Nonlinear optimal control
for Synchronous Reluctance Machines
G. Rigatos P. Siano M. Jovanovic and S. Ademi
Unit of Industr. Autom. Dept. of Industr. Eng. Dept. of Electrical Eng.
Industr. Systems Institute Univ. of Salerno Univ. of Northumbria
Rion Patras, Greece Fisciano, Italy Newcastle, UK
Abstract—A nonlinear H-infinity (optimal) control approach is
proposed for the problem of control of Synchronous Reluctance
Machines (SRMs). Approximate linearization is applied to the
dynamic model of the Synchronous Reluctance Machine, round
a local operating point. To accomplish this linearization Taylor
series expansion and the computation of the associated Jacobian
matrices are performed. The robustness of the control scheme
assures that the modelling error due to truncation of higher
order terms from the Taylor expansion will be compensated.
Next, an H-infinity feedback controller is designed. After solving
an algebraic Riccati equation at each iteration of the control
algorithm, the feedback gain is computed. Lyapunov stability
analysis proves that the control loop satisfies an H-infinity
tracking performance criterion. This in turn signifies elevated
robustness to model uncertainty and external perturbations.
Moreover, under moderate conditions it is proven that the control
loop is globally asymptotically stable.
I. I NTRODUCTION
A new nonlinear optimal (H-infinity) method is proposed
for the control of Synchronous Reluctance Machines. Such
machines do not have windings at the rotor. Comparing to
permanent magnet synchronous machines and to induction
machines, this type of electric machines exhibits specific
advantages, such as improved power and torque characteristics
and reduced rate of failures [1-5]. In particular, when
compared against permanent magnet synchronous machines,
the synchronous reluctance machines have a simpler
mechanical structure and are of reduced manufacturing cost.
Besides, in high speed operation or when functioning under
harsh conditions, the synchronous reluctance machines are
more reliable [6-9]. The nonlinear model of synchronous
reluctance machines makes their control be a non-trivial
problem. Approaches for control of synchronous reluctance
machines being based on linearization procedures can be
found in [10-14]. Furthermore one can note several results on
sensorless control of such machines [15-19].
In the present article the dynamic model of a Synchronous
Reluctance Machine is analyzed first by applying Kirchhoff’s
laws to the circuits defined by its phases. The dynamic model
is initially expressed in the 𝑎𝑏𝑐 reference frame, while at
a second stage the machine’s dynamics is expressed in the
𝑑𝑞 synchronously rotating reference frame. Next, the article
shows the application of a nonlinear optimal (H-infinity)
control method to the dynamic model of the reluctance
978-1-XXXX-XXXX-X/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
P. Wira Z. Tir
Laboratoire MIPS Univ. of El Oued
Univ. de Haute Alsace Dept. of Electr. Eng.
68093 Mulhouse, France El-oued, Algeria
machine,in continuation to results given in [20-21]. The
solution of the control problem is based on approximate
linearization of the machine’s state-space model taking place
at each iteration of the control algorithm, around an operating
point that is defined by the present value of the system’s state
vector and the last value of the control input vector that was
exerted on it.
The linearization of the machine’s dynamics is achieved by
performing Taylor series expansion and by computing the
system’s Jacobian matrices [22-25]. The modelling error
which is due to the truncation of higher order terms in the
Taylor series is considered to be a perturbation which is
compensated by the robustness of the control algorithm.
For the equivalent linearized model of the machine an H-
infinity feedback controller is computed. Actually, H-infinity
control stands for the optimal controller for the synchronous
reluctance machine under model uncertainty and external
perturbations. The H-infinity controller is the solution to a
mini-max differential game in which the controller tries to
minimize a quadratic cost functional associated with the state
vector’s error of the machine while the external perturbations
and modeling errors try to minimize it [26-28].
For the computation of the feedback gain of the H-infinity con-
troller an algebraic Riccati equation has to be solved at each
step of the control method. The stability of the control scheme
is confirmed through Lyapunov analysis. First, it is demon-
strated that the control loop exhibits the H-infinity tracking
performance which signifies elevated robustness against model
uncertainty and external disturbances. Moreover, it is shown
that under moderate conditions the control loop exhibits global
asymptotic stability features. To implement feedback control
without the need to measure the entire state vector of the
synchronous reluctance machine the H-infinity Kalman Filter
is used as a robust state estimator [29-30]. The performance
of the control method is further assessed through simulation
experiments.
594
 II. S TATE - SPACE MODEL OF THE SYNCHRONOUS
RELUCTANCE MACHINE 𝑇𝑒 = 𝐾(𝜓𝑑 𝑖𝑞 − 𝜓𝑞 𝑖𝑑 )⇒𝑇𝑒 = 32 𝑃2 (𝑖𝑑 𝐿𝑑 𝑖𝑞 − 𝑖𝑞 𝐿𝑞 𝑖𝑑 )⇒
A. Formulation of the state-space model 𝑇𝑒 = 3𝑃 4 (𝐿𝑑 − 𝐿𝑞 )𝑖𝑑 𝑖𝑞
(4)
A state-space description of the Synchronous Reluctance ma-
chine can be found in [10]. The state vector of the machine
is defined as [𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , 𝑥3 , 𝑥4 ]𝑇 = [𝜃, 𝜔, 𝑖𝑑 , 𝑖𝑞 ]𝑇 while the
control inputs vector consists of two elements denoting control
voltage components expressed in the synchronously rotating
𝑑𝑞 reference frame. The state-space equations of this model
are obtained from the application of application of Kirchhoff’s
voltage equations as shown in Fig. 1

