Closed-loop Control of BLDC Motor in Electric
Vehicle Applications
Ramachandran R, Ganeshaperumal D, Subathra B
Department of Instrumentation and Control Engineering,
Kalasalingam Academy of Research and Education
Krishnankoil, India
ramachandran, d.ganeshaperumal,b.subathra@klu.ac.in
Abstract—This paper presents the closed-loop control
(CLC) simulation for Brushless Direct Current (BLDC) motor
used in electric vehicle (EV) application. There are many
methods available to control BLDC motor, here a comparative
study between conventional and auto-tuned optimal controller
method for PID is reported. To ensure the quality of work,
the motor parameters are estimated from real-time motor
by experiments and it is used in simulation to study its
performance thoroughly. From this it is concluded that auto-
tuned PID controller has good track efficiency in achieving the
target speed, torque and current variations can also be reduced.
Index Terms—Brushless, BLDC, closed-loop control, CLC
I. Introduction
Brushless direct current (BLDC) motors are used in
wide-spread applications like electric vehicles (EV) [1]–
[4], commercial utilization [5], [6], industrial compressors,
and particularly in aerospace applications [7], [8]. This
is mainly due to their high efficiency, low noise, robust
construction, no brushes, less maintenance, and good
speed-torque performance. These features attracted many
researchers towards this domain.
In past few decades, BLDC motor is widely used
in many real world applications, but the challenge in
this is controlling of motor. The BLDC motor can be
controlled by various approaches and are classified as Pro-
portional Integral Derivative (PID) [9]–[11], Fuzzy logic
control(FLC) [12], Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Con-
trol [13]–[15], Adaptive Neuro and Fuzzy Inference Sys-
tem(ANFIS) [16]–[18] ,Sliding Mode Control(SMC), Ex-
tented Kalman Filter(EKF),Model Reference Adaptive
Control (MRAC) [19], and Model Predictive Control
(MPC) [20], [21].
The existing BLDC control architecture can be classified
as follows open-loop, closed-loop and cascade control.
Open-loop control (OLC) is perhaps the simplest strategy
having a reference generator, control module, power mod-
ule, an inverter and hall-effect sensors to control a BLDC
motor. In OLC,the BLDC motor follows the reference
speed which is provied by set-point generator. In OLC
potentiometer could be the set-point generator, which con-
trol the motor speed. However, in certain applications the
set-point generators could also be hall-effect sensors (i.e.,
electric bikes). The control module performs three tasks:
978-1-7281-4407-8/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on September 04,2020 at 17:08:55 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1. generate pulse-width modulation (PWM) to control the
motor speed, 2. provide electronic commutation based on
current position information and 3. generate gating inputs
to the inverter. The inverter circuit consists of MOSFET
or IGBT switches and driving circuit ICs or components.
The power module could be a DC-bus or battery providing
energy supply to the motor. The BLDC motor OLC is
simple compared with closed-loop control (CLC), and used
in constant load applications mostly and to detect initial
rotor position in sensorless methods. However, the reliable
starting is limited by the torque in conventional open-loop
speed control. In addition, stall or locked rotor condition
should be prevented by taking appropriate action.
CLC in BLDC motor is used to track the user defined
speed. In addition the motor speed may get affected by ex-
ternal disturbances such as speed barkers, obstacles, heavy
wind, it may increase torque and current variations as well.
The controller must respond immediately to minimize
the error and variations, by changing ”on time” or ”off
time” in the Pulse width modulation (PWM) pulses. In
the literature, conventional and intelligent techniques are
utilize the CLC methodology so as to reduces the error by
adjusting the parameters,thus the stability of system can
be enhanced, robustness against disturbances is improved
and to make the system to perform reliable [22]–[24].
Due to its simplicity and ease of operations the CLC
PID is the most prevalent one among the many techniques
available. For that, we require a model which mimics the
BLDC motor exactly along with the effect of load.
(i) BLDC motor model identification;
(ii) Controller performance compared using simulation.
This paper is organized as follows, Section II discuss
the mathematical description with state space model, the
conventional and auto-tuning PID algorithm. In section
III performance of the two PID algorithms are compared
using simulation study and results are discussed and
concluded in Section IV.
II. Mathematical Model of BLDC Motor
The equivalent circuit of BLDC motor shown in Fig.1
 d(ia1 − ia2 )
Ua1a2 = R(ia1 − ia2 ) + L + ea1a2 (14)
dt
d(ia2 − ia3 )
Ua2a3 = R(ia2 − ia3 ) + L + ea2a3 (15)
dt
   R  
dia1 −L 0 0 ia1
dia2  =  0 −R 0  ia2 
L
dia3 0 0 −B J
ia3
 
