IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 56, NO.
6, JUNE 2009
Antiwindup Strategy for PI-Type Speed Controller
Jong-Woo Choi, Member, IEEE, and Sang-Cheol Lee
Abstract—This paper proposes a new antiwindup strategy for
PI speed controller to suppress the undesired side effect known
as integrator windup when large set-point changes are made.
When the speed control mode is changed from P control to PI
control, an appropriate initial value for the integrator is assigned.
This value then restricts the overshoot. In addition, the pro-
posed method guarantees the designed performance independent
of the operating conditions, i.e., different set-point changes and
load torques, and can be easily implemented with existing PI
controllers. In SIMULINK/MATLAB-based comparative simu-
lations and experiments for a permanent-magnet synchronous
motor speed controller, the proposed method shows a superior
control performance compared with the existing well-known anti-
windup methods, such as conditional integration and tracking
back calculation.
Index Terms—Antiwindup, integrator windup, permanent-
magnet synchronous motor (PMSM), PI controller, speed control.
I. I NTRODUCTION
R ECENTLY, vector-controlled motor drive systems have
been adopted to meet industrial needs, such as quality and
efficiency, mainly due to their high-performance speed control
and fast response time. Conventional PI-type controllers are
easy to apply to motor drives and robust as regards modeling
errors. However, all industrial processes are subject to certain
limitations. For instance, an analog controller works in a limited
range for the voltage and current, and a motor-driven actuator
has a rated torque and limited speed. As such, these limitations
mean that the real plant input can differ from the controller
output. When this happens, if the controller is initially designed
to operate within a linear range, the closed-loop performance
will significantly deteriorate with respect to the expected linear
performance [1]. This performance deterioration is referred to
as integrator windup, which can significantly degrade the con-
trol performance, resulting in a high overshoot and long settling
time. Practically, integrator windup occurs in connection with
large set-point changes or large disturbances [2], [3].
In an attempt to overcome the windup phenomenon, a
number of antiwindup techniques have been proposed in the
Manuscript received March 29, 2008; revised October 30, 2008. First pub-
lished March 16, 2009; current version published June 3, 2009. This work was
supported by the Manpower Development Program for Energy and Resources
funded by the Ministry of Knowledge and Economy (MKE), Korea, and the
General R/D Program of the DGIST, funded by the Ministry of Education,
Science and Technology (MEST), Korea.
J.-W. Choi is with the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer
Science, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 702-701, Korea (e-mail:
jwchoi@ee.knu.ac.kr).
S.-C. Lee is with the Public and Original Technology Research Center,
Daegu-Gyungbuk Institute of Science and Technology, Daegu 704-230, Korea
(e-mail: sclee@dgist.ac.kr).
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/TIE.2009.2016514
0278-0046/$25.00 © 2009 IEEE
2039
literature [1], [3], [17]. Some approaches deal with the nonlin-
ear systems framework to overcome the windup problem [1],
[3], [6], but this makes the overall design much more compli-
cated. Therefore, the typical method to deal with the integrator
windup is to tune the controller ignoring the actuator saturation,
and subsequently add an antiwindup compensator to prevent
performance degradation [7]. Essentially, the conventional
antiwindup methods take two different approaches, namely,
conditional integration and tracking back calculation [4].
This paper proposes a new antiwindup strategy for PI speed
controller to suppress the undesired side effect known as in-
tegrator windup. The proposed antiwindup scheme has certain
advantages: almost zero overshoot and simple implementation
in existing PI controllers. When the speed control mode is
changed from P control to PI control, an appropriate initial
value for the integrator is assigned. This value then restricts
the overshoot. In addition, the proposed method guarantees the
designed performance independent of the operating conditions,
i.e., different set-point changes and load torques. Simulation
and experimental results are shown for permanent-magnet
synchronous motor (PMSM) speed control, plus comparative
studies with conventional schemes are given to verify the
performance improvement of the proposed scheme.
