2014 International Conference on Circuit, Power and Computing Technologies [ICCPCT]
Comparative Performance Analysis of Fuzzy PI, PD
and PID Controllers used in a Scalar Controlled
Induction Motor Drive
Swagat Pati ManasPatnaik
Dept. of Electrical Engineering ITER, Dept. of Electrical Engineering ITER,
SOA University Bhubaneswar, India. SOA University Bhubaneswar, India.
swagatiter@gmail.com manaspatnaik93@gmail.com
Abstract--While conventional P, PI, PID controllers are widely
used in industries they exhibit poor performance and sluggish
response when applied to an induction motor drive. These
controllers are even very sensitive to parameter variations and
also have stability issues. But the advancement in fuzzy logic has
made fuzzy logic controllers more robust, accurate and fast. In
this paper, a scalar V/f control strategy is implemented with
fuzzy logic controllers of different structures like PI, PD and
PID. Then the performance of the drive system is simulated and
evaluated. Our results show that PID type fuzzy logic scheme
gives a superior performance as compared to PI and PD type
controllers. The modeling of induction motor and control
scheme are done using Matlab/Simulink.
Keywords: Induction motor, scalar V/f control, PD FLC, PI
FLC, PID type FLC, membership functions, scaling factors.
I. NOMENCLATURE
P: Number poles of induction motor,
ωe : Synchronous speed,
ωr : Electrical speed (rotor),
ω m : Mechanical rotor speed,
Lm : Mutual inductance,
L s : Stator leakage inductance,
Lr : Rotor leakage inductance,
Rs : Stator resistance,
Rr : Rotor resistance,
Te : Electromagnetic torque,
Tl : Load torque,
I qs : Stator current in synchronous frame on q-axis,
I ds : Stator current in synchronous frame on d-axis,
I dr : Rotor current in synchronous frame on d-axis,
I qr : Rotor current in synchronous frame on q-axis,
Vqs : Stator voltage in synchronous frame on q-axis,
Vds : Stator voltage in synchronous frame on d-axis,
V qr : Rotor voltage in synchronous frame on q-axis,
V dr : Rotor voltage in synchronous frame on d-axis.
978-1-4799-2397-7/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE 910
Abinash Panda
Dept. of Electrical Engineering ITER,
SOA University Bhubaneswar, India.
abinash.3201@gmail.com
II. INTRODUCTION
Induction motor has many advantages as compared to DC
motors in many aspects such as size, efficiency, cost, life
span and maintainability. But, the major setback of induction
motor is the coupling between torque and flux. Due to this the
speed control of the machine becomes very difficult to
achieve. Many control strategies have come forward such as
scalar V/f control, vector control, direct torque control [9] etc.
Vector control strategy enables the decoupling between
torque and flux helps in achieving a DC machine equivalent
performance from an induction machine[10]. But, the
complexity in the control structure and the conversion from
stationary to rotating reference frame makes this process very
sensitive to model uncertainties and disturbances. Also, the
method is very difficult to implement and is costly. Direct
Torque Control on the other hand is a simpler control strategy
which utilizes two hysteresis band controllers for the control
of the induction motor[7]. But, in this process as hysteresis
band controllers are used so this drive has a very large band
of switching frequency variation which makes the design of
filters very difficult for the process. Also, this method
introduces a large torque ripple. But, the scalar V/f control
strategy is being used extensively in industries for a long
period. But, the scalar control has a drawback of having a
very slow speed of response which makes the control process
unsuitable for high performance drive requirement. As it is
clearly known that the speed of response of a control process
highly depends on the speed, accuracy and robustness of the
controller. So, using advanced controllers in place of
conventional controller can improve the performance of the
scalar V/f control process. In this paper, the authors have
investigated the effect of using fuzzy logic controllers in
scalar V/f control process of an induction motor drive. Both
the PI and PD type of fuzzy controllers[2-7] are designed and
implemented and their performances have been discussed.
Then a PID fuzzy logic controller has been designed and the
results of the V/f control process using fuzzy PID controller
is compared with the PI and PD type fuzzy logic controllers.
The whole simulation process is done in
MATLAB/SIMULINK environment.
III. INDUCTION MOTOR MODEL
The three-phase quantities were transformed into two phase
direct and quadrature axes quantities. Then the dynamic
model of induction motor was derived from it. The concept of
power invariance was used to find the equivalence between
the three-phase and two-phase machine models. Induction
 2014 International Conference on Circuit, Power and Computing Technologies [ICCPCT]

motor model in synchronously rotating referrence frame[1,8,9] IV. CONTROL STRUCTURE

