Automatica 48 (2012) 682687

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Automatica
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/automatica

Brief paper

Adaptive interconnected observer-based backstepping control design for

sensorless induction motor
D. Traor a , J. De Leon b , A. Glumineau a,1
a

LUNAM Universit, Ecole Centrale de Nantes, IRCCyN: Institut de Recherche en Communications et Cyberntique de Nantes, UMR CNRS 6597, BP 92101,1 Rue de la Noe,
44312 Nantes Cedex 3, France
b
University of Nuevo Leon, Department of Electrical Engineering. P.O Box 148-F, 66450, San Nicolas de Los Garza, Nuevo Leon, Mexico

article

info

Article history:
Received 29 July 2010
Received in revised form
1 July 2011
Accepted 8 September 2011
Available online 18 February 2012
Keywords:
Adaptive observers
Practical stability
Backstepping control
Sensorless induction motor benchmark

abstract
In this paper, an observer-based controller scheme is designed to robustly drive a sensorless Induction
Motor (IM) even for the case of low frequencies with unknown load torque. Combining the field oriented
control strategy with the backstepping control method, we introduce additional integral terms to improve
the robustness properties of the controller in spite of uncertainties and perturbations. The estimation
of the fluxes, the speed, the load torque and moreover the stator resistance is given by an adaptive
interconnected observer. The practical stability of the proposed observercontroller scheme is proved.
Finally, some experimental test results are given on the framework of a specific sensorless induction
motor benchmark.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Generally, for IM complex controls like Field Oriented Control
(FOC), a shaft encoder is necessary. For all power drives, the
sensors maintenance implies difficulty, and moreover for small
and medium power drives, the sensor cost is important. For
these reasons the IM drive without mechanical sensor has had a
considerable interest in the past years. To control an IM, several
difficulties are found, for example the estimation of the state
variables at low frequencies and ensuring the robustness of the
controller against parameter variations, where the most critical
parameter affecting performance at low speed is stator resistance
(see Holtz (2002)). Several efforts have focused on sensorless
schemes in order to solve the IM control problem, taking into
account the robustness with respect to parametric uncertainties
and their performance under operation conditions.
Contribution. By using an adaptive interconnected observer for
estimating the IM flux, speed, load torque and stator resistance,

This research has been partially supported by CNRS-CONACYT (Mexico) 2010

project No. 23711 and CONACYT Ciencia Basica No. 105799. The material in this
paper was not presented at any conference. This paper was recommended for
publication in revised form by Associate Editor Huaguang Zhang under the direction
of Editor Toshiharu Sugie.
E-mail addresses: dramtrao@yahoo.fr (D. Traor), drjleon@gmail.com
(J. De Leon), alain.glumineau@irccyn.ec-nantes.fr (A. Glumineau).
1 Tel.: +33 2 40 37 69 13; fax: +33 2 40 37 69 30.

0005-1098/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2012.01.018

from the stator current measurements, a combination of a Field

Oriented Controller (FOC) with a new Integral-Backstepping
Control (IBC) is proposed to improve the performance and
robustness. The backstepping scheme with additional integral
terms is designed using the state estimates obtained by adaptive
interconnected observers in order to robustly track the desired
references. Furthermore, some experimental results are shown to
illustrate the quality of the proposed scheme with respect to a
field oriented control based on PI controllers and a non adaptive
observer on the same set-up and with the same experimental
conditions.
2. Problem formulation
In a rotating frame d and q-axes, the IM is described by

ba + bp i + i + m u
rd
rq
sd
s sq
1 sd
barq bp rd isq s isd + m1 usq
ard + (s p )rq + aMsr isd

rd =

arq (s p )rd + aMsr isq

rq
1
m(rd isq rq isd ) c Tl

isd
isq

(1)

where isd , isq , rd , rq , usd , usq , , Tl and s respectively denote

the stator currents, the rotor fluxes, the stator voltage inputs,
the angular speed, the load torque and the stator frequency. The
subscripts s and r refer to the stator and rotor. The parameters a =
Rr /Lr , b = Msr / Ls Lr , c = fv /J, =

