Article

Transactions of the Institute of

Measurement and Control
A robust performance enhancement 1–16
Ó The Author(s) 2019

of primary H‘ controller based on Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0142331218823861
auto-selection of adjustable fractional journals.sagepub.com/home/tim

weights: Application on a permanent

magnet synchronous motor

Hanni Guessoum1, Chams-Eddine Feraga2, Lamine Mehennaoui3,

Moussa Sedraoui1 and Abderrazek Lachouri3

Abstract
This paper proposes a new robustification strategy of a primary H‘ controller based on a systematic selection of adequate fractional weights. Its robust
performance (RP) margin is well enhanced with respect to unstructured multiplicative uncertainties presented in linear feedback systems. The pro-
posed robustification strategy provides a robustified H‘ controller when following proposed hierarchical control is well respected. First, the primary
H‘ controller is synthesized from solving a weighted-mixed sensitivity H‘ problem using initial integer weights. Thus, an initial RP margin is obtained.
Second, an automatic selection of adjustable fractional weights is performed by the particle swarm optimization algorithm, in which some proposed
tuning rules are accordingly well satisfied. Third, frequency response data of these weights are computed and then fitted by corresponding approxi-
mated integer weights using a frequency identification technique. Finally, these weights reformulate a new weighted-mixed sensitivity problem. The opti-
mal solution to this problem updates the previous initial RP margin. These last three steps are repeated as the updated RP margin is diminished.
Otherwise, the proposed hierarchical control is achieved by selecting the best adjustable fractional weights, providing, therefore, the best approxi-
mated integer weights and leading, therefore, to the robustified H‘ controller. In order to confirm the effectiveness of our proposed hierarchical con-
trol, primary and robustified H‘ controllers are applied on a permanent magnet synchronous motor where its actual behavior is modeled by an
unstructured multiplicative uncertain model. The results obtained are compared in frequency domains using the singular value plots of their sensitivity
functions. Otherwise, the same results are compared in time domains using the PowersimÒ software.

Keywords
Control systems design, electrical machines, H-inf, robust control, self-tuning, stability, uncertain systems

Introduction (Hwang, 2004; Ranjbar-Sahraei, 2012) and others have been

The enhancement of the robust performance (RP) in linear
feedback systems, for the actual process modeled by unstruc-
tured uncertainties, has presented a major challenge in con-
trol engineering systems, over the past few decades (Apkarian
and Noll, 2006; Boersma et al., 2016; Ebihara et al., 2005;
Singiresu, 2009). Therefore, ensuring this robustness satisfies
several dynamics, such as, the tracking dynamic of set-point
trajectories, the attenuation dynamic of plant uncertainties,
the suppression dynamic of sensor noises, the insensitivity
dynamic to the un-modeled fast and/or nonlinear dynamics
and the trade-off between nominal performances and robust
stability (Doyle and Stein 1981; Singiresu, 2009; Skogestad
et al., 1988). These above dynamics should be guaranteed not
only for the nominal plant but also for a set of neighboring
unstructured plant uncertainties.
Recently, various advanced control strategies such as
Neural Network Control (Kim and Lewis, 1999), fuzzy logic
control (Lian et al., 2001), adaptive neuro-fuzzy control
proposed in the literature for ensuring the RP with high
secure margin when the parameters of the model change in a
wide range. Unfortunately, the obtained robustness proper-
ties cannot be shown in frequency domains due to no existing
analytic expression for obtained controller (Kanade and
Mathew, 2013, Sedraoui et al., 2017). Therefore, the obtained
sensitivity functions cannot be analyzed in frequency domain.
1
Department of Electronic and Telecommunication, University 8 May
1945 of Guelma, Algeria
2
Department of Electrical Engineering and Automatic, University 8 May
1945 of Guelma, Algeria
3
Department of Electrical Engineering, University 20 Août 1955 of
Skikda, Algeria
Corresponding author:
Moussa Sedraoui, Laboratoires des Télécommunications LT. Department
of Electronic and Telecommunication, University 8 May 1945 of Guelma,
Guelma, 24000, Algeria.
Email: msedraoui@gmail.com, sedraoui.moussa@univ-guelma.dz
2 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 00(0)

Nowadays, H‘ synthesis methods based upon algebraic Perturbed plant ( )

Riccati equations (AREs) or linear matrix inequalities (LMIs) ( )
approaches are gaining very high acceptance since they pro- ℓ( ) Δ ( )
+ + ( )
vide a perfect control to linear systems and high robustness to ( )+ ( ) ( ) + +
_ ( ) ( )
stabilize in adverse operating conditions (Singiresu, 2009; Primary ∞ Nominal plant-model
Zhan and Zhou, 2014). Furthermore, they allow analyzing controller +
+
the previous dynamics through plotting the singular values of
( )
its corresponding sensitivity functions in frequency domain.
According to previous works (Lundström et al., 1991; Oloomi
and Shafai, 2003), achieving a good RP margin, by H‘ synth-
esis methods, depends heavily on the appropriate selection of Figure 1. Block diagram system based on an unstructured
integer weights that include in frequency domain, model multiplicative uncertain plant.
uncertainties, disturbance attenuation at higher frequencies,
required bandwidth of the closed loop plant, and so forth formulated. Its optimal solution systematically updates the
(Ortega and Rubio, 2004; Sarath, 2011). main H‘ primary controller and also generates the H‘
It is notable that the above-mentioned selection can be enhanced controller. The important difference between our
achieved after several trials and errors where simple specifica- proposed control strategy and those available in the literature
tions are taken into accounts. Conversely, when strong speci- is the way to select suitable adjustable fractional weights and
fications are imposed, this selection becomes very hard introduce them into the standard H‘ control strategy. In these
(Özbay et al., 1993; Sarath, 2011) and the application domain conditions, the secure margin for given RP of the primary H‘
of usual H‘ synthesis method is therefore restrained. In per- control is increased.
manent magnet synchronous motor (PMSM) drive control
problems, the previous specification types may be imposed
due to: nonlinear dynamic behavior, highly disturbance envi- Design of the primary H‘ controller
ronment, actuator saturation, very adverse operating condi-
Let us consider the block-diagram shown in Figure 1 (Doyle
tions, mechanical contact and lubrication (Bouiadjra et al.,
and Stein 1981; Skogestad et al., 1988).
2017). In order to avoid these drawbacks, various H‘ synth-
The connection of the nominal plant GN (s) and the pri-
esis methods based upon adjustable integer weights have been
mary H‘ controller K0 ðsÞ is driven by the set-point reference
proposed since the last decades including the genetic algo-
r(s), output disturbance dy (s), and sensors noise h(s).
rithms (GA) (Nair, 2009), the particle swarm optimization
Here,eðsÞ is the control error, yðsÞ is the process output, and
(PSO) algorithm (Hamidi, 2012; Kaitwanidvilai et al., 2011),
uðsÞ is the control signal.
and others. These methods can satisfy a high number of the
Suppose that the perturbed plant GP (s) of the form
imposed specifications. Therefore, the obtained H‘ control-
GP ðsÞ = ½I + W‘ ðsÞ  Dm ðsÞ  GN ðsÞ. Here, W‘ ðsÞ is a fixed
lers may significantly increase the RP margin but in a specific
transfer function and Dm ðsÞ is a variable stable transfer func-
range of model parameter variations. They can also provide
tion satisfying kDm ðsÞk‘ \1 (Doyle and Stein, 1981).
an acceptable trade-off between both robust stability (RS)
Furthermore, all previous transfer functions have appropriate
and nominal performances (NP) (Xu, 2012). Nevertheless,
dimensions.
optimal integer weights cannot be guaranteed because the
In the design step of the primary H‘ controller with no
convergence of the optimization algorithm slows down as the
model uncertainty, the nominal plant GN (s) is augmented
optimal solution approaches. This is generally due to the high
with certain integer weights so that the closed loop transfer
number of selected integer weights or specifications to be
function of the plant will have the desired performances.
quantified (Amieur et al., 2017; Sedraoui et al., 2017).
Consequently, the synthesis of the primary H‘ controller is
Recently, synthesis controllers based upon fractional cal-
referred as solving the weighted-mixed sensitivity problem,
culi are becoming increasingly popular in the automation and
which is formulated through the following H‘ generalized
process control community. It is notable that the fractional-
feedback control system (Skogestad et al., 1988).
order carried on the Laplace operator can be approximated
From Figure 2, the exogenous input and exogenous out-
to the usual integer transfer function that contains an infinite
put of the generalized plant P0 ðsÞ are respectively assumed by
number of poles and zeros (Podlubny, 1999; San-Millan,
zin and zout . In general, the H‘ control problem is formulated
et al., 2017). As a result, various synthesis methods benefit to
through a lower linear fractional transformation (LFT),
this important property, in which the obtained RP margin of
which defining the closed-loop interconnection system of
the primary H‘ controller can be improved. This paper inves-
P0 ðsÞ by K0 ðsÞ yields also (Doyle and Stein, 1981; Zames,
tigates the analysis of the RP margin enhancement problem.
1981)
Thus, the main contribution of this article is to reinforce this
margin by a systematic selection of adjustable fractional
weights. The optimal parameters weights are given by an opti- min J‘ ðK0 Þ = min kLFT‘ fP0 ðsÞ, K0 ðsÞgk‘ ð1Þ
K0 2RH‘ K0 2RH‘
mization tool using some proposed guidelines. The frequency
domain identification approach is then used to approximate In the weighted-mixed sensitivity problem, the H‘ control
the fractional weights previous to corresponding integers. problem, given by equation (1), can be expressed by (Doyle
Thus, a new optimization problem by mixed weighting is and Stein 1981; Zames, 1981)
Guessoum et al. 3

