IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 27, NO.

1, JANUARY 2012

307

A Comparison of Four Robust Control Schemes for

Field-Weakening Operation of Induction Motors
Michele Mengoni, Luca Zarri, Member, IEEE, Angelo Tani, Giovanni Serra, Senior Member, IEEE,
and Domenico Casadei, Senior Member, IEEE

AbstractFour sensorless control schemes for the operation of

induction motors in the field-weakening region are compared and
assessed in terms of performance and complexity. These four control schemes fully utilize the maximum available voltage and current and can produce the maximum possible torque in the entire
field-weakening region. For comparison, the four control schemes
are implemented on the same experimental platform, i.e., the same
DSP board, power inverter, and motor drive. In this way, it is possible to assess not only the performance of each solution, but also its
requirements in terms of computational time, tuning complexity,
parameter knowledge, and stability of operation.
Index TermsAC motor drives, torque control, traction motor
drives, variable speed drives, velocity control.

I. INTRODUCTION
OWER electronics has deeply changed the use of induction
motors in automotive or automation applications, giving
them the capability of fast torque response and, consequently, a
full control of the drive speed.
When the induction motors are used for applications at high
speed, it is desirable to retain the maximum torque capability
in the field-weakening region. Several papers about this issue
were presented [1][4]. According to these field-weakening algorithms, the optimal flux value of the motor should be updated
by means of lookup tables or explicit expressions containing the
motor parameters and quantities, such as the motor speed, the
motor currents, the dc-link voltage, and the requested torque.
However, the performance of these algorithms is strictly related
to the accuracy by which the parameters are known. A further
problem is represented by the variable value of the leakage
and magnetizing inductances, to which the rotor-flux-oriented
scheme is particularly sensitive [5]. In addition, the drive performance in the high-speed range may depend on the correct determination of the base speed, which is the function of the actual
dc-link voltage and the overload capability. As a consequence,
new methods for compensating the parameter variations and

Manuscript received December 17, 2010; revised February 24, 2011 and
April 22, 2011; accepted May 1, 2011. Date of current version December 16,
2011. Recommended for publication by Associate Editor R. M. Kennel.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, University
of Bologna, 40136 Bologna, Italy (e-mail: michele.mengoni3@unibo.it; luca.
zarri2@unibo.it; angelo.tani@unibo.it; giovanni.serra@unibo.it; domenico.
casadei@unibo.it).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPEL.2011.2156810

the uncertainties of the models have been investigated. Among

these, some adaptive schemes have been proposed in order to
provide a suitable estimation of the varying parameters [6][9].
These methods provide good drive performance to the detriment of the complexity of the control scheme and the regulator
tuning.
For the aforementioned reasons, the stator-flux-oriented
drive, more insensitive to parameter variations than the rotorflux-oriented one, has received increasing attention for fieldweakening applications [10][13]. The stator-flux-oriented control is usually appreciated for its simplicity and is often proposed
for low-cost applications.
An alternative method for robust field weakening is to determine the optimal flux level using closed-loop schemes that
analyze the motor behavior, rather than lookup tables or explicit
expressions containing the motor parameters.
During the last ten years, several important contributions
toward robust field-weakening strategies have been proposed
in [14] and [15] for stator-flux-oriented induction motor drives
and in [16][20] for rotor-flux-oriented induction motor drives.
According to these papers, the flux level is adjusted on the basis of the supply voltage requested by the regulators, and the
maximum torque capability is exploited by means of a suitable
control strategy.
Some comparisons among different control schemes can be
found in [21] and [22]. In particular, the aim of this paper is
to extend the analysis carried out in [22] by assessing four
speed control schemes for the sensorless operation of induction
motors in the field-weakening region in terms of performance
and complexity.
These four control schemes fully utilize the available inverter
voltage and the maximum inverter current for steady-state torque
production at any speed and, thus, provide the maximum possible torque in the entire field-weakening region. In addition,
all these control algorithms are robust, i.e., they are insensitive
to changes of the machine parameters and to variations of the
dc-link voltage.
The four control schemes are different in terms of number and
type of regulators, complexity of implementation, and transient
behavior.
It is rather difficult to compare their performances, since they
are often proposed in the literature with reference to different
hardware architectures.
For these reasons, for the comparison presented in this paper,
these schemes have been implemented on the same experimental platform, i.e., the same DSP, power inverter, and induction
motor, and use the same basic functions, such as the voltage

0885-8993/$26.00 2011 IEEE

308

Fig. 1.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 27, NO. 1, JANUARY 2012

Block diagram of control Scheme A.

modulator. In this way, it is possible to assess not only the

performance of each solution, but also its requirements in
terms of computational burden, calibration complexity, parameter knowledge, and operating stability.
II. OPERATING PRINCIPLES OF THE ROBUST
FIELD-WEAKENING CONTROL SCHEMES
In the high-speed range, the performance of an induction motor is limited by the maximum inverter voltage Vs, m ax , related
to the dc-link voltage, and the inverter/machine current rating,
represented by the maximum stator current Is, m ax .
Due to these limits, the motor operation can be divided into
three speed ranges, namely the low-speed range (Region I),
the constant-power speed range (Region II), and the decreasing
power speed range (Region III).
The current limit determines the maximum torque that can
be generated in Regions I and II. In particular, in Region I, the
maximum torque corresponds to the maximum current and to
the rated flux level, whereas in Regions II and III, it is necessary
to reduce the flux magnitude to keep the back electromotive
force (EMF) approximately constant.
When the motor operates in Region III, the maximum torque
is delivered to the load when the angle between the stator and
rotor flux vectors is 45 [20]. One comes to this conclusion by
inspecting the following equation, which expresses the motor
torque when the stator voltage magnitude equals Vs, m ax [20]:

2
Vs,m ax
3 M2
T
sin 2
(1)
= p 2
4 Ls Lr
r
where 2p is the number of poles; Ls , Lr , and M are the motor
self and mutual inductances; r is the angular speed of the rotor
flux vector with respect to a stationary reference frame; is
the angle between the stator and rotor flux vectors; and is the

leakage coefficient defined as follows:

=1

M2
.
Ls Lr

(2)

From (1), it is clear that, for any value of r , the maximum

torque is produced when the angle between the stator and rotor
flux vectors is 45 , i.e., = 45 . This fundamental relationship
is used by the four control schemes compared in this paper to
achieve the maximum torque operation in Region III.
There are different ways to express the condition = 45 .
An equivalent formulation considers the input voltage vector
instead of the stator flux vector. Since the input voltage vector
leads the stator flux vector by nearly 90 , the condition of maximum torque satisfies when the angle between the input voltage
vector and the rotor flux vector is 90 45 , namely 135 for
motor operation or 45 for generator operation.
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE CONTROL SCHEMES
In this paper, four sensorless robust field-weakening control schemes for induction motors are compared. The first one
(Scheme A) is the control scheme of a stator-flux-oriented
drive, and its basic principle was presented in [15]. The second one (Scheme B), the third one (Scheme C), and the fourth
one (Scheme D) are the control schemes of rotor-flux-oriented
drives, and their basic principles were presented in [16], [19],
and [20], respectively.
These control schemes were selected because they are rather
recent and are based on the common principle of analyzing the
motor voltage to adjust the flux level.
A. Control Scheme A
The block diagram of Scheme A is shown in Fig. 1. For
a better understanding of the figure, some symbols should be

MENGONI et al.: COMPARISON OF FOUR ROBUST CONTROL SCHEMES FOR FIELD-WEAKENING OPERATION OF INDUCTION MOTORS

clarified. The signals starting from a little circle (O) are user
set points, such as speed reference m , ref , or the maximum
absolute ratings, such as Vs, m ax and Is, m ax . The signals starting
from a little triangle () come from somewhere else in the
control scheme, although the wirings are not shown to keep the
scheme as simple as possible.
The control scheme of Fig. 1 is implemented in a reference
frame that is synchronous with the stator flux vector. The main
control variables are the stator flux magnitude s and the qcomponent of the stator current isq .
In Fig. 1, the speed is adjusted by the PI regulator (a), which
generates the request of torque-producing current isq ,req . The
current reference is tracked on its turn by the PI regulator (d).
Due to the action of the saturation block (g), isq ,ref is limited
in such a way that the stator current magnitude cannot exceed
Is,m ax in Regions I and II. In this case, the maximum value for
isq ,ref depends on the current isd used for the generation of the
flux. The greater is isd , the lower is isq ,m ax . In Region III, the PI
regulator (e) further decreases isq ,m ax until the angle between
the stator and rotor flux vectors is 45 , i.e., the maximum torque
condition is satisfied.
The stator flux command is generated by the PI regulator (b)
on the basis of the voltage request. If this request is greater than
the available voltage, the field-weakening algorithm reduces the
flux; otherwise, the flux is increased, but not beyond its rated
value.
Finally, the switch (s) can create a temporary voltage margin
to enable a fast reaction of the current controller, in order to
improve the transient behavior. If the requested voltage is greater
than the available voltage, i.e., the flux is being decreased, the
switch (s) is closed and the angle s of the reference frame
is modified by adding a small quantity s proportional to
the speed error. As a consequence, this small rotation of the
reference frame, applied to the stator voltage, has the effect of
improving the torque production to the detriment of the flux,
especially, at the beginning of the speed transient [15].
Although this last algorithm has the aim of improving the
behavior of the motor during the speed transients in the fieldweakening speed range, actually, it is not essential for the fieldweakening operation. Hence, for the sake of simplicity, the effects related to the switch (s) have not been considered in this
paper.
It is worth noting that this control scheme does not control
the d-component of the stator current directly. For this reason, if
the response of PI (b) is very fast, the d-component of the motor
may reach a very high peak during the magnetization transient.
It is possible to come to this conclusion by expressing isd as
follows:
isd =

1
Ls



M
r d
s
Lr

(3)

where r d is the d-component of the rotor flux vector.

Equation (3) shows that the d-component of the stator current
is limited by the rotor flux. Before the motor startup, the rotor
flux magnitude is zero, and this explains why a sudden stator
flux request may cause a very high magnetizing current.

309

To prevent this occurrence, a widely used remedy is to increase the stator flux set point slowly up to the rated value
during the motor startup. Although this solution is very common, it is not the best one, because the optimal slope of the
ramp depends on the motor parameters, and it is not completely
integrated in the normal control scheme.
The solution proposed in Fig. 1, not presented in [15], is to
insert a variable upper bound on the stator flux in block (f). This
bound should be s, rated during the steady-state operation of
the machine, but during the magnetizing transient s, ref should
not overcome the limit value s, lim given by
s,lim =

M
r d + Ls Is,m ax .
Lr

(4)

Under the assumption that the rotor flux varies more slowly than
the other quantities, if s is lower than s, lim , then the current
isd is lower than Is, m ax whatever fast the response of PI (b) is
and, in particular, during the magnetization transient.
Although (4) requires the knowledge of the leakage inductance Ls , the estimation of the rotor flux is not necessary. In
fact, it is possible to find an alternative formulation of s, lim by
solving (3) for r d and substituting its expression in (4). It turns
out that
s,lim = s + Ls (Is,m ax isd ) .

(5)

In conclusion, the upper bound of the limitation block (f) shown

in Fig. 1 is calculated as follows:
s,m ax = min {s,rated , s,lim }

(6)

where s, rated is the rated flux, and s, lim is given by (5).

B. Control Scheme B
The block diagram of the control Scheme B is shown in Fig. 2.
The control scheme is implemented in a reference frame that
moves synchronously with the rotor flux vector.
The motor currents, which are the main control variables, are
adjusted by the PI regulators (c) and (d). The d-component of
the stator current is used to regulate the rotor flux, whereas the
q-component is used to vary the motor torque.
To adjust the field level, this scheme uses the same method as
in Scheme A, namely the reference value for isd is set by the PI
regulator (b) on the basis of the voltage request. If the voltage
request is greater than the available voltage, the flux level is
reduced; otherwise, it is increased up to the rated value.
The speed is controlled by the regulator (a), which generates
the reference value for isq . The limitation block (g) ensures that
the constraint on the maximum stator current is met in Regions
I and II and, also, ensures the exploitation of the maximum
torque capability in Region III. In fact, the upper and lower
bounds of the limitation block (g), respectively, are +isq , m ax
and isq , m ax , i.e., the output
signal of the limitation block (h).

