See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259000576

Discrete-Time Modeling of Induction Motors In Presence of Nonlinear Magnetic

Characteristic

Article · January 2011

CITATIONS READS

0 90

3 authors:

Abderrahim El Fadili Fouad Giri

Université Hassan II de Casablanca Université de Caen Normandie
58 PUBLICATIONS   240 CITATIONS    343 PUBLICATIONS   2,410 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Abdelmounime El Magri
Université Hassan II Mohammedia Casablanca
50 PUBLICATIONS   218 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Applicabilité de la commande avancée au procédé d'évaporation multiples effets d'une sucrerie View project

Multiple Model Identification View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abderrahim El Fadili on 09 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Discrete-time modelling of induction motors with consideration of magnetic saturation
A. Elfadili F. Giri H. Ouadi L. Dugard
LA2I, EMI, Rabat, Morrocco GREYC, ENSICAEN, France LA2I, EMI, Rabat, Morrocco LAG, Grenoble, France
Elfadili_abderrahim@yahoo.fr fouadgiri@yahoo.fr hamidouadi3@yahoo.fr Luc.Dugard@inpg.fr

Abstract – Time-discretization of nonlinear continuous systems most (nonlinear) physical systems are lowpass (from a
is intensively resorted to cope with digital implementation. In frequency viewpoint) and this feature guarantees a better
system control, time-discretization may concern either conditioning of the sampling operation. Unlikely, most of
nonlinear models or nonlinear regulators. This paper focuses on regulators (linear or not) are highpass. Consequently, those
the problem of discrete-time modelling of induction motors. The
aim is to get models that can be based upon to get digital
physical limitations on sampling rate are not necessarily an
simulators, observers and regulators for the studied machines. obstacle to the achievement of a sufficient accuracy for
The problem of interest is dealt with by combining different sampled models, while they usually are for sampled
discretization techniques, namely Euler approximation, regulators.
Carleman linearization and Taylor-Lie expansion. These are In the present paper the focus is made on the induction
applied to an experimentally validated continuous-time model motor. It is widely recognized that such a machine is going to
that account for the nonlinear feature of the motor magnetic become the main actuator for industrial purposes. Indeed, as
characteristic. The sampling frequency is set to 1 KHz, which is compared to the DC machine, it provides a better
the cutting frequency of the underlying inverter. The discrete- power/mass ratio, simpler maintenance (as it includes no
time models thus obtained are compared through simulations.
mechanical commutators) and a relatively lower cost.
However, the problems of state observation and control are
I. INTRODUCTION
more complex for the induction motor, as its model is
multivariable and highly nonlinear. This work aims at
Digital control of continuous-time systems is dealt with
developing, for these machines, discrete-time models that
following two approaches. The first one consists in sampling
may serve to designing regulators and state-observers or
and holding (using generally a ZOH) a given continuous-
simply constructing accurate simulators. The developed
time regulator. It is satisfactory only if the sampling period is
model will be derived from a continuous-time model that
sufficiently small (particularly with respect to plant
accounts for the saturation feature of the motor magnetic
dynamics). Otherwise, the expected performances (those of
characteristic and which has been experimentally validated
the continuous regulator) are poorly recovered by the digital
on a 7.5 kW machine, [4]. It is worth noting that most of
regulator. The performances may drastically deteriorate,
regulators and observers previously proposed for induction
leading to closed-loop instability, if the sampling period is
motors, have been designed using a standard continuous-time
not appropriately chosen. It is worth noting that, in some
model that ignores the saturation feature, e.g. [5]-[7].
practical applications, usual digital equipments are not able
Time-discretization of the induction motor model could be
to achieve the required sampling rate. Moreover, the
performed using standard methods such as those of Heun or
sampling frequency may also be imposed by the controlled
Range-Kutta [11]. But these have been discarded as they all
system. For instance, in the case of high power induction
share the disadvantage that the quality of approximation
motors, sampling frequency is limited by the admissible
deteriorates rapidly as the sampling period increases. Time-
commutation frequency within the inverter supplying the
discretization could also be coped with, considering input-
motor, [1]. The second approach to get digital regulators
output models involving Volterra-series [9]. But this has also
consists in sampling the (continuous-time) plant model and
been abandoned as it leads to complex models with a large
using the obtained model to determine a discrete regulator. It
number of parameters. Three discretization techniques are
is usually resorted to in linear systems control. Indeed, the
retained in this study, namely: Euler approximation, Taylor-
sampled systems theory, for linear continuous-time systems,
Lie type, [10]-[11], and Carleman linearization [12]. The first
has reached a high degree of maturity (e.g. [2]-[3]). In
one is simple but requires high sampling rates. The two latter
particular, it is well established that, for these systems, exact
involve a compromise between model complexity and
discretization is reached using different methods.
accuracy. Whatever the used technique, only approximate
Furthermore, some control design issues are easily, or can
discretization is achieved (while exact discretization is
only be, dealt with in a discrete-time control context. This is
possible for linear systems). To deal with model
particularly the case of dead-beat control and time-delay
discretization for induction motor, we propose to combine
issues. Finally, it is obvious that regulators which are directly
different techniques. This solution is motivated by the fact
designed in the discrete-time context have the advantage to
that the model is composed of two parts which are different
be immediately implementable through a ZOH. In the case of
from a dynamic viewpoint. The first one describes the
nonlinear systems, the time-discretization issue is
mechanical aspect of the motor while the second describes
considerably more complex and a general sampling theory
the electromagnetic features. On the other hand, the sampling
has yet to be constructed. Nevertheless, the approach
period is fixed to 1 ms (this is the frequency commutation in
consisting in discretizing the model of a nonlinear system
the inverter supplying the motor). Such a sampling period is
rather than its (nonlinear) regulator is still judicious. Indeed,