T
is given below. The voltage equations for stator and rotor in In this work scalar V/f control scheeme is implemented for the
control of induction motor. Here voltage
v and frequency are
d
Vds = Rs I d s + (ψ ds ) − ωeψ qs (1) controlled to keep the flux constantt disregarding the coupling
effect. This scheme is simple but efffective so it is widely used
dt
in industries. The controller geneerates a slip speed signal
d
Vqs = Rs I qs + (ψ qs ) + ωeψ ds (2) which is added to the electrical speeed to yield a synchronous
dt speed which is fed to the motor as shown in the figure 1. This
d synchronous speed is used along with
w the voltage reference to
Vdr = Rr I dr + (ψ dr ) − (ωe − ωr )ψ qrr (3) calculate the peak voltage accordin ng to the change in speed.
dt But, this is done only for sub-synch hronous speed control. For
d super-synchronous control only freequency is varied keeping
Vqr = Rr I qr + (ψ qr ) + (ωe − ωr )ψ drr (4) the voltage constant at the rated vallue.
dt
V. FUZZY LOGIC CONTROLLER
ψ ds = Ls I ds + Lm I dr (5) The conventional PI controllers allways have errors as their
ψ qs = Ls I qs + Lm I qr (6) input as given by the equation U = K p * e + K i * edt , ∫
ψ dr = Lr I dr + Lm I ds (7 ) and the control signal is such thaat it reduces the error and
ψ qr = Lr I qr + Lm I qs (8) eventually makes it zero. So as the PI controller gives control
signal taking only error into account so it is slow and less
synchronously rotating reference frame are as follows: robust. But, unlike PI controllers the fuzzy controller takes
both error and change in error as innputs and gives the control
The stator and rotor flux linkages are as folllows: output accordingly. So, fuzzy conttrollers have fast response
and also are more stable than conveentional PI controllers. The
As the motor is a squirrel cage Inductionn motor so Vdr = design of fuzzy logic controller hass three steps.
V qr =0. • Fuzzification
• Rule Base
The electromagnetic torque of the Inductioon motor is given
• Defuzzification
3 p
Te = Lm (I qs I dr − I ds I qr ) (9) In the Fuzzification process the inp
puts i.e. error and change in
22 the error are first normalized i.e. the inputs are divided by
as: constants such that their values lie in the range of -1 to 1.
This process of normalization is do one to make the controller
d universally applicable. Then thee normalized inputs and
Te = Tl + J (ωm ) + Bωm (10
1 ) outputs are described by differeent membership functions
dt within the universe of discourse i..e. in the range of -1 to 1.
And the torque balance equation of the motoor is The membership functions for th he inputs and outputs are
given in figure 2. The triangular an
nd trapezoidal membership
functions are chosen because the calculations
c will be easier,
controller will be simpler and thee computational burden on
the computers will be less. So thee fuzzy logic controller is
more suitable for real time operatio
ons.

Figure 1: Block diagram of modeled indduction motor

Figure 2: Membershiip Functions

911
 2014 International Conference on Circuit, Power and Computing Technologies [ICCPCT]

The rule base for the FLC is given in the tabble (Table: 1) PI type FLC
where, The structure of PI type controllerr is shown in the figure 4.
ns: negative small As shown in the figure it is clear th
hat there is no difference in
nm: negative medium the input side design of a PI and d PD type FLC. The only
nh: negative high difference is that the output of the PD type of FLC is
ze: zero integrated to get a PI type FLC. Here ‘Ke’and‘Kce’ are the
ps: positive small input scaling factors and ‘K0’is the output scaling factor.
pm: positive medium
ph: positive high

The defuzzification process used is of centroid type. The

output is also defined within the universe off discourse of -1 to
1. So, the FLC gives an output having value within the
universe of discourse. The actual outpuut is obtained by
multiplying a constant ‘K0’to the FLC outpput which is called
the output scaling factor.
Basically fuzzy controllers are divided into two categories.
• PI type fuzzy controllers
• PD type fuzzy controllers
Figure 4: Block diagram of PII type fuzzy controller
PID type FLC
The PID type FLC is a combinatio on of both PD and PI type
FLC. The complete structure of PID D type FLC is given in the
figure 4. The output of a PID type FLC
F is the sum of both the
PD and PI output. The output sid de has two scaling factors
‘K0PI’ and ‘K0PD’for PI and PD typee FLC respectively.