Ua1a2
 2  Ua2a3 
3L
1
3L
−2
3L 1 1 0  


+ − 3L
1 1 1
− 2 1
0   ea1  (16)
Fig. 1: Equivalent Circuit of BLDC Motor 3L 3L 3L 3L  ea2 
0 0 0 0 0 J1   ea3 


Tl
A. State Space Equations
dia1 Ria1 2 1 2
The mathematical model of BLDC motor is expressed =− + Ua1a2 + Ua2a3 − ea1 + ea2 + ea3
as follows: dt L 3L 3L 3L
dia1 (17)
Ua1 = Ria1 + L + ea (1) dia2 Ria2 1 1 1 2 1
dt =− − Ua1a2 + Ua2a3 + ea1 − ea2 + ea3
dt L 3L 3L 3L 3L 3L
dia2 (18)
Ua2 = Ria2 + L + ea2 (2)
dt
B. PID Algorithm
dia3
Ua3 = Ria3 + L + ea3 (3) Conventional PID is one among the most important
dt
strategy in controller design. The desired performance
where Ra1 = Ra2 = Ra3 = R is motor phase resistance can be obtained by tuning the PID controller settings.
in Ω, La1 = La2 = La3 = L is phase inductance in H, There are many rules available in the literature controller
Ua1 , Ua2 and Ua3 are three phase voltages in V, ia1 , ia2 tuning, Ziegler-Nichols and Cohen-Coon method is used
and ia3 are three phase currents in A, ea1 , ea2 and ea3 are for starting a base line.
back-emfs. The major challenge faced by many researchers is
According to Lenz law BLDC motor generates a back- tracking the speed of EV during online. This can over-
emf against the winding voltage. It associated with the come by choosing the appropriate controller parameters.
operate of rotor position and every part has one hundred The conventional PID controller calculates the error e(t)
twenty-part distinction. between reference value and the actual output. Then the
Equation of each phase as follows: controller will give the control measure u(t) to the plant.
The control law can be expressed as,
ea1 = ke .ω.fa1 (4) ∫ t
1 de(t)
ea2 = ke .ω.fa2 (5) u(t) = Kp (e(t) + e(t)dt + ) (19)
TI 0 dt
ea3 = ke .ω.fa3 (6) III. Results and Discussion
Ta1 = kt .ia1 .fa1 (7) To study the performance of PID using simulations,
we compared the following control techniques: (i) PID
Ta2 = kt .ia2 .fa2 (8)
controller tuned using conventional method (ZN-method),
Ta3 = kt .ia3 .fa3 (9) (ii) Auto-tuned PID controller. The study was conducted
on a BLDC motor whose parameters are shown in Tab. ??.
Te = Ta1 + Ta2 + Ta3 (10) In this study, we set the reference speed to 200 rpm and
2
d θm dθm a load torque of 3 N m was applied at 100 ms.
Te − Tl = J. 2
+ +β (11)
dt dt
A. Open-loop Control
P
θe = θm (12) The BLDC hub motor characteristics are studied in
2
open-loop. At no load condition, we obtain motor full
dθm speed is 390 rpm for the input 48 V, back-emf is trape-
ωm = (13)
dt zoidal. The speed vs time is plotted in Fig. 2. The
where, fa1 = f (θ), fa2 = f (θ − 2π 2π
3 ), fa3 = f (θ + 3 ), ke maximum torque is 6 Nm. The no load torque at 390 rpm
is back-emf constant [v/rad/s], θ is electrical angle, ω is is 0.3Nm, and suddenly the load torque 3 Nm is applied
velocity [rad/s]. at 100ms as shown in Fig. 3 and it is noted that steady