Where the RS weight should satisfy the following condi-

( ) tion (Goodwin et al., 1992; Levine, 1996)
( )
 
GP ðsÞ  GN ðsÞ
( ) 
kDm ðsÞ  W‘ ðsÞk‘ =   \kWT ðsÞk ð6Þ
GN ðsÞ  0 ‘
‘

+ + +
( )
+ + - In addition, both previous sensitivity functions are associated
with the following identity (Goodwin et al., 1992)

Sd0 ðsÞ + Sc0 ðsÞ = I ð7Þ

( )
According to equations (4) and (5), the NP0 condition is
violated when the singular values plot of smax ½Sd0 ðvÞ exceeds
Figure 2. H‘ generalized feedback control system. its upper bounds, smax ½WS0 ðsÞ1 at any frequency point. On
the other hand, the RS0 condition is violated if the singular
values plot of smax ½Sc0 ðvÞ exceeds its upper bounds,
  smax ½WT0 ðsÞ1 at any frequency point. Accordingly, a trade-
 WS ðsÞ  Sd ðsÞ 
min J‘ ðK0 Þ = min  0 0  ð2Þ off condition between NP0 and RS0 cannot be satisfied when
K0 2RH‘ K0 2RH‘  WT0 ðsÞ  Sc0 ðsÞ 
‘
either NP0 or RS0 condition is violated in any frequency point
(Aidoud et al., 2016; Sedraoui et al., 2017). A good trade-off
where WS0 ðsÞ is a fixed integer weight that is preselected by
between NP0 and RS0 can be ensured by the primary H‘ con-
the user. Their maximal singular values should limit those
troller K0 ðsÞ when the following steps are well respected:
provided by the direct sensitivity function Sd0 ðsÞ, where
Sd0 ðsÞ = ½I + GN ðsÞ  K0 (s)1 . In addition, WT0 ðsÞ is a fixed
integer weight that is prior chosen by the user. Their maximal
singular values should limit those provided by the comple-
Algorithm A
mentary sensitivity function Sc0 ðsÞ, where
Sd0 ðsÞ = GN ðsÞ  K0 ðsÞ:½I + GN ðsÞ  K0 (s)1 . The direct mini-  Step A.1: Get the nominal plant GN ðsÞ and select two
mization of the cost function J‘ ðK0 Þ turns out to be a very fixed integer weights WS0 ðsÞ and WT0 ðsÞ.
hard problem, and it is therefore not feasible to tackle it  Step A.2: Compute the generalized plant P0 ðsÞ and
directly. Instead, it is much easier to construct conditions that formulate the corresponding weighted -mixed sensitiv-
state whether there exists a stabilizing controller that achieves ity problem.
the H‘ -norm bound by (Doyle and Stein, 1981; Goodwin  Step A.3: Solve the previous problem by the MatlabÒ
et al., 1992; Singiresu, 2009; Zames, 1981) function Hinflmi. This function provides the state
  space representation of the primary H‘ controller
 WS ðsÞ  Sd ðsÞ  K0 ðsÞ.
J‘ ðK0 Þ =  
 WT ðsÞ:  Sc ðsÞ  \1
0 0
ð3Þ
0 0 ‘  Step A.4: Determine the two initial direct and comple-
mentary sensitivity functions Sd0 ðsÞ and Sc0 ðsÞ.
The state space representation of the primary H‘ controller  Step A.5: Verify both conditions given by equations
can be determined from solving the ‘H‘ -optimal control prob- (5) and (6). Stop the algorithm if these conditions are
lem’ using the MatlabÒ function Hinfhlmi (Jiang et al., 2008; satisfied. Otherwise, select other integer weights and
Tandon and Narayan, 2014). go back to step A.2.
According to equation (3), the following conditions are
derived. First, the initial nominal performance NP0 condition Notice that the initial robust performance RP0 condition is
is satisfied if and only if the weighted direct sensitivity satisfied if and only if the following inequality is verified
kWS0 ðsÞ  Sd0 ðsÞk‘ satisfies the following inequality (Skogestad (Ebihara et al., 2005; Goodwin et al., 1992; Levine, 1996)
et al., 1988; Singiresu 2009)
RP0 = kWS0 ðsÞ:  Sd0 ðsÞk‘ + kWT0 ðsÞ  Sc0 ðsÞk‘ \g\1 ð8Þ
1
NP0 = kWS0 ðsÞ  Sd0 ðsÞk‘ \1 , kSd0 ðsÞk‘ \ ð4Þ
kWS0 ðsÞk‘ where g 2 R+ is the H‘ performance that is reached by the
primary H‘ controller. Accordingly, satisfying the RP0 condi-
Second, with respect to the unstructured multiplicative tion implies the simultaneous satisfactoriness of both NP0
uncertain model, the initial robust stability RS0 condition is and RS0 conditions (Levine, 1996). This can be done by a
satisfied if and only if the weighted complementary sensitivity good selection of both adequate integer weights WS ðsÞ and
kWT0 ðsÞ  Sc0 ðsÞk‘ satisfies the following inequality (De Vries WT ðsÞ, which are sometimes quite complicated when an inte-
and Van den Hof, 1995; Levine, 1996; Wei and Verhaegen, ger dimensional space is used. This problem can be avoided
2011) by proposing two adjustable fractional weights (Amieur
et al., 2017; Sedraoui et al., 2017). Their parameters are given
1 by the PSO algorithm, in which some proposed tuning rules,
RS0 = kWT0 ðsÞ  Sc0 ðsÞk‘ \1 , kSc0 ðsÞk‘ \ ð5Þ
kWT0 ðsÞk‘ described later, are well satisfied.
4 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 00(0)

Robustification of the primary H‘
controller
Fractional integral-differential operation
Used adjustable fractional weights in the synthesis step of the
robustified H‘ controller taking into account the presence of
hard performances is the capital importance for the success of
the proposed control strategy. However, introducing these
weights in robust control theory is totally new compared to
those based upon integer ones. Furthermore, the main contri-
bution of this paper is how to find adequate adjustable frac-
tional weights that reduce, as much as possible, the space
search size of the PSO algorithm, leading, therefore, to the best
integer weights for RP enhancement. Notice that the fractional-
order fundamental operator a Dmt , which is used in the proposed
adjustable fractional weights, is defined according to both
Grûnwald–Letnikov (G-L) and Riemann–Liouville (R-L) defi-
nitions (Oustaloop et al., 2000; Podlubny, 1999) as follows
Shafai, 2003). This may present a difficult task, especially
when the desired RP performance is needed by a higher mar-
gin. This drawback can be avoided by selecting the adequate
adjustable integer weights, in which their poles and zeroes are
optimized by an adequate optimization tool.
Unfortunately, the computational cost increases exponen-
tially with the optimized parameter number, leading, therefore
to numerical ill-conditioning. For this reason, the two adjusta-
ble fractional weights, called WSf ðs, xÞ and WTf ðs, xÞ, are pro-
posed with the lowest number of unknown parameters. The
PSO algorithm optimized these parameters by selecting the
best weights of them available in a fractional dimensional
space. This selection mechanism is oriented by some proposed
tuning rules that will be described later. For NP specifications,
the adjustable fractional weight WSf ðs, xÞ is proposed by
!nS
psffiffiffiffiffi
+ vB
nS
MS
WSf ðs, xÞ = pffiffiffiffi ð13Þ
s + vB  nS eS