1-4244-0136-4/06/$20.00 '2006 IEEE 5119

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAT POLIT?CNICA DE CATALUNYA. Downloaded on July 13,2010 at 12:23:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 certainly very small as long as the mechanical part is
concerned. But, it is just fair for the electromagnetic part.
Therefore, it is sufficient to use the Euler technique for the
first one and either Taylor-Lie or Carleman for the second.
The discrete models thus obtained will prove to be quite
satifactory.
The paper is organised as follows: the continuous-time
model of the induction motor is presented in Section 2; the
retained discretization techniques are described in Section 3
and applied in Section 4 to get discrete-time models for the
considered machine.
II. CONTINUOUS MODEL OF INDUCTION MOTORS
Continuous-time model of an induction motor, in a
coordinate system related to the stator field, is defined by the
In the above model, the parameter δ is a function of the
rotor flux norm Φ r . So, it depends on both components of
the rotor flux. The magnetic characteristic of the motor is
denoted Φ r = λ ( I µ ) where I µ denotes the norm of the
magnetizing current. Figure 1 shows a set of points ( I µ , Φ µ )
experimentally determined in [4] for a 7.5 kW induction
motor. The parameter values of this motor are given in Table
II. The figure also shows a polynomial approximation of the
magnetic characteristic. From the experimental points
( I µ , Φ µ ) a set of points (Φ r , δ ) have been computed and
based upon to get a polynomial approximation (Fig 2).
1.5

following equations, [4]:

x = f ( x, u ) (1)

rotor flux
1

with
x = [isd , isq , φrd , φrq , Ω]T ; u = [usd , usq ]T (2) 0.5

⎡ −a2 isd + ωs isq + δφrd + a3 pΩφrq + a3 usd ⎤ 0

⎢ ⎥ 0 20 40 60 80 100

⎢ −ωs isd − a2 isq − a3 pΩφrd + δφrq + a3 usq ⎥ magnetic current

⎢ a1 isd − Lseqδφrd + (ωs − pΩ)φrq ⎥ Fig. 1. Magnetic characteristic Φ r : experimental points (+++) and
f ( x, u ) = ⎢ ⎥ (3)
⎢ a1isq − Lseqδφrq − (ωs − pΩ)φrd ⎥ polynomial interpolation (solid). I µ (A), Φ r (Wb)
⎢ T ⎥
p
⎢
⎣⎢ J
( φrd isq − φrq isd ) − L
J
⎥
⎦⎥
4000