2
2
The signal isq , m ax is equal to Is,m
ax isd,ref in Regions I and
II, whereas in Region III, it
decreases until the absolute value of
the vsd is equal to (Vs,m ax / 2). As explained in Section II, this
condition means that, under the assumption that the maximum

310

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 27, NO. 1, JANUARY 2012

Fig. 2.

Block diagram of control Scheme B.

Fig. 3.

Block diagram of control Scheme C.

voltage is applied to the motor, the phase angle of the voltage

vector in the rotor-flux-oriented reference frame is 90 45 .
C. Control Scheme C
The block diagram of the control Scheme C is shown in Fig. 3.
This control scheme is implemented in a reference frame that
is synchronous with the rotor flux vector. As can be seen, this
control scheme is very similar to Scheme B. The motor currents
are adjusted by the PI regulators (c) and (d). The d-component
of the stator current is used to regulate the rotor flux, whereas
the q-component is used to control the motor torque.
To adjust the field level, the reference value of isd is set
by the PI regulator (b) on the basis of the voltage request. If

the voltage request is greater than the available voltage, the

flux level is reduced; otherwise, it is increased up to the rated
value.
The speed is controlled by the regulator (a) that generates
the reference value for isq . The limitation blocks (f) and (g)
ensure that the constraint on the stator current is satisfied in
Regions I and II and, also, the exploitation of the maximum torque capability in Region III. However, unlike control
Schemes A and B, these conditions are obtained without using
additional regulators, but only with algebraic relationships.
In fact, the signal isq , m ax , which is used to generate the upper
 and the lower bounds of limitation block (g), is equal to
2
2
Is,m
ax isd in Regions I and II, whereas, in Region III, when

MENGONI et al.: COMPARISON OF FOUR ROBUST CONTROL SCHEMES FOR FIELD-WEAKENING OPERATION OF INDUCTION MOTORS

Fig. 4.

311

Block diagram of control Scheme D.

the condition = 45 is verified, it is equal to

isq =

sd
.
Ls

(7)

Equation (7) means that sq is equal to sd , i.e., the phase

angle of the stator flux vector is 45 in a rotor reference frame.
Although this solution is very simple, it has the counterpart
of requiring the knowledge of the d-component of the stator
flux vector and of the parameter Ls . Both of these are often
necessary in the flux observer for the determination of the rotorfield-oriented reference frame. Therefore, their knowledge is
not usually an additional burden.

The limitation block (b), which works as in Scheme C, ensures the respect of the constraint on the maximum current in
Region II and the maximum torque capability in Region III. To
satisfy the condition = 45 , sq has to be equal to sd ,
whereas the overcoming of the maximum current is prevented
by ensuring that the absolute value of sq , ref is lower than the
quantity sq , available .
The stator flux regulator behaves as a proportional controller,
with some additional terms compensating the stator back EMF
and the voltage drop caused by the stator resistance. The equations of the stator flux regulator can be expressed as follows:
(10)

vsq ,req = Rs isq + r sd

(11)

D. Control Scheme D
The block diagram of the control Scheme D is shown in Fig. 4.
In this rotor-flux-oriented control scheme, the main control variables are the components of the stator flux vector instead of the
stator current components.
To understand the control principle, it is useful to recall the
main motor equations written in terms of stator flux components
in a rotor-flux-oriented reference frame [20]:
M
Lr dr
+ r =
sd
Rr dt
Ls

T =

3
M
p
r sq .
2 Ls Lr

(8)

(9)

As can be seen, (8) and (9) are quite similar to the corresponding
equations of the traditional field-oriented control based on dq
stator current components. In fact, the rotor flux depends only
on sd , whereas the motor torque is proportional to sq .
According to (9), the torque demand is transformed by the
speed regulator (a) in the request of the q-component of the
stator flux.

sd,ref sd
d
sq ,ref sq
+
q

vsd,req = Rs isd r sq +

where 1/ d and 1/ q are the gains of the controller, and r is the

angular frequency of the rotor flux vector. It is worth noting that
it is possible to select d equal to q , but it could be convenient to
adopt two different time constants to the advantage of flexibility
in the tuning of the regulators.
The rotor flux is controlled by adjusting the d-component
of the stator flux. However, the basic principle that regulates the flux-weakening request is quite different from that of
Schemes A, B, and C. It is widely known that, if the motor operates at constant speed, fast torque responses can be achieved
only if the control scheme keeps the flux level constant during
the torque transients. In particular, the flux level should always
be set to the value required to generate the maximum achievable torque at any operating speed. In this way, any demand
of torque variations within the admissible values is achieved
without changing sd but only sq .
For a given value of the d-component of the stator flux, and
consequently of the rotor flux, the maximum torque is achieved
when sq , ref = sq , m ax .

312

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 27, NO. 1, JANUARY 2012

Taking this equation into account, the voltage required to

generate the maximum torque can be determined from (10) and
(11) as follows:
vsd,m ax req = Rs isd r,m ax (signsq ) sq ,m ax
+

sd,ref sd
d

(12)

vsq ,m ax req = Rs isq ,m ax + r,m ax sd +

sq ,ref sq
q

(13)

where isq , m ax is defined as follows:

isq ,m ax =

sq ,m ax
.
Ls

(14)

Here, r, m ax is the angular frequency of the rotor flux corresponding to the maximum torque, which is expressed by
r,m ax = r + (signsq )

Rr sq ,m ax |sq |
.
Lr
sd

(15)

It is worth noting that in practical applications, it is possible to

approximate r, m ax with r , and therefore, the knowledge of
the rotor parameters is not necessary.
In Scheme D, the flux request sd, req is reduced only if
the maximum torque that could be generated at a given speed
requires a voltage greater than Vs, m ax . In other words, the flux
level is always set to the value required to generate the maximum
achievable torque at any speed.
The use of flux components as control variables is very similar
to that of the traditional vector control based on the regulation
of the stator currents. However, a little attention should be paid
during the start-up transient, because the stator flux reference
cannot change too quickly, in order to avoid overcurrents. The
analysis of the overcurrent problem is very similar to the one
of Scheme A, and therefore, it can be solved in the same way.
In other words, the upper bound of the saturation block (f) in
Fig. 4 is varied according to the following quantity:
sd,m ax = min {sd,rated , sd,lim }

(16)

where sd, rated is the rated flux, and sd, lim is given as
sd,lim = Ls (Is,m ax isd ) + sd .