Fig. 2. Diagram and reference axes for the synchronous reluctance machine

B. Linearization of the state-space model

The linearization procedure for this system takes place round
Fig. 1. Equivalent circuits for the synchronous reluctance machine (a) on the temporary equilibrium (𝑥∗ , 𝑢∗ ), where 𝑥∗ is the present
the 𝑑 direct axis and (b) on the 𝑞 quadrature axis value of the system’s state vector and 𝑢∗ is the last value of the
control inputs vector that was exerted on it. The linearization
procedure gives:
𝑥˙ 1 = 𝑥2
3𝑃 (𝐿𝑑 −𝐿𝑞 )
𝑥˙ 2 = 4𝐽𝑚 𝑥3 𝑥4 − 𝐵𝐽𝑚 𝑥2 − 2𝐽𝑃
𝑇𝐿 𝑥˙ = 𝐴𝑥 + 𝐵𝑢 + 𝑑˜ (5)
𝑅𝑠 𝐿𝑞 1 (1)
𝑥˙ 3 = − 𝐿𝑑 𝑥3 + 𝐿𝑑 𝑥2 𝑥4 + 𝐿𝑑 𝑣𝑑 where after denoting the columns of 𝐺(𝑥) as 𝐺𝑖 (𝑥) 𝑖 = 1, 2
𝐿𝑑
𝑥˙ 4 = − 𝑅 1
𝐿𝑞 𝑥 4 − 𝐿𝑞 𝑥 2 𝑥 3 + 𝐿𝑞 𝑣 𝑞
𝑠
that is 𝐺 = [𝐺1 , 𝐺2 ] it holds that
Thus one obtains the state-space description
𝐴 = [∇𝑥 𝑓 (𝑥) + ∇𝑥 𝐺1 (𝑥)𝑢1 + ∇𝑥 𝐺2 (𝑥)𝑢2 ] ∣(𝑥∗ ,𝑢∗ ) ⇒
𝐴 = [∇𝑥 𝑓 (𝑥)] ∣(𝑥∗ ,𝑢∗ )
𝑥˙ = 𝑓 (𝑥) + 𝑔(𝑥)𝑢 (2) (6)

where 𝑓 (𝑥)∈𝑅4×1 and 𝑔(𝑥)∈𝑅4×2 are given by

𝐵 = [∇𝑢 𝑓 (𝑥) + ∇𝑢 𝐺1 (𝑥)𝑢1 + ∇𝑢 𝐺2 (𝑥)𝑢2 ] ∣(𝑥∗ ,𝑢∗ ) ⇒
𝐵 = 𝐺(𝑥) ∣(𝑥∗ ,𝑢∗ )
𝑓 (𝑥) = 𝑔(𝑥) = (7)
Next, the system’s Jacobian matrices are computed according
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
𝑥2 0 0 to the relation
⎜ 3𝑃 (𝐿𝑑 −𝐿𝑞 ) 𝑥 𝑥 − 𝐵𝑚 𝑥 − 𝑃 ⎟ ⎜0 0⎟ ⎛ ∂𝑓1 ∂𝑓1 ∂𝑓1 ∂𝑓1 ⎞
⎜ 4𝐽𝑚 3 4 𝐽 2 2𝐽 𝑇𝐿 ⎟ ⎜ 1 ⎟
⎜ 𝐿𝑞 ⎟ ⎝𝐿 0⎠ ∂𝑥 ∂𝑥2 ∂𝑥3 ∂𝑥4
⎝ −𝑅 𝑠
𝑥 3 + 𝑥 2 𝑥 4 ⎠ ⎜ 1 ⎟
𝐿𝑑 𝐿𝑑
𝐿𝑑 0
𝑑
1 ⎜ ⎟
−𝑅 𝑠
𝐿𝑞 4𝑥 − 𝑥
𝐿𝑞 2 3 𝑥 𝐿𝑞 ⎜ ∂𝑓2 ∂𝑓2 ∂𝑓2 ∂𝑓2 ⎟
⎜ ∂𝑥1 ∂𝑥2 ∂𝑥3 ∂𝑥4 ⎟
(3) ⎜ ⎟
∇𝑥 𝑓 (𝑥) = ⎜ ⎟ (8)
where 𝑅𝑠 is the stator’s resistance, 𝐿𝑑 is the direct axis ⎜ ∂𝑓3 ∂𝑓3 ∂𝑓3 ∂𝑓3 ⎟
⎜ ∂𝑥1 ⎟
inductance, 𝐿𝑞 is the quadrature axis inductance, 𝑃 is the ⎜ ∂𝑥2 ∂𝑥3 ∂𝑥4 ⎟
⎝ ⎠
number of poles of the machine, 𝐵𝑚 is a friction coefficient ∂𝑓4 ∂𝑓4 ∂𝑓4 ∂𝑓4
and 𝑇𝐿 is the mechanical load’s torque which can be given ∂𝑥1 ∂𝑥2 ∂𝑥3 ∂𝑥4