- According to the G-L definition, the a Dmt ½f ðtÞ is defined

Where eS 2 R+ is a desired tracking error reached in
by
steady-state, vB 2 R+ is a preferred minimum bandwidth car-
ried on desired sensitivity function Sd1 ðsÞ, MS 2 R+ is a
8 ta 
9 desired minimum H‘ peak reached by Sd1 ðsÞ, that is,
< X   =
GL m g
h
j m kSd1 ðsÞk‘ = MS , where Sd1 = ðI + GN  K1 Þ1 , and K1 is the
a Dt ½f ðt Þ= lim h  ð1Þ   f ðt  j:hÞ ð9Þ
h!0+ :
j=0
j ; desired robustified H‘ controller. nS 2 R+ is a desired frac-
tional order that imposing the slope of 20:nS dB per decade
8
> dm
: m.0 on the maximal singular value plot smax ½Sd1 ðvÞ at low-fre-
>
< dtm
m 1 : m=0 quency. It should satisfy nS0 \nS , where nS0 2 N+ is an
Where a Dt = Ðt , a and t are the limits of integer-order that ensuring the slope of 20  nS0 dB per
>
>
: (dt)m : m\0 decade in the curve of smax ½Sd0 ðvÞ at low-frequency.
a
the integration, m(where m 2 R ) is the order of the operation, Similarly, for RS specifications, the adjustable fractional
ta weight WTf ðs, xÞ is proposed by
and ta
h means the integer part of the real value h .
According to the R-L definition, the a Dmt ½f ðtÞ is defined by 0 1nT
(Oustaloop et al., 2000; Podlubny, 1999) s p1ffiffiffiffiffi
vBT + nT MT
@
WTf ðs, xÞ = npT ffiffiffiffi A ð14Þ
ð t = t  eT
 s + 1
RL m 1 dn f (t) v 
BT
a Dt ½f ðt Þ =  n dt ð10Þ
G ðn  mÞ dt t=a (t  t)gn + 1
Where eT 2 R+ is a desired multiplicative error reached in
where n  1\m\n and Gðn  mÞ is Euler’s gamma function. steady-state, vBT 2 R+ is desired closed-loop bandwidth car-
For convenience, the Laplace transform of the R-L fractional ried on desired complementary sensitivity function Sc1 ðsÞ. It
integral under zero initial condition is defined by (Oustaloop should be lower than all bandwidths provided by the maximal
et al., 2000; Podlubny, 1999) singular value plots of smax ½Dm ðvÞ:W‘ ðvÞ, MT 2 R+ is the
  desired minimum H‘ peak reached by Sc1 ðsÞ, i.e.,
m a
L RL
a Dt ½ f ð t Þ  = s  F ðsÞ ð11Þ Sc1 ðsÞ‘ = MT , where Sc1 = GN :K1 ðI + GN :K1 Þ1 ,nT 2 R+ is a
desired fractional order imposing the slope of 20:nT dB per
In addition, the Laplace transform of the R-L fractional deri- decade on the maximal singular value plot smax ½Sc1 ðvÞ at
vative of order 0\m\1 under zero initial condition is defined high frequency. It should satisfy nT0 \nT , where nT0 2 N+ is
by (Oustaloop et al., 2000; Podlubny, 1999) an integer order that ensures the slope of 20:nT dB per
  h i decade in the curve of smax ½Sc0 ðvÞ at high frequency.
m a RL m1
L RL
a Dt ½f ðtÞ = s :F ðsÞ  a Dt ½f ðtÞ ð12Þ The initial vector x0 = ðMS0 , nS0 , vB0 , eS0 , MT0 , nT0 , vBT0 ,
t=0
eT0 ÞT is performed by both fixed integer weights WS0 ðsÞ and
WT0 ðsÞ. It allows finding the lower bound LB and the upper
The adjustable fractional proposed weights WSf ðs, xÞ bound UB , in which LB ł x ł UB , where x = ðMS , nS ,
vB , eS , MT , nT , vBT , eT ÞT is the design vector, which contains
and WTf ðs, xÞ
all components of WSf ðs, xÞ and WTf ðs, xÞ. The optimization of
In general, satisfying a high number of H‘ performances these components can be ensured by satisfying the tuning
requires the adequate choice of specific integer weights, which rules suggest below.
are selected from an integer dimensional space (Oloomi and
Guessoum et al. 5

Tuning rules proposed for selecting the best frequencies. Also, they allow increasing as much as possible
adjustable fractional weights both fractional-orders nS and nT , providing thus the steepest
descent slopes. From equations (8), (15) and (16), looking for
The aim of the proposed tuning rules is to select good adjus- the best adequate fractional weights requires us to solve the
table fractional weights that ensure the following schemes proposed constrained optimization problem that can be
(Lundström et al., 1991; Oloomi and Shafai, 2003; Ortega expressed by the following general form
and Rubio, 2004; Sedraoui et al., 2017).
n    o
According to Figure 3, increasing the RP0 margin can be
RPð xÞ = min WSf ðs, xÞ  Sd1 ðsÞ‘ + WTf ðs, xÞ  Sc1 ðsÞ‘
established when either NP0 margin or RS0 margin is x
increased. This is done as follows: ð17Þ
2 d M 3 2 3 2 3
 The general rule to increase the NP0 margin is to MS0 S0 MS MS0
6 nS0 7 6 nS 7 6 dnS  nS0 7
enlarge, as much as possible, the fractional-order nS0 6 7 6  7 6 0 7
6 vB0 7 6 vB 7 6 dv  v 7
and/or the bandwidth vB0 . However, increasing these 6 7 6 7 6 B0 B0 7
6 deS0  eS0 7 6 eS 7 6 eS0 7
parameters more than necessary decreases the pre- Subject to : 6 7 6
6 dMT0 :MT0 7 ł 6 MT 7 ł 6 MT
7 6 7 ð18Þ
7
ferred RS1 margin, violating thus the robust stability 6 7 6 7 6 0 7
6 nT0 7 6 nT 7 6 dn  nT 7
condition. Conversely, to increase the RS0 margin 6  7 6  7 6 T0 0 7
4 dv  vBT0 5 4v 5 4 v 5
requires enlarging, as much as possible, the desired BT0 BT BT0
deT0  eT0 eT eT0
fractional-order nT . However, when nT is increased |fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl} |fflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflffl} |fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}
more than necessary, there is a possibility to violate LB x UB
the desired NP1 condition (Lundström et al., 1991;
Oloomi and Shafai, 2003). So, the desired compromise
can be ensured by the PSO algorithm using the follow- Frequency response of adjustable fractional weights
ing proposed constraints
In the proposed hierarchical control system, the proposed
8 adjustable fractional weights are used to increase the RP0

< nS0 ł nS ł dnSj  nS0
>
margin provided by the primary H‘ controller. As we know
 
vB0 ł vB ł dvB  vB0 ,

where 1\dH \2 ð15Þ
> already, the standard Hinflmi function cannot solve the
: n ł n ł d 0  n
T0 T n T0 T0 weighted-mixed sensitivity based on these fractional weights.
Approximating these weights by the corresponding integer
 The general rule to increase the RS0 margin is to polynomials is employed to avoid this drawback. It should be
diminish as much as possible MT0 , vBT0 , eS0 and eT0 . noted that the approximation step based on conventional
However, decreasing these parameters more than nec- methods can sometimes be quite complicated. For instance,
essary decreases the desired NP1 margin and also vio- these weights may consist of several transfer functions con-
lates the NP1 condition. On the other hand, the NP0 nected in series. The main goal is to determine a rational
margin is increased when MS is mitigated as much as weight with lower integer order, whose frequency responses
possible. However, when MS is decreased more than must be fitted closely to those provided by the corresponding
necessary, there is a possibility to violate the desired fractional weight. This can be done by the MatlabÒ function
RS1 condition (Lundström et al., 1991; Oloomi and Fitfrd, which yields a rational polynomial ratio with a prese-
Shafai, 2003). So, the desired compromise can be pro- lected integer order (Aidoud et al., 2016; Zheng et al., 2016).
vided by the PSO algorithm using the following pro- In general, the H‘ controller order depends heavily on this
posed constraints preselected order. So, obtaining a rational polynomial with
lower order is ensured after the following steps.