(17)

As can be seen, (17) requires the knowledge of the leakage

inductance Ls , which is already used by the control scheme.
IV. TUNING OF THE CONTROL SCHEMES
As far as the tuning of the regulators is concerned, the four
schemes present different complexities.
In total, Scheme A requires five PI regulators (two PI regulators are used for the flux and the current control, one for the
speed control, and the other two for the robust field-weakening
algorithm), and if a fast torque response is requested, it is opportune to tune also the two constant gains shown in the block
(m).
Scheme B requires five PI regulators (two PI regulators are
used for the current control, one for the speed control, and the
other two for the robust field-weakening algorithm).

Scheme C requires four PI regulators (two PI regulators are

used for the current control, one for the speed control, and
another one for the robust field-weakening algorithm).
Finally, Scheme D requires two PI regulators (the first one
for the speed control and the second one for the robust fieldweakening control), and two gain constants for the flux regulators (10) and (11).
It is quite obvious that if the tuning of a control scheme is not
satisfactory, the comparison among the four control schemes
may be distorted. However, the concept of optimal tuning is
very evanescent without the right context, i.e., without specifying the quality indices and the target application.
In this paper, under the assumption of considering general
purpose electric drives, the goal is to obtain the fastest speed
and torque responses with small or absent overshoot. The wellknown cascade tuning is adopted, i.e., the first control loops to be
tuned are the inner ones and, then, the outer ones. Consequently,
the inner loops have the highest bandwidth, whereas the outer
loops have lower cutoff frequencies. It is worth noting that other
methods for the tuning of the regulators could lead to better drive
performance. For example, the simultaneous tuning of all the
regulators of a certain scheme could produce a better response
than that obtained by tuning one regulator after the other, but
requires a greater computational effort.
Since cascade tuning is well known and is adopted also for
on-site applications, it has been assumed as the most suitable
choice.
The criteria used for the tuning of the regulators during the experimental tests are rather traditional and are beyond the scope
of this paper. However, some comments can be useful to understand the difficulties that have to be overcome.
For the regulators of the inner loops, i.e., regulators (c) and
(d) in Schemes A, B, and C, and the stator flux regulators in
Scheme D, some simple design rules can be used, generally,
based on zero-pole cancellations.
The tuning of the other regulators, instead, is more difficult,
because the drive dynamics depends on the motor inertia and
on the field-weakening algorithm itself. So, the tuning of these
regulators has been initially faced by means of numerical simulations, and then, it has been refined during the experimental
tests by using a trial-and-error procedure.
To conclude, it is worth noting that a proper tuning of the
speed regulators tends to reduce the differences among the control schemes, because the outer speed loop compensates for the
nonideal behavior of the inner control loops.
V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
A complete drive system has been realized to verify the performances of the control schemes. The experimental setup consists of an insulated gate bipolar transistor inverter and a 4-kW,
4-pole squirrel cage induction motor. The parameters of the
electric motor are given in Table I. The electric drive used for
the experimental tests is a didactic product developed for academic research. For a correct operation of the motor at the
rated speed, the dc-link voltage should be 270 V. However, for
safety reasons, the dc-link of the inverter is limited below 135 V.

MENGONI et al.: COMPARISON OF FOUR ROBUST CONTROL SCHEMES FOR FIELD-WEAKENING OPERATION OF INDUCTION MOTORS

313

TABLE I
MOTOR PARAMETERS

TABLE II
REGULATOR PARAMETERS

Fig. 5. Behavior of Scheme A during a speed step change from 0% to 700% of

the base speed (500 ms/div). From top to bottom: angular speed (2000 r/min/div),
stator flux (0.25 Wb/div), q-component of the stator current (20 A/div), and
phase current (20 A/div).

Consequently, the base speed (around 700 r/min) is about half

the rated speed of the motor (1480 r/min).
The control algorithms, written in C code, are implemented
on a DSP TMS320C28. The sampling period (coinciding with
the switching period) is 100 s. The parameters of the regulators
are given in Table II.
It is important to note that the performance of each control
scheme depends on many factors that are not directly related to
the field-weakening control scheme, such as the use of fixedpoint or floating-point math, the compensation for the inverter
dead times, or just the skill of the programmer.
Therefore, the results stated in this section should be considered as a particular case, which depends on the adopted hardware
architecture.
A. Comparison of the Steady-State and the Transient Behavior
From the analysis of the experimental tests, it is possible to
note that the four control schemes have practically the same
performance in terms of speed response and field-weakening
speed range. Each of them has reached a maximum speed that
is about seven times the base speed. The maximum speed is
practically imposed by the friction torque of the drive bench.
However, each control scheme has shown its own advantages
and disadvantages that are presented hereafter.
Figs. 58 show the behavior of the four control schemes
after a speed step command up to 700% of the base speed.
Since the completion of transients takes too long, the end of
the transients is not shown. Higher speeds cannot be reached
due to the inherent friction torque of the test bench. Each figure

Fig. 6. Behavior of Scheme B during a speed step change from 0% to 700% of

the base speed (500 ms/div). From top to bottom: angular speed (2000 r/min/div),
d-component of the stator current (20 A/div), q-component of the stator current
(20 A/div), and phase current (20 A/div).

shows the speed response (at the top) and the corresponding
phase current waveform (at the bottom).
The two intermediate traces of each figure show the waveforms of the main control variables of each control scheme,
i.e., the stator flux and the current isq for Scheme A, the stator
current components for Schemes B and C, and the stator flux
components for Scheme D.
In Figs. 58, the extension of Regions II and III is also represented.
Finally, in Fig. 9, we compare the spectral content of the motor
currents for the four control schemes under a typical operating
condition. The motor torque is 80% of the rated torque, and
the motor speed is 90% of the base speed. As can be seen, the
harmonic content of the currents resulting from Schemes A and
D appears to be higher than that of Schemes B and C.