3500

For convenience, the last equation is given the following 3000

delta

condensed form: 2500

2000

f ( x, u ) = [ f1 ( x, u ), f 2 ( x, u ), f 3 ( x, u ), f 4 ( x, u ), f5 ( x, u ) ]
T

(4) 1500

1000

x = [ x1 ; x2 ; x3 ; x4 ; x5 ] = ⎡⎣isd ; isq ; φrd ; φrq ; Ω ⎤⎦

T T 500
(5) 0 0.5
rotor flux
1 1.5

Fig. 2. The characteristic ( δ , Φ r ). Directly computed points (+++)

where the meaning of the functions f i ( x ,u ) is obvious. The and polynomial interpolation (solid). Unities: δ ( ΩH −2 ), Φ r (Wb)
model variables and parameters are explicated in Table I.
TABLE II. MOTOR CHARACTERISTICS
TABLE I. DEFINITION OF THE VARIABLES AND PARAMETERS IN
THE MODEL (1)-(5) OF INDUCTION MOTORS Nominal power PN 7.5 KW
Nominal voltage Usn 380 V
isd , isq Stator currents a1 = Rr Nominal flux Φrn 1 Wb
φrd , φrq Rotor flux R + Rr
a2 = s stator resistance Rs 0.63 Ω
Ω Motor speed Lseq
rotor resistance Rr 0.4 Ω
usd , usq Stator voltage 1
a3 = Inertia moment J 0.22 Kgm2
Rr , Rs Rotor, stator resistances Lseq
Friction coefficient f 0.001 N m.s/ rad
TL Load torque R λ −1 (Φ r )
δ= r Number of pole pairs p 2
p Number of pole pairs Lseq Φ r
Equivalent inductance of stator and Lseq 7 mH
Lseq Equivalent inductance, seen Φr = φ + φ 2 2 rotor leakage (seen from the stator)
rd rq
at the stator, of both stator
and rotor leakage
ωs Stator angular frequency

5120

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAT POLIT?CNICA DE CATALUNYA. Downloaded on July 13,2010 at 12:23:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 III. DISCRETIZATION METHODS Proposition 3.1. Let the function F Te in (9) be defined as
A. Discretization using Euler approximation follows:
In the sequel, all signals are sampled with a fixed sampling T L f ( xk ,uk ) T L f ( xk ,uk )
F Te ( xk , uk ) = e e ( I d )( xk ) = e e ( xk ) (10)
period Te. For the sake of simplicity, the obtained sequences
(u( kTe ), x( kTe )) are denoted (u k , x k ) (k=0, 1, 2, …). Euler with :
discretization consists in approximating the derivative x at
1 p 1 1
=∑
Lf
e L f := 1 + L f + L2f + ... + Lpf + ... (11)
time t = kTe by the quantity ( xk +1 − xk ) / T . Applying this to p! 2! p!
e p≥0

the continuous-time model (1) leads the following discrete-

time approximation: Then, there exists a Te0>0 such that for any Te ≤ Te 0 , the
model (9) constitutes an exact discretization of the
xk +1 = xk + Te f ( xk , uk ) (6)
continuous-time model (7)