pe fuzzy controller
Figure 4: Block diagram of PID typ

VII. SIMULATION
N RESULTS
Table 1: Fuzzy Base Rulee

This paper holds the design of both thhe type of fuzzy on motor drive is modeled
The scalar V/f controlled inductio
controllers. Both the controllers are sim mulated and their and simulated in two steps.
performances are evaluated. Then a fuzzy tyype PID controller • Applying step change in reeference speed
is designed and the benefits of the PID conttroller over PI and • Applying step change in lo oad torque
PD controllers are evaluated.
1. Step change in reference speeed:
VI. DESIGN OF PD TYPE FUZZY CO
ONTROLLER In this section the load torque is kept
k constant at 5 Nm and
the reference speed is changed fromm 1200 rpm to 1800 rpm at
The schematic block diagram of a PD ttype controller is
1 second. The responses of the scalar
s controlled induction
shown in the figure 3. The error and changge in error signals
motor drive system with the fuzzy PI,
P PD and PID controllers
are first normalized by dividing them w with normalization
are then simulated and compared.
factors ‘Ke’and‘Kce’. These normalized vallues are fed to the
FLC and after a process of defuzzificationn of FLC gives a
control signal which has a value within the pre-described
universe of discourse i.e. -1 to 1. The conntrol signal is then
again multiplied by another constant ‘K0’ w which is called the
output scaling factor to get the actual signal.

Figure 3: Block diagram of PD type fuzzzy controller Figure 6: (a) Comparison of Frequency response

912
 2014 International Conference on Circuit, Power and Computing Technologies [ICCPCT]

The figure 7: (b) shows the steady state error that the FPD
controller gives.

The figure 8: (a), (b), (c) show the input voltage of the
machine for FPI, FPD, FPID controllers respectively. Form
the figures it can be seen that the voltage is limited to 340 V
maximum for speed ranges above base speed and for speed
below base speed the voltage control is done.

Figure 6: (b)

The figure 6: (a) shows the frequency response of induction

motor drive with all the three controllers mentioned earlier.
The figure 6: (b) shows the zoomed version of figure: (a).
From the figure it is evident that the settling time and
overshoot are more with fuzzy PI controller. Fuzzy PID and
fuzzy PD controllers show the same settling time but fuzzy
PD controller introduces some steady state error of 0.25 Hz in Figure 8: (a) Voltage response in case of FPI controller
the system. So, FPID controller proves to be most suitable for
high performance drive applications.

Figure 8: (b) Voltage response in case of FPD controller

Figure 7: (a) Comparison of Torque response

Figure 8: (c) Voltage response in case of FPID controller

Figure 7: (b)
The figure 7: (a) shows the comparison of torque response
given by the controllers. The FPD controller gives the
maximum overshoot followed by FPI controller. FPID shows
he least overshoot and also lesser oscillations than the other
two controllers. The FPI controller takes more time to settle
compared to FPD and FPID controllers. The settling time of
FPI and FPID are almost same but as FPD controller shows
steady state error the performance of FPID controller will be
considered superior.
The figure 9 shows the speed response with time given by the
three controllers. The settling time is almost the same for
FPD and FPID controllers but in case of FPI controller
settling time is maximum. FPD shows the least overshoot but
a steady state error is exhibited i.e. it fails to reach the new
speed of 1800 rpm it reaches only up to 1793.7 rpm. So,
FPID controller does the work well as compared to the other
two controllers.