2R
L2r Rs +Msr
r

Ls L2r

, = 1 (Msr2 /Ls Lr ),

D. Traor et al. / Automatica 48 (2012) 682687

m = pMsr /JLr , m1 = 1/ Ls , 1 =

2R
Msr
r
Ls L2r

. We denote by Rs and

Rr the resistances, Ls and Lr the self-inductances, Msr the mutual

inductance between the stator and rotor windings, p the number
of pole-pair, J the inertia of the system (motor and load) and fv the
viscous damping coefficient.
The following assumptions are introduced:
(1) The stator currents are available for measurement and they
represent the measurable outputs of the system, on the contrary
the speed and the fluxes are not available for measurement.
(2) The load torque is unknown and constant and is considered as
a disturbance.
(3) The stator resistance is considered as a bounded parameter
varying with the temperature.
(4) The other parameters are constant and given by off-line
identification with bounded uncertainties.
Control and observation problem. The IM control problem is solved
by combining the advantages of the field oriented controller
design with the robustness properties of a new backstepping
controller. The IM observation problem can be established as
follows: to estimate the speed and flux, and moreover to identify
the load torque and the stator resistance simultaneously, from the
measurement of the stator currents and the stator voltages under
different operation conditions (at low and high speed, see IbarraRojas, Moreno, and Espinosa (2004)).

683

to track their corresponding references isd and isq sufficiently fast.

Consequently, references isd and isq can then be considered as the
new inputs of the reduced model (2).
To solve speed and flux tracking problem, let us define the
tracking errors as
z = +

( )dt ,

for = , rd ,

where an integral term is introduced.

Next, replacing isq by isq and isd by isd in (2), it follows that the
dynamics of z and zrd are expressed as

mrd isq + c +
z =

rd

Tl

+ K ( ) 1
J

= rd
+ ard aMsr isd + K (rd
rd ) 1rd .

(3)

2
Choosing the following candidate Lyapunov function Vz = 12 z
and by taking the derivative along the trajectories of (3), we get

V z = K z

T
mrd isq + c + l

+ K ( ) 1 .
Following the backstepping methodology, by choosing the virtual
control inputs isq as

T
+ c + l + K z + K ( ) ,

3. Robust integral backstepping and field oriented control

isq =

Combining the advantages of the field oriented controller design with the robustness properties of the backstepping control, a
control law is robustly designed by introducing additional integral
terms. Denote and the smooth bounded
reference signals

it follows that

tively.
Following the strategy of field oriented control (rd =

V z = zrd { rd
+ ard aMsr isd + K (rd
rd ) 1rd }.
rd

of the speed and the rotor flux modulus

+
2
rd

2
rq ,

respec-

2
2 , = 0) and the fact that the stator frequency is given
rd
+ rq
rq

by s = p + a isq , a control strategy based on an integral backrd

stepping method is designed.
Msr

Controller design using a new integral backstepping method. Following the classical backstepping method, the controller design is done
in two steps. First step, the control problem is to choose isd and isq
in such a way to force and rd to track their desired reference
signals and . The second step is devoted to the current loops
design: find the controls usd and usq such that the currents isd and
isq converge fast to desired references isd and isq , respectively.
It is well-known that the control performances of IM is still
affected by the uncertainties of the plant, such as mechanical
parameter uncertainties, external load disturbance, no ideal field
orientation in a transient state and unmodeled dynamics in
practical applications. As introduced before, the backstepping
control robustness of speed/flux and currents controllers can be
increased by the introduction of new integral terms. This design is
detailed below.
Speed and flux loops. Let us consider the reduced model of IM given
by

2
V z = K z
z 1 ,

K > 0.

Following the same procedure as above, consider the Lyapunov

function Vz = 21 z2rd . Then,
rd

By choosing the virtual control inputs isd as follows

1

isd =

aMsr

[ rd
+ ard + K zrd + K (rd
rd )],

(5)

finally, we get
V z

rd

= K z2rd zrd 1rd ,

Krd > 0.

Current loops. Now to design the control laws for the complete
model (1), one introduces the following tracking errors
zi =

is

is +

zi ,

zi

Ki

(is is )dt ,

(6)

for = d, q. Kiq and Kid are positive constants. Next, consider the
following candidate Lyapunov functions
1
1 2
1
2
ziq
+ ziq2 ,
Vzid = Vz + zid
+ zid2 .
(7)
rd
2
2
2
2
Taking the time derivative of Vziq along the trajectories of (3) and
by replacing (4), it follows that
Vziq = Vz +

(2)

where 1 (m, c , Jl ) and 1rd (a, Msr ) are the parametric

uncertain terms satisfying |1 | , for = , rd .
The reduced model is obtained using current controls usd and
usq (defined later), which are designed and tuned to force isd and isq

(4)

2
V ziq = K z
+ ziq

Tl
Tl

mrd isq c J + 1 m, c , J
=
rd
ard + aMsr isd + 1rd (a, Msr )

mrd

disq
dt

disq
dt

+ Kiq (isq isq )

+ ziq Kiq (isq isq ) z 1 .