For practical applications, it is necessary to limit the

B. Discretization using Taylor development development (11) to some order, say N. Then, expression
Consider a continuous-time model of the form: (10) can be formulated as follows:
x = f ( x, u ) (7) ee
T L f ( xk ,uk )
( xk ) :=
where x ∈ R , u ∈ R and f : M × R → R for some
n n m n
⎛ Te2 2 TN ⎞ N +1
⎜ 1 + Te L f + L f + ... + e LNf ⎟ ( xk ) + ο (Te ) (12)
open M ⊂ R . The control signal u (t ) is generated
n 2! N !
⎝ ⎠
through a ZOH, i.e. :
N +1
where the quantity ο (Te ) accounts for higher order terms
u( kTe + τ ) = u( kTe ) , ∀k ∈ IN , ∀τ ∈ [ kTe ,( k + 1 )Te ) (8)
and vanishes as rapidly as TeN +1 , when Te tends to zero.
where Te>0 is the sampling period. To the above continuous Therefore, this quantity can be ignored when Te is
model, we associate discrete-time models of the form: sufficiently small. Then, the discrete-time model (9) can be
xk = F Te ( xk , uk ) (9) given the following compact form:
N
Te j ( j )
with xk ∈ M and F Te ( xk , uk ) : M × m
→ n
. The discrete xk +1 := F Te ( xk , uk ) := ∑ xk (13)
j =0 j !
Te
model is characterized by the function F that depends on
where
the discretization method and which is parameterized by the ( j)
sampling period Te. Here, we seek a discretization method xk = Ljf ( xk ,uk ) ( xk ) (14)
such that, for sufficiently small values of Te, the resulting
model (9) exhibits the same input-state behaviour as the Remark 3.1. In the particular case where N=1, the Taylor
corresponding continuous model. This property is more discrete-time model (13) reduces to the Euler model (6).
precisely formulated in the following definition.
C. Discretization using Carleman linearization
Definition 3.1. Consider a continuous-time model (7), Using the control holding property (8), the continuous-
submitted to a control input u satisfying (8), and its discrete- time model (7) can be rewritten as:
time version (9) obtained with some sampling period Te. The
model (9) is said to be an exact discretization of (7) if the x = f ( x(t ), uk ) t ∈ ⎡⎣ kTe , (k + 1)Te ) (15)
following statement holds:
x(0Te ) = x0 ⇒ x(kTe ) = xk ( ∀k ∈ IN ) where u k := u( kTe ) to alleviate notation and f : n
→ n

is as smooth as necessary. Then, Taylor expansion of

The discretization result by the Taylor method is given in the g(x)=f(x, uk) in (15) around x=0 yields:
next proposition, using the following notations: ∞

. L f h : Lie derivative of h(x) along the vector field f(x) i.e. x = A10 (uk ) + ∑ A1 j (uk ) x[ j ] (16)
j =1
n
∂h
L f h( x ) = ∑ f i ( x ) ( x) where A10 (uk ) = f (0, uk ) and
i =0 ∂xi
∂f ( x, u )
. Lpf h = L f (... (L f h)) A11 (uk ) = , Aij = A1 j ⊗ I ni−1 + I n ⊗ Ai −1 j
∂x x = 0, u = uk
p times

. I , Id denote the identity function and operator, respectively. x[ j ] is the jth Kronecker power of the vector of state