8
> dMS0  MS0 ł MS ł MS0
>
> Algorithm B
>
< deS  eS0 ł eS ł eS0
0  Step B.1: Get the exact frequency responses of both
dvBT  vBT0 ł vBT ł vBT0 , where 0\dH \1 ð16Þ
>
>
0 fractional weights WSf ðs, xÞ and WT ðs, xÞ
> dMT0  MT0 ł MT ł MT0
>  Step B.2: Select appropriate integer orders mS1 and
:
deT0  eT0 ł eT ł eT0
mT1 for the desired approximated integer polynomials
WS1 ðsÞ and WT1 ðsÞ, respectively.
In general, satisfying all proposed rules can improve the  Step B.3: Apply the MatlabÒ function Fitfrd for iden-
robust stability and the nominal performances. However, the tifying the parameters of WS1 ðsÞ and WT1 ðsÞ.
selection of good fractional weights may sometimes not be  Step B.4: Verify the stop criterion
achieved due to a saturation problem of certain constraints in ( 
WS ðv, xÞ  WS ðvÞ ł DWS
their upper limit. The proposed robustification has this draw-  f 1 2
WT ðv, xÞ  WT ðvÞ ł DWT . Stop algorithm if
back, especially the saturation of both parameters MS and f 1 2
MT . To avoid this drawback, their corresponding upper both desired precision DWS and DWT are reached.
bounds will be increased each time when they are saturated. Otherwise, set mS1 by mS1 + 1 and mT1 by mT1 + 1. Go
These allow translating, as much as possible, the bandwidth back to step B.3.
vBT in low-frequencies, and the bandwidth vB to the high-
6 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 00(0)

Figure 3. Enhancement of the RP0 margin by adjustable fractional weights.

In general, the implementation step of a robust controller, ðx‘j Þj = 1, ..., np are randomly initialized within LB ł x‘j
given with high-order leads often to high cost, the difficult ł UB where ‘ = 0 and x‘j = ðn‘Sj , v‘ ‘ ‘
Bj , nTj , MSj ,
‘ ‘ T
commissioning, poor reliability, and potential problems in vBTj , MTj Þ .
maintenance. Hence, how to obtain a low-order controller is  Step C.1: For each particle x‘j , determine:
an important and interesting task of all practicing control P Step C.1.1- The adjustable fractional weights
engineers. This is achieved by reducing as much as possible fWSfj ðs, x‘j Þ, WTfj ðs, x‘j Þg
the two orders of WS1 ðsÞ and WT1 ðsÞ. This reduction leads P Step C.1.2- The frequency responses
unfortunately to a poor fit of its corresponding fractional fWSfj ðv, x‘j Þ, WTfj ðv, x‘j Þg where vmin ł v ł vmax
weights WSf ðs, x Þ and WTf ðs, x Þ. On the other hand, it is pos- P Step C.1.3- The approximated integer weights
sible to find a compromise between these previous require- fWS‘1 ðsÞ, WT‘1 ðsÞg using algorithm B.
j j
ments. This can be done by imposing reasonable P Step C.1.4- The state space representations of the
approximation accuracies DWS and DWT , initializing both updated H‘ controller fK0‘j ðsÞg using algorithm A.
integer orders mS1 and mT1 by 1 and increasing gradually these P Step C.1.5- The new direct and complementary sensi-
last until achieving good approximation accuracy. tivity functions fSd‘j ðsÞ, Sc‘j ðsÞg.
As mentioned before, the main goal of this paper is to P Step C.1.6- The objective function RPðx‘j Þ
increase the RP0 margin, as much as possible, in the whole P Step C.1.7- The solutions xbest, j
‘
and xbest, ‘
swarm using the
frequency range. This can be ensured by applying both PSO following equations:
algorithm and frequency identification technique. The pro-
posed robustification algorithm is summarized by the follow-
ing steps. 8 n
o
>
>
best, ‘
= min RP xij , 0 ł i ł ‘
< xj i
xj
n
o ð19Þ
Algorithm C >
> x best, ‘
= min RP x‘j , 8j
: swarm
 Initialization step: the two lower and upper bounds LB x‘
j

and UB are computed through the parameters the two

initial fixed integer weights WS0 ðsÞ and WT0 ðsÞ. In step C1.4, if the state space representation of
Afterwards, the initial positions of np 2 N particles fK0‘h ðsÞgh2½1, np  is empty. Therefore, the corresponding
Guessoum et al. 7

particle x‘h must be chosen again randomly within Table 1. Meaning and values of diverse PMSM components.
LB ł x‘j ł UB and go back to step C1.1.
Parameters Significations Units-values
 Step C.2: Check the termination criterion. If it is satis- Ud Stator voltage in d axis V
fied, the proposed algorithm terminates by providing: Uq Stator voltage in q axis V
 
- Two adequate fractional weights WS ðs, x Þ, WT ðs, x Þ
f f id Stator current in d axis A
- Two best approximated integer weights fWS1 ðsÞ, WT1 ðsÞg iq Stator current in q axis A
- The best robustified H‘ controller K1 ðsÞ. Ld Stator inductance in d axis 8:5  103 H
Otherwise, go to step C.3. Lq Stator inductance in q axis 8:5  103 H
 Step C.3: Update both position and velocity of all par- fd Stator flux in d axis V:s
fq Stator flux in q axis V:s
ticles using the following equations (Eberhart and
ff Flux linkage 0:175V:s
Kennedy, 1995; Maruta et al., 2009) Rs Stator resistance 0:2O
vr Rotor speed r:p:m
np Poles pair number 4poles
(

Om Mechanical speed r:p:m
best, ‘
v‘j + 1 =c0  v‘j + c1  r1,
‘
j  xj  x‘j +c2  r2,
‘ best, ‘ ‘
j  xswarm  xj J Moment of inertia 0:089kg:m2
x‘j + 1 = x‘j + v‘j + 1 fc Viscous damping 0:005N:m:s
Cem Electromagnetic torque N:m
ð20Þ Ct Load torque N:m

Afterward, set iteration number ‘ by ‘ + 1 and go back to the

step C.1.  Direct and quadrature axis flux linkages
According to equation (20), c0 , c1 , and c2 are, respectively,


the inertia factor, the cognitive (individual), and the social fd = L d  i d + ff
‘
(group) learning rates. r1, ‘ ð22Þ
j and r2, j are random numbers that fq = Lq  iq
are uniformly distributed in ½0, 1. For simplicity, the termina-
tion criterion given in step C.2 is set as a maximum number  Electromagnetic torque of the motor
of iteration ‘max , which is chosen by the user (Maruta et al.,
2009).
Simulation results and discussion
In this part, a mechanical PMSM speed is regulated by the
primary H‘ controller, in which the initial fixed integer
weights WS0 ðsÞ and WT0 ðsÞ are used. It allows providing a
good tracking dynamic of the imposed reference mechanical
speed. Unfortunately, this dynamic deteriorates when the
above reference is quickly changed in a little time range and
the imposed total load is taken into account (Gupta and
Kumar, 2012; Yi et al., 2016).
Consequently, the primary H‘ controller cannot mitigate
the effect of the total, also providing a large control signal. To
avoid these problems, the obtained robustness margins of this
controller should be enhanced using our proposed hierarchi-
cal control.
Description of the nonlinear PMSM model
The actual PMSM behavior is commonly modeled by a non-
linear model that is given, in stationary reference frame, by
(Bouiadjra et al., 2017; Cimini et al., 2013; Li and Liu, 2009;
Wang et al., 2017):
 Direct and quadrature axis voltages
(
Ud = Rs  id + dfd
dt  vr  fq
dfq
Uq = Rs  iq + dt + vr  fd
3    
Cem = np  ff  iq + Ld  Lq id  iq ð23Þ
2
 Motor dynamics can be simply described by the equation
dVm
J + fc  Vm = Cem  Ct ð24Þ
dt
In this paper, the design step of any controller requires to
well know the PMSM parameters. These are done by identifi-
cation methods, in which several experiment tests are used.
The description of tests performed is out of the scope of this
work.
Therefore, Table 1 summarizes the meaning and the corre-
sponding nominal values of diverse PMSM components
(Bouiadjra et al., 2017).
Design of the PMSM linear model
According to equations (21) to (24), there is a coupling
between d  axis and q axis. This coupling needs to be com-
pensated by the current controllers using the field oriented
control (FOC) strategy. Its principle is illustrated by the fol-
lowing scheme
According to Figure 4, the independent PIDd current con-
troller can mitigate the discrepancy between the measured
direct current id and the corresponding reference current idref .
Therefore, setting idref by zero leads to decouple the nonlinear
dynamic behavior of the actual PMSM. Consequently, the
ð21Þ separated regulation of the mechanical speed Vm is performed
only in q axis.
8 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 00(0)

= +
-
+ ∞
= +
- -

/ /

Figure 4. PMSM speed control based on the FOC algorithm.