(8)

di

From (1), dtsq = barq bp rd isq s isd + m1 usq and by

choosing the control usq as
usq =

1
m1

Kiq ziq + bp rd abrq + isq + s isd +

disq
dt

(9)

684

D. Traor et al. / Automatica 48 (2012) 682687

It follows that
2
Kiq ziq2 + {ziq + ziq }Kiq (isq isq ) z 1
V ziq = K z

= K z2 {Kiq Kiq }ziq2 Kiq ziq2 z 1

K1 Vzid z 1

(10)

where Kiq , Kiq are positive constants with Kiq > Kiq and K1 =
min{K , Kidq Kiq , Kiq }.
Now, taking the time derivative of Vzid along the trajectories
of (3) and replacing (5), it follows that

V zid = K z2rd + zrd

disd
dt

disd
dt

+ Kid (isd isd )

zrd 1rd .

(11)

From (1),
= bard + bp rq isd + s isq + m1 usd and by
working out the control usd
disd
dt

usd =

1
m1

y1 = C1 X1 , y2 = C2 X2 X1 = [isd Rs ]T , X2 = [isq rd rq ]T are the

states, u = [usd usq ]T is the input, and y = [isd isq ]T is the output
of the IM model, Tl is considered as a parameter to be identified
by the adaptive part of the observer. Furthermore, the IM physical
operation domain D is defined by the set of values

Kid zid bard bp rd + isd s isq +

disd
dt

, (12)

it follows that
2
V zid = K z2rd {Kid Kid }zid
Kid zid2 zrd 1rd

= K2 Vzid zrd 1rd

D = {X R6 | |rd | d max , |rq | q max , |isd | Id max ,

|isq | Iq max , | | max , |Rs | Rs max }

where X = (rd , rq , isd , isq , , Tl , Rs ), and d max , q max , Id max ,
Iq max , max , Tl max , Rs max are respectively the actual maximum
values for the fluxes, currents, speed, torque load and stator
resistance.
From (16) and (17), we can easily verify that the matrix A1 (X2 , y)
is globally Lipschitz w.r.t. X2 , and matrix A2 (X1 ) is globally Lipschitz
w.r.t. X1 . The terms g1 (u, y, X2 , X1 ) and g2 (u, y, X2 , X1 ) are globally
Lipschitz w.r.t. X2 , X1 and uniformly w.r.t. (u, y), as long as the IM
state remains in D . Then, the nominal adaptive interconnected
observers for (16) and (17) are given by (18) and (19):

(13)

where Kid , Kid are positive constants with Kid > Kid , and K2 =
min{K , Kid Kid , Kid }.

Proposition 1. Consider the reduced order model of IM drive system

represented by (2) with the reference signals and rd

, and assume
that they are differentiable and bounded. Then, system (2) in closedloop with speed, flux and current tracking laws (4), (5), (9), (12) is
strongly uniformly practically stable.
Proof of Proposition 1. Consider the following candidate Lyapunov function

X 1 = A1 (
X2 , y)
X1 + g1 (u, y,
X2 ,
X1 ) + Tl

1 T
1 T

1 ) + KC2T (y2 y 2 )
+(

S
)
C
(
y

1 y
1
3
1

T l = S31 T C1T (y1 y 1 )

O1 :
(18)
+B1 (
X2 )(y2 y 2 ) + B2 (
X2 )(y1 y 1 )

T
T

S1 = 1 S1 A1 (X2 , y)S1 S1 A1 (X2 , y) + C1 C1

S3 = 3 S3 + T C1T C1

= (A1 (

X2 , y) S11 C1T C1 ) +

X 2 = A2 (
X1 )
X2 + g2 (u, y,
X1 ,
X2 ) + S21 C2T (y2 y 2 )
O2 :
(19)
T
S2 = 2 S2 A2 (
X1 )S2 S2 A2 (
X1 ) + C2T C2

Vc = Vziq + Vzid

1
2

2
z
+

1
2

2
ziq
+

1 2
1 2
1
1
ziq + z2rd + zid
+ zid2 .
2
2
2
2

(14)

Taking its time derivative and replacing the suitable terms, after
straightforward computations, one has
V c = Vc + ,

(15)

where = min{K 2 , K 2 , Kiq , Kiq Kiq , Kid , Kid Kid , Kid }

21
22
1

and =

12

22 2

rd

,
i (0, 1) i = 1, 2.