5121

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAT POLIT?CNICA DE CATALUNYA. Downloaded on July 13,2010 at 12:23:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 variables e.g. x[2] = x ⊗ x which in the case of x = [ x1 x2 ]T The Carleman discretization has been limited to the first
order because the involved varying parameter δ is not
yields x[2] = [ x12 x1 x2 x2 x1 x22 ] . From (16) on gets, what is
defined for x = 0 .
called, the Nth order Carleman linearization of (15), [12]:
x*N = FN (uk ) x*N + g N (uk ) (17) IV. DESIGN OF DISCRETE-TIME MODELS FOR THE
INDUCTION MOTOR
where x*N approximates xk* = [ x x[2] … x[ k ] ]T and the matrix
FN , g N are given by: A. Design strategy
First notice that the continuous-time model (1) can be
⎡ A11 A12 A1, N −1 A1, N ⎤ decomposed in two subsystems, namely:
⎢ A20 A21 A2, N − 2 A2, N −1 ⎥⎥ z = h1 ( z , Ω, u ) , Ω = h2 ( Ω, z , u )
⎢
FN = ⎢ 0 A30 A3, N − 3 A3, N − 2 ⎥ (18a) T
⎢ ⎥ z = ⎡⎣isd , isq , φrd ,φrq ⎤⎦ =[z1 ,z 2 ,z3 ,z 4 ]T (25)
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 0 0 AN 0 AN 1 ⎥⎦ with:
⎡ − a2 isd + ωs isq + δφrd + a3 pΩφrq + a3 usd ⎤
g N = [ A10 , 0,..., 0]
T
(18b) ⎢ ⎥
⎢ −ωs isd − a2 isq − a3 pΩφrd + δφrq + a3 usq ⎥
h1 ( z , Ω, u ) = (26)
where i = 2,3,… , N ; j = 0,1,… , N − i + 1 . Note that the ⎢ a1 isd − Lseqδφrd + (ωs − pΩ)φrq ⎥
⎢ ⎥
dimension of the Carleman linearized system is: ⎣⎢ a1isq − Lseqδφrq − (ωs − pΩ)φrd ⎦⎥
ρ N = ∑ i =1 ni .
N
(18c) T
p
h2 ( z, Ω, u ) =
J
( φrd isq − φrq isd ) − L
J
(27)
Furthermore, since the control variable is held constant
during the sampling interval, equation (17) turns out to be a The first subsystem dynamics, with electromagnetic state
system of linear differential equations. Integrating these variables (currents and flux), is faster than that of the second
along a sampling interval yields the discrete-time model: subsystem describing the machine mechanical speed.
x*N k +1 = Γ(uk ) x*N k + ∆(uk ) (19) Furthermore, the sampling frequency is imposed by the
inverter supplying the machine i.e. fe=1khz. Such a frequency
where Γ ( u k ), ∆( u k ) are given by the usual expressions: is sufficiently high as long as the mechanical subsystem is
concerned. Then, we propose to discretize this subsystem
Γ(uk ) = e FN (uk )Te (20) using the Euler method which, in such conditions, leads to
accurate results. On the contrary, the above frequency is just
Te fair for the electromagnetic subsystem which must then be
∆(uk ) = ∫ e FN (uk )τ dτ g N (uk ) (21) discretized using Taylor-Lie or Carleman methods. The
0
accuracy of the resulting model will depend on the
These can be approximated by their finite developments to discretization order whose choice leads to a compromise
some order: between model accuracy and complexity.
100
(Te FN (uk )) p
Γ(uk ) = ∑ (22) Remark 3.2. If the operation conditions are such that the
p =0 p! speed and the parameter δ are slightly varying then the
(continuous-time) motor model (1) turns out to be almost
100
(Te FN (uk )) p linear.
∆ (uk ) = [Te ∑ ] g N (uk ) (23)
p=0 ( p + 1)!
B. Performances of the designed discrete-time models
the value 100 has turned out to be a good compromise From the discretization strategy described previously one
between model complexity and accuracy gets two discrete-time models.
From eq (17), the following discrete model is obtained [12]:
N Euler-Taylor Model
xk +1 = ∑ Γ1i (uk ) x k + ∆1 (uk )
[i ]
(24) This model is obtained applying the Euler approximation to
i =1 the mechanical part and the Taylor-Lie approach to the
where Γ1i is the submatrix of Γ that contains the first n rows electromagnetic part. The obtained discrete-time model, with
a truncation order N=3, is:
and as many columns as the dimension of x[i ] (which equals
ρN), ∆1 is the vector that consists of the first n rows of ∆ . Te2 2 T3
zi k +1 = zi k + Te L f zi k + L f zi k + e L3f zi k , i= 1,..,4
The discrete-time model (24) is referred to (Nth order) 2! 3!
Carleman discretization of model (15).

