunnigan, and B. W. Williams, “A new method of rotor
resistance estimation for vector-controlled induction machines,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 247–257, Apr. 1997.
[17] M. W. Degner, J. M. Guerrero, and F. Briz, “Slip-gain estimation in
field-orientation-controlled induction machines using the system
transient response,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 702-711,
May./June. 2006.
[18] H. A. Toliyat, M. S. Arefeen, K. M. Rahman, and D. Figoli, “Rotor time
constant updating scheme for a rotor flux-oriented induction motor
drive,” IEEE Trans. on Power Electron., vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 850–857, Sep.
1999.
[19] T. Orlowska-Kowalska, “Application of extended Luenberger observer
for flux and rotor time-constant estimation in induction motor drives,”
IEE Proc. Part D, vol.136, no.6, pp.324-330, Nov. 1989.
[20] J. Laowanitwattana, and S. Uatrongjit, “Estimation of induction motor
states and parameters based on extended kalman filter considering
parameter constraints,” in Proc. of SPEEDAM, Capri, Italy, Jul. 28, 2016,
pp.755-760.
[21] A. B. Proca, and A. Keyhani, “Sliding-mode flux observer with online
rotor parameter estimation for induction motors,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol.54, no.2, pp.716- 723, April. 2007.
[22] S. N. Vukosavic, and M. R. Stojic, “On-line tuning of the rotor time
constant for vector-controlled induction motor in position control
applications,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 40, no. 1, pp.
130–138,Feb. 1993.
0885-8969 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
11
[23] J. Kan, K. Zhang, Z. Wang, “Indirect vector control with simplified rotor
resistance adaptation for induction machines,” IET Power Electron.,
vol.8, iss.7, pp.1284-1294, 2015.
[24] A. N. Smith, S. M. Gadoue, and J. W. Finch, “Improved rotor flux
estimation at low speeds for torque MRAS-based sensorless induction
motor drives,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol.31, no.1, pp. 270-282,
Mar. 2016.
[25] I. Benlaloui, S. Drid, L. C. Alaoui, and M. Ouriagli, “Implementation of
a new MRAS speed sensorless vector control of induction machine,”
IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol.30, no.2, pp.588-595, Jun. 2015.
[26] R. D. Lorenz, and D. B. Lawson, “A simplified approach to continuous
online tuning of field oriented induction machine drives,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 420–424, May./Jun. 1990.
[27] F. L. Mapelli, A. Bezzolato, D. Tarsitano, “A rotor resistance MRAS
estimator for induction motor traction drive for electrical vehicles”, in
Proc. ICEM, Marseille, France, Sept. 2012, pp.823-829.
[28] G. Kenne, R. S. Simo, F. L. Lagarrigue, A. Arzande, etc., “An online
simplified rotor resistance estimator for induction motors,” IEEE Trans.
Control Syst. Technol., vol.18, no.5, pp.1188-1194, Sept. 2010.
[29] A. Razzouk, A. Chériti, and P. Sicard, “Implementation of a DSP based
Real-time estimator of induction motors rotor time constant,” IEEE
Trans. on Power Electron., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 534-542, Jul. 2002.
[30] S. Maiti, C. Chaakraborty, Yoichi Hori, M.C. Ta, “Model reference
adaptive controller-based rotor resistance and speed estimation
techniques for vector controlled induction motor drive utilizing reactive
power,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 594-60, Feb.2008.
[31] J. Y. Ruan, and S. M. Wang, “Mutual curve estimation of induction
motors in single-phase magnetization mode considering differential
inductance effect,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol.31, no.1,
pp.497-506, Jan. 2016.
[32] F. Jadot, F. Malrait, J. M. Valenzuela, and R. Sepulchre, “Adaptive
regulation of vector-controlled induction motors,” IEEE Trans. Control
Syst. Technol., vol.17, no.3, pp.646-657, May 2009.
[33] D. H. Choi, M. H. Shin,T. K. Lee, S. B. Cho, and D. S. Hyun,“Vector
control of an induction motor for the field weakening region with tuning
of the mutual inductance,” in Proc. of Power Conversion Conference,
Nagaoka, Japan, Aug. 1997, pp. 107-112.
[34] J. Zhang, J. Chai, X. Sun, H. Lu, “Indirect vector control of induction
motor drives for electric vehicles based on parameters on-line tuning (in
Chinese),” Trans. of China Electrotechnical Scoiety, vol. 29, no.7,
pp.90-103, Jul. 2014.
[35] H. Y. Shi, and Y. Feng, “High-order terminal sliding mode flux observer
for induction motors (in Chinese),” Acta Automatica Sinica, vol.38, no.2,
pp.288-294, Feb. 2012.
[36] H. Shi, Y. Feng, “A hybrid sliding mode flux observer for induction
motor drive,” in Proc. of CCC, Yantai, China, Jul. 22-24, 2011,
pp.762-767.
[37] Y. Feng, X. Yu, and F. Han, “High-order terminal sliding-mode observer
for parameter estimation of a permanent-magnet synchronous motor,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol.60, no.10, pp. 4272- 4280, Oct. 2013.
[38] W. Lei, X. Deng, K. Hu, X. Zhang, and K. Wang, “A novel parameter
identification method for induction motor,” in Proc. of ICMTMA,
Changsha, China, Mar. 13, 2010, pp.265-268.
[39] M. O. Sonnaillon, G. Bisheimer, C. D. Angelo, and G. O. Garcia,
“Online sensorless induction motor termperature monitoring,” IEEE
Trans. Energy Convers., vol.25, no.2, pp.273-280, Jun. 2010.
[40] O. Barambones, and P. Alkorta, “Position control of the induction motor
using an adaptive sliding-mode controller and observers,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol.61, no. 12, pp.6556-6565, Dec. 2014.
[41] Y. Guan, Z. Q. Zhu, I. Afinowi, J. C. Mipo, “Influence of machine design
parameters on flux-weakening performance of induction machine for
electrical vehicle application,” IET Electr. Syst. Transp., vol.5, iss.1,
pp.43-52, 2015.
[42] D. Casadei, M. Mengoni, G. Serra, A. Tani, and L. Zarri, “A control
scheme with energy saving and DC-link overvoltage rejection for
induction motor drives of electric vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.,
vol.46, no.4, pp.1436-1446, Jul./Aug. 2010.
[43] T. Bhattacharya, and L. Umanand, “Improved flux estimation and
stator-resistance adaptation scheme for sensorless control of induction
motor,” IEE Proc.-Electr. Power Appl., vol. 153, no. 6, pp.911-920, Nov.
2006.
[44] J. Jung, and K. Nam, “A dynamic decoupling control scheme for
high-speed operation of Induction motors,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol.46, no.1, pp.100-110, Feb. 1999.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TEC.2017.2699681, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion

TEC-00953-2016.R1 12

[45] M. S. Zaky, M. M. Khater, H. Yasin, and S. S. Shokralla, “Magnetizing
inductance identification algorithm for operation of speed-sensorless
induction motor drives in the field weakening region,” in Proc. of
MEPCON Aswan, Egypt, Mar. 12-15, 2008, pp. 103-108.
Shuying Yang (M’13) received the B. S.
and Ph.D degrees in automation and
electrical engineering from Hefei
University of the Technology (HFUT),
Hefei, China, in 2002 and 2008,
respectively. He joined the teaching
faculty of the School of Electrical
Engineering and Automation, HFUT, in
2005. From Aug. 2014 to Oct. 2015, he
served as a visiting scholar at the University of New Brunswick,
Canada. Now, he is an Associate Professor with HFUT. His
research interests and experience include renewable energy
conversion, electrical drives, and application of control theory.
Dawei Ding was born in Nantong, China,
in 1991. He received the B.Sc. degree
from the School of Electrical Engineering
and Automation, HeFei University of
Technology (HFUT), in 2010. At this
time he has finished his dissertation for
master degree. His research interests are
in the area of motor drives.
Photovoltaic Engineering Research Center of Ministry of
Education, China.
He is an Associate Editor for the IEEE Journal of Emerging
and Selected Topics in Power Electronics. He has been
cooperating with the Sungrow Power Supply Co., Ltd for a long
time in the area of power electronics. His main research
interests include photovoltaic generation technologies, wind
power generation technologies, and distributed generation
system.
Liuchen Chang (M’92–SM’99)
received the B.S.E.E. degree from
Northern Jiaotong University, Beijing,
in 1982; the M.Sc. degree from the
China Academy of Railway Sciences,
Beijing, in 1984; and the Ph.D. degree
from Queen’s University, Kingston, in
1991. He is a Professor at the University
of New Brunswick, leading the
Sustainable Power Research Group and
numerous large-scaled collaborative research projects. He has
published over 310 journal and conference papers.
His research interests and experience include distributed
generation, renewable energy conversion, direct load controls
in a smart grid environment, and power electronic converters.
Dr. Chang is a fellow of Canadian Academy of
Engineering.

Xi Li was born in Jiamusi, China, in 1992.

She received the B.Sc. degree from the
School of Electrical Engineering and
Automation, HeFei University of
Technology (HFUT), in 2010. At this
time she has finished her dissertation for
master degree. Her research interests are
in the area of motor drives.

Zhen Xie (M’13) received the Ph.D

degree in electrical engineering from
Hefei University of Technology (HFUT),
Hefei, China, in 2006.
From 2006 to 2016, he was a Lecturer
and then an Associate Professor with the
School of Electrical Engineering and
Automation, HFUT, where, he is
currently a Professor. His current research
interests include the control of doubly fed induction generators
for wind power generation and renewable energy conversion
systems.
Xing Zhang (M’13-SM’16) received the
B.S., MA. Eng., and PhD degrees in
automation, automation, and electrical
engineering from Hefei University of
Technology (HFUT), Hefei, China, in
1984, 1990, and 2003, respectively.
In1984, he joined the teaching faculty of
School of Electrical Engineering and
Automation, HFUT, where he is
currently a professor and is also at the

0885-8969 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.