for instance by 𝑇𝐿 = 𝑚𝑔𝑙𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝑥1 ). The electromagnetic torque The first row of the Jacobian matrix ∇𝑥 𝑓 (𝑥) is given by:
∂𝑓1 ∂𝑓1 ∂𝑓1 ∂𝑓1
(Fig. 2) that is developed by the synchronous reluctance ∂𝑥1 = 0, ∂𝑥2 = 1, ∂𝑥3 = 0, ∂𝑥4 = 0.
machine is given by

595
The second row of the Jacobian matrix ∇𝑥 𝑓 (𝑥) is given by: meaning of the relation given above is that the control signal
∂𝑓2 𝑃 ∂𝑓2 𝐵𝑚 ∂𝑓2 3𝑃 (𝐿𝑑 −𝐿𝑞 )
∂𝑥1 = − 2𝐽 𝑚𝑔𝑙𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝑥1 ), ∂𝑥2 = − 𝐽 , ∂𝑥3 = 𝑥4 ,
4𝐽𝑚
and the disturbances compete to each other within a mini-max
∂𝑓2 3𝑃 (𝐿𝑑 −𝐿𝑞 ) differential game. This problem of mini-max optimization can
∂𝑥4 = 4𝐽𝑚 𝑥3 .
˜
be written as 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑑˜𝐽(𝑢, 𝑑).
The third row of the Jacobian matrix ∇𝑥 𝑓 (𝑥) is given by: B. H-infinity feedback control
∂𝑓3 ∂𝑓3 𝐿𝑞 ∂𝑓3 𝑅𝑠 ∂𝑓3 𝐿𝑞
∂𝑥1 = 0, ∂𝑥2 = 𝐿𝑑 𝑥4 , ∂𝑥3 = − 𝐿𝑑 , ∂𝑥4 = 𝐿𝑑 𝑥2 .
For the linearized system given by Eq. (11) the cost function
The fourth row of the Jacobian matrix ∇𝑥 𝑓 (𝑥) is given by: of Eq. (12) is defined, where the coefficient 𝑟 determines the
∂𝑓4 ∂𝑓4 𝐿𝑑 ∂𝑓4 𝐿𝑑 ∂𝑓4 𝑅𝑠 penalization of the control input and the weight coefficient 𝜌
∂𝑥1 = 0, ∂𝑥2 = − 𝐿𝑞 𝑥3 , ∂𝑥3 = 𝐿𝑞 𝑥2 , ∂𝑥4 = − 𝐿𝑞 .
determines the reward of the disturbances’ effects.
Following a similar procedure one computes that
∇𝑥 𝐺1 (𝑥) = 04×4 and ∇𝑥 𝐺2 (𝑥) = 04×4 . It is assumed that (i) The energy that is transferred
∫ from the
˜ is bounded, that is ∞ 𝑑˜𝑇 (𝑡)𝑑(𝑡)𝑑𝑡
disturbances signal 𝑑(𝑡) ˜ <
0
∞, (ii) the matrices [𝐴, 𝐵] and [𝐴, 𝐿] are stabilizable, (iii) the
III. T HE NONLINEAR H- INFINITY CONTROL matrix [𝐴, 𝐶] is detectable. Then, the optimal feedback control
A. Mini-max control and disturbance rejection law is given by
The initial nonlinear model of the synchronous reluctance
𝑢(𝑡) = −𝐾𝑥(𝑡) (13)
machine is in the form
with 𝐾 = 1𝑟 𝐵 𝑇 𝑃 where 𝑃 is a positive semi-definite symmet-
𝑥˙ = 𝑓 (𝑥, 𝑢) 𝑥∈𝑅𝑛 , 𝑢∈𝑅𝑚 (9) ric matrix which is obtained from the solution of the Riccati
Linearization of the system (synchronous reluctance machine) equation
is performed at each iteration of the control algorithm round
its present operating point (𝑥∗ , 𝑢∗ ) = (𝑥(𝑡), 𝑢(𝑡 − 𝑇𝑠 )). The 𝐴𝑇 𝑃 + 𝑃 𝐴 + 𝑄 − 𝑃 ( 1𝑟 𝐵𝐵 𝑇 − 1 𝑇
2𝜌2 𝐿𝐿 )𝑃 =0 (14)
linearized equivalent of the system is described by
where 𝑄 is also a positive definite symmetric matrix. The
worst case disturbance is given by
˜ 𝑞
𝑥˙ = 𝐴𝑥 + 𝐵𝑢 + 𝐿𝑑˜ 𝑥∈𝑅𝑛 , 𝑢∈𝑅𝑚 , 𝑑∈𝑅 (10)
˜ =
𝑑(𝑡) 1 𝑇
where matrices 𝐴 and 𝐵 are obtained from the computation 𝜌2 𝐿 𝑃 𝑥(𝑡) (15)
of the system’s Jacobians and vector 𝑑˜ denotes disturbance The diagram of the considered control loop is depicted in
terms due to linearization errors. The problem of disturbance Fig. 3.
rejection for the linearized model that is described by