II. C ONVENTIONAL A NTIWINDUP S CHEMES
The conventional antiwindup methods include : 1) condi-
tional integration [8], [13], [14], where the integral action
is switched on or off depending on certain conditions, with
integration suspended when saturation occurs, and the control
error is of the same sign as the control signal; 2) the use of
a limited integrator [10], where the integrator value is limited
to the linear range of the actuator by hard feedback via a
high-gain dead zone; and 3) the classical method of tracking
back calculation [4], [12], [16], where the difference between
the saturated and the unsaturated control signal is used to
generate a feedback signal to act on the integrator input. Unified
antiwindup strategies that combine conditional integration and
tracking back calculation approaches have been presented in [1]
and [2]. However, the aforementioned methods are sufficiently
covered by reviewing the basic two antiwindup schemes:
conditional integration and tracking back calculation.
A. Conditional Integration
In conditional integration, as shown in Fig. 1, the integration
is switched on or off depending on certain conditions, such
as the size of the control signal or control error. When using
conditional integration (also called integrator clamping), refers
2040
Fig. 1. Conditional integration scheme block diagram.
Fig. 2. Tracking back calculation scheme block diagram.
Fig. 3. Limited integrator utilizing dead zone operator.
to methods presented in [6] and [11], a zero steady state error
always has to be guaranteed. Plus, the integral term is only
increased when certain conditions are satisfied, otherwise it
is kept constant. Usually, the integration is stopped when the
controller is saturated, i.e., i = i∗ .
B. Tracking Back Calculation
Tracking back calculation is the classical method used to
prevent integral windup. The standard tracking antiwindup
structure commonly described in the literature is shown in
Fig. 2, where Ka denotes the antiwindup gain. Once the con-
troller output exceeds the actuator limits, a feedback signal is
generated from the difference between the saturated and the
unsaturated control signals and used to reduce the integrator
input. The saturation in Fig. 2 can either be the actual saturation
in the actuator, if the actuator output can be measured, or a
model used in the controller.
The structure shown in Fig. 3 is called a limited integration to
guarantee operation in the linear region. The feedback signal is
generated using a dead zone, where the dead zone range must
represent the maximum range of the actuator ±Imax and the
sloop is the same as Ka .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 56, NO. 6, JUNE 2009
III. P ROPOSED A NTIWINDUP S CHEME
A. Operation Principle
The proposed antiwindup scheme is based on the well-known
conditional integral method, which changes between a P and
PI controller under specific conditions. However, the main
difference is how to set the initial value of the integrator in
the PI control mode. A block diagram of the proposed scheme
is shown in Fig. 4, where the switch operation, ON-state or
OFF-state, connects to the PI mode or P mode, respectively.
The initial value of the integrator (ii_o ) is loaded in the
P mode, and the PI controller works in the PI mode utilizing
the loaded initial value. The integrator output value is written
using ii_ss to compensate for viscous damping and load torque
at a well-controlled steady state condition without a speed error.
Meanwhile, ii_o is a precalculated integrator initial value and
loaded through a low-pass filter (LPF) to prevent abrupt current
changing. The time constant of LPF is fast enough to stabilize
the changed value before a PI controller operation. A typical
speed response with step changing of speed reference under
a saturated PI controller and integrator output value is shown
in Fig. 5.
B. Closed-Loop Transfer Function at Nonzero
Initial Condition
The mechanical system is modeled as (1), with the angular
speed ωm (t), load torque TL , and electrical torque producing
current i(t)
dωm (t)
J + Bωm (t) + TL = KT i(t) (1)
dt
where J is the moment of inertia, B is the viscous damping
coefficient, and KT is the torque constant. The PI controller
can then be written as (2) using the proportional gain Kp and
integral gain Ki
i(t) = ip (t) + ii (t)
∗
ip (t) = Kp (ωm − ωm (t))
dii (t) ∗
= Ki (ωm − ωm (t)) (2)
dt
∗
where ωm is the speed reference, ip (t) is the proportional term,
and ii (t) is the integrator term. Substituting (2) in (1), the
closed-loop transfer function for speed can be derived as (3)
by a Laplace transformation
J (sωm (s) − ωm_o ) + Bωm (s)
  
