IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 49, NO.

2, MARCH/APRIL 2013 889

Speed Control of Electrical Drives Using

Classical Control Methods
Lennart Harnefors, Senior Member, IEEE, Seppo E. Saarakkala, and Marko Hinkkanen, Member, IEEE

Abstract—A classical control approach to the design and anal-
ysis of proportional–integral (PI) speed controllers for electrical
drives is presented. After vindicating the fact that traditional
one-degree-of-freedom PI control generally gives unsatisfactory
performance, a well-performing two-degree-of-freedom PI con-
troller is designed, with analytical parameter selection. The ro-
bustness of the obtained closed-loop system is analyzed and is
found to be satisfactory. All the proposed control designs are
validated by means of experiments.
Index Terms—Analytical tuning, disturbance rejection, pre-
filtering, robustness, speed control, tracking performance, two-
degree-of-freedom (2DOF) proportional (P)–integral (PI) control.
I. I NTRODUCTION
P ERHAPS somewhat surprisingly, still today, significant
attention is being directed to speed control of electrical
drives. The reasons for this interest—despite that the mechan-
ical dynamics are only first order—are, most likely, that the
dynamics may be nonlinear and/or time varying and that it often
is essential to gain both good speed-reference tracking and good
load-torque rejection.
The latter two objectives cannot both be met with a stan-
dard one-degree-of-freedom (1DOF) proportional (P)–integral
(PI) controller. An enhancement is to employ two-degree-
of-freedom (2DOF) PI control [1]–[7], e.g., the so-called
integral–P (IP) control [1], [4], [7]. Alternative methods include
the usage of a phase-locked loop [8], auto-disturbance rejection
[9], load-torque estimation and feedforward [10], and adaptive
techniques [11], [12]. Various nonlinear methods, including
fuzzy logic [13]–[18], neural networks [19]–[21], and sliding
mode (variable structure) control [22]–[28], have also been
proposed. Reference [29] offers a comparison of PI and fuzzy
speed control.
Most publications focus on a particular motor type: dc motor
(DCM) [1], [22], induction motor (IM) [2], [6]–[9], [14], [18],
[19], [21], [24], [27], [28], permanent-magnet synchronous mo-
tor (PMSM) [4], [10], [11], [15]–[17], [20], [26], or switched
Manuscript received February 9, 2012; revised May 9, 2012; accepted June 1,
2012. Date of publication February 1, 2013; date of current version March 15,
2013. Paper 2012-IDC-067.R1, presented at the 2011 IEEE Energy Conversion
Congress and Exposition, Phoenix, AZ, USA, September 17–22, and approved
for publication in the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON I NDUSTRY A PPLICATIONS
by the Industrial Drives Committee of the IEEE Industry Applications Society.
L. Harnefors is with ABB AB, Corporate Research, 721 78 Västerås, Sweden
(e-mail: lennart.harnefors@se.abb.com).
S. E. Saarakkala and M. Hinkkanen are with the Department of
Electrical Engineering, Aalto University, 00076 Aalto, Finland (e-mail:
seppo.saarakkala@aalto.fi; marko.hinkkanen@aalto.fi).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIA.2013.2244194
0093-9994/$31.00 © 2013 IEEE
reluctance motor [5], [25]. Nonetheless, this is an unneces-
sary restriction. As will be shown, the electrical dynamics are
transparent as seen from the mechanical dynamics. Motor-type-
specific issues can be handled as special cases of the general
theory, as can often also speed-sensorless drives.
The main contribution of this paper is the presentation of an
analytical 2DOF PI controller design method and its robustness
analysis. The benefits of the method are as follows.
1) Unlike many of the previously proposed linear (PI-type)
controllers, the controller gains are analytically param-
etrized in the inertia (which is the sole critical parameter)
as well as in the desired closed-loop bandwidth. Trial-
and-error steps in the design procedure are reduced to
a minimum, and gain scheduling [30] of known inertia
variations can easily be incorporated.
2) The design is made such that oscillatory response is
avoided. The responses to reference and load-torque
changes are both shown to be excellent. While the result-
ing controller is closely related to that presented in [2], it
can be designed to give better performance.
3) Unlike many of the previously proposed nonlinear con-
trollers, our controller is very easy to understand and
implement.
4) The proposed 2DOF method can be easily used also for
the speed control design of servo drive systems. In servo
systems, the speed does not usually change stepwise,
but trapezoidal speed profiles are used instead [31]. In
this case, the accurate tracking of the reference during
acceleration and deceleration is important.
5) The robustness to unmodeled (i.e., higher order) dynam-
ics and to inertia variations is shown to be excellent,
provided that the model inertia is overestimated.
In addition, it is, for tutorial purposes, explicitly shown that
1DOF PI control is unable to give adequate performance.
The message that we hope to convey is that classical-control
methods—i.e., 2DOF PI control, pole-placement design, and
frequency-domain analysis—are well suited for speed control
of electrical drives (although they may erroneously be perceived
as obsolete).
The outline of the paper is as follows. A discussion on
modeling of the mechanical dynamics is given in Section II.
In Section III, load-torque feedforward and P controller design
is presented in order to set the stage, followed by 1DOF and
2DOF PI controller designs. Section IV addresses robustness
issues. In Sections III and IV, all the presented control designs
are verified by means of experiments.
890 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 49, NO. 2, MARCH/APRIL 2013
II. M ECHANICAL DYNAMICS
A. Fundamentals
The mechanical dynamics of a single-mass electrical motor
drive are given by Newton’s law for rotating bodies
dωm
J = τe − τ l (1)
dt
where J is the total (moment of) inertia (i.e., of the motor itself
and of the mechanical load), ωm is the angular mechanical rotor
speed, τe is the electrical (driving) torque, and τl is the load
torque. The dynamics are primarily determined by the inertia. If
a constant nominal (rated) net torque τe − τl = τnom is applied
at standstill, then the speed will increase linearly until nominal
speed ωm = ωnom is reached after the open-loop rise time tro .
The latter is proportional to the inertia as
Jωnom
tro = . (2)
τnom
B. Electrical Torque
For DCMs, very quick and accurate torque response can
be accomplished by maintaining a constant flux and varying
the armature current via closed-loop control of a thyristor or
dc/dc converter. Similar performance of converter (inverter)-
fed ac motors can be achieved by mimicking the DCM dy-
namics through field-oriented control (FOC) or direct torque
control [32]. A torque response in the millisecond range can be
achieved, which is generally several orders of magnitude faster
than the closed-loop mechanical dynamics. As a consequence,
the electrical dynamics can be neglected (i.e., considered in
the steady state as seen from the mechanical dynamics), which
allows us to express
  