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on September 04,2020 at 17:08:55 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE I: BLDC motor parameters hall sensors H1 ,H2 & H3 will give total eight logical states
S.No Parameter Value Unit ’000’ to ’111’, Here ’000’&’111’ is not possible because
1 Resistance (R ) 0.3 Ω it ends with design complexity. So the remaining six
2 Inductance (L) 0.0003583 H
Motor Voltage
states divide the one electrical degree into six parts. When
3 0.5 V s rad−1 the hall sensor produce the output in the form of ’001’
Constant (Kv)
4
Motor Torque Constant
0.3 N m A−1 phase ’a1’&’a2’ will get energized with the help of Switch
(Kt) Ta1+ &Ta2− , the current enter in the motor through phase
5 Motor Inertia (J) 0.0099 kg m−2
Damping ’a1’ and circuit closed using the phase ’a2’, next ’011’ the
6 0.1246 Nms phase ’a1’&’a3’ will get energized with the help of switch
Coefficient (B)
Ta1+ &Ta3− , to keep running the motor phase sequence is
follows,
state is not reached again, the speed decreases to 350 rpm, a1a2->a1a3->a2a3->a2a1->a3a1->a3a2.
the steady state error and torque variations are the main
issues in this control. The torque follows phase current, TABLE II: Hall Sensor and Switch Sequence
the variations in phase current is shown in Fig. 4 and it is H1 H2 H3 Switch On
depending on back-emf, because supply voltage, resistance 0 0 1 Ta1+ ,Ta2−
and inductance values are constant. 0 1 1 Ta1+ ,Ta3−
0 1 0 Ta2+ ,Ta3−
1 1 0 Ta2+ ,Ta1−
400 1 0 0 Ta3+ ,Ta1−
Speed (rpm)

1 0 1 Ta3+ ,Ta2−

200
B. Closed-loop Control
0 The problem of steady state error and torque variations
0 50 100 150 200 in OLC can be overcome by CLC. The motor speed is
Time (s) controlled by the PID controller, the difference between
actual output of hall sensor and the reference (acceleration
Fig. 2: Speed Variations with Open-loop Control given by the user) is fed to the controller. This modifies
the pulse width modulation (PWM) signals accordingly,
further driver circuit gate is triggered by PWM signal
6 thus the three phase inverter stream line the current flow
Torque (Nm)

to the BLDC hub motor. The initial current is very high

4 due to zero back-emf at starting in BLDC motor. From
2 this observation, we have to introduce a shunt resistor in
the circuit or select appropriate power rated MOSFET’s
0 in real-time experiment to avoid the initial peak value of
0 50 100 150 200 current.
Time (s)
C. Conventional vs Auto-tuned PID
Fig. 3: Torque Variations with Open-loop Control The performance of conventional PID method is com-
pared with optimal controller parameter computed from
MATLAB/Simulink auto-tuning tool. The speed curve
20 with 3 Nm torque applied at 100ms with reference speed
Current (A)

10 selected as 200 rpm is shown in Fig. 5. The auto-tuned

method PID reaches the reference speed in 24ms as com-
0 pared with conventional method PID, where it took 30ms
−10 to reach the reference speed. This shows that auto-tuned
optimal controller having better tracking performance
0 50 100 150 200 than conventional method. Further, when load torque is
Time (s) applied the auto-tuned PID drives back to reference speed
faster than conventional PID.
Fig. 4: Current Variations with Open-loop Control Similarly, torque variations with and without load is
shown in Fig. 6, here one can see that torque variations
The Table II presents the commutation sequence of are very low in auto-tuned PID when compared with
switches according to the hall effect sensor output. The conventional PID. This result demonstrates the auto-
process can be explained with the digital logic operations, tuned PID is suitable to handle load torque variation in

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on September 04,2020 at 17:08:55 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
EV application. The variations of phase current with auto- 300 Auto-tuned PID Conventional PID

Speed (rpm)
tuned PID is also reduced compared with conventional
PID is shown in Fig. 7. 200
100
Auto-tuned PID Conventional PID
300
Speed (rpm)

0
200 0 50 100 150 200

100
0
0 50 100 150 200 254

Speed (rpm)
252
250
210 248
Speed (rpm)

205 246
106 108 110 112 114
200
Time (ms)
195
Fig. 8: Speed Variations with reference speed increased
190 from 200rpm to 250rpm at 100ms
15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (ms)
300
Fig. 5: Tracking Performance of Conventional PID versus Auto-tuned PID Conventional PID
Speed (rpm)

Auto-tuned PID 200

100
10
Torque (Nm)