Ki ∗ ii_o τL
= KT Kp + (ωm − ωm (s)) + − . (3)
s s s
Here, the load torque is assumed to be constant TL (s) =
τL /s, and ωm (s) is a Laplace transform of ωm (t). When the
controller enters the PI mode at t = tb , the initial states value
for speed and integrator term are denoted by ωm (tb ) = ωm_o
and ii (tb ) = ii_o , respectively. Plus, (3) can be rewritten as (4)
CHOI AND LEE: ANTIWINDUP STRATEGY FOR PI-TYPE SPEED CONTROLLER 2041

Fig. 4. Proposed antiwindup PI speed controller block diagram.

At t = tb , the P mode is changed to the PI mode with an

initial integral value ii_o defined by
τL + Bωm_o ∗
ii_o = − K (ωm − ω m_ o ) . (6)
KT
It is noted that the first right-term means the required current
to operate at ωm_o , while the second right-term can be assigned
based on the initial value of the speed error required to reach the
∗
reference speed ωm compensating for the windup effect, i.e.,
the overshoot. A selection gain K can be designed to satisfy
the antiwindup performance and is explained in Section IV.
Substituting (6) in (4) gives

KT [(Kp − K)s + Ki ]
ωm (s) = ω∗
Js2 + (KT Kp + B)s + KT Ki m
Js + KT K + B
+ 2 ωm_o . (7)
Js + (KT Kp + B)s + KT Ki
The final transfer function of the speed response can be
rewritten during the PI mode with the initial state speed ωm_o
Fig. 5. Angular speed response at step command and integrator output value
change. ωm_o  ωm_o 
∗
ωm (s) − = H(s) ωm − (8)
s s
with respect to the input terms, such as the speed reference, load
torque, and initial state value for the speed and integrator term where
KT [(Kp − K)s + Ki ]
KT (Kp s + Ki ) H(s) = .
ωm (s) = 2 ω∗ Js2 + (KT Kp + B)s + KT Ki
Js + (KT Kp + B)s + KT Ki m
It is noted that zero can be assigned to a specific location
1 to change the speed response, which can be predicted in the
− 2 τL
Js + (KT Kp + B)s + KT Ki controller design step. If K = 0 and initial conditions are zero,
then the transfer function equals the original function, such as
Js
+ ω m_ o KT (Kp s + Ki )
Js2 + (KT Kp + B)s + KT Ki ωm (s) = ω∗ . (9)
Js2 + (KT Kp + B)s + KT Ki m
KT
+ ii_o . (4)
Js2 + (KT Kp + B)s + KT Ki IV. A NTIWINDUP C ONTROLLER D ESIGN
A. Pole-Zero Location and Antiwindup Gain
At a steady state t = ta before a new set-point change,
speed response and current are denoted by ωm (ta ) = ωm_ss and As given in (8), the designed antiwindup gain K can modify
ii (ta ) = ii_ss , respectively. Plus, the following (5) is satisfied the speed response characteristics in the PI control mode. If two
with a constant load torque: poles p1 , p2 and one zero z1 are assumed, then

τL + Bωm_ss p1 p 2 (s − z1 )
ii_ss = . (5) H(s) = − (10)
KT z1 (s − p1 )(s − p2 )
2042 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 56, NO. 6, JUNE 2009

where TABLE I
RATINGS AND PARAMETERS OF 400-W PMSM
Ki
z1 = − <0
Kp − K

−(KT Kp + B) + (KT Kp + B)2 − 4JKT Ki
p1 = <0
2J

−(KT Kp + B) − (KT Kp + B)2 − 4JKT Ki
p2 = < 0.
2J
The pole locations are determined by PI the gains, however,
the zero location is determined by the antiwindup gain and
given PI gains. For example, the zero is selected as z1 = p1 TABLE II
to be canceled with a smaller pole such as |p1 | < |p2 |, and the RATINGS AND PARAMETERS OF 1.1-kW PMSM
resultant antiwindup gain is given as K = Kp + Ki /p1 . With
this antiwindup gain, (10) can be simplified by
−p2
H(s) = . (11)
s − p2
Therefore, (11) represents a first-order LPF without an over-
shoot. If the antiwindup gain is smaller than the specified
one, then a higher overshoot is expected. Meanwhile, a larger
antiwindup gain results in a sluggish response.