𝑥˙ = 𝐴𝑥 + 𝐵𝑢 + 𝐿𝑑˜
(11)
𝑦 = 𝐶𝑥
where 𝑥∈𝑅𝑛 , 𝑢∈𝑅𝑚 , 𝑑∈𝑅 ˜ 𝑞 and 𝑦∈𝑅𝑝 , cannot be handled
efficiently if the classical LQR control scheme is applied.
This is because of the existence of the perturbation term 𝑑.˜
The disturbance term 𝑑˜ apart from modeling (parametric)
uncertainty and external perturbation terms can also represent
noise terms of any distribution.

In the 𝐻∞ control approach, a feedback control scheme is

designed for setpoint tracking by the system’s state vector
and simultaneous disturbance rejection, considering that the
disturbance affects the system in the worst possible manner.
The disturbances’ effect are incorporated in the following
quadratic cost function: Fig. 3. Diagram of the control scheme for the synchronous reluctance
∫𝑇 machine
𝐽(𝑡) = 12 0 [𝑦 𝑇 (𝑡)𝑦(𝑡) + 𝑟𝑢𝑇 (𝑡)𝑢(𝑡)−
(12)
˜
−𝜌2 𝑑˜𝑇 (𝑡)𝑑(𝑡)]𝑑𝑡, 𝑟, 𝜌 > 0
The significance of the negative sign in the cost function’s IV. LYAPUNOV STABILITY ANALYSIS
˜ is
term that is associated with the perturbation variable 𝑑(𝑡) Through Lyapunov stability analysis it will be shown that
that the disturbance tries to maximize the cost function 𝐽(𝑡) the proposed nonlinear control scheme assures 𝐻∞ tracking
while the control signal 𝑢(𝑡) tries to minimize it. The physical performance for the synchronous reluctance machine, and that