314

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 27, NO. 1, JANUARY 2012

Fig. 9. Experimental results. Spectra of the phase current for the four control
schemes when the motor speed is 90% of the base speed and the motor torque
is 80% of the rated torque. The spectra are normalized with respects to the
fundamental component of the current.

Fig. 7. Behavior of Scheme C during a speed step change from 0% to 700% of

the base speed (500 ms/div). From top to bottom: angular speed (2000 r/min/div),
d-component of the stator current (20 A/div), q-component of the stator current
(20 A/div), and phase current (20 A/div).

Fig. 8. Behavior of Scheme D during a speed step change from 0% to 700% of

the base speed (500 ms/div). From top to bottom: angular speed (2000 r/min/div),
d-component of the stator flux (0.25 Wb/div), q-component of the stator flux
(0.25 Wb/div), and phase current (20 A/div).

The main comments that can be made about the performance

of the four schemes are the following.
1) The speed responses of all schemes are very similar, but
Scheme A requires a very fine tuning to avoid small oscillations in Region III.
2) The best quality of the motor current is obtained by
Schemes B and C, since the stator current components
are the main control variables. The current quality is preserved, also, during the transition from Region I to Region
II and from Region II to Region III.
3) The best flux quality is obtained by Scheme D, since the
stator flux components are the main control variables.
B. Tuning of the Regulators and Robustness
As expected, the tuning of Scheme D is simpler than that of
the other ones, whereas the tuning of Scheme A turns out to be
more complex, particularly of the flux regulators (b) and (c) of

Fig. 1, in order to avoid flux and torque oscillations during the

transition from Region II to Region III.
As far as the robustness against parameter uncertainties is
concerned, the performance of the four control schemes is affected mainly by the mismatching of the leakage inductance Ls
and of the stator resistance Rs . The parameter Ls is important
for the orientation of the reference frame in Schemes B, C, and
D, which are rotor-flux-oriented controls, whereas Scheme A,
which is a stator-flux-oriented control, is sensitive mainly to Rs .
A mismatching on Rs could reduce the torque in Scheme D,
since the flux regulators (10) and (11) do not include an integral
term and present a feed-forward compensation of the voltage
drop on the stator resistance.
A mismatching on Ls causes a reduction of the maximum torque that can be delivered by all control schemes in
Region III, since it is related with the angle between the rotor
and stator flux vectors, as shown in (1).
In this paper, all the control schemes share the same stator
and rotor flux observer, i.e., a full-state nonlinear identity observer. To some extent, this choice could appear questionable,
because Scheme A is a stator-flux-oriented control scheme, and
therefore, it may use some more specific and more performing
flux observers. Nowadays, advanced adaptive observers, which
ensure good behavior even in the case of unknown parameters,
are available [23], [24].
However, under the assumption that the parameters are known
with sufficient accuracy, it is possible to compare the four control
schemes without considering the performance of the observer.
On the other side, in the case of mismatching in the parameters
of the observer, the field orientation is not perfect. Since it is
not possible to ascribe the worsening of the performance to the
characteristics of the schemes, the variation of the parameters is
not further considered.
C. Stability of the Control System
In Figs. 1013, we show the behavior of the four control
schemes during a sequence of speed step changes from the base
speed to 2000 r/min (about 300% of the base speed). As can be
seen, the behavior of the four control schemes is comparable.
However, in Figs. 1417, we show the waveform of some
inner variables, such as the flux level, and reveal that the behavior
of Schemes A, B, and C is quite different from that of Scheme D.
While the flux level of Scheme D tends to decrease as expected,

MENGONI et al.: COMPARISON OF FOUR ROBUST CONTROL SCHEMES FOR FIELD-WEAKENING OPERATION OF INDUCTION MOTORS

315

Fig. 10. Behavior of Scheme A during a sequence of speed steps from 0%

to 300% of the base speed (500 ms/div). From top to bottom: reference angular speed (2000 r/min/div), angular speed (2000 r/min/div), estimated torque
(20 Nm/div), and phase current (20 A/div).

Fig. 13. Behavior of Scheme D during a sequence of speed steps from 0%

to 300% of the base speed (500 ms/div). From top to bottom: reference angular speed (2000 r/min/div), angular speed (2000 r/min/div), estimated torque
(20 Nm/div), and phase current (20 A/div).

Fig. 11. Behavior of Scheme B during a sequence of speed steps from 0%

to 300% of the base speed (500 ms/div). From top to bottom: reference angular speed (2000 r/min/div), angular speed (2000 r/min/div), estimated torque
(20 Nm/div), and phase current (20 A/div).

Fig. 14. Behavior of Scheme A during some speed steps from 0% to 300%
of the base speed (500 ms/div). From top to bottom: actual angular speed
(2000 r/min/div), stator flux magnitude (0.25 Wb/div), q-component of the
stator current (20 A/div), and phase current (20 A/div).