B. Initial Value of Integrator

To calculate the initial current and speed condition, the
relationship at the boundary condition of the P mode to the PI
mode transition is utilized. The controlled current output is the
same as the limited current to give
∗
ii_o + Kp (ωm − ωm_o ) = ±Imax . (12)

The maximum limited current is expressed with a positive

sign +Imax , while the minimum limited current is expressed
with a negative sign −Imax . Utilizing (6) and (12), the resultant
initial current of the integrator is calculated

for i ≥ 0,
∗
Kp (τL + Bωm ) − (KT K + B)Imax
ii_o =
KT (Kp − K) − B
Fig. 6. Experimental system setup.
for i < 0,
∗ During the saturation mode (or, P mode), the initial current
Kp (τL + Bωm ) + (KT K + B)Imax
ii_o = . (13) of the integrator is loaded through a LPF operation LPF =
KT (Kp − K) − B
ωc /(s + ωc ) at a sufficiently fast rate to reach a steady state
Moreover, the load torque can be expressed as τL = before initiating PI mode. The initial speed can be calculated
KT ii_ss − Bωm_ss based on the condition that the system is
controlled at speed ωm_ss and current ii_ss . Equation (13) can for i ≥ 0,
∗
be rewritten as (14) with only the known values KT (Kp − K)ωm + τL − KT Imax
ω m_ o =
KT (Kp − K) − B
for i ≥ 0, KT (Kp − K)ωm∗
− Bωm_ss + KT (ii_ss − Imax )
∗
=
Kp (KT ii_ss +B(ωm − vωm_ss))−(KT K +B)Imax KT (Kp − K) − B
ii_o =
KT (Kp −K)−B for i < 0,
∗
KT (Kp − K)ωm + τL + KT Imax
for i < 0, ω m_ o =
∗
KT (Kp − K) − B
Kp (KT ii_ss +B(ωm −ωm_ss))+(KT K +B)Imax KT (Kp − K)ωm∗
− Bωm_ss + KT (ii_ss + Imax )
ii_o = . = .
KT (Kp −K)−B KT (Kp − K) − B
(14) (15)
CHOI AND LEE: ANTIWINDUP STRATEGY FOR PI-TYPE SPEED CONTROLLER 2043

Fig. 7. Speed responses with PI controller without antiwindup method (400-W motor). Simulation results at (a) no load, (b) 50% load condition, and experimental
results at (c) no load condition (from the top: speed reference, speed response, current command, integrator output).

Fig. 8. Simulation results for speed responses with different antiwindup gains at the proposed method: (400-W motor). (a) K = 0.5K ∗ . (b) K = K ∗ .
(c) K = 1.5K ∗ (top: speed response for step command, bottom: integrator output).

In a practical situation, the motor has a relatively low viscous V. S IMULATION AND E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS
damping coefficient, i.e., B ≈ 0 or viscous damping is only a
Simulation studies were performed by Matlab/Simulink for
very small portion of the total load torque, i.e., Bωm  τL .
a PMSM drive system with the parameters, as shown in
Thus, more simple equations can be derived
Tables I and II, and experimental studies were conducted for the
for i ≥ 0, same system. The feasibility of the proposed method was then
Kp (τL /KT ) − KImax Kp ii_ss − KImax verified based on an experiments performed with two PMSMs,
ii_o ≈ = TMS320C33 DSP control board, and three-phase pulsewidth-
Kp − K Kp − K
for i < 0, modulation inverter composed of insulated gate bipolar transis-
Kp (τL /KT ) + KImax Kp ii_ss + KImax tors. Fig. 6 shows the overall experimental setup.
ii_o ≈ = (16)
Kp − K Kp − K
A. Integrator Windup for Conventional PI Controller
or
For a conventional PI controller without an antiwindup
for i ≥ 0, method, the speed responses for the step changing speed refer-
∗ τL − KT Imax ∗ ii_ss − Imax ences +1000 [r/min] ↔ −1000 [r/min] under no-load and half-
ω m_ o ≈ ω m + = ωm +
KT (Kp − K) Kp − K load conditions are shown in Fig. 7(a) and (b), respectively.
for i < 0, When comparing the two figures, Fig. 7(b) had a higher over-
∗ τL + KT Imax ∗ ii_ss + Imax shoot level, as much as 40%, and nonuniform speed response
ω m_ o ≈ ω m + = ωm + . (17)
KT (Kp − K) Kp − K characteristics during acceleration and deceleration. Fig. 7(c)
2044 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 56, NO. 6, JUNE 2009

Fig. 9. Simulation results for speed responses with different antiwindup methods at no load condition (400-W motor). (a) With tracking back calculation.
(b) With conditional integration. (c) With the proposed antiwindup scheme (from the top: speed reference, speed response, current command, integrator output,
speed error).