596
in case of bounded disturbance terms asymptotic convergence
to the reference setpoints is succeeded. The tracking error 𝑉˙ = − 12 𝑒𝑇 𝑄𝑒 − 2𝜌12 𝑒𝑇 𝑃 𝐿𝐿𝑇 𝑃 𝑒+
(27)
dynamics for the synchronous reluctance machine is written + 12 𝑒𝑇 𝑃 𝐿𝑑˜ + 12 𝑑˜𝑇 𝐿𝑇 𝑃 𝑒
in the form Lemma: The following inequality holds
𝑒˙ = 𝐴𝑒 + 𝐵𝑢 + 𝐿𝑑˜ (16)
1 𝑇 ˜ 1 ˜ 𝑇 1 𝑇 𝑇 1 2 ˜𝑇 ˜
2 𝑒 𝐿𝑑 + 2 𝑑𝐿 𝑃 𝑒 − 2𝜌2 𝑒 𝑃 𝐿𝐿 𝑃 𝑒≤ 2 𝜌 𝑑 𝑑 (28)
where in the synchronous reluctance machine’s case 𝐿 =
𝐼∈𝑅4×4 with 𝐼 being the identity matrix. Variable 𝑑˜ denotes Proof : The binomial (𝜌𝛼 − 𝜌1 𝑏)2 is considered. Expanding the
model uncertainties and external disturbances of the motor’s left part of the above inequality one gets
model. The following Lyapunov equation is considered
𝜌2 𝑎2 + 𝜌12 𝑏2 − 2𝑎𝑏 ≥ 0 ⇒ 12 𝜌2 𝑎2 + 2𝜌12 𝑏2 − 𝑎𝑏 ≥ 0 ⇒
𝑉 = 12 𝑒𝑇 𝑃 𝑒 (17) 𝑎𝑏 − 2𝜌12 𝑏2 ≤ 12 𝜌2 𝑎2 ⇒ 12 𝑎𝑏 + 12 𝑎𝑏 − 2𝜌12 𝑏2 ≤ 12 𝜌2 𝑎2
where 𝑒 = 𝑥 − 𝑥𝑑 is the tracking error. By differentiating with (29)
respect to time one obtains The following substitutions are carried out: 𝑎 = 𝑑˜ and 𝑏 =
𝑒𝑇 𝑃 𝐿 and the previous relation becomes
𝑉˙ = 12 𝑒˙ 𝑇 𝑃 𝑒 + 12 𝑒𝑃 𝑒⇒
˙
1 ˜𝑇 𝑇
˙ 1
𝑉 = 2 [𝐴𝑒 + 𝐵𝑢 + 𝐿𝑑]˜ 𝑇 𝑃 + 1 𝑒𝑇 𝑃 [𝐴𝑒 + 𝐵𝑢 + 𝐿𝑑]⇒
2
˜
2𝑑 𝐿 𝑃𝑒 + 12 𝑒𝑇 𝑃 𝐿𝑑˜ − 1 𝑇 𝑇 1 2 ˜𝑇 ˜
2𝜌2 𝑒 𝑃 𝐿𝐿 𝑃 𝑒≤ 2 𝜌 𝑑 𝑑 (30)
(18)
Eq. (30) is substituted in Eq. (27) and the inequality is
𝑉˙ = 12 [𝑒𝑇 𝐴𝑇 + 𝑢𝑇 𝐵 𝑇 + 𝑑˜𝑇 𝐿𝑇 ]𝑃 𝑒+ enforced, thus giving
˜ (19)
+ 12 𝑒𝑇 𝑃 [𝐴𝑒 + 𝐵𝑢 + 𝐿𝑑]⇒
𝑉˙ ≤ − 12 𝑒𝑇 𝑄𝑒 + 12 𝜌2 𝑑˜𝑇 𝑑˜ (31)
𝑉˙ = 12 𝑒𝑇 𝐴𝑇 𝑃 𝑒 + 12 𝑢𝑇 𝐵 𝑇 𝑃 𝑒 + 12 𝑑˜𝑇 𝐿𝑇 𝑃 𝑒+ Eq. (31) shows that the 𝐻∞ tracking performance criterion is
(20)
1 𝑇 1 𝑇 1 𝑇
2 𝑒 𝑃 𝐴𝑒 + 2 𝑒 𝑃 𝐵𝑢 + 2 𝑒 𝑃 𝐿𝑑
˜ satisfied. The integration of 𝑉˙ from 0 to 𝑇 gives
The previous equation is rewritten as ∫𝑇 ∫𝑇 ∫𝑇
˜ 2 𝑑𝑡⇒
𝑉˙ (𝑡)𝑑𝑡≤ − 12 0 ∣∣𝑒∣∣2𝑄 𝑑𝑡 + 12 𝜌2 0 ∣∣𝑑∣∣
0 ∫𝑇 ∫ (32)
𝑇 ˜ 2
𝑉˙ = 12 𝑒𝑇 (𝐴𝑇 𝑃 + 𝑃 𝐴)𝑒 + ( 12 𝑢𝑇 𝐵 𝑇 𝑃 𝑒 + 12 𝑒𝑇 𝑃 𝐵𝑢)+ 2𝑉 (𝑇 ) + 0 ∣∣𝑒∣∣2𝑄 𝑑𝑡≤2𝑉 (0) + 𝜌2 0 ∣∣𝑑∣∣ 𝑑𝑡
˜
+( 12 𝑑˜𝑇 𝐿𝑇 𝑃 𝑒 + 12 𝑒𝑇 𝑃 𝐿𝑑) Moreover, if there exists a positive constant 𝑀𝑑 > 0 such that
(21)
Assumption: For given positive definite matrix 𝑄 and coeffi- ∫∞
˜ 2 𝑑𝑡 ≤ 𝑀𝑑
∣∣𝑑∣∣ (33)
0
cients 𝑟 and 𝜌 there exists a positive definite matrix 𝑃 , which
is the solution of the following matrix equation then one gets
∫∞
∣∣𝑒∣∣2𝑄 𝑑𝑡 ≤ 2𝑉 (0) + 𝜌2 𝑀𝑑 (34)
𝑇
𝐴 𝑃 + 𝑃 𝐴 = −𝑄 + 𝑃 ( 2𝑟 𝐵𝐵 𝑇 − 1 𝑇
𝜌2 𝐿𝐿 )𝑃 (22) 0
∫∞
Thus, the integral 0 ∣∣𝑒∣∣2𝑄 𝑑𝑡 is bounded. Moreover, 𝑉 (𝑇 ) is
Moreover, the following feedback control law is applied to the bounded and from the definition of the Lyapunov function 𝑉
system in Eq. (17) it becomes clear that 𝑒(𝑡) will be also bounded
since 𝑒(𝑡) ∈ Ω𝑒 = {𝑒∣𝑒𝑇 𝑃 𝑒≤2𝑉 (0) + 𝜌2 𝑀𝑑 }. According to
𝑢 = − 1𝑟 𝐵 𝑇 𝑃 𝑒 (23) the above and with the use of Barbalat’s Lemma one obtains
By substituting Eq. (22) and Eq. (23) one obtains 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑡→∞ 𝑒(𝑡) = 0.
V. ROBUST STATE ESTIMATION WITH THE USE OF THE 𝐻∞
𝑉˙ = 12 𝑒𝑇 [−𝑄 + 𝑃 ( 2𝑟 𝐵𝐵 𝑇 − 2𝜌12 𝐿𝐿𝑇 )𝑃 ]𝑒+ K ALMAN F ILTER
˜ (24)
+𝑒𝑇 𝑃 𝐵(− 1𝑟 𝐵 𝑇 𝑃 𝑒) + 𝑒𝑇 𝑃 𝐿𝑑⇒ The control loop has to be implemented with the use of
information provided by a small number of sensors and by
𝑉˙ = − 12 𝑒𝑇 𝑄𝑒 + ( 2𝑟 𝑃 𝐵𝐵 𝑇 𝑃 𝑒 − 2𝜌12 𝑒𝑇 𝑃 𝐿𝐿𝑇 )𝑃 𝑒 processing only a small number of state variables. Actually,
(25)
− 1𝑟 𝑒𝑇 𝑃 𝐵𝐵 𝑇 𝑃 𝑒) + 𝑒𝑇 𝑃 𝐿𝑑˜ one can implement feedback control by measuring only the
stator currents. To reconstruct the missing information about
which after intermediate operations gives the state vector of the synchronous reluctance machine it is
proposed to use a filtering scheme and based on it to apply
𝑉˙ = − 12 𝑒𝑇 𝑄𝑒 − 1 𝑇 𝑇
+ 𝑒𝑇 𝑃 𝐿𝑑˜ state estimation-based control [20]. The recursion of the 𝐻∞
2𝜌2 𝑒 𝑃 𝐿𝐿 𝑃 𝑒 (26)
Kalman Filter, for the model of the synchronous reluctance
or, equivalently machine, can be formulated in terms of a measurement update