 ref max def τeref ,
  if τeref  ≤ τemax
τe= sat τe , τe =
τemax sgn τeref , if τeref  > τemax
(3)
where τeref is the torque reference, τemax is the maximum torque,
and sgn(·) is the signum function.
The selection of τemax depends on the converter rating.
Unlike motors, converters generally do not have a short-term
overload capability. Consequently, to permit short-term over-
load and faster transient response, a converter with a higher
rating than the motor is often selected, which allows τemax to be
set up to 3τnom during transients [33]. Above base speed, i.e.,
in the field-weakening region, τemax is reduced approximately
as the inverse of the speed [6], [34], [35].
C. Load Torque
The load torque is, in many cases, nonlinear in the speed.
This may be modeled as a function f (ωm ). There is, in many
cases, also a contribution τL which is independent of the speed
but may be time varying, perhaps stepwise. Thus, we have
τl = τL + f (ωm ). (4)
Fig. 1. Illustration of the speed control loop. The torque controller computes
switching commands to the converter, which, in turn, powers the (M) motor.
This expression may be linearized in the neighborhood of an
operating point ω0 as (provided that f  (ω0 ) exists, e.g., with
nonlinear friction, it does not for ω0 = 0 [36])
τl = τL + f (ω0 ) + f  (ω0 )(ωm − ω0 ) (5)
 
B
where B is the viscous damping constant.
III. S PEED C ONTROLLER D ESIGN
In this section, we shall, after a review of some fundamen-
tals, discuss load-torque feedforward. Thereafter, P control,
1DOF PI control, and 2DOF PI control are considered, in turn.
Although the first two methods give inadequate performance,
this way of presentation allows the final 2DOF PI controller to
be designed in a logical chain of increasing complexity.
All of the presented methods are experimentally tested after
the design phase by means of examples. The experimental
setup, used in the examples, consists of two mechanically
coupled PMSMs. An inverter-fed 2.2-kW 1500-r/min six-pole
PMSM, controlled with a dSPACE DS1103 digital signal pro-
cessor (DSP) board, is used as test drive. Torque control is
accomplished through FOC. The bandwidth of the torque (i.e.,
current) control loop is αc = 1.4 krad/s [42]. A servo PMSM is
used as loading machine. The rotor speed ωm is measured using
an incremental encoder. The total inertia is J = 0.02 kg · m2 .
The open-loop rise time of the system can be calculated using
(2), and it is tro = 0.22 s.
A. Fundamentals
The speed control loop is closed by feedback from a speed
sensor to the speed controller, as shown in Fig. 1. Entering the
speed controller is, of course, also the speed reference ωref . The
transfer function of the mechanical dynamics from τe − τl to
ωm is immediately found by taking the Laplace transform of
(1). It is simply an integrator
1
G(s) = . (6)
sJ
It is unavoidable that some high-frequency measurement noise
n will add in the speed sensing, giving a measured speed
ωmeas = ωm + n.
Today, many drives are sensorless, i.e., ωm is estimated
rather than measured (giving an estimate ω̂m ), using variables
available in the converter control algorithms. For both IMs
and PMSMs, sensorless speed estimation can be made with
high bandwidth and accuracy, except perhaps in the low-speed
HARNEFORS et al.: SPEED CONTROL OF ELECTRICAL DRIVES USING CLASSICAL CONTROL METHODS 891

Regardless whether load-torque feedforward is used or not, the

closed-loop system from ωref to ωm will be given by
F (s)G(s)
Gc (s) = (10)
1 + F (s)G(s)
whereas the load transfer function from Δτl to ωm becomes
G(s)
Gl (s) = − . (11)
1 + F (s)G(s)