Fig. 10. Experimental results for speed responses with different antiwindup methods at no load condition (400-W motor). (a) With tracking back calculation.
(b) With conditional integration. (c) With the proposed antiwindup scheme (from the top: speed reference, speed response, current command, integrator output,
speed error).

shows the experimental results under no load conditions, which
were almost the same as the simulation results in Fig. 7(a).
B. Compromised Gain Selection
Fig. 8 shows the speed responses and integrator outputs
for the step changing speed references +1000 [r/min] ↔
−1000 [r/min] with different antiwindup gains. Fig. 8(b) re-
veals no overshoot at K ∗ , however, there is some overshoot
in Fig. 8(a) and undershoot in Fig. 8(c) with different gains
K = 0.5K ∗ or 1.5K ∗ , respectively. In the simulation and ex-
perimental studies, K = 0.85K ∗ was selected as giving a fast
response with the least overshoot based on the trial and error
method.
CHOI AND LEE: ANTIWINDUP STRATEGY FOR PI-TYPE SPEED CONTROLLER 2045

Fig. 11. Simulation results for speed responses with different antiwindup methods at 55% load condition (1.1-kW motor). (a) With tracking back calculation.
(b) With conditional integration. (c) With the proposed antiwindup scheme (from the top: speed reference, speed response, current command, integrator output,
speed error).