Auto-tuned PID Conventional PID

0
0 50 100 150 200
5

154
Speed (rpm)

0 50 100 150 200

152
Time (ms)
150
Fig. 6: Torque Variations with Conventional PID versus 148
Auto-tuned PID 146
100 105 110 115 120
Time (ms)
Auto-tuned PID Conventional PID
Current (A)

20 Fig. 9: Speed Variations with speed reference decreased

from 200rpm to 150rpm at 100ms
0

−20 faster adaption capability of auto-tuned PID controller

0 50 100 150 200 compared to conventional method in the result.
Time (ms)
TABLE III: PID Parameters
Fig. 7: Current Variations with Conventional PID versus Method Kp Ki Kd
Auto-tuned PID Conventional PID 100 5 0.001
Auto-tuned PID 20 0.2 0.01
The response of auto-tuned PID with set-speed sud-
denly increased from 200 rpm to 250 rpm at 100ms and The performance indices are integral of absolute error
reduced from 200 rpm to 150 rpm at 100ms is shown (IAE), integral of square error (ISE), integral of time
in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9, respectively. The result shows the square error (ITSE), and integral of time absolute error

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on September 04,2020 at 17:08:55 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE IV: Performance Indices Comparison
Method ITAE ITSE IAE ISE
Conventional PID 1.094 0.1589 2.365 199.4
Auto-tuned PID 0.936 0.1237 2.204 198.5
(ITAE) and simulation results presented in Table.IV
clearly indicates auto-tuned PID gives less error compared
with conventional PID. This result demonstrates that sig-
nificant performance and energy efficiency can be achieved
in EV using proper tuning.
IV. Conclusion
This paper presented a comparative analysis between
conventional and auto-tuned Proportional Integral Deriva-
tive (PID) controller for Brushless Direct Current (BLDC)
hub motors used in electric vehicle (EV). The open-loop
and closed-loop control methods are tested in simulation.
The problem of high steady state error in OLC is avoided
in CLC. The initial starting current issue due to zero back-
emf and this is an alarming issue in real-time controller
design and implementation. By introducing shunt resistor
or appropriate power rating for MOSFET’s, this starting
current issue can be overcome in real-time experiment,
which is addressed from this simulation study. A com-
parative analysis between conventional and auto-tuning
PID results show that speed tracking and torque/current
variations are major challenges in controller design. This
model can be illustrated on a EV using measurements
obtained with the help of suitable sensors with integrating
cyber interfaces are the future course of this investigation.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge C-RACE, Kalasalingam
Academy of Research and Education for providing ex-
cellent resources and facilities for this research work.
References
[1] W. Lee, J. H. Kim, W. Choi, and B. Sarlioglu, “Torque
Ripple Minimization Control Technique of High-Speed Single-
Phase Brushless DC Motor for Electric Turbocharger,” IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 67, no. 11, pp.
10 357–10 365, NOV 2018.
[2] D. K. Kang and M. S. Kim, “Hardware-in-the-loop Simula-
tion To Evaluate the Drive Performance of the Electric Two-
Wheelers on a Motor Dynamometer,”International Journal Of
Automotive Technology, vol. 16, no. 6,pp. 1031–1040, DEC
2015.
[3] X. Liu, M. Li, and M. Xu, “Kriging Assisted On-line Torque
Calculation for Brushless DC Motors used in Electric Vehicles,”
International Journal of Automotive Technology, vol. 17, no. 1,
pp. 153–164, FEB2016.
[4] D. . Ganeshaperumal, N. . Muthukumar, K. . Ramkumar,
S. Srinivasan, and B. .Subathra, “Optimal fractional controller
design methodology for electric drive train,” International Jour-
nal of Electric and Hybrid Vehicles, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 335–350,
2016.
[5] D. Das, N. Kumaresan, V. Nayanar, K. N. Sam, and N. A.
Gounden, “Development of bldc motor-based elevator system
suitable for dc microgrid,”IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mecha-
tronics, vol. 21, no. 3, pp.1552–1560, 2016.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on September 04,2020 at 17:08:55 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[6] E. Jung, H. Yoo, S.-K. Sul, H.-S. Choi, and Y.-Y. Choi, “A nine-