Fig. 12. Behavior of Scheme C during a sequence of speed steps from 0%

to 300% of the base speed (500 ms/div). From top to bottom: reference angular speed (2000 r/min/div), angular speed (2000 r/min/div), estimated torque
(20 Nm/div), and phase current (20 A/div).

the flux level of Schemes A, B, and C presents a short undershot

after each speed step.
The reason is that these control schemes are based on an operating principle other than that of Scheme D. In fact, as explained
in Section III, Scheme D keeps the rotor flux almost constant
during the torque transient, in order to achieve the fastest torque
response, whereas the other control schemes adjust the flux level
after any torque variation.
These flux oscillations are undesired and could destabilize
the control scheme at high speed. However, the problem of the
stability of the control schemes is very complex and is beyond
the scope of this paper. The reason is that it is strictly dependent
on the characteristics of the electric drives, such as motor size,
the motor parameters, and the total inertia.
The amplitude of the flux undershoot shown in Figs. 1416
is sensitive to the tuning of the regulators, the motor inertia, the
amplitude, and the fastness of the torque step. If the undershoot

316

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 27, NO. 1, JANUARY 2012

Fig. 15. Behavior of Scheme B during some speed steps from 0% to

300% of the base speed (500 ms/div). From top to bottom: angular speed
(2000 r/min/div), d- and q-components of the stator flux (0.25 Wb/div), and
phase current (20 A/div).

Fig. 17. Behavior of Scheme D during some speed steps from 0% to

300% of the base speed (500 ms/div). From top to bottom: angular speed
(2000 r/min/div), d- and q-components of the stator flux (0.25 Wb/div), and
phase current (20 A/div).

Fig. 16. Behavior of Scheme C during some speed steps from 0% to

300% of the base speed (500 ms/div). From top to bottom: angular speed
(2000 r/min/div), d- and q-components of the stator flux (0.25 Wb/div), and
phase current (20 A/div).

Fig. 18. Behavior of Scheme A with detuned regulators during some speed
steps from 0% to 150% of the base speed (500 ms/div). From top to bottom: actual angular speed (500 r/min/div), stator flux magnitude (0.25 Wb/div),
q-component of the stator current (20 A/div), and phase current (20 A/div).

is remarkable, the flux level can go down to zero, and this

prevents the motor from working correctly.
To better explain what kind of stability problems one can
encounter, it is opportune to examine Figs. 1821, which were
obtained by increasing, excessively, the gain of the voltage regulators that control the flux level. In particular, Scheme B looses
completely the field orientation after a large undershoot of the
flux level and stops, whereas Schemes A and C show an unsatisfactory behavior.
It is possible to avoid the flux undershoot by reducing the
gain of the voltage regulators, but in this case another stability
problem can be encountered. When this gain is too low, the
motor drive is not able to enter into the field-weakening region
because the reduction of the flux level is not quick enough.
For example, in Fig. 22, we show the behavior of Scheme B
under these operating conditions, but similar results can also be
obtained for the other schemes.

Fig. 19. Behavior of Scheme B with detuned regulators during some speed
steps from 0% to 150% of the base speed (500 ms/div). From top to bottom: angular speed (500 r/min/div), d- and q-components of the stator current
(10 A/div), and phase current (20 A/div).

MENGONI et al.: COMPARISON OF FOUR ROBUST CONTROL SCHEMES FOR FIELD-WEAKENING OPERATION OF INDUCTION MOTORS

Fig. 20. Behavior of Scheme C with detuned regulators during some speed
steps from 0% to 150% of the base speed (500 ms/div). From top to bottom: angular speed (500 r/min/div), d- and q-components of the stator current
(10 A/div), and phase current (20 A/div).

317

Fig. 23. Behavior of Scheme A above the base speed after a step in the load
torque (1 s/div). From top to bottom: angular speed (500 r/min/div), stator flux
(0.25 Wb/div), q-component of the stator current (10 A/div), and phase current
(20 A/div).

In fact, in the flux-weakening region, the stator flux magnitude

can be related to the motor angular speed by means of the
following approximated relationship:
Vm ax
= r s .

(18)

The absolute value of the time derivative of the stator flux is as

follows:




 ds  Vm ax  dr 
=
.


(19)
 dt 
2  dt 
r

Fig. 21. Behavior of Scheme D with detuned regulators during some speed
steps from 0% to 150% of the base speed (500 ms/div). From top to bottom: angular speed (500 r/min/div), d- and q-components of the stator flux (0.25 Wb/div),
and phase current (20 A/div).

Fig. 22. Behavior of Scheme B with detuned regulators (low gain) during a
speed step change from 0% to 700% of the base speed (500 ms/div). From top
to bottom: angular speed (500 r/min/div), d-component of the stator current
(20 A/div), q-component of the stator current (20 A/div), and phase current
(20 A/div).

To achieve a correct motor operation, the voltage controller

should ensure a rate of change of the stator flux not lower than
(19), and this cannot be achieved if the regulator gain is too low.
In other words, if the gain of the voltage regulators has to be kept
low enough to ensure the stability at high speed, the simplest
remedy to allow the motor to enter into the field-weakening
region is to reduce the motor acceleration, thus, limiting the
performance of the speed loop.
Another possible remedy to avoid the flux undershoot at high
speed is to adopt regulators more complex than simple PI regulators. It is well known that PI regulators are suitable to control
low-order systems, but in Schemes A, B, and C, the inner loops,
which control the motor torque, and the outer loop, which controls the flux reference, may be coupled to some extent, thus,
leading to higher order systems. In this case, control methods
based on state feedback may lead to better results. Scheme D appears less sensitive to this kind of problems because the voltage
loop is inherently independent of the torque request.
Finally, the capability of the control scheme to face a variation
of the load torque at high speed has been assessed. In Figs. 23
26, we show the behavior of the control scheme after a load
torque change.
Due to the characteristics of the brake system, the time constant of this torque change is about 300 ms. Although all the
schemes exhibit a good behavior under these test conditions, it
is worth noting that Schemes A, B, and C modify the flux level
after the variation of the load torque, whereas Scheme D keeps it

318

Fig. 24. Behavior of Scheme B above the base speed after a step variation in
the load torque (1 s/div). From top to bottom: angular speed (2000 r/min/div),
d-component of the stator current (10 A/div), q-component of the stator current
(10 A/div), and phase current (20 A/div).

Fig. 25. Behavior of Scheme C above the base speed after a step in the
load torque (1 s/div). From top to bottom: angular speed (500 r/min/div),
d-component of the stator current (10 A/div), q-component of the stator current
(10 A/div), and phase current (20 A/div).