913
 2014 International Conference on Circuit, Power and Computing Technologies [ICCPCT]
Figure 9: Comparison of Speed response
Figure 9: (b)
The figure 9: (b) shows the steady state error introduced by
FPD controller while the other controllers achieve the
reference speed showing no steady state error.
The figures 10-12 show the current response with time in
case FPI, FPD and FPID controllers respectively.
In the figure 10 we can see that the transient rise in the
current is very high as the values of current oscillate a lot and
also the settling time is higher than the other two controllers.
Figure 10: Current response of FPI controller
The figure 11 shows the current response of FPD controller
where we can see that it makes the system to reach stability
very soon as compared to FPI and FPID. But, the amplitude
of transient current rise as can be inferred the figures.
914
Figure 11: Current response of FPD controller
The figure 12 shows the current response in case of a FPID
controller. We can see the settling time of FPID is less than
that of FPI controller and is more than FPD controller but the
transient peak is less than FPD and FPI controllers. So, we
can say that it is more stable during the transient period.
Figure 12: Current response of FPID controller
2. Step change in load torque:
In this section the reference speed is kept constant at 1200
rpm. The load torque is changed from 2 Nm to 6 Nm at 1
second and the responses of the drive system are simulated
and compared
The frequency variation with load is given in figure 13. It
shows that the settling time and the overshoot of FPD and
FPID are better than the FPI controller but FPD shows the
steady state error. The steady state error is approximately
0.18Hz.
Figure 13: Comparison of Frequency response
 2014 International Conference on Circuit, Power and Computing Technologies [ICCPCT]
Figure 14: Comparison of Speed response
In the figure 14 it can be seen that the overshoot of FPI is
more and the settling time is nearly equal for all the
controllers but FPD shows a steady state error of
approximately 5.3 rpm. The response of FPID proves to be
better than the other two.
The figure 15: (a) shows the torque characteristics with time.
It can be seen that the FPI gives a high overshoot. FPD
oscillates much before it reaches its steady state. Although it
reaches its steady state earlier, it gives a steady state error as
shown in the figure 15: (b).
Figure 15: (a)
Figure 15: (b)
The figure 16 gives the comparison of peak voltage for FPI,
FPD, FPID controllers. The overshoot is maximum in case of
FPI controller and also FPI has the highest settling time. The
FPID shows a better response than the other two. The FPD
gives a steady state error of approximately 1.17 volts which
can be clearly seen in the figure.
915
Figure 16: Voltage comparison
VIII. CONCLUSION
The comparative study of Fuzzy PI, Fuzzy PD and Fuzzy PID
controllers was done. And,it is found that merging the
properties of PI and PD helps us in designing a better
controller than the individuals. Our research and simulations
prove that FPID is far better than FPI and FPD controllers.
FPID tries to keep the system stable and avoids large
overshoots which are common in FPI and the steady state
error in FPD is also overcome by using FPID controller.
IX. APPENDIX
Induction motor parameters:
Rated voltage: 340V, rated hp: 3.5hp, rated speed-1500rpm,
P=4, J=0.089kg-m, B=0.001N-rad/sec, Lm=0.069347H,
Ls=0.07132H, Lr=0.07132H, Rr=0.816Ω, Rs=0.435Ω.
X. REFERENCES
[1] B.K.Bose “Modern Power Electronics and AC Drives”, New
Delhi Prentice-Hall,2002.
[2] M.NasirUddin, Tawfik S. Radwan, M.Azizur Rahman,
“Performance of Fuzzy-Logic- Based indirect vector control for
induction motor drive,” IEEE Trans. Industry applications, vol.
38, No. 5 , pp. 1219-1225, Oct 2002.
[3] M.G.Simoes, B.K.Bose, and R.J.Spiegel, “Fuzzy logic based
intelligent control of a variable speed cage machine wind
generation system,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol.12, pp. 87-
95, Jan 1997.
[4] Chuen Chien Lee, “Fuzzy logic in control systems: Fuzzy logic
controller – part1,” IEEE trans. on systems, man, and cybernetics,
vol. 20, no. 2, march / april 1990.
[5] Zihong Lee, “Methods for improving performance of PI type
fuzzy logic controller,” IEEE trans. on fuzzy systems, vol.1, no. 4,
Nov 1993.
[6] R.K. Mudi and N.R. Pal, “A robust self tuning scheme for PI and
PD type fuzzy controllers,” IEEE Trans. fuzzy systems, vol. 7, no.
1, Feb 1999.
[7] J. Sun, P. Su, Y. Li, and L. Li, “Application of self-adjusting
fuzzy controller in a vector-controlled induction motor drive,” in
Proc. 3rd IEEEInt. Conf. Power Electron. Motion Control, Aug.
15–18, 2000, vol. 3.
[8] S. N. Bhadra, D. Kastha, and S .Banerjee, Wind Electrical
Systems, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2005.
[9] R.Pena, R.Cardenas, R.Blasco, G.Asher, J.Clare, “A cage
induction generator using back to back PWM converters for
variable speed grid connected wind energy system,” IEEE 27th
annual Conf., IECON 01, Industrial Electronics Society, pp.
1376-1381,2001.
[10] Tsuji, M. ;Shuo Chen ; Hamasaki, S.-i. ; Xiaodan Zhao ; Yamada,
E. ; “A novel V/f control of induction motors for wide and
precise speed operation”, International Symposium on Power
Electronics, Electrical Drives, Automation and Motion,
SPEEDAM 2008. 11-13 June 2008.