phase permanent-magnet motor drive system for an ultrahigh-
speed elevator,”IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications,
vol. 48, no. 3, pp.987–995, 2012.
[7] J. Fu, Y. Fu, L. Yu, J. Guo, R. Yang, and M. Wang, “Digital
fixed-frequency hysteresis current control of a BLDC motor
applied for aerospace electrically powered actuators,” Chinese
Journal of Aeronautics, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1287–1297, JUN 2018.
[8] J. Feng, K. Liu, and Q. Wang, “Scheme based on buck-
converter with three-phase H-bridge combinations for high-
speed BLDC motors in aerospace applications,” IET Electric
Power Applications, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 405–414, MAR 2018.
[9] C.-L. Lin, H.-Y. Jan, and N.-C. Shieh, “Ga-based multiobjective
pid control for a linear brushless dc motor,” IEEE/ASME
transactions on mechatronics, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 56–65, 2003.
[10] G.-R. Yu and R.-C. Hwang, “Optimal pid speed control of
brush less dc motors using lqr approach,” in Systems, Man and
Cybernetics, 2004 IEEE International Conference on, vol. 1.
IEEE, 2004, pp. 473–478.
[11] M. Nasri, H. Nezamabadi-Pour, and M. Maghfoori, “A pso-
based optimum design of pid controller for a linear brushless dc
motor,” World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technol-
ogy, vol. 26, no. 40, pp. 211–215, 2007.
[12] J.-B. Lee, T.-B. Im, H.-K. Sung, and Y.-O. Kim, “A low
cost speed control system of brushless DC motor using fuzzy
logic,” in Information, Decision and Control, 1999. IDC 99.
Proceedings. 1999. IEEE, 1999, pp. 433–437.
[13] M. Rahman and M. Hoque, “On-line adaptive artificial neural
network based vector control of permanent magnet synchronous
motors,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 13,
no. 4, pp. 311–318, 1998.
[14] A. Rubaai and R. Kotaru, “Neural net-based robust controller
design for brushless dc motor drives,” IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and
Reviews), vol. 29, no. 3, pp.460–474, 1999.
[15] A. Rubaai, R. Kotaru, and M. D. Kankam, “A continually
online-trained neural network controller for brushless dc motor
drives,” IEEE transactions on industry applications, vol. 36,
no. 2, pp. 475–483, 2000.
[16] A. Rubaai, D. Ricketts, and M. D. Kankam, “Development and
implementation of an adaptive fuzzy-neural-network controller
for brushless drives,”IEEE Transactions on Industry Applica-
tions, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 441–447, 2002.
[17] K. Premkumar and B. V. Manikandan, “Adaptive Neuro-
Fuzzy Inference System based speed controller for brushless DC
motor,” Neurocomputing, vol. 138, pp. 260–270, AUG 22 2014.
[18] K. Premkumar and B. V. Manikandan, “Speed control of Brush-
less DC motor using bat algorithm optimized Adaptive Neuro-
Fuzzy Inference System,” Applied Soft Computing, vol. 32, pp.
403–419, JUL 2015.
[19] K. Xia, J. Lu, C. Bi, Y. Tan, and B. Dong, “Dynamic commu-
tation torque-ripple reduction for brushless DC motor based on
quasi-Z-source net,” IET Electric Power Applications, vol. 10,
no. 9, pp. 819–826, NOV2016.
[20] A. Darba, F. De Belie, P. D’haese, and J. A. Melkebeek,
“Improved Dynamic Behavior in BLDC Drives Using Model
Predictive Speed and Current Control,” IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 728–740, FEB 2016.
[21] T. Low, S. Chen, and X. Gao, “Robust torque optimization
for BLDC spindle motors,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 656–663, JUN 2001.
[22] M. M. Ezzaldean, “Design of speed-controller for brushless dc-
motor based on grey predictor-pid controller,” Engineering and
Technology Journal, vol. 36, no. 8 Part (A) Engineering, pp.
900–905, 2018.
[23] D. Potnuru and A. S. Tummala, “Implementation of grasshop-
per optimization algorithm for controlling a bldc motor drive,”
in Soft Computing in Data Analytics. Springer, 2019, pp. 369–
376.
[24] D. Potnuru and A. S. Tummala, “Grey wolf optimization-based
improved closed-loop speed control for a BLDC motor drive,”
in Smart Intelligent Computing and Applications. Springer,
2019,pp.145–152.