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 27, NO. 1, JANUARY 2012

Fig. 27. Behavior of Scheme A during the start-up magnetization transient

(200 ms/div). From top to bottom: angular speed (500 r/min/div), stator flux
(0.25 Wb/div), q-component of the stator current (10 A/div), and phase current
(20 A/div).

Fig. 28. Behavior of Scheme B during the start-up magnetization transient

(200 ms/div). From top to bottom: angular speed (500 r/min/div), d-component
of the stator current (10 A/div), q-component of the stator current (10 A/div),
and phase current (20 A/div).

unchanged, in accordance to the fact that the steady-state value

of the speed does not vary.
D. Startup Magnetizing Transient

Fig. 26. Behavior of Scheme D above the base speed after a step in the
load torque (1 s/div). From top to bottom: angular speed (500 r/min/div),
d-component of the stator flux (0.25 Wb/div), q-component of the stator flux
(0.25 Wb/div), and phase current (20 A/div).

The problem of the start-up currents may rise when the drive
is turned ON. If the magnetization transient is not specifically
managed, the control system tries to establish the rated flux level
as quickly as possible. If the currents are directly controlled, the
risk of overcurrents is averted. On the contrary, if the main control variables are fluxes, there is not a direct control of the current
amplitudes, and it is necessary to adopt some countermeasures
to avoid overcurrents in Schemes A and D.
In Figs. 2730, we show the behavior of the four control
schemes during the magnetization transient. As can be seen, the
behavior is acceptable for all of them. Schemes A and D inject
into the motor a dc current and show the shortest magnetization transients, but require an additional section of the control
scheme.

MENGONI et al.: COMPARISON OF FOUR ROBUST CONTROL SCHEMES FOR FIELD-WEAKENING OPERATION OF INDUCTION MOTORS

319

TABLE III
COMPARISON OF THE FOUR CONTROL SCHEMES

Fig. 29. Behavior of Scheme C during the start-up magnetization transient

(200 ms/div). From top to bottom: angular speed (500 r/min/div), d-component
of the stator current (10 A/div), q-component of the stator current (10 A/div),
and phase current (20 A/div).

Fig. 30. Behavior of Scheme D during the start-up magnetization transient

(200 ms/div). From top to bottom: angular speed (500 r/min/div), d-component
of the stator flux (0.25 Wb/div), q-component of the stator flux (0.25 Wb/div),
and phase current (20 A/div).

Schemes B and C are not as fast as the previous ones, but

overcurrents are inherently avoided.
E. Comparative Table
In Table III, the main results of the comparison of the four
control schemes are given.
The properties that are compared in Table III are the easiness
of tuning of the regulators, the quality of the motor currents, the
torque dynamic, the independence of the motor parameters, and
the stability of the control system at high speed.
A grade has been given to each of them based on the results
obtained in the experimental tests. This grade is qualitative and
varies from + (lowest performance) to +++ (best performance). It is important to point out that this grade has not an
absolute meaning, but it refers only to the comparison of the selected control schemes, implemented on the same experimental
platform, available in laboratory.

VI. CONCLUSION
Four control schemes that feature a robust field-weakening
algorithm have been compared. Although the performance is
very much alike, each control scheme presents some advantages
and some disadvantages regarding the complexity of tuning, the
quality of the load currents, the robustness against the parameter uncertainties, and the operation stability, as summarized in
Table III.
The results cannot be generalized, since they depend on the
specific DSP, inverter, and motor used to carry out the experimental tests. Nevertheless, they suggest some practical rules
that can be useful to select which control scheme is the most
suitable for an application.
The control Scheme A should be preferred when the robustness to variations of the motor parameters could be crucial for
the drive performance. Control Schemes B and C should be preferred for a specific application when the quality of the motor
currents plays a key role, or just because the industrial know-how
is mainly related to traditional field-oriented control schemes.
Finally, control Scheme D is preferable when the application
requires a fast torque response in the field-weakening region or
the tuning of the regulators has to be as simple as possible.
REFERENCES
[1] X. Xu and D. W. Novotny, Selection of the flux reference for induction
machine drives in the field-weakening region, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.,
vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 13531358, Nov./Dec. 1992.
[2] S. H. Kim and S. K. Sul, Maximum torque control of an induction
machine in the field-weakening region, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 31,
no. 4, pp. 787794, Jul./Aug. 1995.
[3] G. Griva, F. Profumo, M. Abrate, A. Tenconi, and D. Berruti, Wide speed
range DTC drive performance with new flux-weakening control, in Proc.
Conf. Rec. Power Electron. Spec. Conf., May 1722, 1998, Fukuoka,
Japan, pp. 15991604.
[4] D. Casadei, F. Profumo, G. Serra, A. Tani, and L. Zarri, Performance
analysis of a speed-sensorless induction motor drive based on a constantswitching-frequency DTC scheme, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 39, no. 2,
pp. 476484, Mar./Apr. 2003.
[5] H. Grotstollen and J. Wiesing, Torque capability and control of a saturated
induction motor over a wide range of flux weakening, IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 374381, Aug. 1995.
[6] R. J. Kerkman, T. M. Rowan, and D. Leggate, Indirect field-oriented
control of an induction motor in the field-weakening region, IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 850857, Jul./Aug. 1992.