5122

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAT POLIT?CNICA DE CATALUNYA. Downloaded on July 13,2010 at 12:23:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 p T models deviate from the continuous model (fig 11). For
Ωk +1 = Ωk +
J
( )
φrd k isq k ) − φrq k isd k Te − Lk Te
J
(28) Te=4ms, the Taylor-Lie model of order 2 becomes unstable.
Figure 10 shows that Euler method is largely sufficient to
where: discretize the slow mode of the machine.The comparison
4 ∂f j results are summarized in Table III.
L f z j = ∑ fi ( z ) ( z)
i =1 ∂zi
TABLE III. Models comparison
4 ∂Lpf −1 f j
L z j = ∑ fi ( z )
p Taylor 2 Taylor 3 Carleman 1
f ( z ) , j=1,..,4 (29)
i =1 ∂zi time-computation +++- ++-- +---
accuracy +--- +++- +++-
Euler-Carleman Model sensitivity to Te ---- +--- +++-
This model is obtained applying Euler approximation to validity domain ++-- +++- +++-
the mechanical part and the Carleman linearization (to the
first order) to the electromagnetic part. The obtained discrete- 400

angular frequency ws (rd/s)

time model is: 300
zk +1 = Γ1 (uk ) zk + ∆1 (uk ) (30) 200

100
p T
( )
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Ωk +1 = Ωk + φrd k isq k − φrq k isd k Te − Lk Te (31) time (s)

load torque Tl(Nm)

J J 40

100
(Te F1 (uk )) p
Γ1 (uk ) = ∑
20
(32)
p=0 p!
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
time (s)
(T F (u )) p
100
∆1 (uk ) = [Te ∑ e 1 k ] g1 (uk ) (33)
p =0 ( p + 1)! Fig. 3. Applied load torque and angular frequency

with:
⎡ − a2 ωs δ a3 pΩ ⎤ 200
Carleman
⎢ ⎥ continuous

−ω −a2 −a3 pΩ δ
stator currant (A)

F1 = ⎢ s ⎥ 150

⎢ a1 0 − Lseqδ (ωs − pΩ) ⎥

⎢ ⎥ 100

⎢⎣ 0 a1 −(ωs − pΩ) − Lseqδ ⎥⎦

50
T
and g1 = ⎡⎣ a3 usd , a3 usq , 0, 0 ⎤⎦
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
time ( s)
Comparison of the 3 models Fig. 4: Stator current. (Solid: Carleman model, dotted: continuous)
The above discrete-time models are now compared to their
continuous-time homologous. The motor characteristics are 1 .4
Carleman
those of Table II. The operation conditions are fixed through 1 .2
continuous

the load torque and the stator current frequency. The

rotorflux (Wb)

simulation protocol is chosen such that the machine operates 0 .8

in different operation conditions: low and high speed, linear 0 .6

and nonlinear zones of the magnetic characteristic, loaded 0 .4

and unloaded motor. The initial conditions are always 0 .2

identical for all models. Figures 4 to 5 show the good 0

0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1
performances of the Euler-Carleman model in the different time (s)

operation conditions. Furthermore, the model seems to be Fig. 5: rotor flux. (Solid: Carleman, dotted: continuous)
weakly sensitive to sampling period changes (fig 11).
However, due to its complexity, the model requires an 200
Taylor N=2
continuous
important time-computation. The performances of the Euler-
statorcurrant (A)

150
Taylor model are illustrated by figures 6 to 7 for N=2 and by
figures 8 to 9 for N=3. These figures confirm that model 100

accuracy improves when the discretization order increases.