597
and a time update part
10 2 100

Measurement update: 8
50
1
6

x1

v1
0

x
4
0
− 𝑇 −1 − −1
𝐷(𝑘) = [𝐼 − 𝜃𝑊 (𝑘)𝑃 (𝑘) + 𝐶 (𝑘)𝑅(𝑘) 𝐶(𝑘)𝑃 (𝑘)]
−50
2

0 −1 −100

𝐾(𝑘) = 𝑃 − (𝑘)𝐷(𝑘)𝐶 𝑇 (𝑘)𝑅(𝑘)−1

0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
time (sec) time (sec) time (sec)

𝑥 ˆ− (𝑘) + 𝐾(𝑘)[𝑦(𝑘) − 𝐶 𝑥
ˆ(𝑘) = 𝑥 ˆ− (𝑘)]
2 100 100

1 50
(35) 50

x3

v2
0 0

x
Time update: −1
0
−50

−2 −50 −100
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
time (sec) time (sec) time (sec)

ˆ− (𝑘 + 1) = 𝐴(𝑘)𝑥(𝑘) + 𝐵(𝑘)𝑢(𝑘)
𝑥
(36)
𝑃 − (𝑘 + 1) = 𝐴(𝑘)𝑃 − (𝑘)𝐷(𝑘)𝐴𝑇 (𝑘) + 𝑄(𝑘)
(a) (b)
where it is assumed that parameter 𝜃 is sufficiently small
to assure that the covariance matrix 𝑃 − (𝑘) − 𝜃𝑊 (𝑘) + Fig. 4. Test case 1: (a) tracking of reference setpoints by the state variables
𝑥1 to 𝑥4 of the Synchronous Reluctance Machine (b) Control inputs 𝑢1 and
𝐶 𝑇 (𝑘)𝑅(𝑘)−1 𝐶(𝑘) will be positive definite. When 𝜃 = 0 𝑢2 applied to the synchronous reluctance machine
the 𝐻∞ Kalman Filter becomes equivalent to the standard
Kalman Filter. One can measure only a part of the state vector
of the synchronous reluctance machine, and estimate through
filtering the rest of the state vector elements.
1.5 2 100
VI. S IMULATION TESTS
1 50
1

The efficiency of the proposed control method has been

1

v1
0.5 0
x

x
0
tested through simulation experiments. The obtained results 0 −50

−0.5 −1 −100
are depicted in Fig. 4 to Fig. 6. The real value of the state 0 10 20
time (sec)
30 40 0 10 20
time (sec)
30 40 0 5 10 15 20
time (sec)
25 30 35 40

variable of the synchronous reluctance motor is denoted with 1 60 100

50
blue colour, the estimated value is denoted with green colour 0 40
3

v2
0
x

while the reference setpoints are denoted with red colour. It −1 20

−50

can be noticed that the proposed nonlinear optimal control −2

0 10 20 30 40
0
0 10 20 30 40
−100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
time (sec) time (sec) time (sec)
scheme achieved fast and accurate tracking of all reference
setpoints while the variations of the control input remained
smooth. For the computation of the feedback gain of the (a) (b)
H-infinity controller the algebraic Riccati equation given in
Fig. 5. Test case 3: (a) tracking of reference setpoints by the state variables
Eq. (22) had to be solved at each step of the control method. 𝑥1 to 𝑥4 of the Synchronous Reluctance Machine (b) Control inputs 𝑢1 and
In the presented simulation experiments sensorless control for 𝑢2 applied to the synchronous reluctance machine
the model of the synchronous reluctance machine has been
implemented, where the only state variables being measured
were the stator currents 𝑥3 = 𝑖𝑑 and 𝑥4 = 𝑖𝑞 .