Fig. 2. Block diagram of the closed speed control loop. The (optional) load-
torque estimator and feedforward are indicated by the dashed lines.
region (typically, |ωm | < 0.1ωnom ) [37]. As long as operation
outside the low-speed region is of primary interest, it is not nec-
essary to treat sensorless drives separately; it can be assumed
that ω̂m = ωm . However, it is not unusual for the measurement
noise n to be stronger than that for a comparable sensored drive,
because of voltage and current harmonics. For IMs, n also often
has a small steady-state bias due to an inaccurate model rotor
resistance [38].
B. Load-Torque Feedforward and Closed-Loop
Transfer Functions
If an estimate τ̂l of the load torque is available, performance
can be improved by using a load-torque feedforward
τeref = τec
ref
+ τ̂l
ref
where τec is the contribution from the speed controller. The
load-torque estimator can be constructed as a model of (4)
τ̂l = τ̂L + fˆ(ωmeas ).
With F (s) as the speed controller to be designed, the block
diagram in Fig. 2 is obtained (for τe = τeref ).
The load-torque estimator forms an inner feedback loop, as
shown in Fig. 2. As an example, in pumps and fans, the load
torque is approximately quadratic in the speed as f (ωm ) = lωm 2
for ωm ≥ 0. A feedforward τ̂l = ˆlωmeas 2
can be used. If an
estimate B̂ of the viscous damping constant is available, then
τ̂l = B̂ωmeas can be introduced.
If fˆ(·) = f (·), the feedback loop formed by the nonlinear
load-torque contribution is canceled. This is an exact lineariza-
tion of the system [39]. However, fˆ(·) = f (·) is generally not a
realistic assumption; exact knowledge of the speed–load-torque
C. P Control
The simplest option is to use pure P control, i.e., F (s) = Kp
(cf. Fig. 2)
ref
τec = Kp e e = ωref − ωmeas . (12)
The resulting transfer functions become Gc (s) = (Kp /J)/
(s + Kp /J) and Gl (s) = −(1/(s + Kp /J)J), respectively.
Both have a pole at s = −Kp /J, which can be placed arbi-
trarily by proper selection of Kp . Letting
Kp = α s J (13)
places the pole at s = −αs , i.e., αs becomes the bandwidth
of Gc (s).
Note that Gc (s) has unity static gain (owing to the inte-
grator characteristic of the mechanical dynamics), whereas a
constant Δτl will result in a steady-state control error e(∞) =
−Gl (0)Δτl = Δτl /(αs J). The latter is the (well-known) rea-
son why P control is inadequate. With (13), the closed-loop
(7) system will have time constant 1/αs and a 10%-to-90%-of-the-
step rise time trc = ln 9/αs . Starting with a specification for
trc , the bandwidth should thus be selected as
ln 9 2.2
αs = ≈ . (14)
trc trc
(8)
The open-loop rise time tro was defined assuming nominal
torque. Consequently, the closed-loop dynamics cannot be
made significantly faster for large speed-reference steps. On
the other hand, for smaller steps and other smaller changes,
the dynamics can easily be speeded up, often by up to one
decade, i.e., 0.1tro ≤ trc ≤ tro . An attempt to make the closed-
loop system too fast will result in too high a P gain, however;
cf. (13). This gives a bang-bang-type control and often also an
unreasonably high amplification of the measurement noise n.
D. 1DOF PI Control
A standard PI controller

characteristic is fairly rare. Moreover, the speed-independent ref

τec = Kp e + Ki edt e = ωref − ωmeas (15)
part τL is often unknown or only partially known, which makes
a good estimate τ̂L unobtainable. An error
with transfer function F (s) = Kp + Ki /s is used. We now
obtain
Δτl = τl − τ̂l (9)
Ki
Kp s+ K p
Gc (s) = (16)
is therefore unavoidable. J s2 + Kp s + Ki
J J
Load-torque feedforward shall be regarded as an option.
Speed controllers which give good performance even without 1 s
Gl (s) = − Kp Ki
. (17)
this feature (i.e., Δτl = τl ) will be designed in this section. J s2 +
J s + J
892 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 49, NO. 2, MARCH/APRIL 2013

This time, Gl (0) = 0 (for Ki > 0), so zero steady-state control

error for a constant load torque is obtained.
The transient load-torque rejection is very dependent on the
parameter selection, though. Let us keep P-gain selection (13)
and, in addition, choose
 2
αs
Ki = J. (18)
2ζ

A denominator polynomial s2 + αs s + (αs /2ζ)2 of both

Gc (s) and Gl (s) is obtained. With the substitution αs = 2ζω0 ,
this can be expressed in the standard form [30] as

s2 + 2ζω0 s + ω02 (19)

where ω0 is the undamped natural frequency and ζ is the

relative damping. Complex-conjugated poles with negative real
part are obtained for 0 < ζ < 1. Letting ζ = 1 yields a so-
called critically damped system with a double pole at s = −ω0 .
Letting ζ > 1 gives an overdamped system with one “fast” and
one “slow” pole (both real) and is not recommended. Fig. 3. Step response and load-torque rejection of the 1DOF PI control.
Returning now to the discussion on load-torque rejection, one
performance measure is the integrated error (IE) [30] resulting
from the application of a load-torque step Δτl at t = 0. This
can be calculated as

∞
Δτl Δτl
IE = edt = L{e}s=0 = − lim Gl (s) =
s→0 s Ki
0
 2
Δτl 2ζ Fig. 4. Block diagram of the 2DOF structure.
= (20)
J αs
leads to αs = 50 rad/s. The measurement noise n in the exper-
where “L” indicates the Laplace transform. To obtain a small iments is filtered using a 500-rad/s first-order low-pass filter.
IE, Ki should be as large as possible, i.e., ζ should be as Performance is evaluated with a small reference step, from 0
small as possible. However, it is well known that a small to 0.15ωnom , to avoid application of maximum torque. A rated
ζ implies oscillatory response and poor stability robustness. load-torque step is applied at t = 0.55 s. Fig. 3 shows that a
Oscillations will cancel in the integral in (20), making the IE fairly large overshoot appears in the reference step response.
a poor performance measure. To avoid this, we consider the The rise time is, in both cases, slightly below the 44 ms, which
phase margin φm [30], which is calculated by first finding is due to the added I part.
the crossover frequency ωc for the open-loop transfer function The overshoot can be reduced—although not fully
Gk (s) = F (s)G(s) (i.e., where |Gk (jωc )| = 1) eliminated—by increasing ζ beyond one but at the expense of
deteriorating load-torque rejection; cf. (20). Hence, we have
αs  vindicated the fact that 1DOF PI control is inherently incapable
ωc = 2ζ 2 + 4ζ 4 + 1 (21)
2ζ of simultaneously meeting good step reference tracking and
good load-torque rejection.
giving