It follows that the tracking dynamics is strongly uniformly

practically stable (see Laskhmikanthan, Leela, and Martynyuk
(1990)). The tracking errors converge to the ball of radius which
can be reduce by tuning the gains of the controller.

Rs ]T and
with y 1 = C1
X1 , y 2 = C1
X2
X2 = [isd
X2 = [isq rd rq ]T
are the estimated state variables respectively of X1 and X2 . 1 , 2 , 3
are positive constants, S1 and S2 are symmetric positive definite
matrices, with S3 (0) > 0, B1 (
X2 ) = km rd , B2 (
X2 ) = km rq ,
T
T
= diag(1, 1, ), KC2 = (kc1 , kc1 , 0) , k, kc1 , kc2 , and are
positive constants. Note that ( S31 T C1T + S11 C1T ) and KC2T
are the gains of observer (18) and S21 C2T is the gain of observer (19).
One now assumes that all parameters of IM are uncertain
and bounded with well-known values. In order to analyze the
robustness of the observer under parametric uncertainties, system
(16)(17) is now written in the following form

1, :

4. Adaptive interconnected observers design

An adaptive interconnected observer (see Besanon and
Hammouri (1998)) is designed for the sensorless IM to estimate
speed, flux, load torque and stator resistance. The details are given
in Traor, Plestan, Glumineau, and de Leon (2008). System (1) can
be extended considering Tl = 0, R s = 0. Then, the extended IM
model can be seen as the interconnection between subsystems (16)
and (17).

1 : {X 1 = A1 (X2 , y)X1 + g1 (u, y, X2 , X1 ) + Tl

(16)

2 : {X 2 = A2 (X1 )X2 + g2 (u, y, X1 , X2 )

(17)

2 , :

X 1 = A1 (X2 , y)X1 + g1 (u, y, X2 , X1 ) + Tl

+1A1 (X2 , y) + 1g1 (u, y, X2 , X1 )

(20)

X 2 = A2 (X1 )X2 + g2 (u, y, X1 , X2 ) + 1A2 (X1 )

+1g2 (u, y, X1 , X2 )

(21)

with y1 = C1 X1 , y2 = C2 X2 where 1A1 (X2 , y), 1A2 (X1 ), 1g1 (u, y,

X2 , X1 ) and 1g2 (u, y, X1 , X2 ) are, respectively, the uncertain terms
of A1 (X2 , y), A2 (X1 ), g1 (u, y, X2 , X1 ), g2 (u, y, X1 , X2 ).
Let us define the estimation errors as: 1 = X1
X1 , 2 = X2
X2 ,

3 = Tl Tl . From (20)(21) and (18)(19) and applying the transformation 1 = 1 3 , the dynamics of the estimation errors

D. Traor et al. / Automatica 48 (2012) 682687

are given by

1 = [A1 (
X2 , y) S11 C1T C1 + 2 ]1 + [A1 (X2 , y)
+ 1A1 (X2 , y) A1 (
X2 , y)]X1
+ g1 (u, y, X2 , X1 ) + 2 3
+ 1g1 (u, y, X2 , X1 ) g1 (u, y,
X2 ,
X1 ) + (2 K )2
2 = [A2 (
X1 ) S21 C2T C2 ]2 + [A2 (X1 )
(22)

+ 1A2 (X1 ) A2 (X1 )]X2

+ g2 (u, y, X1 , X2 ) g2 (u, y,
X1 ,
X2 ) + 1g2 (u, y, X1 , X2 )

where 1 = B1 (
X2 )C2 , 2 = B2 (
X2 )C1 and K = KC2T C2 .

A candidate Lyapunov function is considered as i=1 Vi where

Vi = iT Si i .
Taking the time derivative of Vo and using (22), and after some
computations, we get
Vo

(23)

where is a constant associated with the nonlinear terms which

are Lipschitz, (see Traor et al. (2008) for the computations details).
Remark 1. For the field oriented control, by definition it is
necessary to have rq 0. The d axis angle can be computed
from the stator frequency (s ):

= s = p + a

Msr

rd

(28)

Then, the resulting model of IM (1) in closed-loop with the controls

(27)(28) is given by

[ S31 T C1T C1 + 2 ]1 1 2

Tl

i
(

,
T
,

rd sq
l
rd

.
=
J
rd

ard + aMsr isd (rd ) 1rd

3 = [ S31 T C1T C1 + 2 ]3

V o Vo +

685

t
1

(isq isq )dt

Kiq (isq isq ) + Kiq Kiq
usq =

m
1
0

rd +
(
Rs )isq +
s isd + isq
ab rq + bp

t
1

u
=
(isd isd )dt
K
(
i

i
)
+
K
K

sd
id
sd
id
sd
id

m1
0

ab rd bp

rq +
(Rs )isd s isq + isd .

isq .