−
+ + 1 3 + 1
∙ .
− ∙ + 2 − ∙ +

Figure 5. Block diagram used for computing the nominal plant GN (s).

Accordingly, from equations (21) and (24), the linear
PMSM model is determined by the following simplified equa-
tion system
8
diq
>
< Uq = Rs  iq + Lq  dt + ff  np  Vm
3 ð25Þ
Cem = 2 :np :ff :iq
>
: J  dV
dt + fc  Vm = Cem  Ct
m PIDq current controller as well as on the nominal PMSM
In synthesis step of the H‘ controller, the load torque Ct is
set by zero in equation (25). Afterward, the transfer function
of the nominal plant GN (s) is computed by the MatlabÒ func-
tion Linmod using the following block diagram (Bouiadjra
et al., 2017).
According to Figure 5, the PIDq current controller should
minimize the discrepancy between the measured quadrature
current iq and its corresponding reference current iqref . This
last presents later the control signal provided by the controller
to be synthesized. The tuning of the PIDq controller para-
meters is performed by the MatlabÒ function Rltool, provid-
ing, thus, the following transfer function (Bouiadjra et al.,
2017)
4557ðs + 45:74Þ
PIDq ðsÞ =
sðs + 1019Þ
The transfer function of the nominal plant GN (s) is accord-
ingly given by (Bouiadjra et al., 2017)
6:325  106  ðs + 45:74Þ
GN ðsÞ =  
ðs + 49:87Þðs + 0:054Þ s2 + 992:2  s + 5:116  105
ð27Þ
According to equation (27), it is easy to observe that the
parameters of GN (s) depend heavily on the parameters of the
model. According to previous works done on identifying
parameters of the PMSM system actual behavior, four para-
meters such as Ld ,Lq ,Rs and J have uncertainty of 620%,
yielding, respectively,
  the following  lower and upper
bounds: Ld , Lq 2 6:8  103 , 10:2 3
  10 , Rs 2 ½0:16, 0:24,
and J 2 712  104 , 1068  104 .
In general, the controller parameters are determined through
only the nominal values of the PMSM model. Furthermore,
the controller synthesis step- based FOC strategy provides gen-
erally a poor robustness. This is due to various undesirable
effects caused by the neglected dynamics, the uncertainties of
the model parameters, the quadrature current sensor noise and
the mechanical speed sensor noise. For these reasons, the outer
loop of the FOC strategy must contain a robust controller that
provides very high robustness margins against these effects.
In this paper, the design controller is performed using the
ð26Þ H‘ synthesis method-based LMIs. Accordingly, all neglected
dynamics and imprecisely model parameters are considered in
the design of the integer weighting function WT0 ðsÞ, which
requires the following steps. First, the magnitude frequency
Guessoum et al. 9

responses of the relative error between both nominal and per- Design of robustified H‘ controller
turbed PMSM models are computed for different variations
Simulation results confirm later that the initial RP0 condition
of Ld ,Lq ,Rs and J varying within its lower and upper bounds.
cannot be satisfied by the primary H‘ controller when the pre-
Then, the stable transfer function W‘ ðsÞ is determined by cre-
vious fixed integer weights are used. To avoid this drawback,
ating some data points, entered by pressing the left button of
the search space of the design parameter x is given by
the mouse, where the magnitude created by these points
should limit all frequency responses of the relative errors 2 3 2 3 2 3
1:15 MS 2:50
(more details are available in Gu et al. (2014)). Next, the 6 1:00 7 6 nS 7 6 3:00 7
6 7 6  7 6 7
obtained data points are fitted, providing therefore the trans- 6 25:00 7 6 vB 7 6 35:00 7
6 6 7 6 7 6 4 7
fer function of W‘ ðsÞ. Finally, the parameters of WT0 ðsÞ can 6 10 7 6 eS 7 6 10 7
6 7 6 7 6 7 ð31Þ
be chosen in which the robustness condition given by equa- 6 1:20 7 ł 6 MT 7 ł 6 2:00 7
6 7 6 7 6 7
tion (6) is well satisfied. 6 1:00 7 6 nT 7 6 3:00 7
6 7 6 7 6 7
The parameters of the integer weighting function WS0 ðsÞ 4 200 5 4 v 5 4 400 5
BT
are chosen with the respect of the bandwidth vB0 and other 106 eT 104
desired closed loop specification such as, the steady tracking |fflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflffl} |fflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflffl} |fflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflffl}
LB x UB
error, rise time, and so forth. From both previous integer
weight, the generalized plant P0 ðsÞ is computed and the initial Then, our aim is to find x 2 R , which minimizes the
8

weighted-mixed sensitivity problem is accordingly formulated.
Design of the primary H‘ controller
The initial weighted-mixed sensitivity problem is formulated
using both following initial fixed integer weights WS0 (s) and
WT0 (s) (Bouiadjra et al., 2017)
objective function given by equation (20) while satisfying the
bounded constraints given by equation (21). To determine the
desired adjustable fractional weights WSf ðv, xÞ and WTf ðv, xÞ
the PSO algorithm is applied with the following tuning
parameters:
 Maximum number of iterations: ‘max = 20
 Swarm size: np = 20

c c
8  Inertia factor: c0 = c0max  0max‘max 0min  ‘, where
>
> nS0 = 1 c0max = 0:9, c0min = 0:4 and ‘ = 1, . . . , ‘max
s <
1:2 + 25 vB0 = 25  Cognitive learning rate: c1 = 1:8
WS0 ðsÞ = , where ð28Þ
s + 25  104 >
>
:
MS0 = 1:2  Social learning rate c2 = 1:8
eS0 = 1:75  103
8 The initialization step of the proposed algorithm C (i.e.
>
> nT0 = 1 ‘ = 0) provides the following 20 particles
s 1 <
400 + 1:25 vBT0 = 400 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
WT0 ðsÞ = 104 , where ð29Þ
> MT0 = 1:25 n0S1 nS2 nS20
400  s + 1 >
: Bv C Bv C B v0 C
eT0 = 1:66  104 0
B B1 C
0
B B2 C B B20 C
B n0 C B 0 C B n0 C
0 B T1 C 0 B nT2 C 0 B C
x1 = B 0 C, x2 = B 0 C, . . . . . . , xnp = B T020 C,
Afterward, the MatlabÒ function Hinflmi is used to solve B MS1 C B MS2 C B MS20 C
B 0 C B 0 C B 0 C
the previous problem, providing, thus, the H‘ performance @ vBT1 A @ vBT2 A @ vBT20 A
level g opt = 0:9216, and the following state space representa- MT10 0
MT2 MT020
tion of the primary H‘ controller K0 ðsÞ that is given by order
six.

2 3
119:14 15:27 4638:9 11886 1:2038  105 4:6427  105
6 1775:4 3:795  105 9:72  105 9:8482  106
9553:3 3:7981  107 7
6 7
6 7
6 15:569 211:96
116:22 464:26 4291:7 18991 7
A0 = 6
6
7
7
6 0:61284
4:0358 5:948 417:1 8516:3 2450:6 7
6 7
4 0:95047 855:66
21:309 6203:4 1:5671  105 68799 5
7:5889
7:0595 2316:3 3801:1 1:2289  105 1:4153  105
2 3 2 3T ð30Þ
5:2409  104 39:652
6 1:5057  104 7 6 2:9869 7
6 7 6 7
6 2 7 6 7
6 4:703  10 7 6 1365:4 7
B0 = 6
6
7, and C0 = 6
7 6
7
7
6 2:2262 7 6 3791:3 7
6 7 6 7
4 39:289 5 4 38472 5
57:504   1:4838  105

Where K0 ðsÞ is determined by K0 ðsÞ = C0 ðs  I  A0 Þ1  B0 .