320

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 27, NO. 1, JANUARY 2012

[7] E. Levi and M. Wang, A speed estimator for high performance sensorless
control of induction motors in the field-weakening region, IEEE Trans.
Power Electron., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 365378, May 2002.
[8] M. S. Zaky, M. M. Khater, S. S. Shokralla, and H. A. Yasin, Widespeed-range estimation with online parameter identification schemes of
sensorless induction motor drives, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56,
no. 5, pp. 16991707, May 2009.
[9] M. S. Huang, Improved field-weakening control for IFO induction motor, IEEE Trans. Aeronaut. Electric Syst., vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 647658,
Apr. 2003.
[10] M. Ho Shin, D. S. Hyun, and S. B. Cho, Maximum torque control of
stator-flux-oriented induction machine drive in the field-weakening region, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 117121, Jan./Feb.
2002.
[11] D. Casadei, G. Serra, A. Tani, and L. Zarri, A Robust method for fluxweakening operation of DTC induction motor drive with on-line estimation of the break-down torque, in Proc. Eur. Conf. Power Electron. Appl.,
Dresden, Germany, Sep. 1114, 2005, pp. 110.
[12] R. Bojoi, P. Guglielmi, and G. Pellegrino, Sensorless stator field-oriented
control for low cost induction motor drives with wide field-weakening
range, in Proc. Ind. Appl. Soc., Edmonton, Canada, Oct. 59, 2008,
pp. 17.
[13] T. S. Kwon, M. H. Shin, and D. S. Hyun, Speed sensorless stator fluxoriented control of induction motor in the field-weakening region using Luenberger observer, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 20, no. 4,
pp. 864869, Jul. 2005.
[14] A. Biinte, H. Grotstollen, and P. Krafka, Field weakening of induction
motors in a very wide region with regard to parameter uncertainties, in
Proc. Power Electron. Spec. Conf., vol. 1, Jun. 2627, 1996, pp. 944950.
[15] H. Abu-Rub, H. Schmirgel, and J. Holtz, Sensorless control of induction motors for maximum steady-state torque and fast dynamics at field
weakening, presented at Annu. Meeting Industry Applications Society,
Tampa, FL, Oct. 812, 2006.
[16] S. H. Kim and S. K. Sul, Voltage control strategy for maximum torque
operation of an induction machine in the field-weakening region, IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 512518, Aug. 1997.
[17] L. Harnefors, K. Pietilainen, and L. Gertmar, Torque-maximizing fieldweakening control: Design, analysis, and parameter selection, IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 117122, Feb. 2001.
[18] F. Briz, A. Diez, M. W. Degner, and R. D. Lorenz, Current and flux
regulation in field-weakening operation, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 37,
no. 1, pp. 4250, Jan./Feb. 2001.
[19] 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. 14361446, Jul./Aug. 2010.
[20] M. Mengoni, L. Zarri, A. Tani, G. Serra, and D. Casadei, Stator flux
vector control of induction motor drives in the field-weakening region,
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 941949, Mar. 2008.
[21] P.-Y. Lin and Y.-S. Lai, Novel voltage trajectory control for fieldweakening operation of induction motor drives, in Proc. Eur. Conf. Cognitive Ergonom., San Jose, CA, Sep. 2024, 2009, pp. 15401546.
[22] D. Casadei, M. Mengoni, G. Serra, A. Tani, and L. Zarri, Field-weakening
control schemes for high-speed drives based on induction motors: A comparison, in Proc. 39th IEEE Annu. Power Electron. Spec. Conf., Rhodes,
Greece, Jun. 1519, 2008, pp. 21592166.
[23] M. Hinkkanen, L. Harnefors, and J. Luomi, Reduced-order flux observers with stator-resistance adaptation for speed-sensorless induction
motor drives, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 1173
1183, May 2010.
[24] F. R. Salmasi, T. A. Najafabadi, and P. J. Maralani, An adaptive flux
observer with online estimation of dc-link voltage and rotor resistance
for VSI-based induction motors, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 25,
no. 5, pp. 13101319, May 2010.
Michele Mengoni was born in Forl`, Italy, in
1981. He received the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees
(Hons.) in electrical engineering from the University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy, in 2006 and 2010,
respectively.
He is currently a Fellow Researcher at the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of
Bologna. His research interests include sensorless
control of induction motors, multiphase drives, and
ac/ac matrix converters.

Luca Zarri (M06) was born in Bologna, Italy, in

1972. He received the M.Sc. degree (Hons.) in electrical engineering and the Ph.D. degree from the University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy, in 1998 and 2007,
respectively.
He worked as a Freelance Software Programmer from 1989 to 1992 and as a Plant Designer
with an engineering company from 1998 to 2002.
In 2003, he became a Laboratory Engineer with the
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of
Bologna, where he has been an Assistant Professor
since 2005. He is the author or coauthor of more than 70 scientific papers. His
research interests include the modulation strategies of innovative converters and
the robust control of electric drives.
Dr. Zarri is a member of the IEEE Industry Applications, IEEE Power Electronics, and IEEE Industrial Electronics Societies.

Angelo Tani was born in Faenza, Italy, in 1963. He

received the M.Sc. degree (Hons.) in electrical engineering from the University of Bologna, Bologna,
Italy, in 1988.
He joined the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Bologna, in 1990, where he is currently an Associate Professor. His scientific work is
related to electrical machines, motor drives and power
electronics. He has authored more than 100 papers
published in technical journals and conference proceedings. His current research interests include multiphase motor drives, ac/ac matrix converters, and field-weakening strategies for
induction motor drives.

Giovanni Serra (SM04) received the M.Sc. degree

(Hons.) in electrical engineering from the University
of Bologna, Bologna, Italy, in 1975.
He joined the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Bologna, first as a recipient of a fellowship of the National Research Council, and then,
he became a Research Associate and, in 1987, an
Associate Professor. He is currently a Full Professor
of electrical machines in the Department of Electrical Engineering. He has authored more than 150
papers published in technical journals and conference proceedings. His research interests include electrical machines, electrical
drives, and power electronic converters. His current activities include multiphase drives, direct torque control of ac machines, linear motors, and ac/ac
matrix converters.
Dr. Serra is a member of the IEEE Industry Applications and IEEE Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Societies and the Italian Electrotechnical and
Electronic Association.

Domenico Casadei (SM04) received the M.Sc. degree (Hons.) in electrical engineering from the University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy, in 1974.
He joined the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Bologna, in 1975, as Research
Assistant Professor. He is currently a Full Professor of electrical drives. His scientific work is related
to electrical machines and drives and power electronics. He is author and coauthor of more than 200
scientific papers, published in technical journals and
conference proceedings. His current research interests include vector control of ac drives and diagnosis of electrical machines.
He has been involved in several research projects with the industry in the same
research areas.
Dr. Casadei is a senior member of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, a
member of the IEEE Power Electronics Society, and a member of the European
Power Electronics Society.