The third order yields a quite accurate model and requires a 50

reasonable computation time, much less than the Euler-

Carleman model. For larger sampling periods, all discrete 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
time (s)

5123

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAT POLIT?CNICA DE CATALUNYA. Downloaded on July 13,2010 at 12:23:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Fig. 6. Stator current. (Solid : Taylor N=2, dotted : continuous) V. CONCLUSION
1.4
Ta yl or N=2
1.2
conti nuous
In this paper, we have considered the problem of designing
b)

discrete-time models for nonlinear systems, applied to

rotorflux (W

0.8 induction motor. The continuous-time model used in the

0.6 study accounts for the nonlinearity of the magnetic
0.4 characteristic. It is shown that satisfactory discrete-time
0.2 models can be obtained combining different discretization
0
0 0.2 0.4time (s)
0.6 0.8 1
techniques, namely Euler approximation with Taylor
development and Euler approximation with Carleman
Fig. 7. rotor flux. (Solid : Taylor N=2, dotted: continuous) linearization. The first combination leads to a better
compromise accuracy/complexity for the model.
200
Taylor N=3
continuous
REFERENCES
stator currant (A)

150

100 [1] C. Canudas de Wit. ‘Optimisation discrétisation et observateurs.

In ‘Commande des moteurs asynchrones’, Vol. 2, Hermes
50 sciences, Paris, 2000
[2] R.H. Middelton, G.C. Goodwin. ‘Digital estimation and control-
0 A unified approach’. Prentice-Hall, 1990
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
tim e (s ) [3] A. Feuer, G.C. Goodwin. ‘Sampling in digital signal processing
Fig. 8 : stator current. (Solid : Taylor N=3, dotted : continuous) and control’, Birkhauser, 1996
[4] H. Ouadi, F. Giri, L. Dugard ‘Accounting for magnetic
1.4 saturation in induction motor modelling – Theoretical
Taylor N=3
1.2 continuous development and experimental validation’. IEEE Conference on
Control Applications (CCA’04), September 1-4, 2004, Taipei,
rotor flux(Wb)

1
Taiwan
0.8
[5] R. Ortega, P.J. Nicklasson and G. Espinosa-Perez, 'On speed
0.6
control of induction motors', Automatica, Vol 32, N 3, 1996.
0.4
[6] D. Lubineau. ‘Commande non linéaire de moteur asynchrone
0.2 avec observateur’. PhD Thesis, INPG, Grenoble, France, 1999
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
[7] H. Ouadi . ‘Modélisation, observation et commande de la
tim e (s )
machine asynchrone saturée’, PHD, EMI, University of Rabat-
Fig. 9. rotor flux. (Solid : Taylor N=3, dotted : continuous) Agdal, Marroco, 2004
[8] H. Ouadi, F. Giri, J. De Leon-Morales, L. Dugard, ‘Accounting
200 for magnetic characteristic nonlinearity in designing induction
motor observer’. IFAC Symposium on Nonlinear Control
150 Systems, NOLCOS, Stuttgart, Germany, pp. 1409-1414, 2004
[9] S.C. Chapra, R.P. Canale, ‘Numerical methods for engineers’,
speed (rd/s)

100
McGraw Hill, New York, 1988
50
[10]S. Monaco and D. Normand-Cyrot. ‘Some elements on
T aylo r N=2 nonlinear digital control’, In ‘Nonlinear systems’, Part 3,
T aylo r N=3
0 c o ntinuo us chapter 4, Masson, Paris, pp 111-137, 1993
C arle m an
[11]N. Kazantizis, C. Kravaris. ‘Time discrtization of nonlinear
-5 0
0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1
control systems via Taylor methods’, Computers and Chemical
tim e (s ) Engineering, pp.763-784, 1999.
Fig. 10. motor speed. [12]S.A. Svoronos, D. Papageorgiou C. Tsiligiannis. ‘Discretization
of nonlinear control systems via the Carleman linearization’,
200 Chemical Engineering Science, vol 49, pp 3263-3267, 1994
Car l e ma n
conti nuous
Ta yl or N=3
150
statorcurrant (A)

100

50

0
0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1
time (s)

Fig. 11. models stator currents for Te=4ms

5124

Authorized
View publicationlicensed
stats use limited to: UNIVERSITAT POLIT?CNICA DE CATALUNYA. Downloaded on July 13,2010 at 12:23:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.