φm = π + arg Gk (jωc ) E. 2DOF PI Control


 
= arctan 2ζ 2ζ 2 + 4ζ 4 + 1 . (22)
◦
 IV), φm ≥ 60 is spec-
To gain robust performance (see Section
ified, yielding the recommendation 3/8 ≤ ζ ≤ 1. (For ζ = 1,
◦
φm = 76 , which is ample.) The minimum IE is obtained for
ζ = 3/8 ≈ 0.61 as IEmin = 3Δτl /(2αs2 J).
Example 1: A 1DOF PI controller is designed, following
the given recommendation. The closed-loop bandwidth αs is
selected according to (14), where trc = 0.2tro = 44 ms. This
To reduce or eliminate the overshoot appearing for 1DOF PI
control, the structure can be modified by adding a feedforward
controller Fr (s) for the reference, as shown in Fig. 4. The
feedback of ωm is unchanged related to the 1DOF PI controller,
so the same parameter selections (13) and (18) can be used.
It means that the load-torque rejection and the measurement
noise amplification remain the same as in the case of the 1DOF
control. One common modification is to use the so-called set-
point (i.e., reference) weighting [30], given in a feedforward
form as Fr (s) = Kp (b − 1), b < 1. (IP control [1], [4], [7]
HARNEFORS et al.: SPEED CONTROL OF ELECTRICAL DRIVES USING CLASSICAL CONTROL METHODS 893

is a special case when b = 0.) This makes the controller less

“aggressive” for steps in the reference, which reduces the
overshoot but also increases the rise time. We here propose a
slightly more elaborate scheme.
In the 2DOF control structure, the closed-loop transfer func-
tion Gc (s) from ωref to ωm becomes

Fr (s)G(s) + F (s)G(s)
Gc (s) = . (23)
1 + F (s)G(s)

In principle, Gc (s) can be selected arbitrarily by selecting a

proper feedforward controller Fr (s) according to (23), keeping
in mind the causality of Fr (s). To eliminate the overshoot
appearing in the step response of the 1DOF control, first-order
dynamics are selected

mαs
Gc (s) = . (24)
s + mαs
Gc (s) has a pole at s = −mαs , where parameter m can be used
to freely select the location of the pole. The transfer function
Fr (s) can be solved from (23) and (24) by substituting the
transfer functions of the process G(s) and the PI controller
F (s). It is given by
 
Jαs (m − 1)s − αs
4ζ 2
Fr (s) =
s + mαs
An important special case is m = 1. This implies that the
load-torque rejection and measurement noise amplification are
identical to the ones of 1DOF PI control, whereas the reference
tracking capability is identical to the one of pure P control. The
feedforward transfer function becomes a first-order low-pass
filter
 2
αs
J 2ζ
Fr (s) = − . (26)
s + αs
Example 2: The controller of Example 1 is modified to a
2DOF PI controller, and the tests are repeated. This time, only
the step response is evaluated because the 2DOF structure
does not change the load-torque rejection characteristics of the
system. The results in Fig. 5 show the step response of the
system, when the filter (26) is used. The reference step-response
rise time is the predicted 44 ms, and there is no overshoot. For
a certain Kp , and thus a certain noise amplification, it is hard to
gain significant further improvement.
1) Relation to the Prefiltering Structure: In many commer-
cial motion control algorithms, a structure with a standard PI
controller F (s) and a prefilter for the reference, as shown in
Fig. 6, is readily available. In this case, the prefilter transfer
function Hr (s) can be solved from the closed-loop transfer
function
Hr (s)F (s)G(s)
Gc (s) = . (27)
1 + F (s)G(s)
Fig. 5. Step responses of the 1DOF and the 2DOF PI control, with ζ = 0.61
and m = 1.
. (25)
Fig. 6. Block diagram of the prefiltering structure.
As an example, the prefilter for m = 1 becomes
 2
s2 + αs s + α2ζs
Hr (s) =    2 . (28)
s2 + 1 + 4ζ12 αs s + α2ζs
Hr (s) has unity gain for both low and high frequencies,
whereas the gain in a frequency band about ω = αs /2ζ is
reduced; we have Hr (j(αs /2ζ)) = 1/(1 + (1/4ζ 2 )).
The 2DOF PI controller in [2] uses a first-order lead–lag
prefilter. Consequently, the ideal closed-loop system Gc (s) =
αs /(s + αs ) cannot be exactly obtained, but a good approxi-
mation can.
2) Relation to the “Active Damping” Structure: The speed
controller structure in [35] consists of a standard PI controller
with gains selected as Kp = αs J and Ki = αs2 J. In addition,
there is an inner feedback of ωm with gain Ba = αs J − B [the
load torque is assumed to be linearized according to (5)]. The
effective P gain in the feedback loop is thus 2αs J − B, whereas
the P gain for the reference is αs J.
This is, in effect, a set-point weighting (with b = 1/2) PI
controller with load-torque feedforward. It can be recast into the
2DOF structure proposed here, through the following steps.
1) Substitute αs = αs /2.
2) Apply gain selections (13) and (18), the latter with ζ = 1.
3) Substitute m = 1/2 and ζ = 1 in (25), which leads to
Fr (s) = −αs J/2.
894 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 49, NO. 2, MARCH/APRIL 2013

4) Introduce a load-torque feedforward τ̂l = Bωmeas (which

is a positive feedback).
For a certain Kp and, thus, a certain noise amplification,
the load-torque rejection resulting from the “active damping”
structure is identical to the 2DOF PI controller proposed in
this paper (with ζ = 1). However, from (24), it is found that
the closed-loop system has only half the bandwidth: Gc (s) =
(αs /2)/(s + αs /2).