10 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 00(0)

The components of each particle are randomly chosen

within its corresponding lower and upper bounds as follows

0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
MS01 nS1 vB1 eS1
B . C B . C B . C B . C
1:15 ł @ .. A ł 2:5, 1 ł @ .. A ł 3, 25 ł @ .. A ł 35, 10 ł @ .. C
B C B C B C 6 B
A ł 10 ,
4

MS0 n0S20 v0B20 e0S20

0 0 201 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
MT1 nT1 v0
BT1 eT1
B C B . C B C B . C
B .. C B . C
1:2 ł B . C ł 2, 1 ł B C
@ .. A ł 3, 200 ł B . C ł 400, and 10 ł B
6 C
@ .. A ł 10
4
@ A @ . A
MT0np n0T20 v0
BTnp e0T20

In Step C.1.1, the adjustable fractional weights are accord-

where r = 1, 2, . . . , 1000, v1 = 104 and v1000 = 10 + 6 .
ingly computed, yielding therefore the following 40 fractional
Afterwards, the frequency identification approach-based
transfer functions
algorithm B is applied using the following data:
0 1n0S
p
s ffiffiffiffiffiffi
n0
+ v0 B
1
 Desired precision for approximating WSf ðv, xÞ :
 0 B MS 0
S1
1
C  
WSf1 s, x1 = @ 1
qffiffiffiffiffiffiA , . . . , WSf20 s, x020 DWS = 102
0 n0 0
s + vB1  S1 eS1  Desired precision for approximating WTf ðv, xÞ :
0 1n0S DWT = 102
n0
ps ffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0
+ v0 B 20
20

B S20 MS20 C
=@ q ffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi A
n0 This algorithm is achieved by providing 40 state-state rep-
s + v0B20  20 eS20
S
0
resentation of the corresponding approximated integer
0 1n0T      
s p1 ffiffiffiffiffiffi 1 WS1 ðsÞ WS2 ðsÞ WS20 ðsÞ
0 + 0 weights, defined by , , ..., .
 0 BvBT1 n
T1 MT0 C WT1 ðsÞ WT2 ðsÞ WT20 ðsÞ
WTf1 s, x1 = = B @ n0T pffiffiffiffi ffi 1 C , ...,
A
1 e0T These integer weights are used to formulate 20 weighted-mixed
v0
1
 s + 1 sensitivity problems, which are solved using algorithm A.
BT1
0 1n0T Moreover, in Step C.1.4, the 20 integer H‘ controllers,
+ n0 p s1 ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 20
which are: K001 ðsÞ, K002 ðsÞ, ., K0020 ðsÞ, are provided where each
 0 Bv0
T20BT MT C
0

WTf20 s, x20 = = B 20 C
20
@ n0T pffiffiffiffiffiffi A one allows to compute both corresponding sensitivity and
e0T
20
0
20
 s + 1 complementary sensitivity functions.
v BT20
Now,
Step C.1.6 provides the 20 peaks, called also
RP x0j , using the following formula
In Step C.1.2, the frequency response data (FRD) of each j = 1, ..., 20

previous fractional weight 8          

  are computed within the frequency >
>
  
RP x01 = WSf1 s, x01  Sd01 ðsÞ + WTf1 s, x01  Sc01 ðsÞ

range v 2 104 , 10 + 6 radians per seconds using 1000 loga- >
< ‘ ‘
rithmically equally spaced points. This step provides therefore
 ...   
>
>      
the following 40000 frequency points : RP x020 = 
>   
WSf20 s, x020  Sd020 ðsÞ + WTf20 s, x020  Sc020 ðsÞ
‘ ‘
0 jvrffiffiffiffiffiffi
1n0S
n0
p + v0 B1
1
 0
 B S 1
M 0
S1 C   The obtained RP values are compared between them to
WSf1 vr , x1 = @ qffiffiffiffiffiffiA , . . . , WSf20 vr , x020
j  vr + v0 n 0 0 determine xjbest, 0 and xbest, 0 best, ‘
swarm where the xj presents the low-
B1  1 eS1
S
est RP value at the current iteration (i.e. ‘ = 0) whereas xbest, ‘
swarm
0 1n0S
pjvrffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
+ v0 20 presents the lowest RP value from initial iteration until the
n0 M 0 B20
B S 20 S20 C current one.
=@ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiA
j  vr + v0 n0 0 The components of each previous particle are updated
B20  20 eS20
S
according to equation (19) and the above-mentioned steps are
0 1n0T
jvr repeated until ‘max = 20. As a result, the parameters of the
0 + n0 p 1 ffiffiffiffiffiffi 1

  B v BT1 T1 MT C
0
  desired adjustable fractional weights are given by xbest, 20
WTf1 vr , x01 = = B @ n0T pffiffiffiffi ffi 1 C , . . . , WTf vr , x0
A 20
swarm
1 e0T 20 where algorithm A is terminated by providing the adequate
v0
1
 j  vr + 1 fractional weights, the corresponding approximated integer
BT1
0 1n0T weights and the robustified H‘ controller.
jvr
v0
+ n0
p
1 ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 20
Due to the probabilistic nature of PSO algorithm, it is run
B BT T20
0
MT C
= =B C
20
@ n0T pffiffiffiffiffiffi A
20
, 30 times with different initial populations of x 2 ½LB UB .
0 eT
20 20
 j  vr + 1 Consequently, the obtained solution, at ‘max = 20, leads to
v0
BT20
the following adjustable fractional weights
Guessoum et al. 11

Figure 6. Bode plots of WSf ðv, x Þ and WS1 ðvÞ (left side). Bode plots of WTf ðv, x Þ and WT1 ðvÞ (right side).

!1:229
psffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
+ 28:1386
1:229 Now, the singular values of these weights are compared
 2:251
WSf ðs, x Þ = pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi , with those given by the direct and complementary sensitivity
1:9  104
1:229
s + 28:1386 
8 functions. This comparison allows examining both NP1 and
> nS = 1:229 RS1 conditions. Consequently, Figure 7 presents the maximal
>
>
< v = 28:1386 ð32Þ singular values of both direct sensitivity functions Sd0 ðsÞ and
B
where Sd1 ðsÞ. They are compared, at low frequencies, to those pro-
>
> MS = 2:251
>
: vided by the inverse of weighting functions WS0 ðsÞ and WS1 ðsÞ.
eS = 1:9  104
This comparison is illustrated on the left side. In addition,
Figure 7 also presents the maximal singular values of both
8 complementary sensitivity functions Sc0 ðsÞ and Sc1 ðsÞ. They
!2:3784 >
> nT = 2:3784 are compared, at high frequencies, to those provided by the
s 1 ffiffiffiffiffiffi <
296 + 2:37841:88
p
vBT = 296
WTf ðs, x Þ = pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2:3784 , where inverse of the weighting functions WT0 ðsÞ and WT1 ðsÞ. This
2:9 3 10 5
 s+1 >
> M T = 1:88
296 : comparison is illustrated on the left side
eT = 2:9  105
According to Figure 7 (left side), it can be seen that a bet-
ð33Þ ter NP margin is given when the maximum singular values of
direct sensitivity function are small as much as possible at low
Where their corresponding integer weights, provided by
algorithm B, are given by

0:444ðs + 57:01Þðs + 29:46Þðs + 6:794Þðs + 0:9529Þðs + 0:122Þ

WS1 ðsÞ = ð34Þ
ðs + 22:28Þðs + 4:476Þðs + 0:5879Þðs + 0:0795Þðs + 0:024Þ

 
34482ðs + 7637Þðs + 2170Þðs + 562:9Þðs + 3:024Þ s2 + 406:3:s + 4271  104
WT1 ðsÞ =     ð35Þ
s + 1:167  104 ðs + 3561Þðs + 936:3Þðs + 3:025Þ s2 + 5:1 3 104 :s + 66370  104