It is of worth to note that despite its computational sim- 3 6 100

plicity the proposed nonlinear H-infinity control method for 2

4 50

synchronous reluctance machines is very efficient and exhibits

x1

v1

2 0
x

1
0 −50
specific advantages: (i) it is applied directly on the nonlinear
0 −2 −100
dynamical model of the reluctance machine and not on an 0 10 20
time (sec)
30 40 0 10 20
time (sec)
30 40 0 5 10 15 20
time (sec)
25 30 35 40

equivalent linearized description of it, (ii) It avoids the elab- 4 60 100

2 50
orated linearizing transformations (diffeomorphisms) which 40
3

v2

0 0
x

can be met in global linearization-based control methods for −2

20
−50

electric machines, (iii) the controller is designed according −4

0 10 20 30 40
0
0 10 20 30 40
−100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
time (sec) time (sec) time (sec)
to optimal control principles which implies the best trade-off
between precise tracking of the reference setpoints on the one
side and moderate variations of the control inputs on the other (a) (b)
side (iv) the control method exhibits significant robustness to
Fig. 6. Test case 5: (a) tracking of reference setpoints by the state variables
parametric uncertainty, modelling errors as well as to external 𝑥1 to 𝑥4 of the Synchronous Reluctance Machine (b) Control inputs 𝑢1 and
perturbations (v) the computational implementation of the 𝑢2 applied to the synchronous reluctance machine
control method is simple since it requires only the solution
of an algebraic Riccati equation.