Fig. 12. Experimental results for speed responses with different antiwindup methods at 55% load condition (1.1-kW motor). (a) With tracking back calculation.
(b) With conditional integration. (c) With the proposed antiwindup scheme (from the top: speed reference, speed response, current command, integrator output,
speed error).
C. Comparative Studies With Different Antiwindup Methods
output ii revealed a different pattern, and Fig. 9(c) was the
Fig. 9 shows the speed responses for the step changing opposite with respect to Fig. 9(a) and (b). The experimental
speed references +1000 [r/min] ↔ −1000 [r/min] under no results under no load conditions shown in Fig. 10 were almost
load conditions with different antiwindup methods. When com- the same as the simulation results in Fig. 9. Fig. 11 shows
pared with Fig. 7(a), the tracking back calculation method the speed responses for the step changing speed references
in Fig. 9(a) and conditional integration method in Fig. 9(b) 1000 [r/min] ↔ 2000 [r/min] under 55% load conditions with
showed an improved performance as regards reducing the different antiwindup methods. When compared with Fig. 9(a)
overshoot level. However, the proposed antiwindup method in and (b), different trends for the speed responses were found
Fig. 9(c) showed an almost zero overshoot level and the best in Fig. 10(a) and (b). The tracking back calculation method in
control performance. Moreover, it is noted that the integrator Fig. 10(a) and the conditional integration method in Fig. 10(b)
2046
showed a reduced overshoot level for acceleration, yet per-
formance degradation for deceleration. Thus, a uniform speed
response characteristic was difficult to achieve and gain tuning
highly dependent on a trial error repetitive procedure. However,
the proposed antiwindup method produced the best perfor-
mance with almost the same overshoot level as in Fig. 9(c)
under no load conditions. The experimental results under 55%
load conditions shown in Fig. 12 were almost the same as the
simulation results in Fig. 11.
VI. C ONCLUSION
The proposed antiwindup method was applied to a well-
known PI-type speed controller. First, a transfer function con-
sidering a nonzero initial condition for the current and speed
was derived. Second, a gain rule was designed to satisfy pole-
zero cancellation resulting in a zero overshoot speed response
performance. In simulation and experimental studies, an 85%
gain level was the compromised value to meet the control
requirements, i.e., a fast response with the least overshoot.
The initial current of the integrator was essential to relax the
integrator windup, which was dependent on the antiwindup
gain. In the sequel, the proposed antiwindup method gives the
best performance compared with the conventional conditional
integration and tracking back calculation methods. Moreover,
a uniform control performance was guaranteed under different
operation conditions. The simulation and experimental results
were well matched and verified the antiwindup performance
improvement.
R EFERENCES
[1] C. Bohn and D. P. Atherton, “An analysis package comparing PID anti-
windup strategies,” IEEE Control Syst. Mag., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 34–40,
Apr. 1995.
[2] A. S. Hodel and C. E. Hall, “Variable-structure PID control to prevent
integrator windup,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 442–
451, Apr. 2001.
[3] Y. Peng, D. Vrancic, and R. Hanus, “Anti-windup, bumpless, and condi-
tioned transfer techniques for PID controllers,” IEEE Control Syst. Mag.,
vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 48–57, Aug. 1996.
[4] K. J. Åström and T. Hägglund, PID Controllers: Theory, Design, and
Tuning. Research Triangle Park, NC: ISA, Jan. 1995.
[5] M. V. Kothare, P. J. Campo, M. Morari, and C. N. Nett, “A unified
framework for the study of anti-windup design,” Automatica, vol. 30,
no. 12, pp. 1869–1883, Dec. 1994.
[6] K. S. Walgama, S. Ronnback, and J. Sternby, “Generalization of con-
ditioning technique for anti-windup compensators,” Proc. Inst. Elect.
Eng.—Control Theory, Appl., vol. 139, no. 2, pp. 109–118, Mar. 1992.
[7] A. Visioli, “Modified anti-windup scheme for PID controllers,” Proc. Inst.
Elect. Eng.—Control Theory, Appl., vol. 150, no. 1, pp. 49–54, Jan. 2003.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 56, NO. 6, JUNE 2009
[8] R. Hanus, M. Kinnaert, and J. L. Henrotte, “Conditioning technique, a
general anti-windup and bumpless transfer method,” Automatica, vol. 23,
no. 6, pp. 729–739, Nov. 1987.
[9] K. J. Åström and B. Wittenmark, Computer-Controlled Systems: Theory
and Design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1997.
[10] N. J. Krikelis, “State feedback integral control with intelligent integrator,”
Int. J. Control, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 465–473, 1980.
[11] A. Hansson, P. Gruber, and J. Todtli, “Fuzzy anti-reset windup for PID
controllers,” Control Eng. Pract., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 389–396, 1994.
[12] H.-B. Shin, “New antiwindup PI controller for variable-speed motor
drives,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 445–450, Jun. 1998.
[13] J.-K. Seok, “Frequency-spectrum-based antiwindup compensator for PI-
controlled systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 1781–
1790, Dec. 2006.
[14] J.-K. Seok, K.-T. Kim, and D.-C. Lee, “Automatic mode switching of P/PI
speed control for industry servo drives using online spectrum analysis of
torque command,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 2642–
2647, Oct. 2007.
[15] D. Zhang, H. Li, and E. G. Collins, “Digital anti-windup PI controllers
for variable-speed motor drives using FPGA and stochastic theory,” IEEE
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1496–1501, Sep. 2006.
[16] K. Ohishi, E. Hayasaka, T. Nagano, M. Harakawa, and T. Kanmachi,
“High-performance speed servo system considering voltage saturation of
a vector-controlled induction motor,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 53,
no. 3, pp. 795–802, Jun. 2006.
[17] D. Zhang and H. Li, “A stochastic-based FPGA controller for an induction
motor drive with integrated neural network algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 551–561, Feb. 2008.
Jong-Woo Choi (S’93–M’96) was born in Daegu,
Korea, in 1969. He received the B.S., M.S., and
Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from Seoul
National University, Seoul, Korea, in 1991, 1993,
and 1996, respectively.
From 1996 to 2000, he was a Research Engineer
with LG Industrial Systems Company. Since 2001,
he has been with the faculty of the School of Electri-
cal Engineering and Computer Science, Kyungpook
National University, Daegu, where he is currently an
Associate Professor. His research interests are power
quality, renewable energy, static power conversion, and electric machine drives.
Sang-Cheol Lee was born in Daegu, Korea, in 1970.
He received the B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in
electrical and electronics engineering from Pohang
University of Science and Technology, Pohang,
Korea, in 1994, 1996, and 2002, respectively.
He was a Postdoctoral Researcher with the Cen-
tre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Supelec,
France. He is currently a Senior Researcher with
the Public and Original Technology Research Center,
Daegu-Gyungbuk Institute of Science and Technol-
ogy, Daegu. His main research interests are in the
modeling and control of electromagnetic power conversion systems including
motors and generators.