(24)

The estimation of the d axis angle is then computed by

M
(i isq )
+ a sr isq sq
= s = p
ks .
rd
1 rd

(29)

In terms of tracking error dynamics for speed and flux: z and zrd ,
(29) can be rewritten in the following form

z = K z + 1 ( , Tl , , Rs ) 1
zrd = K zrd 2 ( , Rs ) 1rd

(30)

, T l = Tl
where =
Tl , = rd rd , Rs = Rs Rs ,

,
1 ( , Tl , , Rs ) = mrd {isq (
Tl , rd ,
Rs ) isq ( , Tl , rd , Rs )},

2 ( , Rs ) = aMsr {isd (rd , Rs ) isd (rd , Rs )}.

Furthermore, 1 ( , Tl , Rs , ) is Lipschitz w.r.t 1 , 2 , 3 , and
2 ( , Rs ) is Lipschitz w.r.t. 1 , 2 .
Then, we can establish the following theorem.

Theorem 1. Consider system (1) with the reference signals and

rd
, and assume that they are differentiable and bounded. Then, the
closed-loop system given by system (1) with the speed, flux and
current tracking laws (27)(28) using the estimates provided by the
adaptive interconnected observer (18)(19), is strongly uniformly
practically stable.
The proof follows a similar procedure as Proposition 1.

(25)
6. Experimental results

Then, the error dynamic of the estimation is given by

= p

aMsr isq

rd rd

rd +

ks

1 rd

isq

(26)

, rd = rd rd and isq = isq isq .

with = , =
The gain ks can be tuned to ensure the convergence to zero for the
nominal case or to a small ball for the uncertain case for which the
radius can be balanced by the gain tuning.
5. Observercontroller scheme stability analysis
To implement the above control law it is necessary to
replace speed and flux measurements, the load torque, the stator
resistance and the stator frequency by their estimated values. Then,
it follows that speed and flux controllers (4)(5), and the control
inputs (9)(12) are expressed as follows

1
T

+ c
+ l + (K + K )(
)
i
=

sq

m rd

+ K K
)dt
(
0

isd = aM rd + ard + (K + K )(rd rd )

sr

+ K K
(rd
rd )dt

(27)

The experimental results are obtained using a experimental setup described in Glumineau, Boisliveau, and Loron (2005). The motor parameters values are: nominal rate power 1.5 kW, nominal
angular speed 1430 rpm, number of pole pairs 2, nominal voltage
220 V, nominal current 7.5 A. The identified parameters values are
Rs = 1.633 , Msr = 0.099 H, Rr = 0.93 , J = 0.0111 Nm s2 /rad,
Ls = 0.142 H, fv = 0.0018 Nm s/rad, Lr = 0.076 H. The parameters of the observercontroller scheme are chosen as follows. For
the observer design: = 50, = 10, k = 0.16, kc1 = 450,
Kc2 = 0.5, 1 = 5000, 2 = 7000 and 3 = 109 . For the controller design, the gains are chosen as follows: K = 200 s1 ,
K = 1100 s1 , Kid = 550 s1 , Kid = 20 s1 , Kid = 34 s1 ,
Kiq = 1200 s1 , Kiq = 10 s1 , Kiq = 35 s1 , ks = 90 rad s 2 .
The sensorless trajectories of the benchmark are such that: after
that the reference speed is carried to 20 rad/s and from 1.5 to 2.5 s
the load torque is applied. This first step allows to test the performances and the robustness of the controller without mechanical
sensors at low speed but under observable conditions. From 3 to
4 s, the speed is carried to its nominal value (100 rad/s) and remains constant until t = 6 s. Again the load torque is applied from
5 s. This second step is defined to test the controller behavior during a great transient speed. Then, the motor is driven to reach a
negative constant low speed value from 7 s until 9 s. This speed is
chosen to obtain a stator pulsation equal to zero. This last step allows to illustrate the induction motor unobservability phenomena
(from t = 7 s to t = 9 s). Finally, the induction motor is driven in
order to leave the unobservability conditions (see Fig. 1).