F. 2DOF PI Control for Servo Systems

In servo applications, the speed reference normally does not
change stepwise. Instead, trapezoidal speed references are often
used, when the system is driven from one position to another.
When a trapezoidal speed reference is used, the system is first
accelerated to constant speed and then decelerated back to zero
speed. It is important that the speed-controlled system is able
to track the reference during the acceleration and deceleration
without steady-state error.
Let us study the tracking error of the proposed 2DOF system Fig. 7. Tracking error of the 2DOF PI control during a constant acceleration,
when different feedforward filter structures are used.
if the system is accelerated with a constant acceleration a. This
means that the speed reference is ωref (t) = at, which is in the
s-domain ωref (s) = a/s2 . The tracking error E(s) of the Example 3: The tests of Example 2 are repeated, but now,
closed-loop system (24) can be expressed as the system is first accelerated to a constant speed 0.8ωnom
in 0.2 s. Fig. 7 shows the reference tracking error during
E(s) = ωmeas (s) − ωref (s) the acceleration, when using (26) and (32). It can be seen
= ωref (s) [Gc (s) − 1] that, if the filter for step references (26) is used, a constant
a steady-state tracking error occurs. Better tracking capability is
=− . (29)
s(s + mαs ) obtained when the feedforward filter is designed for trapezoidal
references according to (32).
The steady-state tracking error ess can be solved from (29)
applying the final value theorem
G. Discrete-Time Implementation
ess = lim e(t) = lim sE(s)
t→∞
 s→0
 The proposed 2DOF PI controller can be implemented digi-
a a
= lim − =− . (30) tally, e.g., on a DSP. With I as an integrator variable, the torque
s→0 s + mαs mαs reference is formed as
This constant steady-state tracking error occurs for the first-
order closed-loop system. In order to obtain zero steady-state
ref
τe,k = Kp (ωref,k − ωmeas,k ) + Ki Ik + τff,k + τ̂l,k (33)
tracking error for trapezoidal references, the order of the closed-
loop transfer function should be higher than one. Moreover, the where k is the sample index, representing the time instant
constant coefficient and the coefficient of s should be equal in t = kTs , where Ts is the sample period. The feedforward torque
the numerator and in the denominator. Critically damped poles is τff,k . The gains Kp and Ki are given by (13) and (18),
are selected for the closed-loop transfer function, leading to the respectively.
following second-order transfer function: The integral part can be implemented using forward-
difference discretization, i.e. s = (z − 1)/Ts [30]. It is worth
2mαs s + m2 αs2 noticing that other discretization methods are also available
Gc (s) = . (31)
s2 + 2mαs s + m2 αs2 [41]. Zero-order hold, where z = esTs or Tustin’s bilinear rule,
It can explicitly be shown that, when using (31), limt→∞ e(t) = where s = (2/Ts )(z − 1)/(z + 1), can be mentioned. There
0. The closed-loop transfer function Gc (s) has a double pole at are several “tricks” which can be used to prevent integrator
s = −mαs . Parameter m is used to freely select the location of windup—an important consideration for speed control, as the
the double pole. The feedforward transfer function Fr (s) can torque reference often goes into saturation. One of the better
be solved from (23) ways is the “back calculation” [30], [35] or “realizable ref-
   erence” [40] method, where the error between the realizable
Jαs s (2m − 1)s + αs m2 − 4ζ12 torque and the torque reference, scaled by 1/Kp , is fed back
Fr (s) = . (32) into the integrator. The following integrator update is obtained:
(s + mαs )2
 
It is worth noticing that, if ζ = 1 and m = 1/2 are selected, 1  
Ik+1 = Ik + Ts ωref,k − ωmeas,k + τe,k − τe,k
ref
(34)
then (16) and (31) are identical, leading to Fr (s) = 0. Kp
HARNEFORS et al.: SPEED CONTROL OF ELECTRICAL DRIVES USING CLASSICAL CONTROL METHODS 895

Fig. 8. Block diagram of the proposed 2DOF PI controller.

where the realizable torque τe,k is computed according to (3).

All presented examples have included “back calculation.” Also,
the feedforward torque τff,k can be implemented using the
forward-difference method. As an example, the implementation
of feedforward filter (26) can be given as