Figure 6 compares the Bode plots of both WSf ðs, x Þ and

WS1 ðsÞ, which are presented on the left side. It also compares
the bode plots of both WTf ðs, x Þ and WT1 ðsÞ, which are pre-
sented on the right side.
According to Figure 6, it is easy to observe that both mag-
nitude and phase of the adjustable fractional weights
WSf ðs, x Þ and WTf ðs, x Þ match closely those of the corre-
sponding integer weights WS1 ðsÞ and WT1 ðsÞ, respectively. The
corresponding weighted-mixed sensitivity problem is solved
by the MatlabÒ function Hinflmi, providing, therefore, the
H‘ performance level gopt = 0:6949 and the robustified H‘
controller, which is given by order 15.
frequencies. Consequently, the proposed robustified H‘ con-
troller ensures the better NP margin compared with the one
provided by the primary H‘ controller.
 Furthermore, in low
frequency range v 2 104 , 20 radians/seconds, the curve of
smax ½Sd1 ðvÞ is below the value 80dB. This means that the
load disturbances are migrated more than 10000 times at the
plant output.
Now, according to Figure 7 (right side), it can be stated
that a better RS margin is given when the maximum singular
12 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 00(0)

Figure 7. Maximal singular value plots of Sd0 ðvÞ, Sd1 ðvÞ, WS1
0
ðvÞ and WS1
1
ðvÞ (left side), and Maximal singular value plots of Sc0 ðvÞ, Sc1 ðvÞ,
WT1
0
ðv Þ and WT
1
1
ðv Þ (right side).

Figure 8. Satisfying the RP condition by the proposed robustified H‘ controller.

values of complementary sensitivity function are small as much
as possible at high frequencies. Consequently, the proposed
robustified H‘ controller also ensures the better RS margin com-
pared with the one provided by the primary H‘ controller.
Furthermore, for frequencies above v = 4220 radians/seconds
the curve of smax ½Sc1 ðvÞ is below 60dB. This means that the
effect of the neglected nonlinear dynamic is attenuated more
than 1000 times at plant output. As results, the best trade-off
NP=RS robustness is ensured by the robustified H‘ controller,
involving, therefore, the best RP margin (see Figure 8).
Next, the Simulink blocks, based upon the Powersim soft-
ware, are used to compare the time responses provided by
both primary and robustified H‘ controllers. Accordingly,
these controllers are connected with the linear PMSM model,
presented by the transfer function given by equation (27).
They are also connected with the actual PMSM block where
several un-modeled nonlinearities are considered. This block
is available in the PowersimÒ Toolbox. The corresponding
feedback control system is established by connecting some
digital power electronics using the sampling time Ts = 20
microseconds. Figure 9 shows the block diagram of the actual
PMSM system and its linear model with the primary or robus-
tified H‘ controllers.
According to Figure 9, three exogenous inputs are used.
The first one presents the set-point reference Vrmref (radians/sec-
onds), which is assumed by
Guessoum et al. 13

Figure 9. Block diagram of the actual PMSM system and its linear model with the primary or robustified H‘ controllers.

8
>
> 50 : 0 ł t\0:5 thresholds that are not applicable in real application, that is,
>
> 25 : 0:5 ł t\1
>
> its supplied quadrature current changes, especially in transi-
>
>
< 0 : 1 ł t\1:2 ent-state, within the range 430 ł iq ł 770A.
Vrmref (t) = 25 : 1:2 ł t\1:7 ð36Þ Now, the reference input (to be tracked) as well as the load
>
>
> 50 : 1:7 ł t\2:2
> torque input (to be attenuated) are considered in the presence
>
>
>
> 40 : 2:2 ł t\2:7 of the parametric uncertainties that affect the PMSM model.
:
30 : 2:7 ł t\4 Indeed, the 20 random variations given within the lower and
upper bounds of the four parameters Ld ,Lq ,Rs and J are taken
Where Vrmref = p
30 Vmref , yields also into accounts to build the perturbed plants of the PMSM sys-
8 tem. These last are controlled by both primary and robusti-
>
> 477:46 : 0 ł t\0:5 fied H‘ controllers where each feedback control system is
>
> 238:73 : 0:5 ł t\1
>
> excited by two exogenous inputs. The first input is the refer-
>
>
< 0 : 1 ł t\1:2 ence mechanical speed. It is assumed as a unit-step function
Vmref = 238:73 : 1:2 ł t\1:7 ð37Þ
>
> with a gain equal to Vmref = 477:46 applied during the time
>
> 477:46 : 1:7 ł t\2:2
>
> range t 2 ½0, 3 s. The second input is the load torque. It is
>
> 381:79 : 2:2 ł t\2:7
: assumed as a unit-step function with a gain equal to
286:48 : 2:7 ł t\4
Ct = 15N  m apply at the start-time t = 0:5 s. Figure 12
In addition, for practical consideration, a first order lead- shows the mechanical speeds obtained by both primary and
lag filter given by F ðsÞ = 0:01s1 + 1 is a priory included to make robustified H‘ controllers.
this reference close to the actual mechanical speed of the According to Figure 12, it is easy to confirm that the
PMSM system. The second input presents the load torque. It robustified H‘ controller always retains the best tracking and
is assumed as a unit-step function with a gain equal to attenuation dynamics, regardless of the parametric change of
Ct = 15N  m apply at the start-time t = 3 s. Figure 10 shows the PMSM model in their lower and upper bounds.
both mechanical speeds given by primary and robustified H‘
controllers and Figure 11 shows their provided quadrature Conclusion
currents.
According to Figures 10 and 11, it is easy to see that the In this paper we have proposed the new hierarchical allowing
same good tracking dynamic of the reference input is well the robustification of the primary H‘ controller to enhance
ensured by both previous controllers. However, the best their NP, RS and RP margins. These goals were reached by
attenuation dynamic of the load torque input is only ensured an automatic selection of two adjustable weights, in which
by the robustified H‘ controller in steady-state. It also pro- some proposed tuning rules should be respected. The pro-
vides the reasonable quadrature current, which is limited by posed hierarchy uses the PSO algorithm to find good adjusta-
the range 125 ł iq ł 270A. For the primary H‘ controller ble fractional weights. Then, it uses the frequency
case, the supplied control signal reaches certain high current identification approach to fit the frequency responses of these
14 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 00(0)

Figure 10. Mechanical speeds given for the nominal plant: Robustified HNcontroller (solid line). Primary HNcontroller (dashed line).

Figure 11. Quadrature currents provided by both primary and robustified H‘ controllers.