686

D. Traor et al. / Automatica 48 (2012) 682687

Fig. 1. Integral backstepping experimental results in nominal case versus time

(s). a, c: measured speed and torque; b, d, f estimated speed, torque and flux;
e: reference flux.

Fig. 3. Int. backstepping experimental results for 50% Rr case versus time (s). a,
c: measured speed and torque; b, d, f estimated speed, torque and flux; e: reference
flux.

Fig. 2. FOC\PI experimental results in nominal case versus time (s). a, c: measured
speed and torque; b, d, f estimated speed, torque and flux; e: reference flux.

The experimental results responses obtained by considering

the nominal case with identified parameters are shown on
Fig. 1. Notice the good performance of the proposed scheme that
maintains the speed close to the desired reference even though the
presence of disturbance (load torque). On the experimental set-up
the load torque is measured to compare it with the value provided
by the observer.
Note that, for experimental test, nominal case means with
the use of the identified parameters (thus with already errors on
parameters).
The estimated load torque (Fig. 1 d) converges to the measured
load torque (Fig. 1 c), under conditions of observability and at
very low frequency (conditions of unobservability between 7 and
9 s). Nevertheless, it appears a small static error when the motor
speed increases (between 4 and 6 s). A comparison with the results
obtained by a field oriented control based on PI controllers and
a non adaptive observer on the same set-up and with the same
experimental conditions is made by comparing the results in the
nominal case by our observercontroller (see Fig. 1) and a FOC\PI
controller (see Fig. 2).

Fig. 4. P.I. field oriented control experimental results for 50% Rr case versus
time (s). a, c: measured speed and torque; b, d, f estimated speed, torque and flux;
e: reference flux.

Finally, by introducing an error of 50% on Rr in the

observercontroller algorithm, we can see in Fig. 3 that the IBC
controller performs better than the FOC\PI controller, which is less
robust under parametric variations of 50% of the rotor resistance
(see Fig. 4).
The general conclusion is that, in all cases, the speed and the
flux track the desired references which shows the robustness of the
proposed scheme under parametric uncertainties and unknown
load torque disturbance even in the unobservable case. Furthermore, the IBC performs better than the FOC\IP under parameter
variations by reducing the tracking error of speed and flux.
References
Besanon, G., & Hammouri, H. (1998). On observer design for interconnected
systems. Journal of Mathematical Systems, Estimation and Control, 8(3).
Glumineau, A., Boisliveau, R., & Loron, L. (2005). Experimental set-up: control
observation diagnosis. Ecole Centrale de Nantes, 1 rue de la No, 44 321 Nantes.
www2.irccyn.ec-nantes.fr/BancEssai/.

D. Traor et al. / Automatica 48 (2012) 682687

Holtz, J. (2002). Sensorless control induction motor drives. Proceedings of the IEEE,
90(8), 13591394.
Ibarra-Rojas, S., Moreno, J., & Espinosa, G. (2004). Global observability analysis of
sensorless induction motor. Automatica, 40(6), 10791085.
Laskhmikanthan, V., Leela, S., & Martynyuk, A. (1990). Practical stability of nonlinear
systems. Word Scientific.
Traor, D., Plestan, F., Glumineau, A., & de Leon, J. (2008). Sensorless induction
motor: high-order sliding-mode controller and adaptive interconnected
observers. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 55(11), 38183827.

Dramane Traor received the engineer degree in electrical

engineering from PolytechNantes. He is currently a
Ph.D. student at Ecole Centrale de Nantes, France. His
research interests include robust nonlinear control (higher
order sliding mode, backstepping, adaptive control, etc.),
theoretical aspects of nonlinear observer design and
control of DCAC motors.

687
Jesus de Leon received the Ph.D. degree in Automatic Control from Claude Bernard Lyon 1 University in 1992. Since
1993, he is a Professor of Electrical Engineering at Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, Mexico. He is currently
working on applications of control theory, electrical machines, nonlinear observers and power systems.

Alain Glumineau received the Ph.D. degree in Automatic

Control from Ecole Nationale Superieure de Mecanique in
1981. Since 1982 he has been with the IRCCyN Laboratory (http://www.irccyn.ec-nantes.fr) in Ecole Centrale de
Nantes (France) as Associate Professor then Full Professor.
His current interests concern theoretical issues in nonlinear control with applications mainly to electric and pneumatic systems.