αs J
τff,k+1 = τff,k − Ts αs τff,k + 2 ωref,k . (35)
4ζ
A block diagram of the controller is shown in Fig. 8.
IV. ROBUSTNESS
Robustness is a common term for various aspects of a control
system’s tolerance of model errors with respect to stability [30].
Specifying a phase margin of at least 60◦ , as we have done,
is a good way of ensuring robustness. Not only it is unlikely
that system stability will be jeopardized but also it is likely that
robust performance will be obtained. That is, reasonable model
errors will not result in severely degraded performance.
A. Unmodeled Dynamics
In the second-order (including the PI controller) system
model considered, some modes remain unmodeled, including
the dynamics of the following:
1) current and flux (the latter for DCMs and IMs in the
field-weakening region and for IMs under imperfect field-
orientation conditions);
2) measurement and antialiasing filters (for a sensored
drive);
3) sensorless estimation algorithm (for a sensorless drive,
particularly at low speeds);
4) time delays resulting from analog/digital conversion and
computation.
Neglecting the impact of these makes sense, as they normally
are many orders of magnitude faster than the closed speed
control loop. Nevertheless, for fast drives with high bandwidth
and/or under certain conditions, the total effect may become
noticeable, so performing an analysis is a good precaution.
Let us lump the unmodeled dynamics into a first-order lag
1 ζ = 3/8 to get the worst case), this time with the inclusion
GL (s) = (36)
sL + 1
which is inserted in the feedback loop. (For simplicity, a load-
torque feedforward involving positive feedback is assumed not
to be used.) The next step is to find out how large L can get
Fig. 9. Step response and load-torque rejection of the 2DOF PI control with
ζ = 0.61 and m = 1.
before performance deteriorates. For this purpose, we study the
modified open-loop system, which is given by
Gk (s) = Gk (s)GL (s) (37)
cf. Section III-D. It is reasonable to assume that L is small
enough so that |GL (jωc )| ≈ 1 at the crossover frequency ωc ,
the latter which thus still is given by (21). The incurred phase
lag arg GL (jωc ) is taken into account, though. Inspecting (21),
it is seen that ωc decreases monotonically with ζ. Hence, the
highest ωc , and consequently also the largest phase lag, is
obtained
 for the smallest recommended relative √ damping, i.e.,
ζ = 3/8. For this value, we get ωc = 2αs / 3 and
√ √
arg GL (j2αs / 3) = − arctan(2αs L/ 3). (38)
To ensure robust performance, φm should not decrease be-
low 45◦ —characteristically, the
√minimum recommended phase
◦
margin [30]. Since ωc = 2α√ s / 3 gives φm = 60 for the nom-
inal system, arg GL (j2αs / 3) > −15◦ is required, giving
√
3 tan(π/12) 0.23
L< ≈ . (39)
2αs αs
That is, the time constant of the first-order lag can be up to
23% of the closed-loop-system time constant 1/αs without
significant performance deterioration. This is quite generous
an allowance, which shows that unmodeled dynamics normally
should not be a problem.
Example 4: The tests of Examples 2 and 3 are repeated (for

of a first-order lag with L = 0.23/αs , to represent unmod-
eled dynamics. The first-order lag is obtained when the band-
width of the torque-control loop is αc = αs /0.23 = 220 rad/s.
Figs. 9 and 10 show that acceptable performance is obtained for
both step and trapezoidal references.
896 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 49, NO. 2, MARCH/APRIL 2013

Fig. 10. Ramp response tracking error of the 2DOF PI control with ζ = 0.61 Fig. 11. Step response and load-torque rejection of the 2DOF PI control with
and m = 1. ζ = 0.61 and m = 1.

B. Imperfectly Modeled Inertia

The sole critical parameter is the inertia J. In some applica-
tions, J varies over time. Sometimes, the variations are known,
e.g., for spool drives, where the inertia increases monotonically
until the spool is fully loaded and the rotation stops. Then, Kp
and Ki can be adjusted online via (13) and (18)—a principle
known as gain scheduling [30]. On the other hand, if the
variations are unknown, there will often be a mismatch between
the true and model inertias. In that case, it is important to ensure
performance robustness.
Let us substitute J → Jˆ in (13) and (18), where Jˆ is the
model inertia. The poles of the closed-loop system are now
found to be
  