598
 VII. C ONCLUSIONS
The article has proposed a new nonlinear optimal (H-infinity)
control approach for Synchronous Reluctance Machines.
First the dynamic model of the machine was analyzed and
its state space description in the synchronously rotating 𝑑𝑞
reference frame was obtained. Next, the dynamic model of
the machine underwent linearization around a temporary
operating point that was recomputed at each iteration of
the control algorithm and which was defined by the present
value of the system’s state vector and the last value of the
control input vector that was exerted on it. The linearization
procedure was based on Taylor series expansion and on
the computation of the associated Jacobian matrices. For
the linearized equivalent model of the electric machine an
H-infinity feedback controller was designed.
The computation of the controller’s feedback gain required
the solution of an algebraic Riccati equation at each step of
the control method. Moreover, the stability properties of the
control method were proven through Lyapunov analysis. It was
shown that the control loop of the Synchronous Reluctance
Machine satisfied the H-infinity tracking performance
criterion. This in turn stands for an indication of improved
robustness of the controller against model uncertainty and
external perturbations. Additionally, it was proven that under
moderate conditions the control scheme becomes globally
asymptotically stable. Finally, it was shown that to implement
feedback control of the machine after partially measuring its
state vector the H-infinity Kalman Filter can be used as a
robust state estimator.
R EFERENCES
[1] W.T. Willet and M.J. Kamper, Variable-gear EV Reluctance Syn-
chronous Motors Drives: An evaluation of rotor structures for position
sensorless control, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol.
61, no. 10, pp. 5732-5740, 2014.
[2] S.E. Lyshevksi, Nonlinear modelling and robust control of synchronous
reluctance motors, Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 43, pp.
523-536, 2002.
[3] S.E. Lyshevski and A. Nazarov, Control and analysis of synchronous
reluctance motors, IEEE ACC 99, Proceedings of the American Control
Conference, San Diego, California, June 1999.
[4] P.M. Truong, D. Flieller, N.K. Nguyen and J. Merckleé, Optimal
efficiency control of Synchronous Reluctance Motor-based ANN con-
sidering cross magnetic saturation and iron loss, IEEE IECON 2015,
IEEE Industrial Electronics Conference, Yokohama, Japan, Nov. 2015.
[5] M.Y.Wai and T.H. Liu, Design and implementation of an online tuning
adaptive controller for synchronous reluctance motor drives, IEEE
Transactions onn Industrial Electronics, vol. 60,no. 9, pp. 3644-3657,
2013.
[6] M. Barcaro, N. Bianchi and F.Magnussen, Permanent magnet optimiza-
tion in permanent-magnet assisted Synchronous Reluctance Motor for
aa wide constant power speed range, IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics, vol. 59, no.6, pp. 2495-2502, 2012.
[7] J.D. Park, C. Kalev and H.F. Hofmann, Control of High-speed solid-
rotor Synchronous Reluctance Motor / Generator for flywheel-based
uninterruptible power supplies, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Elec-
tronics, vol. 55, no.8, pp. 3038-3046, 2009.
[8] E. Obe, Steady-state performance of a line-start synchronous reluctance
motor with capacitive assistance, Electric Power Systems Research
Elsevier, vol. 80, pp. 1240-1246, 2010.
599
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[9] H.F. Hofmann, S.R. Sanders and A. El-Antably, Stator-flux-oriented
vector control of synchronous reluctance machines with maximized
efficiency, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 51, no. 5,
pp. 1066-1072, 2004.
[10] H.D. Lee, S.J. Kang, and S.K. Sul, Efificiently optimized direct torque
conntrol of synchronous reluctance motor using feedback linearization,
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 192-
198, 1999.
[11] H.A. Zarchi, J. Soltani and G. A. Markadeh, Adaptive input-output
feedback linearization-based torque control of sychronous reluctance
motor without mechanical sensor, IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics, vol. 57, no.1, pp. 375-384, 2010.
[12] K.K. Shyu, C.K. Lai and Y.W. Tsai, Optimal position control of
synchronous reluctance motor via totally invariance variable structure
control, IEE Proceedings on Control Theory and Applications, vol. 147,
no.7, pp. 28-36, 2000.
[13] R.E. Betz, R. Lagerquist, M. Jovanovic, T.J. Miller and R. Middleton,
Control of Synchronous Reluctance Machines, IEEE Transactions on
Industry Applications, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1110-1122, 1993
[14] H.K. Chiang and C.H. Cheng, Design and implementation of a grey
sliding-mode controller for Synchronous Reluctance Motor drive, Con-
trol Engineering Practice, Elsevier, vol. 17, pp. 155-163, 2004.
[15] A. Ghaderi and T. Hanamoto, Wide-Speed-Range sensorless vector
control of Synchronous Reluctance Motors based on Extended Pro-
grammable cascaded low-pass filters, IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics, vol. 58, no.6, pp. 2322-2333, 2011.
[16] M.Y. Wei ans T.H. Liu, A high-pesfornance sensorless position control
system of a synchronous reluctance motor using dual current;slope
estimation techniques, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol.
50, no. 9, pp. 3411-3426, 2012.
[17] M.Y. Wei, T.H. Liu and C.K. Lin, Design and implementation of a
passivity-based controller for sensorless synchronous reluctance motor
drive systems, IET Electric Power Applications, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 335-
349, 2011
[18] T. Senjiya, T. Shingaki and K. Uezato, Sensorless vector control
of Synchronous Reluctance Motors with disturbance torque observer,
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 402-
407, 2001,
[19] G.G. Chen, T.H. Liu, M.T. Lin and C.A. Tai, Position control of
a Sensorless Synchronous Reluctance Motor, IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, vol. 51, no.1, pp. 15-25, 2004.
[20] G. Rigatos, Nonlinear control and filtering using differential flatness
approaches: applications to electromechanicsl systems, Springer, 2015
[21] G. Rigatos, Intelligent renewable energy systems: Modelling and con-
trol, Springer, 2017.
[22] [J20] G. Rigatos, P. Siano and C. Cecati. A new nonlinear H-infinity
feedback control approach for three-phase voltage source converters,
Electric Power Components and Systems, Taylor and Francis. 2015
[23] G.G. Rigatos and S.G. Tzafestas, Extended Kalman Filtering for Fuzzy
Modelling and Multi-Sensor Fusion, Mathematical and Computer Mod-
elling of Dynamical Systems, Taylor & Francis, vol. 13, pp. 251-266,
2007.
[24] M. Basseville and I. Nikiforov, Detection of abrupt changes: Theory
and Applications, Prentice-Hall, 1993.
[25] G. Rigatos and Q. Zhang, Fuzzy model validation using the local
statistical approach, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Elsevier, vol. 60, no.7,
pp. 882-904, 2009.
[26] G.J. Toussaint, T. Basar and F. Bullo, 𝐻∞ optimal tracking control
techniques for nonlinear underactuated systems, in Proc. IEEE CDC
2000, 39th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Sydney Aus-
tralia, Dec. 2000.
[27] L. Lublin and M. Athans, An experimental comparison of and designs
for interferometer testbed, Lectures Notes in Control and Information
Sciences: Feedback Control , Nonlinear Systems and Complexity,
(Francis B. and Tannenbaum A., eds.), Springer, pp. 150-172, 1995.
[28] J.C. Doyle, K. Glover, P.P. Khargonekar and B.A. Francis, State-
Space Solutions to Standard 𝐻2 and 𝐻∞ Control Problems, IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 34, pp. 831-847, 1989.
[29] B.P. Gibbs, Advanced Kalman Filtering, Least Squares and Modelling:
A practical handbook, J. Wiley, 2011.
[30] D. Simon, A game theory approach to constrained minimax state
estimation. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 54, no. 2,
pp. 405-412, 2006