weights, providing, therefore, good approximated integer
weights that update the weighted-mixed sensitivity problem.
Finally, it applies the standard H‘ synthesis controller
method to update the RP margin. These steps were repeated
until achieving the robustified H‘ controller. The validity of
the proposed new control strategy was validated on the
PMSM system where its dynamic behavior is modeled by the
unstructured multiplicative uncertainty. The obtained simula-
tion results show the evident improvement of the robustified
H‘ controller, in which two significant gains were derived.
Guessoum et al.
Figure 12. Mechanical speeds given for 20 perturbed plants: Robustified
HNcontroller (solid lines). Primary HNcontroller (dashed lines).
The first one is ensuring the good attenuation dynamic of the
load torque, whereas the second gain is providing the reason-
able control signal. These good dynamics were ensured not
only for the nominal PMSM model, but also for all set of the
neighbouring uncertain PMSM ones. On the other hand, it is
also clear that other improvements to the proposed control
strategy will require a fixed controller structure. This struc-
ture should be given with a lower order and one that does not
depend on the order of the two approximate integer weights.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Pervasive Artificial
Intelligence (PAI) group of the Informatics Department of
Fribourg–Switzerland for their valuable suggestions and com-
ments that helped us to improve this paper. Special thanks to
Professor Béat Hirsbrunner and Professor Michèle Courant.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Note
Hanni Guessoum, Chams-eddine Feraga, Lamine
Mehennaoui, Moussa Sedraoui and Abderrazek Lachouri
contributed equally in the preparation of this manuscript.
References
Aidoud M, Sedraoui M, Lachouri A and Boualleg A (2016) A robus-
tication of the two degree-of-freedom controller based upon
15
multivariable generalized predictive control law and robust H‘
control for a doubly-fed induction generator. Transactions of the
Institute of Measurement and Control, 0142331216673425 40(3):
1005–1017.
Amieur T, Younsi A, Aidoud M, et al. (2017) Design of robust frac-
tional order PID controller using fractional weights in the mixed
sensitivity problem. In: 4th International Multi-Conference on Sys-
tems, Signals & Devices (SSD), Marrakech, Morocco, 28–31
March 2017, pp. 549–553. Morocco: IEEE.
Apkarian P and Noll D (2006) Non-smooth H‘ Synthesis. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control 51(1): 71–86.
Boersma S, Korniienko A, Laib K and van Wingerden JW (2016)
Robust performance analysis for a range of frequencies. In: Amer-
ican Control Conference (ACC), Boston, MA, USA, 6–8 July
2016, pp. 5664–5670. IEEE.
Bouiadjra RB, Sedraoui M and Younsi A (2017) Robust fractional
PID controller synthesis approach for the permanent magnetic
synchronous motor. International Journal of Machine Learning
and Cybernetics 9(12): 2027–2041.
Cimini G, Corradini ML, Ippoliti G, et al. (2013) Passivity-based
PFC for interleaved boost converter of PMSM drives. IFAC Pro-
ceedings Volumes 46(11): 128–133.
De Vries DK and Van den Hof PMJ (1995) Quantification of uncer-
tainty in transfer function estimation: a mixed probabilistic worst-
case approach. Automatica 31(4): 543–557.
Doyle JC and Stein G (1981) Multivariable feedback design: concepts
for a classical modern synthesis. IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control 26(1): 4–16.
Ebihara Y, Hagiwara T, Peaucelle D and Arzelier D (2005) Robust
performance analysis of linear time-invariant uncertain systems
by taking higher-order time-derivatives of the state. In: 44th IEEE
Conference on Decision and Control, European Control Conference,
CDC-ECC’05, Seville, Spain, 15 December 2005, pp. 5030–5035.
Spain: IEEE.
Eberhart R and Kennedy J (1995) A new optimizer using particle
swarm theory. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Sympo-
sium on Micro Machine and Human Science, 1995, MHS’95,
Nagoya, Japan, 4–6 October 1995, pp. 39–43. IEEE.
Gu DW, Petkov PH and Konstantinov MM (2014) Robust control
design with MATLABÒ. London: Springer Science & Business
Media.
Goodwin GC, Gevers M and Ninness BM (1992) Quantifying the
error in estimated transfer functions with application to model
order selection. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 37(7):
913–928.
Gupta J and Kumar A (2012). Fixed pitch wind turbine-based perma-
nent magnet synchronous machine model for wind energy conver-
sion systems. Journal of Engineering and Technology 2(1): 52.
Hamidi J (2012) Control system design using particle swarm optimiza-
tion (PSO). International Journal of Soft Computing and Engineer-
ing 1(6): 116–119.
Hwang CL (2004) A novel Takagi-Sugeno-based robust adaptive
fuzzy sliding-mode controller. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Sys-
tems 12(5): 676–687.
Jiang S, Cui G, Cao L and Li C (2008) Design of H‘ robust control
for single-phase shunt active power filters. In: 7th World Congress
on Intelligent Control and Automation, 2008, WCICA 2008,
Chongqing, China, 25–27 June 2008, pp. 4639–4642. China:
IEEE.
Kaitwanidvilai S, Olranthichachart P and Ngamroo I (2011) PSO
based automatic weight selection and fixed structure robust loop
shaping control for power system control applications. Interna-
tional Journal of Innovative Computing, Information and Control
7(4): 1549–1563.
16
Kanade SP and Mathew AT (2013) 2 DOF H-infinity loop shaping
robust control for rocket attitude stabilization. International Jour-
nal of Aerospace Sciences 2(3): 71–91.
Kim YH and Lewis FL (1999) Neural network output feedback con-
trol of robot manipulators. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and
Automation 15(2): 301–309.
Levine WS (1996) The Control Handbook. Edition CRC Press.
Li S and Liu Z (2009) Adaptive speed control for permanent-magnet
synchronous motor system with variations of load inertia. IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics 56(8): 3050–3059.
Lian KY, Chiu CS, Chiang TS and Liu P (2001) Secure communica-
tions of chaotic systems with robust performance via fuzzy
observer-based design. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 9(1):
212–220.
Lundström P, Skogestad S and Wang ZQ (1991) Performance weight
selection for H-infinity and m-control methods. Transactions of the
Institute of Measurement and Control 13(5): 241–252.
Maruta I, Hyoung T and Sugie T (2009) Fixed-structure H‘ control-
ler: A meta-heuristic approach-using simple constrained particle
swarm optimization. Automatica 45(2): 553–559.
Nair SS (2011) Automatic weight selection algorithm for designing h
infinity controller for active magnetic bearing. International Jour-
nal of Engineering Science and Technology 3(1): 122–138.
Oloomi H and Shafai B (2003) Weight selection in mixed sensitivity
robust control for improving the sinusoidal tracking performance.
In: 42nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 1, Maui, HI,
USA, 9–12 December 2003, pp. 300–305 USA: IEEE..
Ortega MG and Rubio FR (2004) Systematic design of weighting
matrices for the HN mixed sensitivity problem. Journal of Process
Control 14(1): 89–98.
Oustaloup A, Levron F, Mathieu B and Nanot FM (2000) Fre-
quency-band complex noninteger differentiator: Characterization
and synthesis. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Fun-
damental Theory and Applications 47(1): 25–39.
Özbay H., Smith MC and Tannenbaum A (1993) Mixed-sensitivity
optimization for a class of unstable infinite-dimensional systems.
Linear Algebra and its Applications 178(1993): 43–83.
Podlubny I (1999) Fractional order systems and PIL Dm controllers.
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 44(1): 208–214.
Ranjbar-Sahraei B, Shabaninia F, Nemati A and Stan SD (2012) A
novel robust decentralized adaptive fuzzy control for swarm for-
mation of multiagent systems. IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics 59(8): 3124–3134.
San-Millan A, Feliu-Batlle V and Aphale SS (2017) Application of a
fractional order integral resonant control to increase the
Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 00(0)
achievable bandwidth of a nanopositioner. IFAC-Papers OnLine
50(1): 14539–14544.
Sarath SN (2011) Automatic weight selection algorithm for designing
H-infinity controller for active magnetic bearing. Interna-
tional Journal of Engineering Science and Technology 3(1):
122–138.
Sedraoui M, Amieur T, Bachir Bouiadjra R and Sahnoune M (2017).
Robustified fractional-order controller based on adjustable frac-
tional weights for a doubly fed induction generator. Transactions
of the Institute of Measurement and Control 39(5): 660–674.
Singiresu SR (2009) Engineering Optimization: Theory and Practice,
4th edn. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Skogestad S, Morari M and Doyle JC (1988) Robust control of ill-
conditioned plants: High purity distillation. IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control 33(12): 1092–1105.
Tandon B and Narayan S (2014) Fixed structure robust H‘ loop shap-
ing control of feedback linearised CSTR using PSO. International
Journal of Modelling, Identification and Control 22(1): 33–40.
Wang H, Li S, Lan Q, et al. (2017) Continuous terminal sliding mode
control with extended state observer for PMSM speed regulation
system. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control
39(8): 1195–1204.
Wei X and Verhaegen M (2011) Robust fault detection observer
design for linear uncertain systems. International Journal of Con-
trol 84: 197–215.
Xu WJ (2012) Permanent magnet synchronous motor with linear
quadraticspeed controller. Energy Procedia 14: 364–369.
Yi Y, Sun X, Li X and Fan X (2016) Disturbance observer based
composite speed controller design for PMSM system with mis-
matched disturbances. Transactions of the Institute of Measure-
ment and Control 38(6): 742–750.
Zames G (1981) Feedback and optimal sensitivity: model reference
transformations, multiplicative semi-norm, and approximate
inverse. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 26(2): 301–320.
Zhan L and Zhou K (2014) Synchronous disturbance attenuation in
a power magnetically levitated spindle based on parameter-
scheduled H‘ control. Transactions of the Institute of Measure-
ment and Control 37: 1–16.
Zheng X, Ali H, Wu X, et al. (2016) Frequency response measure-
ments based reduced order identification for dc-dc converter. In:
International Conference on Intelligent Systems Engineering
(ICISE), Islamabad, Pakistan, 15–17 January 2016, pp. 78–82.
Pakistan: IEEE.