αs Jˆ J
s=− 1±j − ζ2 . (40)
2J Jˆ

It is seen that overestimating the inertia, i.e., making Jˆ > J,
is beneficial. First, the poles move further into the left half
plane, making the system faster. Second, and more important,
the imaginary parts decrease relative to the real part, improving
damping. (For J/Jˆ < ζ 2 , the poles will be real.)
Thus, in a situation where the inertia varies in an unknown
manner but within reasonable limits, the model inertia Jˆ to be
used in the controller design should be set to the known upper
limit.
Example 5: The tests of Examples 2 and 3 are repeated
(for a reference step, from 0 to 0.1ωnom , to avoid exceeding
the maximum torque), this time for an overestimated inertia:
Jˆ = 0.03 kg · m2 (i.e., 50% too high). Fig. 11 shows that
acceptable step response performance is obtained also in this
case. Because a higher closed-loop bandwidth is effectively
obtained, the initial reference step response is faster, as is the
load-torque rejection. On the other hand, the settling time of the
step response is longer. Fig. 12 shows that maximum tracking
Fig. 12. Ramp response tracking error of the 2DOF PI control with ζ = 0.61
and m = 1.
error for trapezoidal reference is reduced, when the inertia is
overestimated.
V. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we have designed a 2DOF PI speed controller
for electrical drives, using analytical methods from classical-
control theory. Although such methods may be perceived as
obsolete, it was shown that the proposed controller gives good
reference tracking as well as good load-torque rejection, with-
out oscillatory behavior or major overshoots. Good robustness
to unmodeled dynamics and to an imperfectly modeled inertia
was also demonstrated.
Hence, conceiving more elaborate speed control schemes
may be regarded a questionable undertaking. More advanced
speed control should, however, be useful if the mechanical
HARNEFORS et al.: SPEED CONTROL OF ELECTRICAL DRIVES USING CLASSICAL CONTROL METHODS
dynamics are of higher order, i.e., a multimass system [43]–
[46], or there are nonlinearities which cannot be linearized
successfully, e.g., backlash [47] or nonlinear friction [36].
R EFERENCES
[1] P. K. Nandam and P. C. Sen, “Analog and digital speed control of dc
drives using proportional–integral and integral–proportional control tech-
niques,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. IE-34, no. 2, pp. 227–234,
May 1987.
[2] C.-M. Liaw and C.-M. Wu, “Design and implementation of a high-
performance field-oriented induction motor drive,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 275–282, Aug. 1991.
[3] C.-M. Liaw, “Design of a two-degree-of-freedom controller for motor
drives,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 1215–1220,
Aug. 1992.
[4] K.-T. Chang, T.-S. Low, and T.-H. Lee, “An optimal speed controller for
permanent-magnet synchronous motor drives,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Elec-
tron., vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 503–510, Oct. 1994.
[5] K. I. Hwu and C. M. Liaw, “Robust quantitative speed control of a
switched reluctance motor drive,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng.—Elect. Power
Appl., vol. 148, no. 4, pp. 345–353, Jul. 2001.
[6] M. S. Huang and C. M. Liaw, “Speed control for field-weakened induction
motor drive,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng.—Elect. Power Appl., vol. 152, no. 3,
pp. 565–576, May 2005.
[7] M. Jemli, H. Ben Azza, M. Boussak, and M. Gossa, “Sensorless indirect
stator field orientation speed control for single-phase induction motor
drive,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 1618–1627,
Jun. 2009.
[8] A. Takano, “Quick-response torque-controlled induction motor drives
using phase-locked loop speed control with disturbance compensation,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 640–646, Dec. 1996.
[9] G. Feng, Y.-F. Liu, and L. Huang, “A new robust algorithm to improve
the dynamic performance on the speed control of induction motor drive,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1614–1627, Nov. 2004.
[10] C. De Angelo, G. Bossio, J. Solsona, G. O. García, and M. Inéz Valla,
“Mechanical sensorless speed control of permanent-magnet ac motors
driving an unknown load,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 53, no. 2,
pp. 406–414, Apr. 2006.
[11] Y. A.-R. I. Mohamed, “Adaptive self-tuning speed control for permanent-
magnet synchronous motor drive with dead time,” IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 855–862, Dec. 2006.
[12] M. N. Uddin and M. M. I. Chy, “Online parameter-estimation-based speed
control of PM AC motor drive in flux-weakening region,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 1486–1494, Sep./Oct. 2008.
[13] C.-M. Liaw and S.-Y. Cheng, “Fuzzy two-degrees-of-freedom speed con-
troller for motor drives,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 42, no. 2,
pp. 209–216, Apr. 1995.
[14] L. Zhen and L. Xu, “Fuzzy learning enhanced speed control of an indi-
rect field-oriented induction machine drive,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst.
Technol., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 270–278, Mar. 2000.
[15] C. B. Butt, M. A. Hoque, and M. A. Rahman, “Simplified fuzzy-logic-
based MTPA speed control of IPMSM drive,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.,
vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1529–1535, Nov./Dec. 2004.
[16] M. N. Uddin and M. A. Rahman, “High-speed control of IPMSM drives
using improved fuzzy logic algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 190–199, Feb. 2007.
[17] Y.-S. Kung and M.-H. Tsai, “FPGA-based speed control IC for PMSM
drive with adaptive fuzzy control,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 22,
no. 6, pp. 2476–2486, Nov. 2007.
[18] M. Masiala, B. Vafakhah, J. Salmon, and A. M. Knight, “Fuzzy self-tuning
speed control of an indirect field-oriented control induction motor drive,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 1732–1740, Nov./Dec. 2008.
[19] Y. S. Kung, C. M. Liaw, and M. S. Ouyang, “Adaptive speed control for in-
duction motor drives using neural networks,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 25–32, Feb. 1995.
[20] M. A. Rahman and A. A. Hoque, “Online self-tuning ANN-based speed
control of a PM DC motor,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics, vol. 2,
no. 3, pp. 169–178, Sep. 1997.
[21] T.-C. Chen and T.-T. Sheu, “Model reference neural network controller
for induction motor speed control,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 17,
no. 2, pp. 157–163, Jun. 2002.
[22] J. Y. Hung, R. M. Nelms, and P. B. Stevenson, “An output feedback sliding
mode speed regulator for DC drives,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 30,
no. 3, pp. 691–698, May/Jun. 1994.
897
[23] S. K. Chung, J. H. Lee, J. S. Ko, and M. J. Youn, “Robust speed control
of brushless direct-drive motor using integral variable structure control,”
Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng.—Elect. Power Appl., vol. 142, no. 6, pp. 361–370,
Nov. 1995.
[24] K.-K. Shyu and H.-J. Shieh, “A new switching surface sliding-mode speed
control for induction motor drive systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 660–667, Jul. 1996.
[25] T.-S. Chuang and C. Pollock, “Robust speed control of a switched reluc-
tance vector drive using variable structure approach,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 800–808, Dec. 1997.
[26] I.-C. Baik, K.-H. Kim, and M.-J. Youn, “Robust nonlinear speed con-
trol of PM synchronous motor using adaptive and sliding mode control
techniques,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng.—Elect. Power Appl., vol. 145, no. 4,
pp. 369–376, Nov. 1998.
[27] C.-M. Liaw, Y.-M. Lin, and K.-H. Chao, “A VSS speed controller with
model reference response for induction motor drive,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 1136–1147, Dec. 2001.
[28] M. Rashed, K. B. Goh, M. W. Dunnigan, P. F. A. MacConnell,
A. F. Stronach, and B. W. Williams, “Sensorless second-order sliding-
mode speed control of a voltage-fed induction-motor drive using nonlinear
state feedback,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng.—Elect. Power Appl., vol. 152,
no. 5, pp. 1127–1136, Sep. 2005.
[29] Z. Ibrahim and E. Levi, “A comparative analysis of fuzzy logic and
PI speed control in high-performance AC drives using experimental
approach,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 1210–1218,
Sep./Oct. 2002.
[30] K. Åström and T. Hägglund, PID Controllers: Theory, Design, and
Tuning, 2nd ed. Research Triangle Park, NC, USA: Instrum. Soc. Amer.,
1995.
[31] G. Ellis, Control System Design Guide: A Practical Guide. San Diego,
CA, USA: Elsevier, 2004.
[32] B. K. Bose, Ed., Power Electronics and Variable Frequency Drives.
Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE Press, 1996.
[33] N. Mohan, T. M. Undeland, and W. P. Robbins, Power Electronics: Con-
verters, Applications, and Design, 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: Wiley,
1995.
[34] J.-M. Kim and S.-K. Sul, “Speed control of interior permanent magnet
synchronous motor drive for the flux weakening operation,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 43–48, Jan./Feb. 1997.
[35] L. Harnefors, K. Pietiläinen, and L. Gertmar, “Torque-maximizing field-
weakening control: Design, analysis, and parameter selection,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 161–168, Feb. 2001.
[36] D.-H. Lee and J.-W. Ahn, “Dual speed control scheme of servo drive sys-
tem for a nonlinear friction compensation,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 959–965, Mar. 2008.
[37] L. Harnefors, M. Jansson, R. Ottersten, and K. Pietiläinen, “Unified sen-
sorless vector control of synchronous and induction motors,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 153–160, Feb. 2003.
[38] H. Kubota and K. Matsuse, “Speed sensorless field-oriented control of
induction motor with rotor resistance adaptation,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.,
vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 1219–1224, Sep./Oct. 1994.
[39] T. Glad and L. Ljung, Control Theory: Multivariable and Nonlinear
Methods. New York, NY, USA: Taylor & Francis, 2000.
[40] F. Briz, M. W. Degner, and R. D. Lorenz, “Analysis and design of current
regulators using complex vectors,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 36, no. 3,
pp. 817–825, May/Jun. 2000.
[41] G. F. Franklin and J. D. Powell, Digital Control of Dynamic Systems.
Reading, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley, 1980.
[42] L. Harnefors and H.-P. Nee, “Model-based current control of AC ma-
chines using the internal model control method,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.,
vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 133–141, Jan./Feb. 1998.
[43] G. Zhang and J. Furusho, “Speed control of two-inertia system by
PI/PID control,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 603–609,
Jun. 2000.
[44] M. A. Valenzuela, J. M. Bentley, and R. D. Lorenz, “Evaluation of tor-
sional oscillations in paper machine sections,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.,
vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 493–501, Mar./Apr. 2005.
[45] M. A. Valenzuela, J. M. Bentley, P. C. Aguilera, and R. D. Lorenz,
“Improved coordinated response and disturbance rejection in the critical
sections of paper machines,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 43, no. 3,
pp. 857–869, May/Jun. 2007.
[46] S. Carrière, S. Caux, and M. Fadel, “Optimised speed control in state
space for PMSM direct drives,” IET Elect. Power Appl., vol. 4, no. 3,
pp. 158–168, 2010.
[47] Y. Wu, K. Fujikawa, and H. Kobayashi, “A control method of speed
control drive system with backlash,” in Proc. AMC-MIE, Mar. 18–21,
1996, vol. 2, pp. 631–636.
898 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 49, NO. 2, MARCH/APRIL 2013

Lennart Harnefors (S’93–M’97–SM’07) was born Marko Hinkkanen (M’06) received the
in Eskilstuna, Sweden, in 1968. He received the M.Sc.(Eng.) and D.Sc.(Tech.) degrees from
M.Sc., Licentiate, and Ph.D. degrees in electrical Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland,
engineering from the Royal Institute of Technology in 2000 and 2004, respectively.
(KTH), Stockholm, Sweden, in 1993, 1995, and Since 2000, he has been with Helsinki Univer-
1997, respectively, and the Docent (D.Sc.) degree in sity of Technology (part of Aalto University, Aalto,
industrial automation from Lund University, Lund, Finland, since 2010). He is currently an Adjunct
Sweden, in 2000. Professor with the School of Electrical Engineering,
From 1994 to 2005, he was with Mälardalen Uni- Aalto University. His research interests include elec-
versity, Västerås, Sweden, where he, in 2001, was tric drives and electric machines.
appointed as a Professor of electrical engineering.
Between 2001 and 2005, he was, in addition, a part-time Visiting Professor of
electrical drives with Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden.
He is currently with ABB Corporate Research, Västerås, as a Principal Scientist
and with KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, as an Adjunct Professor of power electron-
ics. He is an Associate Editor of the International Journal of Power Electronics
and a member of the Editorial Board of IET Electric Power Applications. His
research interests include analysis and control of power electronic systems,
particularly grid-connected converters and ac drives.
Prof. Harnefors is an Associate Editor of the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON
I NDUSTRIAL E LECTRONICS and a member of the Executive Council and
the International Scientific Committee of the European Power Electronics and
Drives Association (EPE). He was the recipient of the 2000 ABB Gunnar En-
gström Energy Award and the 2002 IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON I NDUSTRIAL
E LECTRONICS Best Paper Award.

Seppo E. Saarakkala received the M.Sc.(Eng.)

degree from Lappeenranta University of Technology,
Lappeenranta, Finland, in 2008.
Since 2010, he has been with the School of Elec-
trical Engineering, Aalto University, Aalto, Finland,
where he is currently a Research Scientist. His main
research interest is the motion control of electric
drives.